Optimality

8 Key excerpts on "Optimality"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Vowel-Shifting in the English Language

  An Evolutionary Account

  • Kamil Kaźmierski(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  As the formalism of Optimality Theory is adopted here, OT tableaux are employed to represent the grammars of the successive stages in the development of the English vocalic system. Following the objections to constraint reranking as a mechanism of change, sound change is not conceived of here as taking place solely as reranking, but also as reformulation of constraints. This rests on the constructionist, rather than innatist view of constraints. The concept of the life-cycle of phonological processes is adopted, which implicates a stratal, rather than strictly parallelist version of Optimality Theory. To overcome the weakness of the lack of explanatory power of assuming that changes in constraint rankings represent all that is interesting, the influence of language use on language change is admitted through the incorporation of the insights of the exemplar-based phonology, to be described below.

  4.3 Formalizing evolutionary linguistics in Optimality Theory

  Synchronic stages of languages represent temporary systems consisting of linguistic replicators (these include lexical representations, phonemes that these are composed of, as well as competence constituents for units of rhythmic organization, i.e. feet) as well as of the grammar, that is of a conventional resolution of the conflicting pressures on the expression of the replicators. In the present account, the formalism of Optimality Theory is adopted to present these grammars as constraint rankings.

  Optimality Theory is a good choice for presenting the proposed mechanism of vowel shifts, since it comes with a range of analytical tools suited for the representation of the various synchronic stages of the language. Research in Optimality Theory, which has been going on for over two decades now, has focused mostly on phonology and it has resulted in the discovery of a number of constraints and their interactions as far as the phenomena currently under investigation are concerned. Specifically, the OT approach of presenting how conflict between various rhythmic constraints is resolved is particularly useful. In particular, the constraints whose reformulation is thought to have played a role in [±tense] taking over [±long] as the primary feature distinguishing between two classes of vowels in English, a development crucial in the account to be proposed, are the Preserve Contrast constraints.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Phonology for Communication Disorders

  • Martin J. Ball, Nicole Muller, Ben Rutter(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  11 Optimality THEORY INTRODUCTION Within the general framework of generative phonology there has been a gradual shift from the complete reliance on language-specific rules to the introduction of linguistically universal constraints. In phonology at least, these constraints, or well-formedness conditions, were first seen in autosegmental phonology (Goldsmith, 1976; see Chapter 7 of this book). Their aim was simply to limit the set of forms the theory could classify as well-formed. In Optimality theory (OT) this trend reached its inevitable conclusion, with the total abandonment of rules in favor of a fully constraint-based phonology. Arguably the first major OT publication was Prince and Smolensky (1993), and the approach has since become the dominant phonological theory of mainstream linguistics. Much of the initial appeal of OT was its potential applicability to other areas of linguistic analysis, and indeed research has been conducted in Optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Equally, OT has also been applied to, among other things, first and second language acquisition, language change, and most importantly for our purposes, speech pathology. In almost all of these areas OT has generated an extraordinary body of work, much of which can be found in the Rutgers Optimality Archive (available online at http://roa.rutgers.edu/index.php3). It should probably be considered the state of the art as far as mainstream linguistics goes, and is certainly the most contemporary theory included in this particular textbook. However, the theory is not without its doubters (see, for example, McMahon, 2000), and many of the potential problems encountered when applying OT are a result of its theoretical background; it was developed initially as a computational model for learnability

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Current Approaches to Syntax

  A Comparative Handbook

  • András Kertész, Edith Moravcsik, Csilla Rákosi, András Kertész, Edith Moravcsik, Csilla Rákosi(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Abstract: OT is a general competition-based theory of generative grammar based on a particular theory of constraint interaction and a theory of the economy of constraint violation. It departs from other generative theories of syntax along three main dimensions: (i) well-formedness constraints on linguistic representations are violable, (ii) constraint universality is logically independent of constraint violability, (iii) the representations which constraints operate on (e. g. building blocks, levels of representation, representational vs. derivational architecture) are orthogonal to that of constraint interaction. Therefore, OT defines a class of grammatical theories that are as diverse as other theories unified under other umbrellas, e. g. Principles and Parameters theories, Unification-Based theories. OT theories share the property that it is unnecessary to stipulate special principles of Economy, Relativized Minimality, Last Resort, and the like because these effects follow as inevitable logical consequences of the general competition-based architecture. OT is used to model grammars, including the interaction of various components of the grammar, but also on-line language processing, acquisition of language, diachronic change, etc. In sum, OT is not a theory of representations, but a theory of the interaction of universal principles in any linguistic domain. (This chapter samples the OT literature and is not intended to be exhaustive).

