Stratal OT

The prosodic analysis of loanwords as well as some phonological processes in AA are analysed adopting the framework of OT. The Classic/Parallel model of OT will be used to account for the adaptation of stress and gemination in Chapter five as all loanwords are investigated in their simple morphological forms from the perspective of AA. However, Stratal OT will be used to account for syllable structure and vowel epenthesis as these two aspects cannot be readily accounted for using Classic OT, as will be shown in Chapter four. I assume that the reader has a general familiarity of Classic OT. Therefore, a brief overview of Stratal OT only is provided below.

The failure of Classic OT to account for opacity and cyclicity, i.e. overapplication or underapplication of a phonological process, has given birth to modified versions of Classic OT. A number of attempts have been proposed in the literature to account for such cases. Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000; Bermúdez-Otero 2003), Sympathy Theory (McCarthy 1999, 2003), where a sympathetic candidate chosen by a selector constraint affects the optimal output (see McCarthy 1999, 2003 for more details) and Output-Output Correspondence, which requires correspondence between independently occurring surface outputs (Benua 1997; Kager 2000) represent the most famous attempts to account for opacity and cyclicity. However, as it will be demonstrated below, the most successful attempt is Stratal OT. First, I present a brief introduction of Stratal OT and then I briefly show why it is superior to other accounts (for more arguments in favour of Stratal OT, see Kiparsky 2000; Bermúdez-Otero 2003).

Like Classic OT, Stratal OT is a theory of constraint interaction that does without rules at all (cf. Kiparsky 2000; Bermúdez-Otero 2003). It has the same four main components: the Lexicon that contains all the possible input forms; the Gen(erator), which produces an infinite number of candidates; the Eval(uator), which evaluates the

64

output using a set of violable ranked Con(straints), which constitute the fourth component (ibid).

On the other hand, Stratal OT, unlike Classic OT, is a hybrid model that incorporates the insights of Stratal models like Lexical Phonology and Morphology (ibid). That is, it is a serial version of OT that echoes the lexical phonology and morphology interaction where constraints apply at different strata (Kiparsky 2000, 2003).

The main idea of this theory is that constraints apply at different levels and their ranking status may differ according to the level (e.g. stem, word, postlexical for AA; see §4.3.2) where they apply.26 So constraints apply at the stem level yielding an output that serves as the input to the constraints at the word level which in turn functions as the input to the postlexical level. To illustrate, in AA, /katab+t/ ‗I m.s. wrote‘ is assigned stress at the lexical level yielding kaꞌtabt according to AA stress constraints where a superheavy syllable at the right edge of the word is stressed (see §5.1.4 on stress). Later at the postlexical level, epenthesis is induced to break up the consonant cluster yielding kaꞌtabit giving rise to opaque stress assignment on a light penult, as will be shown in §4.3. Moreover, other processes such as long vowel shortening do not apply across the board in AA. Shortening applies in /ʃaaf-na/ > ʃufna ‗we saw‘ but it fails to apply in /ʃaaf-ha/ > ʃaafha ‗he saw her‘. According to Stratal OT, closed syllable shortening applies at the stem level where subject suffixes are added while it does not apply at the word level where object suffixes apply (cf. Kiparsky 2000, 2003; Kabrah 2004; Watson 2007; Abu-Rakhieh 2009).

Stratal OT is superior to other attempts to account for cyclicity and opacity. Kiparsky (2000) argues that Stratal OT, unlike other models that account for opacity and cyclicity, keeps the well-defined and restrictive set of OT constraints and it is explanatory adequate ―by relating the stratification motivated by opacity and cyclicity to the intrinsic morphological and prosodic constituency of words and phrases‖ (ibid: 351). He goes on to say that sympathy constraints as well as Output-Output (O/O) constraints weaken OT power. For example, Kager‘s (2000) O/O constraint HEADMAX-BA, which requires faithfulness between a stressed syllable in the base and a derived form is replaced by a standard faithfulness constraint MAX-ˈV that

26

65

requires a stressed syllable in the input to be faithfully mapped in the output (ibid: 11). Kiparsky points out that Kager‘s constraint does not take into account the fact that epenthetic vowels are not only unstressable but also invisible to stress and other prosodic processes, e.g. CVVC syllables are shortened although they get opened by postlexical epenthesis cf. /ʃaaf-t/ > ʃufit. ‗I saw‘. Therefore, O/O Correspondence fails to distinguish between lexical and postlexical epenthesis (Kiparsky 2000), which Stratal OT captures by positing different constraint rankings across multiple strata. In terms of learnability, Kiparsky (2000) argues that Stratal OT fits better with learnability as it equates learning the stem level phonology with learning lexical representations, which can be different from constraints at other levels. In the same vein, Bermudez-Otero (2003: 25) argues that Stratal OT is superior to Sympathy Theory as the latter‘s principles are ―conceptually problematic and/or empirically untenable‖ and therefore pose a serious learnability problem. In contrast, Stratal OT accounts for opacity in a straightforward manner by relating opacity to the serial interaction between strata (ibid: 28-9). Moreover, Sympathy Theory would require many sympathy constraints for different opaque cases, which complicates the grammar (Kiparsky 2000).

In Chapter four, I will use Stratal OT to account for complex margins in AA where the notion of a semisyllable, i.e. moras that are not linked to syllables but attach directly to the prosodic word, will be introduced (see §4.3.2). It will be shown that a semisyllable is allowed at a lexical level but banned postlexically if the two-consonant coda is ill-formed in AA.

Before I move to Chapter three, a final note on the Emergence of the Unmarked is in order.