Tobias Scheer CNRS 6039, Université de Nice [email protected] this handout and some of the references quoted at www.unice.fr/dsl/tobias.htm

OCP-6 Workshop on privativity 21 January 2009 Edinburg

PRIVATIVITY IN GRAMMAR AND IN THE COGNITIVE SYSTEM (1)

goal to point out that privativity is also a key issue beyond melodic representation: a. in the procedural communication between morpho-syntax and phonology b. in the representational communication between morpho-syntax and phonology c. in the exchange of information among different cognitive systems Conclusion: massive evidence for privativity in grammar and other cognitive systems The workshop should rather have asked whether the non-privative project is still worth pursuing. ==> everybody is privative today, even regarding melody.

1. Privativity in melodic representations (2)

underspecification a. privative representions in non-privative systems (that are based on binary features) is called underspecification. b. since Archangeli (1988), Pulleyblank (1988), Avery & Rice (1989) and others, all "binary" theories discuss, and to some extent implement privative representations. c. (generally) without however making explicit that underspecification is the import of Anderson & Jones's (1974) privative idea into regular SPE-descendent Feature Geometry. See Anderson & Durand (1988) on this issue. d. the result often is a ternary system: a melodic object can be - marked + - marked – - absent

-2(3)

today a. either representations do not matter at all. 1. This is the OT-mainstream (meaning also the mainstream of OT) where rudimentary SPE-features such as [± labial], [± dorsal] etc. can do the job without any geometric structure: constraints such as *labial, *dorsal etc. work with interchangeable labels. All work is done by computation: this is the representations-are-decoration-if-anything tropism of OT (mainstream OT, to be precise). de Lacy (2007a) in general, and de Lacy (2007b) in particular, is a good witness of this move. 2. In the introduction of her book on segmental phonology, Lombardi (2001:3) for example provides a very honest and lucid statement of the fact that representations are useless and interchangeable in OT as we know it: "[t]he tenets of OT, regarding constraint violability and ranking, make no particular claims about phonological representations. We could, for example, do OT with any kind of feature theory: SPE feature bundles or feature geometric representations, privative or binary features, and so on."

b.

or the question is not if, but how much privativity is suitable Hall (2007) provides an overview. A given feature may be more or less well suited for a privative status: while [spread glottis] and [constricted glottis] for example are good candidates for privativity (negative values are not manipulated by phonological processes), [voice] is rather not (since [-voice] appears to be sometimes active in rules/constraints).

2. Phonology is underfed (4)

How morpho-syntax talks to phonology [Scheer forth] There are two channels a. representational juncture phonemes, SPE-style #, the Prosodic Hierarchy b. procedural cyclic derivation, i.e. inside-out processing (which is a generative invention)

(5)

underfeeding of phonology is a hard observational fact a. only a small subset of the available morpho-syntactic information is actually relevant for phonology: most of it has no phonological effect at all. b. this basic observation was first formulated by Chomsky et al. (1956), who conclude that phonology is underfed by translational activity: if only a small subset of morpho-syntactic information is used, the translational device has fed phonology only with this subset – phonologically irrelevant information has never been translated and is thus absent from phonology. c. despite this situation, (generative) theories have always chosen to ship everything to the phonology, which then does cherry-picking. Both regarding representational and procedural communication.

-3-

3. Privativity in the representational communication with phonology (6)

on the non-privative side I structuralist juncture phonemes Moulton (1947) uses "+" in order to anchor the beginning and the end of each word in the phonemic transcription, irrespectively of whether it will have an effect or not

(7)

on the non-privative side II SPE a. The rigid mapping algorithm of SPE also sends all edges of major categories and higher projections thereof to the phonology without discriminating between those that will and those that will not be used. b. That is, the "syntactic" # boundary restores full morpho-syntactic information in phonology: the syntactic distance of two neighbours in the linear string is a direct function of the number of intervening #s. c. The input to phonological computation is thus a string made of lexical items and clusters of hash marks. After the application of phonology, remaining hash marks are erased by rule at the end of the derivation.

(8)

on the non-privative side III Lexical Phonology Lexical Phonology is also on the non-privative side, at least those versions that use Mohanan-type brackets (Mohanan 1986), which mark the beginning and the end of every morpheme in phonology.

