Search

Highlights: [•] I discuss the question whether particular phonological units are innate or acquired. [•] I show that both markedness and faithfulness constraints can be acquired. [•] I integrate generative and usage-based approaches to language. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In languages like English, bare nominals are only used in special constructions, and they come with special meaning effects. This paper applies bidirectional Optimality Theory to explain why unmarked (articleless) forms have unmarked (stereotypical) meanings. The syntactic unmarkedness of bare nominals is embedded in a constraint-based typology of number, article use and referentiality. The semantic unmarkedness of the stereotypical interpretation falls out of the strongest meaning hypothesis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper provides two arguments that error-driven constraint-based grammars should not be learned by directly mirroring the frequency of constraint violation and satisfaction in the target words of a language. The first argument comes from a class of stages attested in phonological development, called Intermediate Faith (IF) stages, in which children produce marked structures only in privileged positions. Two such stages are presented and analyzed, from the literature on English and French L1 acquisition, and their learning consequences are examined. The second argument concerns the degree of restrictiveness that a learner's end-state grammar encodes, using two hypothetical interactions between learner's assumptions about hidden structure and developing constraint rankings that can trick a learner into adopting a superset grammar. These two arguments are used to support an approach called Error-Selective Learning (ESL), in which errors are learned and stored gradually, in a way that relies on violation frequency, but rankings themselves are learned in a non-gradual way (relying on the algorithms of ). It is also shown that violation frequencies can still cause problems regardless of a learner's method of grammatical evaluation—either ranked constraints as in Optimality Theory, or weighted constraints as in Harmonic Grammar. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Experimental evidence suggests that syllable-final devoicing is often ‘incomplete’: devoiced obstruents are phonetically subtly different from underlyingly voiceless ones, and speakers are sensitive to these differences. While it has been suggested in the literature that these results cause severe problems to formal theories of phonology, this article argues that we only need a three-way distinction at the end of the phonological derivation between voiced, voiceless and devoiced. It is shown how this distinction follows naturally from a Containment-based view of input–output relations within the framework of Optimality Theory. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article investigates the learnability filter (LF) hypothesis, according to which the set of logically possible grammars predicted by linguistic theory is reduced to a proper subset of learnable grammars by external principles of language learning. Antifaithfulness constraints (Alderete, 2001a) provide a linguistic theory that predicts the existence of circular chain shifts of two segment types, including purely phonological exchanges that are unattested cross-linguistically (Anderson and Browne, 1973). Overt data representing such systems are fed into a standard OT learning model in which learners have IO-antifaithfulness constraints at their disposal. Despite this evidence and these constraints, learners always select grammars in which segmental exchanges are restricted to morphologically defined environments, consistent with typological findings. These results are shown to have implications for the nature of constraints in Optimality Theory, the correct analysis of morpho-phonological alternations, and a host of representational assumptions in phonology and morphology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We will provide a bidirectional Optimality Theoretic approach for fluid differential case marking, in particular fluid differential subject marking. Our claim is that although there is no fixed meaning associated with any particular type of case, a correspondence constraint between volitional meaning and ergative case interacts with markedness constraints and this interaction may result in fluid differential case marking. Thus, fluid differential subject marking is analysed as the emergence of the correspondence between volitional meaning and ergative case in a bidirectional process of optimization. We will argue that this type of differential case marking cannot be adequately explained in unidirectional OT syntax. In a bidirectional perspective, however, fluid differential case marking can be analysed on the basis of the same set of ranked constraints that accounts for the general pattern of case marking. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Languages appear to differ in the locality conditions that regulate nominative Case checking: a dative or ergative subject blocks nominative checking of an object in Faroese and Nez Perce, but not in Icelandic or Hindi. Languages also differ in the effect that object shift has on subject Case: object shift has no effect on subject Case in Icelandic, but causes ergative Case to appear on the subject in Nez Perce. These superficially unrelated effects follow if one violable locality constraint is added to the small set of Case faithfulness and markedness constraints within Optimality Theory. This locality constraint, Pure Domain, requires that the checking domain of a head contain only Cases checked by that head. Differences in the relative rank of Pure Domain with respect to Case faithfulness and markedness constraints produces the cross-linguistic variation noted above. This domain approach to Case locality captures the standard notion that a closer DP can interfere with the checking of a further DP, but it also captures the fact that a further DP can interfere with the checking of a closer DP, if that further DP is close enough, a situation that arises with object shift. