1. 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

2. 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 ] [  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)

3. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon3

4. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon4 d  ̀ k +C í  d è kk í

5. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon5 d  ̀ k+w ú  d  ̀ kw ú

6. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon6

7. 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

8. 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

9. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon9

10. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon10

11. 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]

12. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon12 BOWOW *[  hi,  A ] & H D -L [  A ] “No regressive [  ATR ] spread from a [  hi] source ” 33

13. January 24-25, 2003Workshop on Markedness and the Lexicon13 X,Y,Z: *[  A ] 1,2,3: * [+ A ] ≫ A GREE ≫ F [ A ]

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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