DOCSLIB.ORG

Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction John J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction John J University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series Linguistics January 1993 Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction John J. McCarthy University of Massachusetts, Amherst, [email protected] Alan Prince 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. and Prince, Alan, "Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction" (1993). Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. 14. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/14 This Book 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]. Prosodic Morphology Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction John J. McCarthy Alan Prince University of Massachusetts, Amherst Rutgers University Copyright © 1993, 2001 by John J. McCarthy and Alan Prince. Permission is hereby granted by the authors to reproduce this document, in whole or in part, for personal use, for instruction, or for any other non-commercial purpose. Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................... v Introduction to ROA Version, November 2001 .................................. vii 1. Introduction ............................................................ 1 2. Optimality Theory ....................................................... 5 2.1 Ranking ........................................................ 7 2.2 Syllable Theory ................................................. 14 2.3 Gen and Linguistic Structural Assumptions ........................... 21 3. The Stratal Organization of Axininca Campa Morphology ....................... 25 4. The Prosodic Phonology of Axininca Campa ................................. 29 4.1 Basic Syllable Structure I: CODA-COND .............................. 29 4.2 Syllable Structure II: ONSET, ALIGN-L, and ALIGN ...................... 32 4.3 Augmentation and Alignment ...................................... 45 4.3.1 The Prosodic Theory of Minimality .......................... 45 4.3.2 ALIGN and ALIGN-L...................................... 48 4.3.3 SFX-TO-PRWD: The Source of Augmentation .................. 53 4.4 Summary of Prosodic Phonology .................................... 59 5. The Prosodic Morphology of Axininca Campa ................................ 63 5.1 Overview ...................................................... 63 5.2 General Properties of Reduplication: Unprefixed Roots .................. 65 5.3 Morphological Integrity and Phonological Size: Prefixed Stems ........... 80 5.4 Reduplicative Compounding ....................................... 89 5.5 Constraints on the Reduplicant ..................................... 98 6. Comparison with Other Analyses of Axininca Campa Reduplication ............. 101 7. Prosody >> Morphology: Constraint Interaction in Prosodic Morphology .......... 109 7.1 Introduction ................................................... 109 7.2 Standard Prosodic Morphology Revisited ............................ 111 7.3 Prosodic Morphology Without Circumscription or Templates ............ 123 7.4 Templates and Template Satisfaction ............................... 145 8. Conclusion........................................................... 153 Appendix: Stress and Velar Glide Loss....................................... 155 A.1. Word-level Phonology .......................................... 155 A.2. Stress and Related Phenomena ................................... 159 A.3. Velar Glide Loss .............................................. 170 References ............................................................. 185 Acknowledgments We are grateful to Paul Smolensky for wide-ranging discussion of many key theoretical points; to Robert Kirchner and Lisa Selkirk for discussion of related issues; to Henrietta Hung and Suzanne Urbanczyk for a thorough reading of an early draft of this work, and to Laura Walsh and Zvi Gilbert for an equally thorough reading of the final draft; to Vieri Samek-Lodovici and Cheryl Zoll and to Paula Baird, Mary Clark, Amalia Gnanadesikan, Jóhannes Jónsson, Sam Rosenthall, Tim Sherer, Laura Walsh, and Draga Zec for comments on preliminary versions of the analysis; and to Junko Ito, Armin Mester, and Jaye Padgett for a careful critique of an oral presentation. We are also indebted to audiences at Brandeis University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Rutgers University, the University of Pennsylvania, UC Santa Cruz, and University of Wisconsin, especially to Akin Akinlabi, Andy