INEFFABILITY

1. INEFFABILITY Plan of the unit: Present examples of „ineffability“ Discuss various solutions for the problem Concentrate on two solutions

2. 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 ...

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Productive umlaut in German a. Jahr –> Jährchen, Woche –> Wöchlein b. Bruder –> Brüderchen, Mauer –> Mäuerchen c. Mónat –> ?Monätchen, ?Monatchen *Mönatchen, *Mönätchen Európa –> ?Europächen, ?Europachen, *Euröpächen Wérmuth –> ?Wermütchen, ?Wermuthchen Wódka –> ?Wodkächen, ?Wodkachen, *Wödkachen, *Wödkächen

7. 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 arguments (Jährchen‘little year’ vs *Monätchen‘little month’).

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. Ineffabilityinsegmentalphonology • 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.

12. 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.

13. Ineffability in segmental phonology All possible correspondence relations between this input and outputs are eliminated. It is not clear how to do that.

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. More conflicts at the Interface Georgian Agreement Markers su do io io 1 v- m- m- mi- 2 g- g- gi- 3 -s h- u- 1 v –t gv- gv- gvi- 2 -t g..t g…t gi..t 3 .en h- u-

24. 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

25. 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).

26. Solutions Input-related solution: 1. One disallows certain inputs GEN-related solutions: 2. Constraining GEN 3. Making GEN more liberal

27. Solutions EVAL-related solution: 4. Making certain constraints unviolable The PARSE family of solutions 5. Different degrees of Parse violations

28. Solutions Architectural changes 6. Comparing Inputs 7. Bidirectional Optimizations Restricting the Scope of OT 8. Pesetsky 9. Interface solutions

29. 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).

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Input related solutions Likewise: Extractions in Tagalog or Kwakwala: Only the subject can be questioned ... Are the passive morphemes part of the input??

34. 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 or /¿ Ó ∫/

35. Input related solutions Likewise: how do you weep because she fixed the car t (but see below!)

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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?

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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).

43. 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).

44. EVAL related solutions Are there truly universal constraints (In syntax, perhaps: Theta-Criterion, c-command condition on binding - but these look like interface things ...) One leaves OT thereby ...

45. 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.’

46. 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.

47. M-PARSE in ineffability

48. M-PARSE in ineffability

49. 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)

50. 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.