CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Background
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter comprises four sections. Section 2.1 discusses related theories, including Optimality Theory, Correspondence Theory, Indexed constraint approach, and Local conjunction. Section 2.2 discusses the tonal markedness and the internal structure of tone. Section 2.3 reviews previous studies on tone sandhi.
2.1 Theoretical Background
2.1.1 Optimality Theory
Optimality Theory is a constraint-based framework (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy and Prince 1993, McCarthy 2008) which is different from traditional derivational approach. In the framework of OT, two main systems are involved, namely Generator (GEN) and Evaluator (EVAL). The Generator (GEN) produces infinite candidates for an input. Then the candidates are evaluated by hierarchically ranked constraints, as shown in (1).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(1) OT Schema (Kager 1999:8)
GEN EVAL
Unlike the derivational approach, these constraints are universal and violable.
Constraints exist universally but they could be ranked differently in different languages. The violation of the higher ranked constraints is fatal. The candidate having the minimal violation is selected as the optimal output.
The operation of OT is demonstrated with tableaux as shown in (2).
(2) Operation of OT
/Input/ Constraint A Constraint B Constraint C Constraint D
☞Candidate (a) *
Candidate (b) *! *
Candidate (c) *!
In (2), the input is placed in the left top space and the possible candidates generated by GEN are placed in the left column. In terms of the right columns, each constraint is placed in an individual column. The constraint ranked left represents that it is ranked higher. On the other hand, the constraint near the right side of the tableau
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
represents that it is ranked lower, i.e. constraint A is ranked higher than constraint B.
The dotted line between constraint C and constraint D represents that there is no crucial ranking between these two constraints. The finger marker points out the optimal output form. Every asterisk mark represents one violation. The exclamation mark highlights the fatal violation. The shade area represents that the violation does not influence the elimination because there is a fatal violation for the high-ranked constraint.
Take the tableau in (2) as an example, candidate (b) is ruled out because it violates the undominated constraint A. Candidate (c) violates the highly ranked constraint B. In this case, even though candidate (a) violates constraint C, it is still selected as the optimal output.
2.1.2 Correspondence Theory
The concept of Correspondence Theory was developed by McCarthy and Prince (1995) which defines the identification between two language representations, such as input and output. The schema of Correspondence is shown as (3).
(3) The schema of Correspondence (McCarthy and Prince 1995:262)
Given two strings S1 and S2, correspondence is a relation Ʀ from the elements of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
S1 to those of S2. Element α ϵ S1 and β ϵ S2 are referred to as correspondence of one another when α Ʀ β.
Based on the schema, each relationship between two representations is governed by a faithfulness constraint. The faithfulness constraints governing the relationship between strings are given in (4).
(4) a. MAX (maximality): Every segment in S1 has a correspondent in S2.
b. DEP (dependence): Every segment in S2 has a correspondent in S1.
c. IDENT[F] (identity): Correspondent segments are identical with respect to feature F.
2.1.3 Indexed constraint approach
According to Inkelas (2007), the phonology of a language might not be absolutely uniform. It could be influenced by factors, such as lexical stratum (e.g., native vs. foreign), and part of speech. Within OT, the indexed constraint approach is one of the approaches to capture the language internal variation.
In the indexed constraint approach, instead of constraint reranking, there is only one fix constraint ranking to capture the morphologically conditioned phonology. The
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
constraints could be divided into several different indexed constraints. Alderete (2001) indexed ¬OO-MAX-(Accent) as ¬OOdom-MAX-(Accent) in dealing with the Japanese high tone. The indexed ¬OOdom-MAX-(Accent) targets the specific domain where there is a dominant suffix in the input.
Additionally, Itô and Mester (1999) also used the indexed constraint approach in dealing with the four lexical strata in Japanese. Itô and Mester (1999) mentioned that Japanese lexicon could be divided into four different strata according to the phonotactic differences. They proposed FaithUF, FaithAF, FaithSJ and FaithY and ranked them in one fix constraint ranking to capture the different preservation of different lexical strata.
Besides, Pater (2000, 2010) pointed out that both the markedness and faithfulness constraints could be indexed. Moreover, Pater (2000, 2007, 2010) named the indexed constraint approach “morpheme specific phonology”. Pater (2010) used this approach in handling the syncope in Yine. It is the condition that indistinguishable morphemes exhibit different phonological behaviors, such as undergo different phonological processes. The indexed constraints suggest that the speakers own the intuition to distinguish the morphemes. In this thesis, we will follow the concept of Pater (2010) because the merged tones are indistinguishable and undergo different phonological processes.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.1.4 Local conjunction
In terms of local conjunction, it is proposed by Smolensky (1993, 1995) that every constraint in CON could be locally conjoined with another constraint. Lubowicz (2005) mentioned that the idea behind local conjunction is for constraints to exclude the worst of the worst. Itô and Mester (1998) defined the local conjunction, as shown in (5).
(5) Local conjunction of Constraints (Itô and Mester 1998:10) a. Definition
Local conjunction is an operation on the constraint set forming composite constraints:
Let C1 and C2 be members of the constraint set Con. Then their local conjunction C1 & C2 is also a member of Con.
b. Interpretation
The local conjunction C1 & C2 is violated if and only if both *C1 and *C2 are violated in some domain δ.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
c. Ranking (universal) C1 & C2 » C1 C1 & C2 » C2
In (5b), it diaplays that the conjunction constraint will be violated if the component constraints are all violated. In (5c), it is the conjunction schema that the conjunction constraints have to dominate the component constraints universally.
Besides, Lubowicz (2005) mentioned that there should be some restrictions of the component constraints; therefore, she proposed a restricted version of local conjunction.
(6) Restricted local conjunction (Lubowicz 2005:259) C=C1&C2 is violated iff
a. LOCC1 ∩ LOCC2 ≠ ∅
b. C1 results in C2 if C1 is Faithfulness and C2 is Markedness.
In (6), Lubowicz (2005) imposed two restrictions on the component constraints.
First, the loci of violation of both component constraints could not be empty, i.e. the loci of violation of both component constraints should intersect. Second, if there is a
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
faithfulness constraint, the faithfulness constraint has to lead to the violation of the markedness constraint.