Black, Jonathan Bobaljik, Gene Buckley, Tony Bures, Andrea Calabrese, Jill Carrier-Duncan, Abby Cohn, Beverley Goodman, Tom Green, Jane Grimshaw, Morris Halle, Bill Idsardi, Greg Iverson, Michael Kenstowicz, Paul Kiparsky, Tony Kroch, William Labov, Mark Liberman, Brian McHugh, Marcy Macken, Ad Neeleman, Rolf Noyer, Mark Steedman, and Irene Vogel. Neither jointly nor severally should these individuals be held responsible for our errors. We welcome correspondence on all matters related to this work, which we request be addressed to both authors: John J. McCarthy Dept. of Linguistics UMass Amherst, MA 01003 USA [email protected] Alan Prince Dept. of Linguistics Rutgers University 18 Seminary Place New Brunswick NJ 08901 [email protected] v Introduction to ROA Version, November 2001 This document was originally circulated in April 1993 and has been available as Technical Report #3 of the Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. The current version is essentially identical to RuCCS-TR-3, with a few minor corrections. These prefatory remarks offer a brief orientation to the principal themes of the work and pointers to some of the literature that carries them forward. A central formal development is the notion of correspondence (see page 67). Originally proposed as a relation between a stem and the reduplicative affix attached to it, correspondence has been extended to provide a general basis for faithfulness theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995, 1999). Other works containing significant applications or extensions of correspondence theory include — but are by no means limited to — Alderete (1998, 2001a, 2001b), Beckman (1995, 1997, 1998), Benua (1997), Bresnan (to appear), Broselow (2001), Burzio (1997), Casali (1996, 1997), Causley (1997, 1999), Crosswhite (1998), de Lacy (1999b, 1999c), de Lacy and Kitto (1999), Hume (1998), Ito, Kitagawa, and Mester (1996), Ito and Mester (1997, 1999), Keer (1999), Lamontagne and Rice (1995), Orgun (1996a), Rose and Walker (2001), Spaelti (1997), Struijke (1998, 2000a, 2000b), Urbanczyk (1996), Woolford (2001a), and Zoll (1996). Another theme is the importance of constraints on the alignment of prosodic and morphological constituents (see §§4.2, 4.3). The original idea comes from Prince and Smolensky (1991), building on the edge-based theory of Chen (1987) and Selkirk (1986). Alignment is formalized and various applications are presented in McCarthy and Prince (1993). Further applications and refinements in phonology have been numerous; Kager (1999: 117-124) provides a useful and accessible overview. Outside phonology proper, alignment has also been applied to the phonology/syntax interface (Selkirk 1995, Truckenbrodt 1995), to focus (Choi 1996, 2001, Costa 1998, 2001, Grimshaw and Samek-Lodovici 1995, Samek-Lodovici 1996, 1998), and to various syntactic phenomena, especially the basic theory of phrase structure (Grimshaw 2001b) and clitics (Anderson 1996a, 1996b, 2000, Grimshaw 2001a, Legendre 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, Peperkamp 1997, van der Leeuw 1997, Woolford 2001b). Chapter 3 and the Appendix introduce the idea of stratal organization in OT. Each stratum is a distinct OT grammar — that is, it is a distinct ranking of the constraints of UG. (See pp. 167ff. for discussion of some possible limits on how strata can differ.) Like the strata of Lexical Phonology, these strata are linked to the morphological system, but the OT strata consist of constraint hierarchies rather than rules, with the output of one stratum submitted as input to the next. Stratal OT receives further study in the following works, among others: Black (1993), Bermúdez-Otero (1999), Cohn and McCarthy (1994/1998), Hale and Kissock (1998), Hale, Kissock, and Reiss (1998), Ito and Mester (2002), Kenstowicz (1995), Kiparsky (2002a, 2002b), McCarthy (2000b), Potter (1994), Rubach (2000), and many of the contributions to Hermans and van Oostendorp (1999) and Roca (1997). For alternative approaches to some of the phenomena taken to motivate stratal OT, see Archangeli and Suzuki (1997), Benua (1997), Burzio (1994), Crosswhite (1998), Ito, Kitagawa, and Mester (1996), Ito and Mester (1997), Kager (1997), Kenstowicz (1996, 1997), Kraska-Szlenk (1995), McCarthy (1999, 2002), and Orgun (1996). Chapters 5 and 7 work deal primarily with the theory of templates. The theme here is using the interactive character of Optimality Theory, rather than parochial stipulation, to derive predictions about the range of possible linguistic patterns. These chapters present our initial efforts toward the elimination of prosodic templates as primitives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paul Smolensky
