Parallelism and planes in optimality theory: evidence from afar

_{Optimal Domains and the Multiplanar Model}

_{Cole and Kisseberth (1994) propose a model that shares some properties with the one proposed here to account for transparency and opaqueness in harmony systems. In particular, they propose harmony domains, “structures which are defined by universal constraints, and which are explicitly encoded in phonological representation” (Cole & Kisseberth 1994:2). Basically, they suggest that a harmony domain is an explicit phonological structure just like a syllable or foot, and that harmony is the realization of a feature on anchors within that domain. The specifics of their proposal regarding harmony per se are irrelevant to the issues here. The question is what relationship the domains in Optimal Domains Theory have to the planes in the Multiplanar Model? Are they formal variants of one another? The answer is both yes and no. Domains are simply linear planes and are therefore potentially a subset of the planes available in the Multiplanar Model. Domains are defined phonologically, however, whereas planes are defined morphologically. Several avenues for future research are suggested. Given that planes are defined morphologically and domains are defined phonologically, is there any relationship between planes and domains? Is there data which suggests that phonological domains must, at times, be nonlinear?}

_{Possibilities for Axininca Campa}

<sub>If the Multiplanar Model eliminates the need for a Levels Model in the analysis of Afar, perhaps it eliminates the need for a Levels Model at all in Optimality Theory. For example, it may be that the Multiplanar Model obviates the need for levels in Axininca Campa. First I briefly introduce the facts that cause McCarthy and Prince (1993) to posit the existence of levels. I then suggest that the Multiplanar Model might account for the data without levels.

McCarthy and Prince state that although there is some overlap in the morphological properties of prefixes and suffixes, “their phonological properties are quite different, both in character and in degree of generality” (McCarthy and Prince 1993:24). They propose that the grammar is organized as follows.
(374) The Levels Model for Axininca Campa

(McCarthy & Prince 1993: 24)


Each level has its own distinct constraint hierarchy and the output of one level becomes the input to the next.

They propose this model, in part, because the syllabification constraints at the prefix-root junction must be ranked differently from those which apply at the root-suffix juncture. At the prefix level, V + V and C + C sequences are resolved by deletion, not epenthesis. In other words, fill >> parse (or dep >> max).

(375) Violation of parse in Prefixal Allomorphy (McCarthy & Prince 1993: 25)

a. /ir-saik-i/ isaiki [isaiki] ‘will sit’

b. /no-ana-ni/ nanani [nanani] ‘my black die’



At the suffix level, however, the exact opposite holds true. Problematic sequences are resolved by epenthesis rather than deletion: parse >> fill.

Additionally, suffixal material must be able to “see” prefixal material. In other words, prefixal morphology and phonology cannot follow suffixal morphology and phonology. Some suffixes, for example, impose a bimoraic requirement on their base which can be satisfied by a combination of root and prefix.

(376) Bimoraicity of Base of Suffixation (McCarthy & Prince 1993: 25)

a. /na/ naTA-piro-~ ‘truly carry on shoulder’

b. /no-na/ no-na-piro-~ ‘I truly carry on shoulder’



It may be possible to account for this in the Multiplanar Model, as shown below, where prefixes and roots constitute a single plane, suffixes occupy their own plane, and both of these planes are syllabified together in the word plane.</sub>⁶⁶ _{This model allows for different hierarchies to be associated with each plane as shown in (377). Additionally, on the word plane, suffixes which require a bimoraic base will be able to “see” the prefix and root combination.
(377) A Possibility for Axininca Campa in the Multiplanar Model}

_Conclusions

_{In this thesis I have shown that the output representations in Optimality Theory must be enriched in order to maintain the claim of parallelism. Additionally, I have argued that a parallel Multiplanar Model is preferable to a serial Levels Model without planes. This proposal raises as many questions as it answers. I have suggested that it may account for other data that have been analyzed as requiring levels, but this still needs to be shown. It is also possible that this model can be used to account for data that has been analyzed as requiring cyclicity (e.g., Kenstowicz 1994). Finally, once additional phenomena have been examined, a theory of planes must be developed. Specifically, the question arises as to what can trigger different planes. For example, can a single affix trigger a new plane? Through the exploration of this model, a more thorough understanding of the phenomena that resist a parallel analysis may be gained.}

_References

<sub>Bliese, Loren F. 1981. A Generative Grammar of Afar. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics. University of Texas at Arlington.
Fulmer, S. Lee. 1990. Dual-Position Affixes in Afar: An Argument for Phonologically–Driven Morphology. Proceedings of WCCFL IX, pp. 189-203.
Gafos, Adamantios. 1995. On the Proper Characterization of ‘Nonconcatenative’ Languages. The Johns Hopkins University manuscript.
Greenberg, Joseph Harold. 1963. Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Goldsmith, J. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.]
 Halle, Morris and Jean–Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An Essay on Stress. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Hammond, M. 1988. On Deriving the Well-Formedness Condition, LI, Vol. 19, Num. 2, pp. 319-325.
Hammond, M. 1995. There is no lexicon! The University of Arizona manuscript.
Hammond, M. and M. Noonan (eds.). 1988. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. Academic Press, Inc. Boston.
Hayward, Richard. 1976. Categories of the Predicator in ‘Afar, with Especial Reference to the Grammar of Radical Extensions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.
Hayward, Richard. 1974. The segmental phonemes of Afar. Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. XXXVII, Part 2, pp. 385-406.
Hulst, Harry van der and Norval Smith. 1982. The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part I. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of Optimization for Underspecification. University of California Berkeley manuscript.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Cyclic vs. Noncyclic Constraint Evaluation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 11-42. Papers on Phonology and Morphology.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. In I.-S. Yang (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst and Smith (1982, Part I).
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook, vol. 2.
Mahaffey, Francis E. ca. 1952. An Outline of the Phonemics and Morphology of the Afar (Danakali) Language of Eritrea, East Africa.
McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT; published by Garland Publishers, New York.
McCarthy, John. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373-418.
McCarthy, John. 1986. OCP Effects: Gemination and Antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 207-263.
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Faithfulness in Prosodic Morphology & Phonology: Rotuman Revisited. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1993a. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick RuCCS-TR-3. [To appear Cambridge, MA: MIT Press].
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1993b. Generalized Alignment. In Gert Booij & Jaap van Marle, eds., Yearbook of Phonology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, Pp. 79-153.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk, eds., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Pp. 249-384.
Myers, Scott. 1994. OCP Effects in Optimality Theory. University of Texas manuscript.
Noyer, Rolf. 1993. Mobile Affixes in Huave: optimality and morphological well-formedness. Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Erin Duncan, Michele Hart, and Philip Spaelti. University of California, Santa Cruz.
Parker, E. M. and R. J. Hayward. 1985. An Afar-English-French Dictionary: With Grammatical Notes in English. School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder. RuCCS- TR-2. [To appear, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]
Pulleyblank, D. 1988. Tone and the Morphemic Tier Hypothesis. In Hammond, M. and M. Noonan (eds.) Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. Pp. 353-370.
Pulleyblank, D. 1983. Tone in Lexical Phonology, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.]
Trannel, B. 1994. French liaison and elision revisited: a unified account within Optimality Theory”, ms. UC-Irvine. ROA_15.

Zoll, Cheryl. Ghost Segments and Optimality.</sub>