INEFFABILITY
Plan of the unit:
Present examples of
„ineffability“
Discuss various solutions for the
problem
Concentrate on two solutions
An architectural prediction
Recall :
For each input, a set of candidates is
generated, out of which Eval picks an
optimal one
--> For every input, there must be at
least one grammatical output.
This prediction of OT seems not
fulfilled ...
Suffixation of -ize to an adjectival stem
rándom –> ràndomíze
corrúpt –> *corruptize
fóreign –> fòreigníze
obscéne –> *obscenize
vápor –> vàporíze
-ize can only be adjoined to a finally-stressed stem
(Raffelsiefen 1996, Kager 1999)
Raffelsiefen’s explanation: stress clash is strictly
avoided. If suffixation of -ize would lead to a
violation of *STRESSCLASH, the ize-verb is not
realized.
Suffixation of -ize to an adjectival stem
The only viable solution is to block the output
because of non-wellformedness of the output.
Since the output cannot be wellformed (because
stress is at the wrong place and because it cannot
be moved), no optimal output arises.
Productive umlaut in German
Suffixation of the diminutive suffixes –chen and –lein
to a finally stressed stem causes umlaut of the
stressed vowel.
A metrically invisible schwa syllable can appear
between the stressed umlauted vowel and the
suffix triggering umlaut.
–chen and –lein are associated with a floating
feature [front] looking for an appropriate docking
place.
Productive umlaut in German
a. Jahr –> Jährchen, Woche –>
Wöchlein
b. Bruder –> Brüderchen, Mauer –>
Mäuerchen
c. Mónat –> ?Monätchen, ?Monatchen
*Mönatchen, *Mönätchen
Európa –> ?Europächen, ?Europachen,
*Euröpächen
?
Productive umlaut in German
Partly unsolvable conflict in (c).
Most German speakers prefer not to
diminutivize the stem, when stress is not
final. An input consisting of Monat + chen is
usually just not realized.
Wermüthchen with stress on ü is sometimes
accepted.
Notice that speakers are unsure about their
judgement of such data. They usually do
not feel competent or motivate their
reluctance with (irrelevant) semantic
Productive umlaut in German
Similar problem as before.
Stress is at the wrong place and it cannot be moved.
No output is well-formed.
This is not expected in the OT framework. The
optimal candidate should be one which fulfills best
the constraints. That’s it.
Prefixation of ge- to a participle
Prefixation of ge- illustrates a different kind of
ineffability. This prefix is only present when the
verbal root has initial stress. But the existence of a
participle is independent of the presence of ge-.
Partial ineffability, then. Just the prefix is ineffable.
a. geárbeitet, gegéssen, getrómmelt,
[ge.[(lacht)F]PW]PW
b. gewállfahrtet, gefr´ühstückt, geóhrfeigt,
gekénnzeichnet
c. spazíert, trompétet, verpásst, prophezéit
Compare also:
a. úntergetaucht, ángekommen (separable particle)
b. überhólt (*übergehólt), entfállen (*entgefallen)
(inseparable particle)
c. míssverstanden (*gemissverstanden,
*missgeverstanden, *missvergestanden),
berücksichtigt (*begerücksichtigt, …) (inseparable
particles)
The relevant constraint is MAX(Aff). It is just the
morpheme which is not parsed, since the participle
exists.
Ineffability in segmental phonology
• In each language, there is a ranking of the
constraints on admissability of segments, like the
following (tentative and partial for English)
*ò >> *¿ >> *Ó >> ∫ >> { >> Ω >> ∫ >> etc.
• [Ω] is not a canonical segment of English, but it is
realized in some environments. It is a kind of link
between unallowed and allowed segments.
Ineffability in segmental phonology
What happens to an input like
/¿ Ó ∫/
which is a possible input because of Richness of the
Base (which says that all inputs must be allowed)
?
The answer is probably: nothing good can emerge
from such an input. It is unpronounceable and is
consequently ineffable.
Ineffability in segmental phonology
All possible correspondence relations between this
input and outputs are eliminated.
It is not clear how to do that.