(9)

on the non-privative side IV Prosodic Phonology a. Prosodic Phonology also promotes non-privative translation, even if it is true that not all morpho-syntactic information is projected onto phonology (the Translator's Office makes readjustment decisions, cf. non-isomorphism). b. Non-privativity in fact is a by-product of the Strict Layer Hypothesis: all strings are exhaustively parsed at all prosodic levels independently of whether or not there is an associated phonological effect. That is, the full six-layered prosodic constituency is always constructed no matter whether there is evidence for particular divisions or not. c. all strings are exhaustively parsed at all prosodic levels independently of whether there is any associated phonological effect or not (Hayes 1989 [1984]:220,1990:86, Nespor & Vogel 1986:11). That is, the full prosodic arborescence is always constructed, and all expressions in all languages have the same number of levels of embedding

-4(10) on the non-privative side V models of representational continuity between morphology and phonology Oostendorp's (2006) theory of morpho-syntactic colours Orgun's (1996 et passim) declarative Sign-based phonology a. This is an automatic effect of their non-modular architecture, which allows phonology to directly see and refer to all elements of morphological (and syntactic) structure. b. Bermúdez-Otero (forth:21ff) discusses this approach in greater detail; he calls Orgun's view on the matter isomorphism (of morphological and phonological structure). (11) on the privative side I Chomsky et al. (1956) a. The only representatives of privative translation among the classical theories are Chomsky et al. (1956). Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle reverted back to nonprivativity twelve years later in SPE, a move that determined the attitude of the field up to the present day. b. It is therefore reasonable to think of their privative stance as a mere accident that was due to the rhetorical demand of the time: Chomsky et al.'s (1956) strategy was to introduce generative boundaries into the hostile structuralist environment by appealing to the well-reputed structuralist notion of economy: juncture exists in order to simplify phonemic transcription. (12) on the privative side II Government Phonology (CVCV): the initial CV a. the only objects that qualify for the representation of morpho-syntactic information in phonology are syllabic constituents (Scheer forth) because 1. they are not diacritic (#, φ etc. are), i.e. they are part of the basic vocabulary that phonological computation processes for "domestic" purposes, i.e. in absence of any morpho-syntactic conditioning. 2. they are not melody the area below the skeleton, i.e. melody, is incommunicado with morphosyntax. This is a hard observational fact, cf. below. This is expressed in Zwicky & Pullum's (1986) generalization regarding Phonology-Free Syntax. b. the phonological identity of the beginning of the word is an empty CV (Lowenstamm 1999) 1. Lowenstamm's initial proposal is non-privative: the initial CV is always present, but sometimes "invisible". It regulates the distinction between #TRonly languages (only #TR attested) and anything-goes languages (#TR and #RT occur). 2. extension to two other phenomena: - first vowels of the word that (do not) alternate with zero - strength/weakness of word-initial consonants in a privative interpretation of the initial CV, which is either inserted into the phonological string or not: Scheer (2000), Pagliano (2003), Seigneur-Froli (2003, 2006), Ségéral & Scheer (2008), Scheer (forth).

-5c.

typological predictions made by the parameterisation of the initial CV in a language where the in a language where the initial CV is present initial CV is absent 1. word-initial consonants are strong word-initial consonants are non-strong 2. initial clusters are restricted to #TR there are no restrictions: #TR, #RT, #TT and #RR clusters may occur 3. first vowels of words may not first vowels of words may alternate with alternate with zero zero

4. Privativity in the procedural communication with phonology (13) what is privativity in procedural communication? the question whether all nodes of the morpho-syntactic tree are spelled out, or only a subset thereof. (14) on the non-privative side I SPE a. interpretation runs through the bracketed string (that is inherited from S-structure) from inside out (Chomsky & Halle 1968:15ff) b. every morpheme break defines a cycle except for sequences of morphemes that belong to the same major category: these cohabitate in the same cycle: [[[theatr]N ic + al]A i + ty]N (Chomsky & Halle 1968:88f) c. párent, parént-al vs. párent-hood representational analysis: - class 2 -hood comes with a #: /[[parent] #hood]/, against /[[parent] +al]/ - the stress-shift rule is blocked by # (15) on the non-privative side II Lexical Phonology a. interactionism: interpretation occurs upon each concatenation or, alternatively, at the end of each level, which is remisiscent of SPE: morphemes that are somehow related (by their major category or their affix class) cohabitate in the same cycle. b. in any event, all levels undergo phonological (and semantic) interpretation. c. derivation of párent - parént-al vs. párent-hood in Lexical Phonology parent parént-al párent-hood lexicon parent parent parent level 1 concatenation — parent-al — stress assignment párent parént-al párent level 2 concatenation — — párent-hood rule application — — —

