Optimality Theory René Kager (Utrecht University) Cambridge University Press (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics, edited by S.R. Anderson et al.), 1999, xiii+452 pp; hardbound, ISBN 0-521-58019-6, $64.95; paperbound, ISBN 0-521-58980-0, $24.95

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-290
Author(s):  
Jason Eisner
Keyword(s):  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Cambridge University

OPTIMALITY THEORY. René Kager. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiii + 452. $64.95 cloth, $24.95 paper.

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 422-423
Author(s):  
Daniel Dinnsen ◽  
Laura W. McGarrity ◽  
Kathleen M. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Basic Understanding

This volume is an excellent introduction to the principles and workings of optimality theory, a relatively new constraint-based framework. The focus is on phonology, which is where the theory thus far has had its greatest impact. A basic understanding of phonology and earlier rule-based derivational theories is assumed. At appropriate points, Kager distinguishes the different claims made by optimality theory and derivational theories. The exercises and suggested readings at the end of each chapter make the book highly suitable as a textbook. The conclusion of each chapter also provides a good summary of the main points. In addition to conventional subject and language indexes, a helpful index of constraints is included with page numbers for where the constraint is defined and used.

A thematic guide to optimality theory. John J. McCarthy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, Pp. 324.

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-168
Author(s):  
Suzanne Curtin
Keyword(s):  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Cambridge University

The timing of this book is perfect. Optimality theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky, 1993) has been a popular framework for phonological exploration since its conception. This is not to say that it has been embraced by everyone working in the field. Rather, it has generated a great deal of intellectual debate and research, creating a sense of revitalization in the field of phonology.

René Kager, Optimality theory. Cambridge, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiii, 452. Pb $24.95; April McMahon, Change, chance, and optimality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. x, 201. Pb $19.95; Bruce Tesar & Paul Smolensky, Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. Pp. viii, 140. Pb $25.00

2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-449
Author(s):  
Martha C. Pennington ◽  
Brady Z. Clark
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Hierarchical Order ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The Past ◽  
Different Order ◽  
Oxford University Press

Optimality Theory (OT) has been a major force driving developments in formal linguistics during the past decade. Like parameter-setting accounts, OT seeks to describe the range within which languages can vary; but instead of fixing parameters, OT proposes that languages, and children learning languages, arrange a set of constraints in a hierarchical order of strength that determines specific linguistic characteristics. The constraints proposed by OT are constraints on the well-formedness of the output of a grammar, and they are of two types: (i) markedness constraints, which exert pressure toward unmarked types of structure such as CV syllables or voiceless final obstruents; and (ii) faithfulness constraints, which maintain lexical contrasts such as CV and CVC syllable types, or voicing distinctions in final obstruents. The two types of constraints are in conflict, so that no particular constraint can be satisfied without violating others. In OT, “satisfaction” and “violation” are not absolute but a matter of degree, because all constraints play a role in the grammar of each language, though in a different order of strength or priority within a dominance hierarchy.

René Kager, Optimality theory. Cambridge, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiii, 452. Pb $24.95 April McMahon, Change, chance, and optimality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. x, 201. Pb $19.95 Bruce Tesar & Paul Smolensky, Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. Pp. viii, 140. Pb $25.00

2002 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha C. Pennington ◽  
Brady Z. Clark
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Dominance Hierarchy ◽  
Parameter Setting ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Hierarchical Order ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The Past ◽  
Different Order ◽  
Oxford University Press

Optimality Theory (OT) has been a major force driving developments in formal linguistics during the past decade. Like parameter-setting accounts, OT seeks to describe the range within which languages can vary; but instead of fixing parameters, OT proposes that languages, and children learning languages, arrange a set of constraints in a hierarchical order of strength that determines specific linguistic characteristics. The constraints proposed by OT are constraints on the well-formedness of the output of a grammar, and they are of two types: (i) markedness constraints, which exert pressure toward unmarked types of structure such as CV syllables or voiceless final obstruents; and (ii) faithfulness constraints, which maintain lexical contrasts such as CV and CVC syllable types, or voicing distinctions in final obstruents. The two types of constraints are in conflict, so that no particular constraint can be satisfied without violating others. In OT, “satisfaction” and “violation” are not absolute but a matter of degree, because all constraints play a role in the grammar of each language, though in a different order of strength or priority within a dominance hierarchy.