  1 Goals

  Optimality Theory (OT) is a development of Generative Grammar which has its roots in Cognitive Science and a fundamental mind/brain question (Smolensky and Legendre, 2006). On the one hand the human brain is mathematically a computer consisting of a network of interconnected units (neurons) which performs continuous numerical processing including optimization : it maximizes a measure of self-consistency or well-formedness. On the other hand, the human mind is a symbol-manipulating computer. As a theory of grammar, OT helps resolve the continuous vs. digital computational tension between the biological and the mental levels by positing that grammatical mental representations are symbolic structures which maximize well-formedness and are optimal (rather than perfect) thanks to an evaluation procedure selecting the best among a set of alternatives.

  The very architecture of the theory is grounded in general human cognition. Optimality is a pervasive concept in a variety of cognitive domains including basic memory function (Anderson, 1990), computing the most likely 3D source for a 2D image in visual cognition (Geman and Geman, 1984), learning internal representations in neural networks (Rumelhart et al., 1986), and Bayesian learning in any higher cognition domain (Oaksford and Chater, 1998). These examples are ultimately all formalized in terms of competition plus an algorithm or procedure for choosing an output that optimizes a specified objective function. While the resolution of conflicting information by strict domination hierarchies appears to be a hallmark of grammatical knowledge (Smolensky and Legendre, 2006 , 1:41–42) it has also been argued to be a characteristic of decision making, e. g. the Take the Best decision procedure (Gigerenzer and Golstein, 1999

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Distinctiveness, Coercion and Sonority

  A Unified Theory of Weight

  • Bruce Moren(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 2 Optimality Theory, Typology and Constraints 2.1 Optimality Theory and Typology

  Prince and Smolensky (1993) proposed that Universal Grammar could be taken to be a set of violable constraints and their interactions. As originally conceived, the set of constraints is universal, and languages differ only in the particular ranking of these constraints. The architecture of this system is schematized in (1 ). An input string is submitted to GEN, which modifies the string in any number of ways to produce a set of possible output candidates. This candidate set is evaluated by the language particular constraint ranking to yield the most harmonic candidate. The most harmonic candidate with respect to the constraint ranking is optimal and surfaces as the output.

  (1)  

  One major advantage of Optimality Theory (OT) over traditional rule-based theories is the typological predictions intrinsic to the architecture. Since constraints are universal and re-rankable, the factorial ranking of the constraints potentially yields all possible grammars.

  We can illustrate this system of factorial typology using the following three abstract constraints: A, B, C. Since there are three constraints, the number of possible permutations is 3!, or six. The six possible rankings of A, B, and C are given in (2 ). These six rankings potentially correspond to six different language types.1

  (2)  a.  A >> B >> C

  b.  A >> C >> B

  c.  B >> A >> C

  d.  B >> C >> A

  e.  C >> A >> B

  f.  C >> B >> A

  Given the inherently typological nature of OT, the attempt made in this work is not to fully exhaust the possible constraint rankings of all constraints, nor even to show a language of each possible permutation of the constraints under investigation. Both of those tasks are much too ambitious. However, an attempt is made to explore each major prediction of factorial ranking of the constraints used here, as well as to show that constraint interactions provide a unified typology of weight and weight interactions across segment types. That is, vowel weight and consonant weight need not be viewed as different systems subject to completely different constraints. Rather, the generalizations regarding segment moraicity are fairly uniform across both classes.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Constraints and Preferences

  • Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Are Optimality theoretical constraints the same as natural linguistic preferences? Nikolaus Ritt 0. Abstract This paper discusses the meanings which the terms constraint and preference have in Optimality Theory (henceforth OT) on the one hand and Natural Linguistics (henceforth NL) on the other. It at-tempts to show that both terms, which at first sight might appear to play comparable roles in the two frameworks, are used to refer to very different things within each of them. The reason why these dif-ferences in usage are seldom made explicit and tend to be pasted over and overlooked is that they reflect fundamental tenets of OT on the one hand and NL on the other. These are implicitly taken for granted by representatives of each of the two camps but often fail to be come explicit in the discourse between them. Thus, rather than comparing and evaluating the two theoretical approaches and the concepts they employ, this paper intends to help avoid potential mis-understandings and to facilitate the integration of ideas from the two schools. It consists of three parts: first it shows why OT constraints and NL preferences might be regarded as functional counterparts of each other and therefore as freely exchangeable. Second, it shows that they get radically different interpretations if viewed against the wider theoretical frameworks within which OT and NL approach the study of language. And finally, it points out possible ways in which the two approaches might profit from one another or how their con-cepts and methods might be profitably integrated. 2 9 2 Nikolaus Ritt 1. Introduction First, however, a few words on the motivation of this paper.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 9 Mar |Learn more

  Introducing Phonetics and Phonology

  • Mike Davenport, S.J. Hannahs(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The constraints evaluate the wellformedness of each candidate (for instance, how well the candidate conforms to expected syllable structure requirements, phonotactics, resemblance to the input and other criteria) and determine which candidate in the set is the ‘most harmonic’, in other words which candidate fares best relative to the set of constraints. It is the most harmonic, or optimal, candidate that should surface as the concrete instantiation of the underlying representation in question. The diagram in (12.1) shows a graphic representation of OT:

  • (12.1) Diagram of Optimality Theory

  The input form is acted upon by Gen, which generates the candidate set. The candidate set produced by Gen is then evaluated by Eval, which yields an output form, in other words the surface form.