Ineffability in Syntax:Movement
Constraints on extraction typically lead to
ineffability
Adjunct Extraction out of islands
?what do you wonder how to fix
*how do you wonder what to fix t
*how is it time to fix the car t
Ineffability in Syntax :Movement
Subject Extraction out of islands
*who do you wonder when t met Mary
Multiple Superiority violations
*who came why?
*why did who come?
Ineffability in Syntax :Movement
The ban against multiple questions (in Irish,
e.g.)
Cén rothar
aL ghoud an garda
which bike
C stole the cop?
*cé aL rinne
ciadé
who C
did
what
*cé ciadé aLrinne
Ineffability in Syntax: Interfaces
Ineffability also arises quite often at the
“interface” between syntax and morphology.
The syntactically derived forms can not be
spelt out by the available morphological
means.
Deletion in full relatives
Der Mann der wo ihn liebt
the-nom man who-nom that loves him
Der Mann ---- wo ihn liebt
Der Mann den --- ihn liebt
In certain dialects of German, either
the relative pronoun or Comp can be
deleted (cp. Pesetsky‘s account of
English and French)
Deletion in full relatives
But Case must be recoverable
der Mann den wo er liebt
the man who-acc that he loves
*der Mann --- wo er liebt
Deletion in full relatives
When two Cases fall together
morphologically, deletion is fine
die Frau wo er mag schläft
the women C he likes sleeps
die = nom (as required by
matrix)
= acc (as required by
complement)
Free relatives
There is a similar constraint in
free relatives in certain dialects
Wer ihn kennt, liebt ihn
who-nom him knows loves him
wen er kennt liebt er
who-acc he knows loves he
was er sieht gefällt ihm
what-n/a he sees pleases him
Free relatives
Ineffability may arise:
*wen er kennt liebt ihn
who he knows loves him
*wer ihn kennt liebt er
who him knows loves he
More conflicts at the Interface
Georgian Agreement Markers
1
2
3
1
2
3
su
do
io
io
v-
mg-
mghgvg…t
h-
migiugvigi..t
u-
-s
v –t
-t
.en
gvg..t
Dealing with conflicts
Plus the constraint: not more
than one affix on each side ...
Morphological conflict
resolution:
v- disappears if it competes
with a further prefix.
Otherwise: no resolution
Ineffability
Ineffability is thus a reality. It is
an ubiquituous phenomenon of
language, but morphology
seems to play a special role.
If OT cannot deal with it,
ineffability would constitute a
serious problem (cp. Pesetsky
assessment of OT syntax).
Solutions
Input-related solution:
1. One disallows certain inputs
GEN-related solutions:
2. Constraining GEN
3. Making GEN more liberal
Solutions
EVAL-related solution:
4. Making certain constraints
unviolable
The PARSE family of
solutions
5. Different degrees of Parse
violations
Solutions
Architectural changes
6. Comparing Inputs
7. Bidirectional Optimizations
Restricting the Scope of OT
8. Pesetsky
9. Interface solutions
Input related solutions
1. Certain inputs are not allowed
This is not a good solution: Inputs
should be free (Richness of the
base). It is the task of the constraint
hierarchy to eliminate bad outputs
(and inputs).
Input related solutions
The solution would have to
introduce a new language
specific grammar component for
certain (most?) cases:
An English-German contrast
*who came why
wer kam warum
Input related solutions
Manipulating Inputs
Often, ineffability arises because
the form that expresses the
meaning „intuitively“ does not
participate in the competitions.
Changes in the input concept
might help
Input related solutions
brotherhood, happiness
*brotherity *happity
--> Abstract Inputs?
*Who do you think that t came?
Who do you think came
If that is in the input, an
ineffability problem might arise
Input related solutions
Likewise:
Extractions in Tagalog or
Kwakwala:
Only the subject can be
questioned ...
Are the passive morphemes part
of the input??
Input related solutions
It seems obvious that a decision needs
to be taken w.r.t. what is an input -proper decisions might solve certain
apparent ineffability problems ... but not
all
There is no competitor to *obsenize
/¿ Ó ∫/
or
Input related solutions
Likewise:
how do you weep because she
fixed the car t
(but see below!)