Spirantization in Spanish: The role of the underlying representation

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Sonia Colina
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Optimality Theory ◽  
General Distribution ◽  
Dialectal Variation ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Underlying Representation ◽  
Hispanic Linguistics ◽  
Stress Studies ◽  
Effort Reduction

AbstractSpirantization is one of the most frequently studied phonological phenomena of Spanish (Barlow, Jessica A. 2003. The stop-spirant alternation in Spanish: Converging evidence for a fortition account. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22. 51–86; Zampini, Mary. 1994. The role of native language transfer and task formality in the acquisition of Spanish spirantization. Hispania 77. 470–481; among others). For a majority of dialects, Spanish voiced plosives have been traditionally described as having a continuant and a non-continuant realization in complementary distribution (Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1977. Manual de pronunciación española. 19th edn. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas; Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; among others). Yet, phonetic studies reveal a more complex picture consisting of a great deal of phonetic variability and gradience among continuant realizations (Carrasco, Patricio, José Ignacio Hualde and Miquel Simonet. 2012. Dialectal differences in Spanish voiced obstruent allophony: Costa Rican versus Iberian Spanish. Phonetica 69. 149–179; among others; Simonet, Miquel, José Ignacio Hualde and Mariana Nadeu. 2012. Lenition of/d/in spontaneous Spanish and Catalan. Paper presented at INTERSPEECH) which is not captured by existing generative accounts (Bakovic, Eric. 1997. Strong onsets and Spanish fortition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 23. 21–39; Harris, James W. 1984. La espirantización en castellano y la representación fonológica autosegmental. Estudis Gramaticals 1.149–67; Hualde, José Ignacio. 1989. Procesos consonánticos y estructuras geométricas en español. Lingüística 1.7–44; Kirchner, Robert. 2001. Phonological contrast and articulatory effort. In Linda Lombardi (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory, 79–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; among others). Furthermore, most analyses focus almost exclusively on the general distribution of spirantization, excluding other dialectal patterns (Amastae, Jon. 1995. Variable spirantization: Constraint weighting in three dialects. Hispanic Linguistics 6(7). 265–285; among others). The current proposal accounts for the phonetic variability and gradience evinced by phonetic studies, as well as dialectal variation in one optimality theoretic-analysis. Spirantization is explained as the result of effort reduction, rather than the result of assimilation (contra Harris, James W. 1984. La espirantización en castellano y la representación fonológica autosegmental. Estudis Gramaticals 1.149–67; Hualde, José Ignacio. 1989. Procesos consonánticos y estructuras geométricas en español. Lingüística 1.7–44, among others). Phonetic variability in the general dialects is argued to be related to the underlying representation: voiced obstruents are underspecified for continuancy both in the input and the output of the phonology, which explains gradience in implementation and responds to the need to avoid the marked configuration represented by a combination of voicing and maximal stricture found in voiced stops (Colina, Sonia. 2016. On onset clusters in Spanish: Voiced obstruent underspecification and /f/. In Rafael A. Núñez Cedeño (ed.), The syllable and stress: Studies in honor of James W. Harris. Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter). Dialectal variation stems from differences in the underlying representation and in the ranking of the constraints. The proposal is also able to explain variations on the two major dialectal patterns.

Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: Constraints on models of morphophonology

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Keyword(s):  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Learning Algorithm ◽  
Artificial Grammar ◽  
Phonological Acquisition ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Type Frequency ◽  
Require Output ◽  
The University ◽  
Stochastic Optimality

AbstractRussian velar palatalization changes velars into alveopalatals before certain suffixes, including the stem extension -i and the diminutive suffixes -ok and -ek/ik. While velar palatalization always applies before the relevant suffixes in the established lexicon, it often fails with nonce loanwords before -i and -ik but not before -ok or -ek. This is shown to be predicted by the Minimal Generalization Learner (MGL), a model of rule induction and weighting developed by Albright and Hayes (Cognition 90: 119–161, 2003), by a novel version of Network Theory (Bybee, Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form, John Benjamins, 1985, Phonology and language use, Cambridge University Press, 2001), which uses competing unconditional product-oriented schemas weighted by type frequency and paradigm uniformity constraints, and by stochastic Optimality Theory with language-specific constraints learned using the Gradual Learning Algorithm (GLA, Boersma, Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21: 43–58, 1997). The successful models are shown to predict that a morphophonological rule will fail if the triggering suffix comes to attach to inputs that are not eligible to undergo the rule. This prediction is confirmed in an artificial grammar learning experiment. Under either model, the choice between generalizations or output forms is shown to be stochastic, which requires retrieving known word-forms from the lexicon as wholes, rather than generating them through the grammar. Furthermore, MGL and GLA are shown to succeed only if the suffix and the stem shape are chosen simultaneously, as opposed to the suffix being chosen first and then triggering (or failing to trigger) a stem change. In addition, the GLA is shown to require output-output faithfulness to be ranked above markedness at the beginning of learning (Hayes, Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages, Cambridge University Press, 2004) to account for the present data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document