-6(16) on the non-privative side III Distributed Morphology a. ground rule: interpretation occurs at every xP Marantz (2001, 2007) Applied to phonology by Marvin (2002) b. example condensation vs. transportation: contrast based on direct vs. indirect merge of -ate a. to transpórt

b. transp[ə]rt-át-ion

c. cond[ɛ]ns-át-ion nP

nP vP v | ø

PF

n | -ion

√ | transport

PF vP

v | -ate

n | -ion

PF vP

PF

v | -ate

PF vP

√ | transport

v | ø

PF

√ | condense

(17) on the privative side I Halle & Vergnaud (1987) a. Selective spell-out Halle & Vergnaud dispense with the classical definition of what an interpretational unit is: they propose to grant cyclic status only to a subset of morpho-syntactic divisions. That is, some nodes trigger interpretation, others do not. b. triggering or not triggering interpretation is a lexical property of affixes that projects to dominating nodes and is read off by the spell-out mechanism. [==> piece-driven phase, as opposed to node-driven phase in current syntactic Phase Theory] c. Halle & Vergnaud (1987): analysis of affix class-based stress spell-out occurs - at the root node - at nodes that dominate class 1 affixes but NOT at nodes that dominate class 2 affixes parént-al

párent-hood

β

phon

al1

α n

β phon

parent spell-out

[[parent] al1]

hood2

α n

phon parent spell-out

[parent] hood2

-7(18) on the privative side II Government Phonology (Kaye 1992, 1995) a. Kaye applies Selective Spell-out b. but 1. with distinct implementational choices 2. introduces no look-back, i.e. what today is called Phase Impenetrability c. differences between Halle & Vergnaud (1987a) and Kaye (1995)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Halle & Vergnaud the root is an interpretational unit yes the word is an interpretational unit no morpho-syntactic terminals may no be interpretational units interpretation-triggering affixes their own trigger the spell-out of node English affix-classes: type that class 1 triggers interpretation underapplication is achieved by cycles

7. no look-back device - type of device used - derived environment effects built in - no look-back is relevant for underapplication

SCC-K

Kaye no yes yes their sister class 2 cycles and no lookback

yes

modificationinhibiting no

no

yes

(19) on the privative side III current syntactic Phase Theory a. Halle & Vergnaud's (1987) selective spell-out is exactly what modern (syntactic) phase theory is about: in more familiar terminology, nodes may or may not be phase heads, hence their material may or may not be an interpretational unit. b. As far as I can see, the phonological heritage is left unmentioned in the syntactic literature since derivation by phase was introduced by Epstein et al. (1998), Uriagereka (1999) and Chomsky (2000,2001 et passim). c. [==> difference: syntactic Phase Theory practises node-driven phase, as opposed to phonology, which is based on piece-driven phase. But den Dikken's (2007) Phase Extension is a step into the direction of piece-driven phase, see Scheer (2008)]

-8-

5. Communication among modules of the cognitive system is privative (20) translation is fractional, and the choice of translated pieces is arbitrary a. A pervasive property of intermodular communication appears to be the fact that translation is never complete. Rather, only a subset of the structure of the sending module is made available to the receiving module through translation. Also, it appears that the pieces which are chosen for transmission cannot be predicted. b. Ray Jackendoff's work regularly draws attention to the underfeeding of the receiving module. "Correspondence rules perform complex negotiations between two partly incompatible spaces of distinctions, in which only certain parts of each are 'visible' to the other." Jackendoff (1997:221) "The overall architecture of grammar consists of a collection of generative components G1, …, Gn that create/ license structures S1, …, Sn, plus a set of interfaces Ijk that constrain the relation between structures of type Sj and structures of type Sk. […] Typically, an interface Ijk does not 'see' all of either Sj or Sk; it attends only to certain aspects of them." Jackendoff (2002:123)

c.

The amount of structure that is visible for interface processors in a given module may be small or large, and this is unpredictable: the translational channel between two modules may have a more or less narrow "information bottleneck" (Jackendoff's 2002:229 term).