GEN related solutions
Solution 2: Constraining GEN
The constraints on movement might be
part of GEN
(Chomsky: MLC is part of the definition
of movement ...)
*who do you weep because t came
GEN related solutions
BUT:
Movement contraints are rarely truly
universal ... (GEN should be universal,
though)
What happens to the input??
*I don‘t care you weep because who
came
GEN related solutions
We could also allow GEN to do more
things than one would normally
expect (solution 3):
Making a structure biclausal
*who came why?
who came, and why?
GEN related solutions
Relating free and bound relative
clauses:
*wen er kennt liebt ihn
who he knows loves him
may be blocked if
jeder, den er kennt, liebt ihn
everyone who he knows loves him
is included in the candidate set.
GEN related solutions
The solution does not work in all
cases (e.g. perhaps adjunct island
constraints) and makes it likely that
grammar gets out of control
EVAL related solutions (sol 4)
Some constraints must be obligatorily
fulfilled by optimal candidates: candidates
which do not fulfill them cannot be
optimal. In some cases, all candidates are
eliminated (usual solution).
Recall:
Stress clash is strictly avoided. If
suffixation of -ize would lead to a violation
of *STRESSCLASH, the ize-verb is not
realized.
EVAL-related solution
• There is a filter called Control between Gen and
Eval, consisting of unviolable constraints and
blocking the formation of some words (Orgun &
Sprouse 1997).
• However, *STRESSCLASH is not unviolable (compare
Chìnése in English, `süßsáuer, tòt´müde in
German), neither are NOUNSTRESSED ü/ö/ä (compare
möblíeren) or UMLAUT (compare Frauchen).
EVAL-related solution
• So, Control cannot be the solution for ineffability in
the case of -ize.
• Blocking is probably a property of the lexicon
(rather than of the grammar).
EVAL related solutions
Are there truly universal constraints
(In syntax, perhaps: Theta-Criterion, ccommand condition on binding - but these
look like interface things ...)
One leaves OT thereby ...
PARSE-related solutions (5)
Solution of Mcarthy & Prince (for Latinate
suffixes), Raffelsiefen (for -ize) and many
others: a candidate which violates a
constraint requiring phonetic realization of
morphemes is optimal.
M-PARSE: ‘Morphemes are phonetically
realized.’
PARSE-related solutions
M-PARSE is ranked below the
constraints requiring umlaut to occur
in the right prosodic conditions. If
the constraints on prosodic structure
cannot be fulfilled, the morphemes
are not realized and M-PARSE is
violated.
M-PARSE in ineffability
Jahr+chen No un stressed UM
ü/ ä ö/
LAUT
Jähr-chen
Jahr-chen
*!
ø
NO
CROS SING
*!
MPARSE
M-PARSE in ineffability
Mónat+
chen
Monat-chen
Monät-chen
Mönat-chen
ø
No unstressed ü/ä/ö
UM
NO
M-PARSE
LAUT CROSSING
*!
*!
*!
*
Problems (Kager)
1. Many suffixes influence the stress pattern of the stem they
adjoin to. Why do -ize or -chen don’t do that? (Not a real
problem)
2. Stress clash is tolerated in English in some cases. Why not
here? The same tolerance is found in German for
unstressed umlauted vowels, as well as for stems suffixed
with -chen and without umlaut: Frauchen, Blondchen, ….
Why not Wodkachen or Wodkächen? (Not a problem
either: OT alone cannot account for the different behavior
of -ize and, say, -ic (remember titánic)
Summary so far
There seems to be basically two origins of
ineffabillity. First, what can be called
grammatical ill-formedness. No output of a
certain input can emerge as optimal,
because the result always violates some
high-ranking constraint which must be
fulfilled in the language.
This was illustrated with *obsenize.
Summary so far
The other cause of ineffability is explained by
the comparative power of OT. Some output
is not optimal because there is another one
which is. Ineffability is just apparent.
