DOCSLIB.ORG

Typology in Optimality Theory Matthew Gordon Department Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Typology in Optimality Theory Matthew Gordon Department Of Typology in Optimality Theory Matthew Gordon Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] 1 Abstract 2 The mechanism of constraint re-ranking basis makes Optimality Theory a typologically oriented 3 theory of phonology. By permuting the prioritization of constraints on a language specific basis a 4 factorial typology of phonological patterns is generated. The factorial typology may be 5 constrained by the incorporation of phonetically-driven constraint hierarchies that capture 6 implicational distributions. Patterns generated by an Optimality-theoretic account can be 7 compared to the set of attested patterns found in languages of the world to determine how well 8 the analysis fits the observed typology. A particular challenge is presented by overgeneration, 9 which may be pathologic, may reflect accidental gaps due to the paucity of a given phenomenon, 10 or may be grounded in diachronic biases in speech perception. 11 11 1. Introduction 12 The primary responsibility of any phonological theory is to capture the range of variation 13 observed in sound systems of the world’s languages. While all theories take this goal seriously, 14 the formalism of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 2004) is particularly well suited to 15 making explicit typological predictions that can be rigorously tested by permuting the 16 prioritization of a series of phonological constraints. The fundamental assumption of Optimality 17 Theory that constraint ranking varies from language to language has provided fertile ground for 18 typological research in phonology. 19 2. The formalism of Optimality Theory 20 Unlike earlier rule-based generative treatments of phonology, Optimality Theory (Prince and 21 Smolensky 2004), abbreviated OT, in its original conception assumes a one step mapping 22 between underlying and surface forms. The crucial element in this mapping operation is a set of 23 hierarchically ranked constraints that evaluate a series of potential surface forms, or candidate 24 forms, corresponding to the underlying form. These constraints are of two basic types. Some 25 constraints are sensitive to the well-formedness of candidate forms, banning dispreferred or 26 marked structures or requiring felicitous or unmarked properties. Other constraints are sensitive 27 to the mapping, or correspondence, between underlying forms and candidate forms. Ideally all 28 constraints find principled motivation in independent properties of speech production, 29 perception, and processing. By imposing this grounding requirement on constraints, OT avoids a 30 proliferation of unprincipled constraints and the unattested patterns they would generate (see 31 section 7 for further discussion of generation in OT). The actual surface form is determined by 32 evaluating how well the candidates satisfy the constraints, which, in many cases, impose 33 competing demands. Crucially, the ranking of constraints varies from language to language, 34 thereby accounting for cross-linguistic variation in surface forms. 35 To take an example of constraint evaluation and language specific constraint ranking, 36 consider the case of syllable structure. Many languages, e.g. Hawai’ian, Cayuvava, only allow 37 open syllables, whereas other languages also permit syllables closed by a consonant. The 38 dispreference for closed syllables is attributed to a constraint against coda consonants, *CODA, 39 where the asterisk indicates that a given structure is prohibited. A competing constraint, FAITHC, 40 requires surface faithfulness to underlying consonants, i.e. requires that underlying consonants 41 survive to the surface. Given an underlying string consisting of a consonant-final root followed 42 by a consonant-initial prefix, i.e. CVC-CV, there are at least two possible candidates in 43 competition to surface. One of the two intervocalic consonants could be deleted, a strategy that 44 would satisfy the ban on coda consonants but that would run afoul of FAITHC due to its missing 45 consonant. Alternatively, both members of the consonant cluster could be preserved, thereby 46 honoring faithfulness but not the ban on coda consonants. The ranking of *CODA and FAITHC 47 relative to each other in a given language determines that language’s response to the potential 48 consonant cluster. If *CODA outranks FAITHC, one of the consonants does not survive to the 49 surface, whereas if FAITHC is ranked above *CODA, both intervocalic consonants emerge 50 unscathed. These two outcomes are depicted in (1) by means of a tableau, the standard way of 51 formalizing OT. First, in (1a), the ranking of *CODA above FAITHC is depicted, while in (1b), the 52 ranking of the two constraints is reversed. 53 (1) Two rankings of CODA and FAITHC 54 (a) Coda deletion: *CODA >> FAITHC /CVC-CV/ *CODA FAITHC ☞ CVCV * CVCCV *! 55 56 (b) Coda preservation: FAITHC >> *CODA /CVC-CV/ FAITHC *CODA CVCV *! ☞ CVCCV * 57 58 In tableaux, the underlying (or “input”) form customarily appears in the top left corner followed 59 in the same column by competing candidate forms corresponding to that underlying form. After 60 the first column, each constraint is given its own column where constraints to the left outrank 61 those to their right. Each cell under a constraint name depicts the number of times the candidate 62 in the corresponding row violates that constraint, where each violation is indicated by an asterisk. 