Comparing Positional Licensing Patterns in HG and OT

Eric Bakovic,Anna Mai

doi:10.3765/amp.v9i0.4928

Abstract

Positional licensing refers to the observation that elements (e.g. particular feature values or feature value combinations) can be limited to specific positions (e.g. syllable onsets, initial syllables, stressed syllables, etc.). Positional licensing patterns have been analyzed using either positional markedness or positional faithfulness constraints in OT and HG. In this paper we demonstrate that the predictions of OT and HG diverge in deep but structured ways once there are more than two licensing positions. We propose an account for this structured divergence based on 3-position systems, and confirm the validity of that account with an analysis of 4-position systems. We also describe how conjoined constraints impact positional licensing patterns, and in doing so provide a counter-example to a claim made in our previous work (Mai & Baković 2020).

Highlights

Positional licensing refers to the observation that elements can be limited to specific positions
The positional markedness OT system MO3 T in addition predicts all of the conjunctive licensing patterns with positional intersection (A∩B, A∩C, B∩C, A∩B∩C), while the positional faithfulness OT system FO3 T predicts all of the disjunctive licensing patterns with positional union
Jesney’s focus was on how either positional markedness or positional faithfulness constraints are sufficient to generate patterns that require both families of positional constraints in OT

Summary

Introduction

Positional licensing refers to the observation that elements (e.g. particular feature values or feature value combinations) can be limited to specific positions (e.g. syllable onsets, initial syllables, stressed syllables, etc.). Comparing Positional Licensing Patterns in HG and OT positions, P1 and P2, two additional types of licensing pattern are possible depending on (a) whether licensing is analyzed with markedness or faithfulness and (b) on the form of constraint interaction, OT ranking or HG weighting. For the OT systems, Jesney (2016) finds that positional markedness predicts conjunctive licensing patterns while positional faithfulness predicts disjunctive licensing patterns; with both types of constraints, both conjunctive and disjunctive licensing patterns are predicted. For the HG systems, on the other hand, Jesney (2016) finds that both conjunctive and disjunctive licensing patterns are predicted regardless of whether there are only one or both of positional markedness and positional faithfulness constraints in the system.

Systems

Patterns

Analysis

Cumulative interaction and conjoined constraints

Conclusion