1 / 42

Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993)

Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993). Outline. Phonetics and Phonology OT Characteristics Output-Oriented Conflicting Soft Well-formedness Constraints OT Grammar Families of Constraints OT-Tableau Example: Cluster Reduction in First Language Acquisition Data The Merits of OT.

thaddeus
Download Presentation

Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993)

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. Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993)

  2. Outline • Phonetics and Phonology • OT Characteristics • Output-Oriented • Conflicting Soft Well-formedness Constraints • OT Grammar • Families of Constraints • OT-Tableau • Example: Cluster Reduction in First Language Acquisition Data • The Merits of OT

  3. Concept Derivationally- based Phonology(Chomsky & Halle 1968) • Structural Description (SD): identifies class of inputs (= stored lexical forms) • Structural Change (SC): specifies operations that change the input Chomsky (1976): writing a rule does not constitute a solution to a problem; writing a rule is merely a statement of a problem A  B / X __ Y SD: XAY SC: XAY  XBY

  4. Optimality Theory(Prince & Smolensky 1993) • Optimality Theory is a theory of language and grammar in which well-formedness constraints on outputs determine grammaticality If you don’t want phonology to be just a technique for data-compression, you have to seek the locus of explanatory action elsewhere (Prince & Smolensky, 1993)

  5. Why output-oriented?Not all phonology is derivationally-based Alternations in Turkish (Clements & Keyser, 1983): Accusative Nominative Ablative Degemination: ‘feeling’ hiss+i his his+ten ‘right’ hakk+i hak hak+tan Epenthesis: ‘transfer’ devr+i devir devir+den ‘abdomen’ karn+ karn karn+dan Vowel shortening: ‘time’ zama:n+i zaman zaman+dan ‘proof’ isapa:t+i ispat ispat+tan

  6. Why output-oriented?Not all phonology is derivationally-based Alternations in Turkish (Clements & Keyser, 1983): Accusative Nominative Ablative Degemination: ‘feeling’ hiss+i his his+ten ‘right’ hakk+i hak hak+tan Epenthesis: ‘transfer’ devr+i devir devir+den ‘abdomen’ karn+ karn karn+dan Vowel shortening: ‘time’ zama:n+i zaman zaman+dan ‘proof’ isapa:t+i ispat ispat+tan Output Constraint: Turkish syllables cannot exceed the structure CVC/CVV

  7. Potentially Conflicting, Soft Constraints • Optimality Theory is a theory of language and grammar in which well-formedness constraints on outputs determine grammaticality

  8. Potentially Conflicting, Soft Constraints • Optimality Theory is a theory of language and grammar in which well-formedness constraints on outputs determine grammaticality • These constraints apply simultaneously to representations of structures. They are potentially conflicting and they are soft, which means violable

  9. Potentially Conflicting, Soft Constraints • These constraints apply simultaneously to representations of structures. They are potentially conflicting and they are soft, which means violable

  10. Example Foot () Syllable () Syllable () p pa

  11. Conflicting Constraints • Nonfinality: stress never falls on the last  • Peak Prominence: stress falls on the heaviest  constraints  nonfinality peak prominence candidates   . . *! * stress application

  12. Conflicting Constraints • Nonfinality: stress never falls on the last  • Peak Prominence: stress falls on the heaviest  constraints  peak prominence nonfinality candidates  . *!  . * stress application

  13. OT-grammar • GEN generates a set of candidate outputs • e.g. stress assignment papapa • candidates: pápapa; papápa; papapá

  14. OT-grammar • GEN generates a set of candidate outputs • e.g. stress assignment papapa • candidates: pápapa; papápa; papapá • H-EVAL determines the relative harmony of the possible output structures and evaluates which one satisfies the relevant constraints best: the optimal output (indicated by ‘’)

  15. OT-tableau constr 1 constr 2 constr 3 constr 4 input *! output 1 * * output 2  output 3 * *! vertical: all output candidates ( is optimal output) horizontal: constraint 1 dominates constraint 2; 2 >> 3, etc. *: output violates constraint (*!: violation is fatal) grey cell: evaluation is irrelevant.