63 A candidate that commits one or more violations of a constraint is eliminated from contention, 64 indicated by an asterisk after the fatal violation, if there is at least one other surviving candidate 65 that commits fewer violations of that constraint. Candidates are gradually eliminated as 66 constraint evaluation proceeds from higher to lower ranked constraints until there is only one 67 candidate remaining. This winning candidate is the surface form, traditionally indicated by a 68 pointing finger ☞. Crucially, once a candidate is weeded out due to a violation of a high ranked 69 constraint, it cannot be redeemed no matter how well it satisfies lower ranked constraints. Cells 70 that occur to the right of a fatal violation as well as cells occurring to the right of the constraint 71 that has enabled determination of a unique winner are shaded to indicate their irrelevance to the 72 process of selecting a winning candidate. 73 In (1a), the second candidate, the one containing both consonants in the cluster, is 74 eliminated from contention due to its violation of the anti-coda constraint. This leaves the first 75 candidate, the one in which a consonant has been deleted, as the winner even though it commits 76 a violation of lowly ranked faithfulness. If the constraints are reversed, the faithful candidate 77 with both intervocalic consonants emerges victorious, as shown in (1b). 78 Of course, other constraints come into play in the evaluation of additional candidate 79 forms corresponding to the input. For example, in languages in which *CODA is ranked above 80 FAITHC, another constraint must determine which of the intervocalic consonants is deleted in 81 order to satisfy *CODA. 82 3. Reranking and typology in OT 83 Cross-linguistic variation in rankings is one of the cornerstones of Optimality Theory and makes 84 the theory inherently well suited to tackle typological issues in phonology. An OT analysis of a 85 given phenomenon can be evaluated on the basis of how closely the patterns predicted through 86 constraint re-ranking, as in our syllabification example in 2, fit patterns attested in languages of 87 the world. Ideally, the patterns generated through permutation of the constraint rankings exactly 88 match the set of patterns found cross-linguistically. In reality, this ideal fit is seldom achieved. 89 Rather, analyses typically overgenerate by predicting patterns that either do not occur cross- 90 linguistically or at least have not been identified yet. Overgeneration is often difficult to assess 91 critically, since unattested patterns predicted to occur by an analysis potentially reflect accidental 92 gaps due to insufficient cross-linguistic data as opposed to pathologic patterns that could not 93 reasonably be expected to occur. More seriously, analyses may undergenerate by failing to 94 capture patterns that have been found in one or more languages. The issue of overgeneration and 95 undergeneration in OT is discussed in section 7. 96 4. Conspiracies in OT 97 One of the virtues of Optimality Theory in the typological domain is its prediction of 98 “conspiracies”: instances where different languages employ diverse strategies that conspire to 99 avoid the same ill-formed configuration. OT explicitly predicts the existence of such 100 conspiracies due to its formal separation of constraints banning a particular structure from 101 constraints sensitive to potential ways of eliminating that prohibited structure. For example, the 102 constraint against coda consonants merely penalizes candidates that have a coda consonant 103 without determining the path a language will take to avoid codas. There are several routes a 104 language could take to avoid coda consonants ranging from deletion of the first consonant 105 (CVC1C2V → CVC2V), to deletion of the second consonant (CVC1C2V → CVC1V), to insertion 106 of an epenthetic vowel (CVC1C2V → CVC1VC2V), to changing a consonant into a vowel 107 (CVC1C2V → CVVC2V). The choice among these options is governed by the relative ranking of 108 other constraints, e.g. an anti-epenthesis constraint banning vowels that are not present 109 underlyingly, an anti-deletion constraint requiring that underlying consonants surface, a 110 constraint banning the conversion of an underlying consonant to a vowel on the surface. A key 111 feature of the OT analysis is its unification of these processes as strategies all serving the same 112 goal driven by the same constraint against codas. This differs from traditional rule-based 113 approaches that collapse the ill-formed configuration and the process eliminating the ill-formed 114 structure into a single rule. The result is a series of formally distinct rules, each one capturing a 115 different strategy for avoiding codas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory
    Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory A Dissertation Presented by Zheng Xu to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University August 2007 Copyright by Zheng Xu August 2007 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Zheng Xu We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation Mark Aronoff, Professor of Linguistics Robert D. Hoberman, Professor of Linguistics Alice C. Harris, Professor of Linguistics James P. Blevins, Assistant Director of Research Research Center for English and Applied Linguistics University of Cambridge This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Lawrence Martin Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory by Zheng Xu Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University 2007 This dissertation proposes an inferential-realizational model of inflectional morphology (Matthews 1972, Zwicky 1985, Anderson 1992, Aronoff 1994, Stump 2001) within the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993). Following Russell 1995, Yip 1998, Hyman 2003, MacBride 2004, I assume that the phonological information of inflectional affixes is introduced through realization constraints (RC) which associate abstract morphosyntactic or semantic feature values with phonological forms. I propose that rankings of realization constraints conform to the specificity condition, i.e. a constraint realizing a more specific morphosyntactic feature value set outranks a less specific realization constraint. I also propose that the unmarked situation in which one feature value is realized by one form (Wurzel 1989) is encoded in two universal and violable markedness constraints, *FEATURE SPLIT which bans the realization of a feature value by more than one form and *FEATURE FUSION which bans a form realizing more than one feature value.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Optimality Theory
    9781405151368_4_001.qxd 11/30/07 5:01 PM Page 1 1 An Introduction to Optimality Theory 1.1 How OT Began Around 1990, Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky began collaborating on a new theory of human language. This collaboration led in fairly short order to a book-length manuscript, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Photocopies of the manuscript were widely distributed and had a terrific impact on the field of linguistics, even though it wasn’t formally published until more than a decade later (as Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). OT had and continues to have its greatest effect on phonology, but it has also led to important work in syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, and other areas. OT belongs on anyone’s list of the top three developments in the history of generative grammar. One of Prince and Smolensky’s goals for OT was to solve a long- standing problem in phonology. Phonological theory in the tradition of Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) The Sound Pattern of English (SPE) was based on rewrite rules. The rewrite rule A → B/C___D describes an input configuration CAD and an A → B transformation that applies to it. Rewrite rules can describe lots of phenomena, but they do a poor job of explaining how phonological systems fit together. (For a brief explanation of SPE’s main assumptions, see the boxed text at the end of this section.) To illustrate, we’ll look at some data from Yawelmani, a nearly extinct dialect of the California Penutian language Yokuts (Newman 1944).1 In this language, syllables cannot be bigger than CVC (consonant- vowel-consonant).
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetically Driven Phonology: the Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding1
    Phonetically Driven Phonology: The Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding1 Bruce P. Hayes UCLA Final version: August 1997 Written for the proceedings volume of the 1996 Milwaukee Conference on Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics Abstract Functionalist phonetic literature has shown how the phonologies of human languages are arranged to facilitate ease of articulation and perception. The explanatory force of phonological theory is greatly increased if it can directly access these research results. There are two formal mechanisms that together can facilitate the link-up of formal to functional work. As others have noted, Optimality Theory, with its emphasis on directly incorporating principles of markedness, can serve as part of the bridge. Another mechanism is proposed here: an algorithm for inductive grounding permits the language learner to access the knowledge gained from experience in articulation and perception, and form from it the appropriate set of formal phonological constraints. 1 I would like to thank Marco Baroni, Patricia Keating, Donca Steriade, and members of talk audiences at MIT, Arizona, Tilburg, Utrecht, Cornell, UC Santa Cruz, UCLA, and the Formalism/Functionalism conference for helpful input in the preparation of this paper. Phonetically-Driven Phonology p. 2 1. Phonological Functionalism The difference between formalist and functionalist approaches in linguistics has taken different forms in different areas. For phonology, and particularly for the study of fully- productive sound patterns, the functionalist approach has traditionally been phonetic in character. For some time, work in the phonetic literature, such as Ohala (1974, 1978, 1981, 1983), Ohala and OHALA (1993), Liljencrants and Lindblom (1972), Lindblom (1983, 1990), and Westbury and Keating (1986), has argued that the sound patterns of languages are effectively arranged to facilitate ease of articulation and distinctness of contrasting forms in perception.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers Treat Transparent and Opaque Alternation Patterns Differently — Evidence from Chinese Tone Sandhi*
