Asymmetrical Interactions and Asymmetrical Constraints

The three approaches to too-many-solutions problems discussed in the previous chapter do not treat them as symptomatic of significant generalizations about input-output mappings rather than outputs. Because this systematic challenge to OT is not recognized, previous attacks on these problems, apart from de Lacy's general proposal, see them as an assortment of individual difficult cases and analyses. Surface-oriented theories such as the P-map, whose predictions are closely tied to the phonetic detail of each particular case, face this difficulty in an especially acute form, unable to provide a unified account for a systematic pattern across various examples with vastly different phonetics. The aim of this chapter is to remedy the situation by offering a general analysis of non-surface-based generalizations that treats them as a systematic phonological problem. The chapter is organized as follows. I begin by arguing against a potential objection that the generalization about input-output mappings in the domain of prosody-segmental interactions is not a synchronically active one and should not be dealt with by a theory of UG. Concluding that it is a significant phonological generalization, I then discuss the place of non-surface generalizations in a surface-oriented theory. I then propose a new class of markedness constraints that refer directly to input-output mappings and penalize candidates that involve typologically undesirable processes. I then discuss a new proposal for dealing with sonority-driven stress, and conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of some applications of my theory, setting the stage for a detailed investigation of syncope and epenthesis in chapter 4. 66 3.1 Is the generalization synchronic? The shortcomings of the previous approaches discussed in the last chapter, I suggest, are due to a general property of OT: its radical claim that all significant phonological generalizations are located in the character of output forms. The data presented in this dissertation suggest that there are phonological patterns that are not attributable to purely surface markedness pressures. I take it as an argument against the radicalism of OT and in favor of a theory of phonology that affords both kinds of generalizations their place. However, such a claim does not automatically follow from the observed existence of typologically observable procedural generalizations, because any phonological generalization can potentially be synchronically inert but arise through external factors such as diachronic tendencies. If this is the case, a synchronic theory of linguistic competence is not responsible for dealing with such a generalization. Thus, before …