Parallelism and planes in optimality theory: evidence from afar
Yüklə 2,55 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 4. Alternative Accounts in OT
- A Linear Planes Analysis
SummaryIn this chapter I introduced the variable-position affixes of Afar. The person markers are suffixes on [a] and consonant-initial verbs but prefixes on vowel-initial verbs. The plural is a prefix on vowel-initial roots when there is no person marker, and otherwise it occurs as a suffix. The distribution of the plural shows an additional twist: as a suffix it sometimes precedes the aspect marker and other times follows it. Finally, the third person masculine marker occurs as a prefix on vowel-initial verbs but does not appear on consonant-initial verbs. I then showed that a parallel model in Optimality Theory reaches a paradox: it is unable to account for the different order of affixes in forms such as rab-n-e versus rab-e-n. The Multiplanar Model was then introduced. It accounts for the problem data by positing that the output representations consist not only of a word plane, but of an affix plane as well. In particular, the Multiplanar Model accounts for the data proposed above. The representations for the two forms are: [y-e-n], [rab-e-n] and [n-e], [rab-n-e]. In the first case, plural is specified as the rightmost morpheme by morphological constraints. /y/, even though it cannot surface on the word plane, satisfies onset on the affix plane. This contrasts with the second case, where because onset is ranked higher than plural (r), plural occurs to the left of aspect. In the next chapter I examine alternative OT analyses of this data. I show that a serial monoplanar analysis can also account for this data. I then compare the serial and Multiplanar Models, arguing that phonological evidence supports the Multiplanar Model. 4. Alternative Accounts in OTIn this section I discuss another possible OT analysis of the affixes in Afar to show that the best possible analysis in OT is the Multiplanar Model. Here, I introduce the use of levels, as McCarthy & Prince (1993a) use levels to account for various phenomena in Axininca Campa. McCarthy & Prince propose that the phonology of Axininca Campa is split across three different morphologically–defined levels. The motivation for this comes from the fact that although the morphological properties of prefixation and suffixation overlap, they have distinct phonologies. McCarthy & Prince therefore propose the levels in (263). In each level there is a distinct constraint hierarchy, with the output of one level serving as the input to the next level. (263) Levels in Axininca Campa 
The optimal output for each level is fully specified (filling in empty structure, etc.) and then passed on as input to the next level. McCarthy and Prince cite as evidence for the different levels the variant rankings of parse and fill. At the prefix level, V+V and C+C sequences occurring as the result of morphology are resolved by deleting prefixed material, in other words, with fill dominating parse (dep >> max). In the suffix level, however, syllabic violations induced by the morphology are resolved by epenthesis therefore invoking the opposite constraint hierarchy: parse dominates fill (max >> dep). At the final level, the word-level, stress and related phonology occur. The idea here is that different morphology may constitute different levels, where, for each level, there is a separate and distinct mini–phonology, or constraint hierarchy. A Linear Planes AnalysisA question that could be asked is whether division into nonlinear planes is necessary, or if all that is needed are distinct linear planes. For example, an analysis could be imagined where there are two linear planes: roots and suffixes. This is shown in (265) for the first person plural. If the constraints apply to each plane (where here “[ ]” sets off planes and “–“ separates morphemes within a plane), the same results might be achieved for this data as were achieved with nonlinear planes. (265a) is non–optimal because it lacks an onset in the affix plane ([e-n]). This leaves (265b) where both planes have onsets, as the optimal form. (265) First Person Plural Consonant–Initial Verbs
Data such as the third person plural consonant forms, however, show the solution cannot be a linear one. What is of importance here is the relationship between the person marker and the order of the plural and aspect markers. Recall that both the multiplanar and linear plane analyses assert that morphological constraints require plural to be rightmost morpheme. This is consistent with the surface order of the second and third person consonant and vowel–initial forms.
It is not consistent with the surface order of the first person plural, where in neither case is the plural rightmost. (267) First Plural a. Consonant-Initial b. Vowel-Initial rab-n-e n-okom-e root-pl-perf pl-root-perf In the Multiplanar Model, plural was argued to occur to the left of aspect in the first person plural because otherwise there would be an onset violation on the affix plane. (268) Explanation in the Multiplanar Model *[e-n] vs. [n-e] [rab-e-n] [rab-n-e] It was then pointed out that this same analysis could be done with linear planes. If there were a root plane and an affix (or suffix) plane, it could still be the case that plural occurs to the left of aspect only in order to avoid an onset violation in the affix plane. (269) Explanation in the Linear Planes Model *[rab][e-n] vs [rab][n-e] But this does not work the same for the third person plural as shown below. If the third person marker, /y/, immediately follows the root but does not surface, as required by *Cy, then a fatal onset violation in the affix plane will result (270a), choosing the incorrect form as optimal. (270) A Problem with Linear Planes
Notice that ranking *Cy higher (above plural) to rule out (271d) is of no help. If *Cy is ranked above plural (r), the correct optimal form will still be ruled out by onset. (271) A Problem with Linear Planes
The first and third person plurals combine to show that a planar analysis must be nonlinear in order to account for the Afar data. In the next section I discuss the possibility of using a Levels Model to account for Afar. Yüklə 2,55 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|