  16. Families of Constraints • Markedness (prefers unmarked structures): • ONS: syllables must have onsets • *CODA: syllables must not have a coda more harmonic than one of lower/higher sonority • Hnuc/Hmar: A higher/lower sonority nucleus is • Correspondence (ensures diversity): relates elements of different strings (e.g. inputs and outputs) • MAX-IO: every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output (prohibits deletion) • DEP-IO: every segment of the output has a correspondent in the input (prohibits epenthesis) • Alignment (refers to constituent edges)

  17. Families of Constraints • Markedness (prefers unmarked structures): • ONS: syllables must have onsets • *CODA: syllables must not have a coda • *COMPLEX: no clusters of consonants (1;2) (1;3)

  18. Families of Constraints • Correspondence (ensures diversity): relates elements of different strings (e.g. inputs and outputs) • MAX-IO: every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output (prohibits deletion) • DEP-IO: every segment of the output has a correspondent in the input (prohibits epenthesis) (3;0)

  19. Families of Constraints • Alignment (refers to constituent edges) Align (Cat1,Edge1,Cat2,Edge2) =def  Cat1  Cat2 in such a way that Edge1 of Cat1 and Edge2 of Cat2 coincide violation of alignment: morphology: aard # appel phonology: aar $ dap $ pel (1;11)

  20. OT and UG • At least an important subset of constraints is shared by all languages, forming part of Universal Grammar

  21. OT and UG • At least an important subset of constraints is shared by all languages, forming part of Universal Grammar • Individual languages rank these universal constraints differently in their language-specific hierarchies in such a way that higher ranked constraints have total dominance over lower ranked constraints

  22. OT-tableau Berber constraints  ONS Hnuc candidates  Ul *!  wL input /ul/ /u/ /l/

  23. OT-tableau Dutch constraints  Hnuc ONS candidates   Ul /u/ wL /l/! input /ul/ *

  24. First LanguageAcquisition in Optimality Theory

  25. Learning First Language Learning a language comes down to resolving possible constraint conflicts by ranking the unordered UG-constraints in a strict dominance hierarchy

  26. Example: Cluster Reduction in First Language Acquisition Data (1;9)

  27. Tableau Steven Stage (1;9) // *COMPL ONS MAX-IO Hons *! [] /k/  [] * [] /l/! * [] * **

  28. Tableau Steven Stage (1;9) /stul/ *COMPL ONS MAX-IO Hons [stul] *! /s/! [sul] *  [tul] /t/ * [ul] * **

  29. Positional Markedness syllabe (2;0) onset rhyme margin nucleus pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app. s x a p

  30. Tableau Dutch Ranking /stul/ MAX-IO *COMPL ONS Hons * /st/  [stul] *! /s/ [sul] [tul] *! /t/ [ul] *!* *

  31. Tableau Dutch Ranking /stul/ MAX-IO *COMPL ONS Hons * /st/  [stul] *! /s/ [sul] [tul] *! /t/ [ul] *!* * (2;1)

  32. OT: Hmar: /t/ > /x/ syllabe (1,11) onset rhyme margin nucleus pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app.  x t

  33. OT: Hmar: /t/ > /s/ syllabe (2,2) onset rhyme margin nucleus pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app. k  r s t

  34. Merits of OT (1) Conspiracy of Different Influences Hindi Heaviness Scale: • superheavy  VVC; VCC • heavy  VV; VC • light  V

  35. Peak Prominence in Hindi ki.dhar ja.naab as.baab ru.pi.aa reez.ga.rii

  36. Nonfinality in Hindi • avoidance of stress on final syllable (in event of a tie) trad. analysis: extrametricality/stress shift/destressing sa.mi.ti ru.kaa.yaa aas.maan.jaah

  37. OT ranking Peak-Prominence >> Nonfinality >> AlignR conspiracy of different influences determines the most optimal output

  38. OT ranking Peak-Prominence >> Nonfinality >> AlignR conspiracy of different influences determines the most optimal output OT vs. PARAMETER SYSTEM: Parameters: Choice: Setting: Foot Type: Quantity In-/Sensitive QS Foot Size: Bounded/Unbounded Bounded Direction: Right to Left/L to R RL Extrametricality: Yes/No Yes Edge of Extrametr.: Left/Right Right etc.

  39. OT ranking Peak-Prominence >> Nonfinality >> AlignR conspiracy of different influences determines the most optimal output OT vs. PARAMETER SYSTEM: extrametricality parameter: wrong outputs for ki.dhar - ja.naab - etc. RL scan sees no difference between final heavy ’s: ru.pi.aa - ru.kaa.yaa - reez.ga.rii LR scan sees no difference between initial superheavy ’s: reez.ga.rii - aas.maan.jaah

  40. Merits of OT (2) The Emergence of the Unmarked: If two candidate outputs tie on all dominating constraints, the choice depends on the influence of a low-ranked constraint. cf. principles & parameters theory: Dutch ONS: not obligatory; Dutch Coda: not forbidden constraints  C1 C2 C3 C4 ... ONS *CODA candidates   $  * *! *   $  * * syllabification

  41. Merits of OT (3) Relative Grammaticality

  42. OT: Work in Progress • how to restrict the number of constraints? • variability • deflective systems • what’s in GEN? • what’s an input? • levels of representation/ cyclicity

More Related