January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon1 Empirical Relevance Local conjunction has seen many empirical applications; here, vowel harmony Lango (Nilotic, Uganda) ATR harmony –Woock & Noonan = 79 –Archangeli & Pulleyblank ‘91 et seq., esp. = 94 Markedness: – *[+ ATR, hi/fr] – *[ ATR, +hi/fr] –*[+ A ]/σ closed –HD-L[ ATR ] Rather than imposing a parametric superstructure on spreading rules (A&P ’94), we build the grammar directly from these markedness constraints marked articulatorily
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon2 Lango ATR Harmony Inventory of ATR domains D [ ATR ] (~ tiers) Vowel harmony renders many possibilities ungrammatical ’your SING/PLUR stew’: d ̀ k +C í *d ̀ k k í dè kk í * d ̀ kk ATR : + [ ] [ + ][ ] [ 0 ] d ̀ k+w ú d ̀ kwú *dèkwú*d ̀ kw ́́ critical difference: i [ + fr] vs. u [ fr] [ fr] ‘worse’ source for [+ ATR ] spread violates *[+ ATR, fr] — marked w.r.t. ATR Complex system: interaction of 6 dimensions (2 6 = 64 distinct environments)
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon3
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon4 d ̀ k +C í d è kk í
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon5 d ̀ k+w ú d ̀ kw ú
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon6
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon7 The Lango Challenge Need a grammatical framework able to handle this nightmarish descriptive complexity while staying strictly within the confines of rigidly universal (markedness) principles
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon8 ATR rules: Lang o rules Archangeli & Pulleyblank ‘94 α β ATR V C V ATR V (C)C V ATR rules: a b c ATR V C V hi ATR V (C)C V hi ATR V (C)C V hi fr x ATR V (C)C V hi fr ATR rule: Why not … ? A&P: Rule Template +hi +fr
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon9
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon10
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon11 *[+ A ]/σ closed & D [ A ] *[ hi,+ A ]/H D [ A ] “No [ ATR ] spread into a closed syllable from a [ hi] source ” *[+cont] & seg *[velar]
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon12 BOWOW *[ hi, A ] & H D -L [ A ] “No regressive [ ATR ] spread from a [ hi] source ” 33
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon13 X,Y,Z: *[ A ] 1,2,3: * [+ A ] ≫ A GREE ≫ F [ A ]
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon14 Need a grammatical framework able to handle this nightmarish descriptive complexity while staying strictly within the confines of rigidly universal (markedness) principles The Lango Challenge x ATR V (C)C V hi fr ATR rule: Would require *[ ATR, hi/fr] — nonexistent Why not … ? +hi +fr
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon15 The Lango Challenge Need a grammatical framework able to handle this nightmarish descriptive complexity while staying strictly within the confines of rigidly universal (markedness) principles OT with conjunctive constraint interaction
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon16 Inherent Typology Method applicable to related African languages, where the same markedness constraints govern the inventory (Archangeli & Pulleyblank ’94), but with different interactions: different rankings and active conjunctions Part of a larger typology including a range of vowel harmony systems
January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon17 Summary OT builds formal grammars directly from markedness: M ARK … with F AITH Inventories consistent with markedness relations are formally the result of OT … with local conjunction: T LC [Φ], SHarC theorem Even highly complex patterns can be explained purely with simple markedness constraints: all complexity is in constraints’ interaction through ranking and conjunction: Lango ATR harmony