    Vita PAUL SMOLENSKY Department of Cognitive Science 11824 Mays Chapel Road 239A Krieger Hall Timonium, MD 21093-1821 Johns Hopkins University (667) 229-9509 Baltimore, MD 21218-2685 May 5, 1955 (410) 516-5331 Citizenship: USA [email protected] cogsci.jhu.edu/directory/paul-smolensky/ DEGREES Ph.D. in mathematical physics, Indiana University, 1981. M.S. in physics, Indiana University, 1977. A.B. summa cum laude in physics, Harvard University, 1976. PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS Partner Researcher, Microsoft Research Artificial Intelligence, Redmond WA, Dec. 2016−present. Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, 2006–present. Full Professor, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, 1994–2006. Chair, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Jan. 1997−June 1998 (Acting), July 1998−June 2000 Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Full Professor, 1994–95 (on leave, 1994–95). Associate Professor, 1990–94. Assistant Professor, 1985–90. Assistant Research Cognitive Scientist (Assistant Professor – Research), Institute for Cognitive Science, University of California at San Diego, 1982–85. Visiting Scholar, Program in Cognitive Science, University of California at San Diego, 1981–82. Adjunct Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland at College Park, 1994–2010. Assistant Director, Center for Language and Speech Processing, Johns Hopkins University, 1995–2008. Director, NSF IGERT Training Program, Unifying the Science of Language, 2006−2015. Director, NSF IGERT Training Program in the Cognitive Science of Language, 1999−2006. International Chair, Inria Paris (National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation), 2017−2021. Visiting Scientist, Inserm-CEA Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, NeuroSpin Center, Paris, France, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Finding the Right Words Bíró, Tamás Sándor
    University of Groningen Finding the right words Bíró, Tamás Sándor IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2006 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Bíró, T. S. (2006). Finding the right words: implementing optimality theory with simulated annealing. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 29-09-2021 Bibliography Arto Anttila. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20:1{42, 2002. Also: ROA-425.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Alignment John J
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series Linguistics January 1993 Generalized alignment John J. McCarthy University of Massachusetts, Amherst, [email protected] Alan Prince 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. and Prince, Alan, "Generalized alignment" (1993). Yearbook of Morphology. 12. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/12 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]. Generalized Alignment* John J. McCarthy Alan S. Prince University of Massachusetts, Amherst Rutgers University §1. Introduction Overt or covert reference to the edges of constituents is a commonplace throughout phonology and morphology. Some examples include: •In English, Garawa, Indonesian and a number of other languages, the normal right-to-left alternation of stress is interrupted word-initially: (1) Initial Secondary Stress in English (Tàta)ma(góuchee) *Ta(tàma)(góuchee) (Lùxi)pa(lílla) *Lu(xìpa)(lílla) As the foot-brackets ( ) indicate, the favored outcome is one in which
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking and Necessity
    Ranking and Necessity Part I: The Fusional Reduction Algorithm ● 12-16-2005 ● Adrian Brasoveanu and Alan Prince Department of Linguistics Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University, New Brunswick ABSTRACT Understanding a linguistic theory within OT requires an exact characterization of the ranking conditions necessitated by data. We describe (Part I) and justify (Part II) an algorithm which calculates the necessary and sufficient ranking conditions inherent in any collection of candidates and presents them in a maximally concise and informative way. The algorithm, stemming from the original proposal of Brasoveanu 2003, develops in the setting of the fusional ERC theory of Prince 2002. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors, whose names are arranged alphabetically, would like to thank Jane Grimshaw, Naz Merchant, Paul Smolensky, and Bruce Tesar for useful discussion; and, for helpful comments, audiences at the Rutgers Optimality Research Group (April 2004, Nov. 2005), HUMDRUM (May 2004), and the LSA 2005 Summer Institute. For support during aspects of the investigation, we thank the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BCS-0083101), and the National Institutes of Health (NRSA Training Grant No. 1-T32-MH-19975-05). The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of the National Institutes of Health. The authors also claim responsibility for any errors, omissions, misprisions, or infelicities that may have crept into the text. Ranking and Necessity Part I 1. Beyond the Sufficient………………………………………………………………..3 2. The Consequences of Comparison………………………………………………..6 2.1 The Elementary Ranking Condition……………………………………..6 2.2 Informativeness……………………………………………………………9 2.3 ERCs and Consequences………………………………………………12 2.4 Remark on the Logical Background…………………………………...23 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Name Here
    THE HISTORY OF THE FUTURE: MORPHOPHONOLOGY, SYNTAX, AND GRAMMATICALIZATION by LAMAR ASHLEY GRAHAM (Under the Direction of L. Chadwick Howe) ABSTRACT The appearance of new verbal paradigms in the Romance languages – namely, the synthetic future indicative and conditional paradigms – has been one of the hallmark studies within the field of grammaticalization. Already existing in Latin was a synthetic future indicative paradigm, with a full complement of endings. Many researchers (Garey 1955; Hopper and Traugott 2003; Slobbe 2004; among others) have agreed that the infinitive + HABĒRE construction was the genesis of Romance future paradigms, obviating and completely replacing the disfavored Latin synthetic future. However, even after Latin evolved into Spanish, there still existed a duality between a periphrastic, analytic future and a paradigmatic, synthetic future. Said duality implied several syntactic and morphophonological characteristics of Old and Classical Spanish, some of which are no longer extant in the modern language. Through an empirical study, employing variable rules analyses, of Old and Classical Spanish texts, it is shown that the synthetic and analytic future and conditional were not always fully complementary of another, as the synthetic began to be used in contexts customarily reserved for the analytic construction. Within this work it will be shown how morphophonological and syntactic properties necessitated the existence of the analytic construction, especially the status of the auxiliary-turned-affix-turned- inflectional ending haber. Also of interest will be the manner in which the future and conditional paradigms derived syntactically in Old and Classical Spanish, with special attention lent to the role of cliticization principles in their structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture No .7 30Th March 2020 Word Formation Processes
    جامعة المنيا، كلية اﻷلسن ,Mini University, Faculty of Alsun علم الصرف ، الفرقة الثانية، Morphology , Second Year ,2020 0202 المحاضر د.إيمان العيسوى Instructor Dr Eman Elesawy Lecture no .7 30th March 2020 Word Formation Processes/ Part 3 Aims: 1.To know word formation processes and their role in enriching language vocabulary 2.To be able to judge on the word-formation process used in creating words. Main Points Word-formation processes: Are specific techniques used by language users to add new vocabulary items to their language. These processes are similar between languages, still some languages might have other processes/resources than others. In this lecture we are going to discuss four of these processes, namely, derivation, reduplication and folk etymology. 1. What is derivation? When small bits, affixes, are added to a word. There are three types. Prefixes:added before the word, e.g. Mis-, un-, pre- Suffixes:added after the word, e.g.-less, -full, -ish, -ness (foolishness hence has two suffixes) Infixes:added in the middle of the word,e.g. -bloody-, -goddam- جامعة المنيا، كلية اﻷلسن ,Mini University, Faculty of Alsun علم الصرف ، الفرقة الثانية، Morphology , Second Year ,2020 0202 المحاضر د.إيمان العيسوى Instructor Dr Eman Elesawy 2. What is Reduplication: Reduplication is sometimes called rhyming compounds (subtype of compounds) These words are compounded from two rhyming words. Examples: lovey-dovey chiller-killer There are words that are formally very similar to rhyming compounds, but are not quite compounds in English because the second element is not really a word--it is just a nonsense item added to a root word to form a rhyme.