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This brief introduction to the volume compares models of grammaticality based on the simultaneous satisfaction of all UG constraints (e.g. Principles and Parameters, Minimalism) with models based on constraint conflict (e.g. Optimality Theory). It examines the consequences that these alternative definitions have on the analysis of crosslinguistic variation, economy of movement, and the conflict between economy of movement and economy of structure. In particular it shows how the desire to keep a simple definition of grammaticality (i.e. one based on simultaneous constraint satisfaction) is paid by the hidden complexity of economy principles and the theory-internal split separating the theoretical components addressing variation from those addressing linguistic universals, making variation accidental. In contrast, defining grammaticality on the base of constraint conflict roots variation into UG while keeping constraint complexity at check. A brief survey of the articles collected in this volume completes this introduction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper examines morphophonological alternations involving apicoalveolar tap-consonant clusters in Urban East Norwegian from the framework of gestural Optimality Theory. Articulatory Phonology provides an insightful explanation of patterns of vowel intrusion, coalescence, and rhotic deletion in terms of the temporal coordination of consonantal gestures, which interacts with both prosodic and morphological structure. An alignment-based account of derived-environment effects is proposed in which complete overlap in rhotic-consonant clusters is blocked within morphemes but not across morpheme or word boundaries. Alignment constraints on gestural coordination also play a role in phonologically conditioned allomorphy. The gestural analysis is contrasted with alternative Optimality-theoretic accounts. Furthermore, it is argued that models of the phonetics–phonology interface which view timing as a low-level detail of phonetic implementation incorrectly predict that input morphological structure should have no effect on gestural coordination. The patterning of rhotic-consonant clusters in Norwegian is consistent with a model that includes gestural representations and constraints directly in the phonological grammar, where underlying morphological structure is still visible. On the assumption that Universal Grammar lacks faithfulness constraints on input timing, the phonology is free to include non-contrastive phonetic detail such as intersegmental gestural coordination without the danger of overgenerating impossible contrasts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Phonologically conditioned allomorphy is sometimes determined by universal marking conditions derived from low-ranked constraints, which is viewed as an effect of the emergence of the unmarked (TETU) in optimality theory. In this paper we present two case studies that make crucial use of allomorph selection as TETU but also of an additional property of the lexical representation of allomorphs, namely lexical ordering of allomorphs. The first case is the puzzling selection of definite marker in Haitian Creole (analyzed as an instance of anti-markedness in previous OT works), which yields to an appropriate analysis in terms of allomorph ordering. In the second case study, gender allomorph selection in Catalan, we propose a constraint Respect that ensures compliance with idiosyncratic lexical specifications, which further interacts with allomorph selection. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: One of the most important insights of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993) is that phonological processes can be reduced to the interaction between faithfulness and universal markedness principles. In the most constrained version of the theory, all phonological processes should be thus reducible. This hypothesis is tested by alternations that appear to be phonological but in which universal markedness principles appear to play no role. If we are to pursue the claim that all phonological processes depend on the interaction of faithfulness and markedness, then processes that are not dependent on markedness must lie outside phonology. In this paper I will examine a group of such processes, the initial consonant mutations of the Celtic languages, and argue that they belong entirely to the morphology of the languages, not the phonology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article adopts the perspective of Optimality Theory (OT) to address the question whether phonology and syntax are equally autonomous. We show that OT enjoys the same advantages and encounters the same problems in syntax as in phonology; this suggests that markedness plays an equally important rôle in both components of language. Most markedness constraints, however, are clearly grounded: although they refer to specifically linguistic categories (self-containment), they typically display some degree of functional adaptation to the demands of performance (nonarbitrariness). In consequence, phonology and syntax should be expected to be grounded to a similar degree. Pace, however, the postulation of grounded markedness constraints in the theory of grammar does not violate Ockham''s Razor. In particular, we show that markedness cannot be equated with performance difficulty, and we demonstrate that infants require knowledge of markedness during language acquisition in order to transcend the limitations of inductive generalization. However, this does not necessarily imply that knowledge of markedness is innate; we argue, rather, that most markedness constraints may in fact emerge in the course of linguistic development through the child''s monitoring of her own performance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this paper, we propose a derivational mode of interface, in which syntax feeds phonology and second position effects are accounted for without employing movement in the PF. More specifically, we claim that a phonology-controlled optimization procedure is responsible for second position clitic effects in Cypriot, Silli and Cappadocian. The syntax provides pairs of equally well-formed syntactic structures where the clitic is placed both before and after its verbal host, and the phonology picks up the ‘optimal’ one. As a consequence, the prosodic system that determines how clitics are to be incorporated in the prosodic structure, i.e. prosodic word or phonological phrase, also selects where a clitic will surface. A welcome result of the present proposal is that the ‘special’ position of clitics is not a lexical property of a group of clitics anymore nor the result of parochial alignment constraints, but the outcome of the grammar, i.e. constraint ranking. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