(21) evidence for the fractional character of translation from other cognitive activity a. cognitive modules may draw on information that comes from a range of other modules (many-to-one); conversely, the output of a given module may be used as the input to a range of other modules (one-to-many). Jackendoff (2002:223f) reviews a number of relevant cases. b. multiple usage of (different parts of the) structure that is created in a given module Audition for example is an information-provider for a number of very different modules: sound is processed - by all-purpose audition (e.g. the perception of sound that is produced by animals) - voice recognition (the identification of humans according to their voice) - auditory affect perception (emotion detector) - and of course the perception of linguistically relevant phonetic material. Nobody knows how the uniform auditory signal is chopped into the pieces that are relevant for these four (and other) clients (among other things, there may of course be overlap). But the fact is that the linguistic system receives all relevant information that is needed for linguistic computation. c. the same module receives input from different sources In perception for example, phonology is fed at least by acoustic-phonetic and visual information. The latter is documented by the so-called McGurk effect (McGurk & MacDonald 1976, Ingleby & Azra 2003): when exposed to auditory and visual information that simultaneously provide conflicting information, subjects consistently perceive something different from what reaches their ears: either the visual input overrides the auditory stimulus ([ba] is perceived when the subject is exposed to auditory [da] and visual "[ba]"), or the perceived sound is a compromise ([da] is perceived from auditory [ga] and visual "[ba]"). It may be assumed that this kind of "lip reading" enhances perception in noise-impaired environments.

-9d.

complementary distribution of morpho-syntactic and visual input: - morpho-syntax can only manipulate phonology above the skeleton: no melody - vision can ONLY manipulate melody Interestingly, the McGurk input into the phonological module appears to be the complementary set of what morpho-syntax can provide: melodic primes. Recall that morpho-syntax and melody are incommunicado. The reverse seems also to be true: McGurk (i.e. visual) input does not bear on phonological properties above the skeleton, which is the (exclusive) area of morpho-syntactic influence.

(22) intermodular communication through lexical access module A

acousticphonetic

vision McGurk

phonological lexicon a p a p a p a p v p v p v p

module B

lexicon of module D A D A D A D B D B D p D p D

module D

phonology

module C

p E p E p E C E C E lexicon of module E

module E

(23) the fractional character of translation is well supported by linguistic evidence a. melody and morpho-syntax are fully incommunicado: - no melodic property ever bears on morpho-syntax - morpho-syntax never manipulates melodic units b. morpheme-internal phonological properties are not accessible for morpho-syntactic manipulation

- 10 -

6. Conclusion: five arguments in favour of privativity (24) argument 1 If the output of translation is non-diacritic, translation must be privative a. diacritic morpho-syntactic information is always accessed by a specific proviso in the formulation of processes (constraints or rules) of the kind "only within the Prosodic Word", or "if a hashmark precedes". A hashmark or a Prosodic Word alone are perfectly inert: they have no effect at all. By contrast, if non-diacritic, i.e. phonologically contentful objects are the output of translation, they have an immediate effect on phonological computation without needing to be referred to by processes. This is what I call the Direct Effect. b. In turn, this means that every single object that is inserted into phonological representations as the output of translation will have an effect: inserting "sleeping" morpho-syntactic agents that only have an effect when some rule or constraint calls on them is impossible. Therefore, if carriers of morpho-syntactic information are to be non-diacritic, their distribution is necessarily privative. (25) argument 2 phonology is underfed, the minimalist perspective is privative a. the bare observation that only a small subset of morpho-syntactic information is phonologically relevant at least puts the burden of proof on those who wish to argue for non-privative translation. Why should the grammatical system bother putting the translational mechanism to work in order to translate things that will never be used? And why should useless structure (boundaries, prosodic constituency) be built on the phonological side? The minimalist philosophy is certainly privative. b. That is, GB syntax in the 80s was full of useless structure: phrase structure rules were relentlessly building functional categories regardless of whether they would be relevant or not. The minimalist perspective is privative: phrase structure is only built when it serves a purpose in the derivation. Minimalist privativity is the result of a concern for extra-linguistic resources such as active memory, which nonprivative structure wastes. (26) argument 3 phonology is underfed, the minimalist perspective is privative Along the same lines but on the procedural side, Bermúdez-Otero (forth:21ff) discusses the unwarranted empirical consequences of untempered proliferation of cycles. He concludes that selective spell-out is required for that reason. (27) argument 4 current syntactic Phase Theory if this perspective is on the right track, and if there is only one spell-out mechanism, the fact that derivation by phase relies on selective spell-out excludes systems where all nodes are interpreted. (28) argument 5 transmission of information between cognitive systems is fractional.