    [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]
  • Kenstowicz's "Paradigmatic Uniformity and Contrast"
    Paradigmatic Uniformity and Contrast∗ Michael Kenstowicz Massachusetts Institute of Technology This paper reviews several cases where either the grammar strives to maintain the same output shape for pairs of inflected words that the regular phonology should otherwise drive apart (paradigmatic uniformity) or where the grammar strives to keep apart pairs of inflected words that the regular phonology threatens to merge (paradigmatic contrast). 1. Introduction The general research question which this paper addresses is the proper treatment of cases of opacity in which the triggering or blocking context for a phonological process is found in a paradigmatically related word. Chomsky & Halle's (1968) discussion of the minimal pair comp[´]nsation vs. cond[E]nsation is a classic example of the problem. In general, the contrast between a full vowel vs. schwa is predictable in English as a function of stress; but comp[´]nsation vs. ∗ An initial version of this paper was read at the Harvard-MIT Phonology 2000 Conference (May 1999); a later version was delivered at the 3èmes Journées Internationales du GDR Phonologie, University of Nantes (June 2001). I thank the editors as well as François Dell and Donca Steriade for helpful comments. 2 cond[E]nsation have the same σ` σ ´σ σ stress contour and thus raise the question whether English schwa is phonemic after all. SPE's insight was that the morphological bases from which these words are derived provide a solution to the problem: comp[´]nsate has a schwa while cond[E@]nse has a full stressed vowel. Chomsky and Halle's suggestion is that such paradigmatic relations among words can be described by embedding the derivation of one inside the derivation of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Structure in Focus
    Last Resorts and Grammaticality* Jane Grimshaw Rutgers University A “last resort” is argued to be nothing more than a winning, i.e. grammatical form, once it is understood in terms of competition between alternative candidates. It is a theorem of OT that we find last resort effects, since it follows from the nature of competition and constraint interaction. Economy, Optimality Theory, Competition 1 Introduction Every winning candidate (grammatical output) is a last resort under OT. It is the best one (or within the set of the best ones) left after the impossible have been eliminated: the last one standing. I will refer to the observation that grammatical structures have a last resort appearance as the Last Resort (LR) effect. The LR effect is a theorem of OT. There is no “Last Resort” principle or constraint. There are no stipulations that a particular process or structure is possible only as a last resort. The LR effect follows from the very theory of competition and constraint interaction that determines grammatical well-formedness. At the heart of OT (Prince and Smolensky1993/2002, 2004) is a principle which chooses an optimum among a set of competitors which do not violate the same constraints. Other components of OT, in particular GEN, the set of * Thanks, as always, to Alan Prince, Vieri Samek-Lodovici, Roger Schwarzschild and Sten Vikner. Linguistics in Potsdam 25 (2006): 33–41 Hans Broekhuis and Ralf vogel (eds.): Optimality Theory and Minimalism: A Possible Convergence? ©2006 Jane Grimshaw 34 Jane Grimshaw constraints, and the nature of inputs, are to be studied empirically, under the logical structure imposed by this model of optimization.