    This is a printout of the final PDF file and has been approved by me, the author. Any mistakes in this printout will not be fixed by the publisher. Here is my signature and the date 06/10/2018 Speakers Treat Transparent and Opaque Alternation Patterns Differently — Evidence from Chinese Tone Sandhi* Jie Zhang 1. Introduction 1.1 Opacity The study of opacity has had a long tradition in generative phonology. Kiparsky (1973: p.79) defined two types of opacity for a phonological rule, as in (1). The first type is also known as underapplication opacity, and the opaque rule is non-surface-true; the second type is also known as overapplication opacity, and the opaque rule is non-surface-apparent (e.g., Bakovic 2007). (1) Opacity: A phonological rule P of the form A → B / C __ D is opaque if there are surface structures with any of the following characteristics: (a) Instance of A in the environment C __ D; (b) Instance of B derived by P in environments other than C __ D. In the rule-based framework, opacity can generally be derived by ordering the opaque rule before another rule that could either set up or destroy the application of the opaque rule (but see Bakovic 2007, 2011, who advocates the decoupling of opacity and rule ordering). In a surface-oriented theory like Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), however, opacity poses significant challenges. Without modification to the theory, neither underapplication nor overapplication opacity can be straightforwardly derived. A number of general solutions for opacity have been proposed within OT, including the Sympathy Theory (McCarthy 1999), Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000, Nazarov and Pater 2017), OT with Candidate Chains (OT-CC; McCarthy 2007), and Serial Markedness Reduction (Jarosz 2014, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory
    This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank Optimality Theory This is an introduction to Optimality Theory, the central idea of which is that surface forms of language reflect resolutions of conflicts be- tween competing constraints. A surface form is ‘optimal’ if it incurs the least serious violations of a set of constraints, taking into account their hierarchical ranking. Languages differ in the ranking of con- straints; and any violations must be minimal. The book does not limit its empirical scope to phonological phenomena, but also contains chapters on the learnability of OT grammars; OT’s implications for syntax; and other issues such as opacity. It also reviews in detail a selection of the considerable research output which OT has already produced. Exercises accompany chapters 1–7, and there are sections on further reading. Optimality Theory will be welcomed by any lin- guist with a basic knowledge of derivational Generative Phonology. RENÉ KAGER teaches linguistics at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. CAMBRIDGE TEXTBOOKS IN LINGUISTICS General editors: s. r. anderson, j. bresnan, b. comrie, w. dressler, c. ewen, r. huddleston, r. lass, d. lightfoot, j. lyons, p. h. matthews, r. posner, s. romaine, n. v. smith, n. vincent OPTIMALITY THEORY In this series p. h. matthews Morphology Second edition b. comrie Aspect r. m. kempson Semantic Theory t. bynon Historical Linguistics j. allwood, l.-g. anderson and ö . dahl Logic in Linguistics d. b. fry The Physics of Speech r. a. hudson Sociolinguistics Second edition a. j. elliott Child Language p. h. matthews Syntax a. radford Transformational Syntax l.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Optimality Theory? John J
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series Linguistics January 2007 What is Optimality Theory? John J. McCarthy University of Massachusetts, Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs Part of the Morphology Commons, Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons, and the Phonetics and Phonology Commons Recommended Citation McCarthy, John J., "What is Optimality Theory?" (2007). Language and Linguistics Compass. 93. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/93 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Linguistics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 What is Optimality Theory?1 John J. McCarthy University of Massachusetts Amherst Abstract. Optimality Theory is a general model of how grammars are structured. This article surveys the motivations for OT, its core principles, and the basics of analysis. It also addresses some frequently asked questions about this theory and offers suggestions for further reading. 1. Introduction In 1991, Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky began presenting their work on a new approach to language. By 1993, this new approach had a name — Optimality Theory — and it became known through their widely-circulated manuscript Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (hereafter, Prince and Smolensky (2004)). The impact of this work on the field of phonology was extensive and immediate; since 1993, it has also stimulated important research in syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, and other areas.