Lexical blocking
Bidirectional optimization in syntax
Lexical blocking
• Some words which are perfect from the
point of view of morphology and phonology
are nevertheless non-existent. First there is
the phenomenon of blocking.
Data from Aronoff:
various
*
variety
curious
*
curiousity
glorious
glory
*gloriosity
spacious
space
*spaciosity
• The non-existence of *gloriosity and
*spaciosity is explained by the fact that a
non-derived form with approximately the
same meaning already exists, thus glory
and space.
• The fact that variety and curiosity exist is
explained by the absence of a non-derived
nominal with the same meaning.
Bidirectional optimization
• This kind of blocking is explained by a
bidirectional optimization between input and
output, as well as between output and
input. If there is a better input for some
output, the output cannot be optimal.
Instead it is the output corresponding to
the input which is chosen as optimal (it
violates less faithfulness constraints).
• An output like *gloriosity sees the input
glory and, since glory as output is better
Bi-directional optimization
STEP 1:
Given an input, what is the optimal
way of expressing it?
STEP 2: Given an output, what is its
optimal interpretation?
Bi-directional optimization
Certain possible UR-s cannot enter the
lexicon ...
Input
/veg/
away
[vek]
output
/vek/
optimal lexical
entry
Bi-directional optimization
An interpretation is ineffable if its
optimal expression has a different
optimal interpretation!
To conclude, let’s turn to a detailed
syntactic example
PARSE-related solutions
Predicate argument structures
as inputs may not be sufficient
Kiss agent = Jane
patient = who
A problem for PAS?
A similar markedness consideration
seems to show that PAS are not
sufficient either:
what did she tell me that he bought
she told me what he bought
Same PAS but the first sentence has
one more STAY and 2 more FI
violations ...
No problem for PAS!
Closer inspection reveals that the two
sentence differ in terms expressible
by PAS
what did she tell me that he bought
she told me what he bought
TELL selects a wh-clause in the
second example, but not in the first
one!!
A more complex problem
Although the examples just discussed
can be explained away, more
complex structures reveal that PAS
are insufficient:
There are no MLC-effects in multiple
questions whenever we get a
semantic difference!
A more complex problem
Who wonders who bought what
MLC respected ...
Who wonders what who bought
MLC violation fine if who gets
wide scope! .... Vs.
*what did who buy
no semantic difference!!!
A complex view of inputs
Input = PAS + indication of final
scope
who wonders what who bought
This is a perfect sentence if
ParseScope >> MLC
A possible situation
PAS
wonder: you, wh-clause
fix:
MANNER: how
OBJECT: what
scope(how) = low clause
scope (what) = high clause
what do you wonder how to fix
An impossible situation?
PAS
wonder: you, wh-clause
fix:
MANNER: how
OBJECT: what
scope(how) = high clause
scope (what) = low clause
What is the outcome???
An impossible situation?
It would seem that we get
*how do you wonder what to fix
an ungrammatical sentence.
Thus we seem to have run into
the ineffability problem: there is
just no way of expressing the
PAS+scope ...
An overlooked possibility
But what if the ban on long
adjunct movement (the
displacement of how) has a
higher rank than Parse(Scope).
Then
you wonder how what to fix
has a better profile than
how do you wonder what to fix
An overlooked possibility
And the ban against multiple
wh-phrases/the need to fill the
matrix wh-position also has a
higher rank than Parse(Scope),
then
what do you wonder how to fix
has the best profile!
A PARSE solution
Thus, ineffability appears to have a
simple solution ...
there are many aspects of the input to
which the output need not be faithful
...
and if scope can be among these
aspects, a certain meaning cannot be
expressed.
Architectural Solutions (6)
The picture is not complete, however!
what do you wonder how to fix
may be the optimal way of dealing
with an input in which how has wide
scope ...
but the sentence does not have that
interpretation!
Bi-directional optimization
An interpretation is ineffable if its
optimal expression has a different
optimal interpretation!
what do you wonder how to fix
Interpretation 1: respects ParseScope
Interpretation 2: violates ParseScope