    [Show full text]
  • John J. Mccarthy May, 2008 Department of Linguistics Jmccarthy
    John J. McCarthy May, 2008 Department of Linguistics [email protected] South College http://people.umass.edu/jjmccart/ University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413)545-6830 (voice) (413)545-2792 (fax) Education A.B. 1975 summa cum laude (linguistics and Near Eastern languages), Harvard College. Ph.D. 1979 Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Current Position Distinguished University Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Professional Experience University of Massachusetts Amherst. Distinguished Professor, 2007B. Professor, 1989B2007. Head of Department, 1993B96. Associate Professor (with tenure), 1985B89. Instructor, Linguistic Society of America Summer Institutes: Stanford University 1987; University of California, Santa Cruz 1991; Cornell University 1997; MIT 2005. AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey. Consultant to Department of Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence Research, 1984B86. University of Texas at Austin. Assistant professor, 1979B84. Associate professor (with tenure), 1984B85. Honors & Awards Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005B. Award for Outstanding Accomplishments in Research and Creative Activity, 2005. Chancellor=s Medal and Distinguished Faculty Lecture, 2004. College Outstanding Teacher Award, 1995. Lansdowne Visiting Scholar, University of Victoria, 1994. Guggenheim Fellowship, 1992. President, Arabic Linguistics Society, 1989B90. (Vice-President, 1988B89) University of Massachusetts Faculty Fellowship, 1997B8. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship,
    [Show full text]
  • Lightest to the Right: an Apparently Anomalous Displacement in Irish Ryan Bennett Emily Elfner James Mccloskey
    Lightest to the Right: An Apparently Anomalous Displacement in Irish Ryan Bennett Emily Elfner James McCloskey This article analyzes mismatches between syntactic and prosodic con- stituency in Irish and attempts to understand those mismatches in terms of recent proposals about the nature of the syntax-prosody interface. It argues in particular that such mismatches are best understood in terms of Selkirk’s (2011) Match Theory, working in concert with con- straints concerned with rhythm and phonological balance. An appar- ently anomalous rightward movement that seems to target certain pronouns and shift them rightward is shown to be fundamentally a phonological process: a prosodic response to a prosodic dilemma. The article thereby adds to a growing body of evidence for the role of phonological factors in shaping constituent order. Keywords: syntax, prosody, VSO order, rightward movement, weak pronouns, prosodic displacement 1 Introduction What are the mechanisms that shape word order in natural language? A traditional and still widely favored answer to that question is that syntax has exclusive responsibility in this domain; in some traditions of investigation, in fact, syntax just is the study of word order. More recently the possibility has emerged, though, that word order is determined postsyntactically, in the process of what Berwick and Chomsky (2011) call ‘‘externalization’’—the translation of the hierarchical and recursive representations characteristic of syntax and semantics into the kinds of serial repre- sentations that the sensorimotor systems can manipulate. Given that overall conception, it is natural that some aspects of constituent order should be shaped by demands particular to phonology, and in recent years there have been many studies arguing for the role of phonology in shaping word The research reported on here has its origins in the meetings of the Prosody Interest Group at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Show full text]
  • Learnability in Optimality Theory Bruce Tesar Paul Smolensky
    Learnability in Optimality Theory Bruce Tesar Paul Smolensky In this article we show how Optimality Theory yields a highly general Constraint Demotion principle for grammar learning. The resulting learning procedure specifically exploits the grammatical structure of Optimality Theory, independent of the content of substantive con- straints defining any given grammatical module. We decompose the learning problem and present formal results for a central subproblem, deducing the constraint ranking particular to a target language, given structural descriptions of positive examples. The structure imposed on the space of possible grammars by Optimality Theory allows efficient convergence to a correct grammar. We discuss implications for learn- ing from overt data only, as well as other learning issues. We argue that Optimality Theory promotes confluence of the demands of more effective learnability and deeper linguistic explanation. Keywords: Optimality Theory, learning, acquisition, computational linguistics How exactly does a theory of grammar bear on questions of learnability? Restrictions on what counts as a possible human language can restrict the learner's search space. But this is a coarse observation: alone it says nothing about how data may be brought to bear on the problem, and further, the number of possible languages predicted by most linguistic theories is extremely large.1 It would clearly be a desirable result if the nature of the restrictions imposed by a theory of grammar could contribute further to language learnability. The central claim of this article is that the character of the restrictions imposed by Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1991, 1993) have demonstrable and significant consequences for central questions of learnability.
    [Show full text]