- 11 -

References Anderson, John & Jacques Durand 1988. Underspecification and Dependency Phonology. Certamen Phonologicum, edited by Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro, 3-36. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Anderson, John & Charles Jones 1974. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10, 1-26. Archangeli, Diana 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183-208. Avery, Peter & Keren Rice 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6, 179-200. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo forth. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2001. Derivation by Phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle & Fred Lukoff 1956. On Accent and Juncture in English. For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, edited by Morris Halle, Horace Lunt, Hugh McLean & Cornelis van Schooneveld, 65-80. The Hague: Mouton. de Lacy, Paul (ed.) 2007a. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. de Lacy, Paul 2007b. Themes in Phonology. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 5-30. Cambridge: CUP. den Dikken, Marcel 2007. Review of Frascarelli: Phases of interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 43, 440-449. Epstein, Samuel, E.M. Groat, R. Kawashima & H. Kitahara 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: OUP. Hall, Tracy 2007. Segmental Features. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 311-334. Cambridge: CUP. Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger Vergnaud 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hayes, Bruce 1989 [1984]. The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter. Manuscript circulated since 1984, published 1989 in Rhythm and Meter, edited by Paul Kiparsky & G. Youmans, 201-260. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Ingleby, Michael & Ali Azra 2003. Phonological Primes and McGurk Fusion. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2609-2612. Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaye, Jonathan 1992. On the interaction of theories of Lexical Phonology and theories of phonological phenomena. Phonologica 1988, edited by Uli Dressler, Hans Luschützky, Oskar Pfeiffer & John Rennison, 141-155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaye, Jonathan 1995. Derivations and Interfaces. Frontiers of Phonology, edited by Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba, 289-332. London & New York: Longman. Also in SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3, 1993, 90-126.

- 12 Lombardi, Linda 2001. Introduction. Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory. Constraints and Representations, edited by Linda Lombardi, 1-9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenstamm, Jean 1999. The beginning of the word. Phonologica 1996, edited by John Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer, 153-166. La Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Marantz, Alec 2001. Words. Handout from the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Marantz, Alec 2007. Phases and words. Phases in the theory of grammar, edited by S.-H. Choe, 191-222. Seoul: Dong In. Marvin, Tatjana 2002. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. McGurk, H. & J. MacDonald 1976. Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices. Nature 264, 746-748. Mohanan, Karuvannur 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Moulton, William 1947. Juncture in Modern Standard German. Language 23, 212-226. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Oostendorp, Marc van 2006. A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms., Meertens Instituut. Orgun, Cemil Orhan 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Pagliano, Claudine 2003. L'épenthèse consonantique en français. Ce que la syntaxe, la sémantique et la morphologie peuvent faire à la phonologie. Ph.D dissertation, Université de Nice. Pulleyblank, Douglas 1988. Underspecification, the feature hierarchy and Tiv vowels. Phonology 5, 299-326. Scheer, Tobias 2000. De la Localité, de la Morphologie et de la Phonologie en Phonologie. Habilitation thesis, Université de Nice. Scheer, Tobias 2008. Spell out your Sister! Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop, 379-387. Somerville: Cascadilla. Scheer, Tobias forth. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol.2. How morpho-syntax talks to phonology. A survey of extra-phonological information in phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2008. The Coda Mirror, stress and positional parameters. Lenition and Fortition, edited by Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral, 483-518. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Seigneur-Froli, Delphine 2003. Diachronic consonant lenition & exotic word-initial clusters in Greek: a unified account. Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the department of linguistics, edited by M. Stavrou-Sifaki & A. Fliatouras, 345-357. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Seigneur-Froli, Delphine 2006. Le Statut phonologique du début de mot grec. Lénitions consonantiques et libertés phonotactiques initiales dans la diachronie de la langue commune et dans le dialecte de Lesbos. Ph.D dissertation, University of Nice. Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein & Norbert Hornstein, 251-282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum 1986. The Principle of Phonology-free Syntax: introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63-91.