Comparative markedness

Abstract

The markedness constraints of classic Optimality Theory assign violationmarks to output candidates without reference to the input or to other candidates. This paper explores an alternative conception of markedness that is comparative: markedness constraints compare the candidate under evaluation with another candidate, the most faithful one. Comparative constraints distinguish two situations: the candidate under evaluation contains an instance of a marked structure that is also present in the fullyfaithful candidate; or the candidate under evaluation contains an instance of a marked structure that is not present in the fully faithful candidate. The empirical consequences of comparative markedness are explored, including grandfather effects (i.e., blocking by emergent markedness constraints), derived environment effects, non-iterating processes, coalescence paradoxes, and counterfeeding opacity. Theoretical questions concerning harmonic ascent and other topics will also be discussed. Comparative markedness is found to have some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison with classic OT and alternatives like local conjunction, stratal OT, sympathy, and targeted constraints. §1. Introduction Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) has two types of constraints, faithfulness and markedness. Faithfulness constraints militate against input-output disparity, while markedness constraints impose restrictions on the output without reference to the input. For example, the input-output mapping /ab/ 6 §ab violates the faithfulness constraint DEP (no epenthesis), and the output form §ab violates the markedness constraints NO-CODA and NOVCDOB (/*[-son, +voice]).In this article, I explore a different approach to markedness. The idea is that markedness constraints assign violation-marks to output candidates by comparing

A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution

“…It might be desirable to adopt a more general solution for processes that apply only in derived environments, such as McCarthy's (2002McCarthy's ( , 2003 Comparative Markedness, but the analysis above will be retained here for the sake of simplicity. If the lack of a timing slot is viewed as a form of underspecification, then there is a link to a more general principle proposed in Kiparsky (1993), where structure-building rules can apply only to underspecified representations To account for nasal substitution's reluctance to apply across a "loose" morpheme boundary, symbolized with # in the tableau below (though this should not be taken literally as the # boundary type of Chomsky and Halle 1968 Tableau (12) illustrates how this constraint forces the nasal feature to be associated with an inserted prefix segment.…”

Opacidade contra-alimentadora no PE: análise por Marcação Comparativa

“…Algumas das alternativas de solução apresentadas nos últimos anos são, de certa forma, derivacionais ou quase derivacionais, como o próprio McCarthy reconhece em texto recente (McCARTHY, 2006a, p.5), porque apelam para uma forma intermediária para influenciar o output. A nossa análise focalizará uma dessas alternativas, a Marcação Comparativa (McCARTHY, 2002a).…”

“…Neste texto, abordamos dois fenômenos do português europeu cuja interação é opaca. A análise restringe-se ao tipo de opacidade que surge quando dois processos se aplicam de acordo com o ordenamento chamado contra-alimentador e focaliza uma das alternativas de abordagem dessa opacidade, a da Marcação Comparativa (McCARTHY, 2002a). Concluímos a apresentação discutindo algumas implicações dessa abordagem, relacionadas ao postulado da riqueza da base e a predições a respeito das possibilidades de interação com outros processos.…”

Derived environment effects and logarithmic perception

“…In both cases, additional machinery is needed in order to distinguish phonologically-derived environments, in which lenition applies, and nonderived environments, in which lenition does not apply. Various proposals have been made to solve this problem including Kisseberth (1972), Kiparsky (1993), Burzio (2000), McCarthy (2003), Wolf (2008), and Hayes & White (2015) among others. This paper focuses on yet another problem that PDEEs raise.…”