  There are three things to note at this point about the constraints used in OT. First of all, the constraints in Optimality Theory, unlike those in derivational models, are violable. Simply not conforming to a particular constraint does not by itself necessarily disqualify a specific output candidate from being the actual surface form. A second characteristic of OT constraints is that they are not all of equal importance: they are ranked in a hierarchy for a given language, meaning that some constraints are more important than others in that language and that the violation of a particular constraint may be more important than the violation of some other specific constraint(s). Thirdly, the constraints of OT are assumed to be universal. All human languages share the same set of phonological constraints; languages differ in how the constraints are ranked. Indeed, it is the ranking of the set of universal constraints that yields phonological differences between languages.

  The constraints themselves are of three basic types or families: markedness constraints, faithfulness constraints and alignment constraints. Markedness constraints deal with specific structural configurations; for instance NO CODA expresses the universal tendency for languages to prefer syllables without codas. ONSET is the constraint expressing the cross-linguistic tendency for languages to prefer syllables with onsets (see the discussion of these tendencies in Chapter 6

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Freedom of Analysis?

  • Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye, Martin Krämer, Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye, Martin Krämer(Authors)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 14 Variables in Optimality Theory* Chris Golston Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) is a theory of constraint interaction. At its core it is quite simple: Universal Grammar provides a set of highly general constraints. These often con fl icting constraints are all operative in individual languages. Languages differ primarily in how they resolve the con fl icts: in the way they rank these universal constraints in strict domination hierarchies that determine the cir-cumstances under which constraints are violated. A language-particular gram-mar is a means of resolving the con fl icts among universal constraints. (Prince and Smolensky 1993:3) All sorts of other ideas can be associated with OT, but we must distinguish those that follow from the theory and those that can be added to the theory. The theory proper consists of “E VAL -mediated comparisons of candidates by a hierarchy of violable constraints. No matter how the details are executed or in what overall context it is embedded, any model with these indispensable characteristics will express the central claim and insight of OT” (McCarthy 2002:11). An important add-on to the theory since its inception has been the claim that the set of candidates evaluated by the hierarchy of violable constraints is both universal and in fi nite. This paper argues that neither property follows from any principle of OT and that theory-neutral considerations put a dif-ferent set of restrictions on what G EN most likely generates. (§1). I’ll also show that the universality and in fi nity of G EN are needed mostly to prop up an untenable theory of underlying representation carelessly carried over from work in the 1960s that eschewed prosodic structure enitrely (Chomsky and Halle 1968).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Optimality Theory and Pragmatics

  • Reinhard Blutner, Anne Bezuidenhout, Richard Breheny, Sam Glucksberg, Francesca Happé, H. Zeevat, Kenneth A. Loparo, Kenneth A. Loparo, Kenneth A. Loparo, Kent Bach, François Recanati, Deirdre Wilson(Authors)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  OT respects the generative legacy in two important methodological aspects: the strong emphasis on formal precision in grammatical analysis and the goal of restricting the descriptive power of linguistic theory. Seeing themselves within the Generative tradition, many representatives of OT adopt the fundamental distinction between Universal Grammar (UG) and a language-specific part of Grammar. UG describes the innate knowledge of language that is shared by all normal humans, and aims both to describe the universal properties of language and the range of variation possible among languages. The language-specific part of grammar typically consists of the lexicon and a system reflecting the specific structural properties of the par- ticular language. Within the generative tradition, the concrete theoretical realization of this distinction has changed over the years. In the principles and parameters model, for example, UG is conceptualized as a system of (inviolable) principles, which are parameterized to demarcate the space of possible forms (see, for instance, Chomsky, 1981). The fixing of these parameters (triggered by language-specific data) determines the grammar of the particular language. OT realizes an essentially different view of this distinction. At this point we must emphasize that Optimality theory is rooted, at least in part, in connectionism, a paradigm that makes use of neurobiological assumptions – in an extremely simplified way. As a consequence, OT does not assume a strict distinction between representation and processing. More than ten years ago, there was a lively debate in cognitive linguistics 2 Optimality Theory and Pragmatics concerning the true architecture of cognition – the debate between connectionists and symbolists.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book