    [Show full text]
  • An Optimaility Theoretic Approach to Child Language Acquisition Colette Feehan University of Minnesota, [email protected]
    Linguistic Portfolios Volume 5 Article 3 2016 An Optimaility Theoretic Approach to Child Language Acquisition Colette Feehan University of Minnesota, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/stcloud_ling Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Feehan, Colette (2016) "An Optimaility Theoretic Approach to Child Language Acquisition," Linguistic Portfolios: Vol. 5 , Article 3. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/stcloud_ling/vol5/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistic Portfolios by an authorized editor of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Feehan: An Optimaility Theoretic Approach to Child Language Acquisition Linguistic Portfolios – Volume 5, 2016 | 15 AN OPTIMALITY THEORETIC APPROACH TO CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION COLETTE M. J. L. FEEHAN Abstract A central goal of linguistics is to develop models to account for how children acquire their native language. One study that has done this is Boersma, Escudero, and Hayes (2003). In this study, the authors developed a model using an Optimality Theoretic approach to account for the ways in which children acquire language and language specific F1 frequencies into phonetic categories. The model uses a set of Optimality Theoretic constraints whose rankings gradually change in response to the learner’s input. The way this model works, however, utilizes high- ranked discriminatory constraints in the initial state to produce movement in the Optimality Theory hierarchy. By taking this approach, it seems that the learner initially perceives incoming speech sounds as non-speech sounds and soon thereafter learns to categorize the sounds into the appropriate phonetic categories, resulting in language acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory in Morphology and Syntax Dieter Wunderlich (Berlin) Nov
    Optimality theory in morphology and syntax Dieter Wunderlich (Berlin) Nov. 2004 to appear in: Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics – 2nd edition, Oxford: Elsevier abstract: The article gives a brief summary of work dealing with morpho-syntactic phenomena in OT, and also addresses more general problems. It highlights on questions of optimal ordering, optimal case, and optimal agreeement, including phenomena such as morphological gaps, repairs and case-split. It finally addresses the concepts of stochastic OT and bidirectional OT. key words: bidirectional OT, candidate set, case-split, constraint-ranking, faithfulness, harmonic alignment, lexical marking, optimal agreement, optimal case, optimal word, optimality theory, parallel optimization, repair, serial optimization, stochastic OT 1. Some basic issues Optimality Theory (OT) has originally been developed for dealing with phonological problems, abandoning the assumption that grammatical constraints are inviolable (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy & Prince 1995). The fundamental new ideas have then soon been adopted in other grammatical domains, too, in syntax (Grimshaw 1997, Ackema & Neeleman 1998, Grimshaw & Samek-Lodovici 1998, Barbosa et al. 1998, Dekkers et al. 2000, Legendre et al. 2001) as well as in morphology (Legendre 2000, Wunderlich 2001). The main innovations of OT can be summarized as follows: (i) Grammatical constraints can conflict with each other and are violable under certain conditions (not inviolable, as assumed before). (ii) Grammatical constraints are ordered according to their respective weight (not equally ranked). (iii) Different rankings of constraints are responsible for differences between individual grammars or languages. (What was formerly conceived as grammatical parameters, is now reconstructed as constraints being differently ranked.) (iv) A construction is grammatical (not only by virtue of its own properties, or by virtue of its generative history, but rather) if it wins the competition in a candidate set, because it satisfies best the higher-ranked constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory Current Issues
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory S. J. Hannahs, Anna R. K. Bosch Current issues and directions in Optimality Theory Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315675428-3 Martin Krämer Published online on: 29 Dec 2017 How to cite :- Martin Krämer. 29 Dec 2017, Current issues and directions in Optimality Theory from: The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315675428-3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 Current issues and directions in Optimality Theory Constraints and their interaction Martin Krämer 3.1 Introduction The first manuscripts on Optimality Theory (henceforth OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004) were circulated in the early nineties, which is roughly a quarter of a century ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory
    This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank Optimality Theory This is an introduction to Optimality Theory, the central idea of which is that surface forms of language reflect resolutions of conflicts be- tween competing constraints. A surface form is ‘optimal’ if it incurs the least serious violations of a set of constraints, taking into account their hierarchical ranking. Languages differ in the ranking of con- straints; and any violations must be minimal. The book does not limit its empirical scope to phonological phenomena, but also contains chapters on the learnability of OT grammars; OT’s implications for syntax; and other issues such as opacity. It also reviews in detail a selection of the considerable research output which OT has already produced. Exercises accompany chapters 1–7, and there are sections on further reading. Optimality Theory will be welcomed by any lin- guist with a basic knowledge of derivational Generative Phonology. RENÉ KAGER teaches linguistics at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. CAMBRIDGE TEXTBOOKS IN LINGUISTICS General editors: s. r. anderson, j. bresnan, b. comrie, w. dressler, c. ewen, r. huddleston, r. lass, d. lightfoot, j. lyons, p. h. matthews, r. posner, s. romaine, n. v. smith, n. vincent OPTIMALITY THEORY In this series p. h. matthews Morphology Second edition b. comrie Aspect r. m. kempson Semantic Theory t. bynon Historical Linguistics j. allwood, l.-g. anderson and ö . dahl Logic in Linguistics d. b. fry The Physics of Speech r. a. hudson Sociolinguistics Second edition a. j. elliott Child Language p. h. matthews Syntax a. radford Transformational Syntax l.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality and Functionality: Objections and Refutations1
    Optimality and Functionality: Objections and Refutations1 Joan Bresnan (Stanford) and Judith Aissen (UCSC) To appear in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20.1 The Classical Generative View The classical generative theory of knowledge of language is that a speaker’s men- tal grammar is a pure combinatorial engine, blind to typology and resistant to grammar-external forces. It arises from domain-specific innate principles of UG, whose parametric variation becomes fixed upon exposure to a given linguistic experience. In this classical epistemology, markedness hierarchies such as the animacy hierarchy cannot play a role in the individual synchronic grammar of a present-day English speaker. These hierarchies are not universal; they are exception- ridden, both across languages and even within the individual languages where their effects sometimes appear. They also have no obvious structural basis in generative representations. Hence, they are regarded as at best vague tendencies reflecting scalar properties of human perception and cognition or socio-cultural categorizations, external to the specific domain of linguistic structure. Their ap- pearance in languages typologically distant from English (e.g. Lummi, Dyirbal, Navajo) shows merely that grammar-external forces may leave their marks upon languages historically. On this view, some of the grammatical structure found in existing languages may be the conventionalized residue of external pressures on historical change, which are no longer active synchronically. But present-day speakers have
    [Show full text]
  • EPENTHESIS, DELETION and the EMERGENCE of the OPTIMAL SYLLABLE in CREOLE July, 1999
    1 Birgit Alber Ingo Plag University of Marburg University of Hannover [email protected] [email protected] EPENTHESIS, DELETION AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE OPTIMAL SYLLABLE IN CREOLE July, 1999 Abstract One of the central problems in creole studies is the nature of the processes that are involved in creolization. This paper investigates this issue with regard to the restructuring of the syllable in the genesis of one English-based creole, Sranan. In the emergence of Sranan, as in that of many other creoles, we can observe the restructuring of syllables through epenthesis and deletion of segments. These processes are, however, not uniform. For example, in some environments (e.g. certain kinds of complex onsets) deletion is preferred (cf. strong > tranga), whereas in others epenthesis is preferred (e.g. in word- final position, as in walk > waka). The paper presents a systematic analysis of the two interrelated processes in optimality theoretic terms, showing that the observed phenomena can be accounted for in a unitary fashion by the complex interaction of violable ranked constraints. Based on this analysis, we answer the question which principles govern the development of syllable structure in creolization: universal preference laws, transfer from the substrate languages or superstratal influence? We argue that all three elements are important in the creation of the creole, but each of them in a different and very specific way. The superstrate provides the segmental material which the emerging creole tries to preserve faithfully, but universal preference laws disturb faithful copying of the superstrate system. This is possible because the substrate exerts its influence imposing a particular grammar - high ranked structural constraints and low ranked faithfulness constraints - on the creole.
    [Show full text]