Band 29, Heft 1-2 - Comparative markedness

The markedness constraints of classic Optimality Theory assign violation-marks to output candidates without reference to the input or to other candidates. This article explores an alternative conception of markedness: 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 fully faithful candidate; or it contains an instance of a marked structure that is not present in the fully faithful candidate. Empirical consequences of comparative markedness are explored, including grandfather effects, derived environment effects, non-iterating processes, and counter-feeding opacity. 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.

In this stimulating paper McCarthy returns to the fundamental conceptual foundations of OT: the output-orientation of markedness effects. The paper has made me think in a new way about several areas of my recent research on the variable behaviour of laterals (Yip 2003), and my ongoing work on tone. The remarks below summarize some of that thinking.

Introduction ‘Comparative Markedness’ (CM) tries among other things to characterize the notion ‘possible constraint’ in Optimality Theory (OT) and in this way to both extend and constrain the scope of the theory. The author is the first to admit that the theory as it stands is not perfect in my opinion, it is the best approximation to problems such as opacity and derived environment effects within OT that is currently available; but problems remain.

In “Comparative Markedness” (henceforth CM), McCarthy (this volume) proposes that the markedness family of constraints should be divided into parallel sets of constraints distinguishing ‘old’ and ‘new’ violations. Whether a markedness violation is ‘old’ or ‘new’ is determined by comparing the candidate under evaluation with a ‘fully faithful candidate’ (FFC), defined in reference to a relation of correspondence. (In the case of input-output, or IO correspondence, the FFC is the candidate that is fully faithful to all properties of the input governed by IO faithfulness constraints, and that optimally satisfies markedness constraints that compel no faithfulness violations.) An ‘old’ markedness violation is shared by the candidate under evaluation and the FFC, and thus, is inherited from the input. A ‘new’ markedness violation is not shared with the FFC, and therefore results from a faithfulness violation at the same locus. CM proposes a significant revision of OT doctrine, as the model increases the access of markedness constraints to inputs albeit indirectly, through the FFC. In this first pass through CM, McCarthy shows that a number of knotty problems that have until now resisted straightforward solutions in optimality theory can be analysed employing the new approach.

0. Introduction One of the most interesting aspects of the Comparative Markedness (CM) theory is the unification of several phenomena traditionally thought to be unrelated. Grandfathering effects, Derived Environment Effects (DEEs), and counterfeeding opacity all turn out to be different facets of the same phenomenon, due to the presence of new and old markedness in the system.

1. Introduction In classic Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), markedness constraints evaluate output well-formedness, whereas faithfulness constraints evaluate input-output disparity. Thus, markedness constraints have access only to the output while faithfulness constraints view both the input and the output.

McCarthy's paper contains a simple idea with important consequences. The simple idea is that markedness constraints come in two brands, O M and N M. Whereas a “classic” markedness constraint *M bans the structure M, O M does so only if M is present in the input and N M only if M is not present in the input. The idea is simple but the array of consequences that it entails is by no means simple. It can be implemented in different ways; some of the implementation problems are discussed by the author, others are left for the future. As for the consequences, some are theoretical (relations to local constraint conjunction, sympathy, stratal OT) others empirical. The latter involve new predictions (grandfather effects) and older empirical domains, like counter-feeding opacity and derived environment effects (DEE). In this reaction to McCarthy's paper I will concentrate on the latter.

1. Introduction Comparative Markedness deals with alternations which are problematic for classical Optimality Theory such as counterfeeding opacity. In Sea Dayak, for example, the distribution of nasal and oral vowels is generally predictable: after a nasal consonant, a vowel is typically nasal and after an oral consonant, the vowel is oral. However, an oral vowel also occurs after a nasal consonant just in case the consonant is optionally followed by an oral stop, as in [rambo?] ∼ [ramo?] ‘a kind of flowering plant’. The orality of the postnasal vowel in such cases is thus opaque (Scott 1957, 1964). Representative forms are shown in (1).

1. Introduction These seven commentaries treat a wide range of topics in interesting and insightful ways. It is not possible to write a coherent response that addresses all of the criticisms and suggestions, large and small, that the authors have brought up. Several main themes emerge, however, that transcend the individual commentaries, and these themes supply the structure for this reply. They include alternatives to comparative markedness, possible counterexamples, comparative markedness on other dimensions of correspondence, and questions about the authenticity of opaque phonological processes. These themes will each be addressed in turn.