|Title:||Faithfulness and Componentiality in Metrics|
|Abstract:||Faithfulness and Componentiality in Metrics
The core ideas of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) have
been shown in earlier work (Hayes and MacEachern 1998) to be
applicable to the study of poetic meter: metrical data are
appropriately analyzed with ranked, conflicting constraints. However,
application of OT to metrics still raises problems. First, while OT
grammars derive outputs from inputs, metrics is non-derivational, the
goal being simply to characterize a set of well-formed structures.
Second, because constraints in OT are violable and conflict, there can
be well-formed outputs that violate high-ranking constraints. Thus,
it is not clear when constraint violations imply unmetricality.
Third, there is no criterion for linking constraint violations to
metrical complexity. Lastly, candidate competitions in OT always
yield winners. This implies--falsely--that unmetrical forms should
always suggest their own repairs, in the form of the winning
A solution to these problems is proposed along the following lines.
The well-formed structures are those that can be derived from a rich
base that includes all possible surface forms (Prince and Smolensky
1993, Smolensky 1996, Keer and Bakovic 1997). Unmetricality results
not from constraint violations per se, but from violations of
markedness constraints that outrank competing Faithfulness
constraints. Complexity works similarly, under a gradient conception
of constraint ranking adopted from Hayes (in press) and Boersma and
Hayes (in press). Lastly, unmetrical lines do not suggest a repaired
alternative because their derivations \"crash.\" Crashing results from
componentiality, and occurs when different components of the metrical
grammar (Kiparsky 1977) disagree on which candidate should win.
Data are taken from studies of English folk verse by Hayes and Kaun
(1996) and Hayes and MacEachern (1998).