One of the current debates within Optimality Theory is whether sequences are derived serially (cyclically or in strata) or in a parallel fashion. In this paper we describe two different types of domain effects found in the phonology of pronominal clitics in Catalan (Barcelona variety), and demonstrate that any type of serial analysis runs into problems, while a parallel analysis is fairly straightforward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

0It is one of the most basic generalizations in phonology that only certain sets of sounds pattern together in phonological processes. These sets are referred to as natural classes. This paper develops a new analysis of the natural class generalization, formulated in terms of Optimality Theory. It is shown that natural classes derive from the nature of the set of markedness constraints. For example, sounds can pattern together as a natural class if they violate markedness constraints in the same environment, so given constraints *XA and *XB A and B can form a natural class. As a result the range of possible natural classes depends on the inventory of constraints, not on the feature set. This analysis is shown to have empirical advantages over the standard account according to which natural classes are characterized purely in terms of features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Optimality Theory, the phonological grammar of each language is a particular ranking of a set of constraints CoN [Prince and Smolensky, Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder. Rutgers Optimality Archive (http://roa.rutgers.edu), ROA-537]. An understanding of universal grammar therefore requires an understanding of the nature of CoN. Several researchers have argued that CON is systematically structured; in particular, that formally similar constraints should be modeled as specific instantiations of a general schema, such as the Generalized Alignment schema [Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (1993) 79]. One advantage of a schema-based approach to CoN is that the formulation of each individual constraint is compositional, determined by the combination of the general schema (a function) with the specific phonological elements involved in each constraint (arguments of the function). This paper examines the formal structure of positional constraints—constraints that are relativized to certain phonological positions, such as stressed syllables or released consonants. Positional constraints are systematically related both to the general (non-positional) constraints on which they are based, and to other positional constraints for the same position. Therefore, these relationships should be formally captured with a compositional constraint schema. The focus here is on one particular set of positional constraints, the positional augmentation constraints (markedness constraints relativized to phonologically prominent positions). A compositional constraint schema is developed that is flexible enough to extend to the many different kinds of positions and constraints involved in positional augmentation, while still determining precisely how the formulation of each general constraint is to be modified in its positional counterpart. Implications of the approach for another set of positional constraints, the positional faithfulness constraints, are also considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores a theory of the meaning-form relation based on ranked and violable constraints [A. Prince, P. Smolensky, 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder], using the English genitive construction as a testing ground. Our main thesis is that partially ordered optimality-theoretic grammars allow us to relate four apparently independent empirical phenomena: (i) categorical grammaticality contrasts; (ii) variation and preferences in expression; (iii) ambiguity and preferences in interpretation; (iv) lexical organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this introductory article is to provide a background to the articles contained in this special issue of Lingua that centers around variation in form, variation in meaning, and markedness. Theoretical and empirical considerations are brought together in this special issue in which the linguistic disciplines that are covered diverge. The different contributions deal with language processing, first language acquisition, language contact, functional-typology and generative morphology and syntax. Several papers in this special issue argue in favour of an Optimality Theoretic analysis of the data under discussion. This is not a coincidence, given that Optimality Theory is claimed to be a formal theory of markedness (cf. Gilbers and De Hoop, 1998, Lingua, 104, 1 for an introduction to OT). In Section 1, we present two hypotheses dealing with the relation between variation in form and variation in meaning. We discuss several dimensions along which markedness of forms and meanings can be measured in Section 2. In the final section we discuss the possibility that the concept of bidirectional optimization accounts for markedness as well as variation in form versus variation in meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]