1 / 6

Constraint Interaction II: OT

Constraint Interaction II: OT. Strict domination “Grammars can’t count”. Stress is on the initial heavy syllable iff the number of light syllables n obeys. No way. Constraint Interaction II: OT. Constraint interaction: Strict domination Constraints are universal

inga-summers
Download Presentation

Constraint Interaction II: OT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constraint Interaction II: OT • Strict domination • “Grammars can’t count” • Stress is on the initial heavy syllable iff the number of light syllables n obeys No way University of Amsterdam

  2. Constraint Interaction II: OT • Constraint interaction: Strict domination • Constraints are universal • Human grammars differ only in how these constraints are ranked • ‘factorial typology’ • NOCODA, ONSET, …  syllable typology • First true contender for a formal theory of cross-linguistic typology University of Amsterdam

  3. Optimality Theory • Applied to many linguistic phenomena • Phonology(Prince & Smolensky ‘93/ ‘02, Boersma ‘98, Kager ‘99, McCarthy ‘02, …) • Syntax(Legendre, Vikner & Grimshaw ‘01; Ackema, Aissen, Bresnan,, …) • Semantics/Pragmatics(Hendriks, de Hoop & de Swart ‘00, Blutner, Zeevat, …) • Learning(Tesar & Smolensky 00, Boersma, Prince; Fikkert, Levelt, …) • http://rutgers.roa.edu University of Amsterdam

  4. OT’s Faithfulness / Markedness Dialectic • ‘cat’: /kat/  kæt*NOCODA— why? • FAITHFULNESSrequires identity • MARKEDNESS often opposes it • Markedness-Faithfulness dialectic diversity • English: FAITH≫ NOCODA • Polynesian: NOCODA≫ FAITH(~French) • Learning? • Another markedness constraint M: • Nasal Place Agreement [‘Assimilation’] (NPA): mb ≻nb, ŋb nd ≻ md, ŋd ŋg ≻ŋb, ŋd labial coronal velar University of Amsterdam

  5. OT from Markedness Theory • MARKEDNESSconstraints: *α: No α • FAITHFULNESS constraints • Fα demands that /input/  [output] leave α unchanged (McCarthy & Prince ’95) • Fα controls when α is avoided (and how) • Interaction of violable constraints: Ranking • α is avoided when *α≫ Fα • α is tolerated when Fα≫ *α • M1≫M2: combines multiple markedness dimensions University of Amsterdam

  6. OT from Markedness Theory • MARKEDNESSconstraints: *α • FAITHFULNESS constraints: Fα • Interaction of violable constraints: Ranking • α is avoided when *α ≫ Fα • α is tolerated when Fα≫ *α • M1≫M2: combines multiple markedness dimensions • Typology: All cross-linguistic variation results from differences in ranking – in how the dialectic is resolved (and in how multiple markedness dimensions are combined) University of Amsterdam

More Related