LECTURE: INTRODUCTION TO OPTIMALITY THEORY John D. Alderete, Linguistics 321, Simon Fraser University

Transcription

1 LECTURE: INTRODUCTION TO OPTIMALITY THEORY John D. Alderete, Linguistics 321, Simon Fraser University Goals: this lecture gives an introduction to Optimality Theory, a theory of grammar developed in the 1990 that is built on well-formedness constraints. This theory eliminates derivational rules completely, and as a result, it solves a number of long standing problems in linguistics. Reading: SOL: ; also Kager 1999, Optimality Theory ROLE OF CONSTRAINTS Illustration: some prominent constraints in advanced phonology Obligatory Contour Principle Universal Association Conventions Coda Condition Maximize Onset Foot Binarity Leading Question: is it ever the case that these constraints could account for all the data in a dataset? Examples: Lecture: Dissimilation, Berber labial dissimilation --> OCP motivated the process, but needed delinking and default fill-in rules to describe the directionality, specific feature involved, and coronal default Homework: Siane Tone --> Universal Association Conventions account for some of the data, but two additional tone rules were required to account for HHLL patterns and contour tones Lecture: Moras --> Latin stress foot generally obeyed Foot Binarity (level of moras), but L<H> words required revoking this principle because the word did not contain enough moras. Observation: universal constraints seem to be at the heart of many analyses, but each case seemed to require additional rules and mechanisms for fixing up some of the fair consequences of these principles. Serious question: is a purely constraint-based approach to phonology plausible, without these derivational assumptions, or are we stuck with this mixed model? 1

2 TIBETAN NUMERALS /gjig/ --> jig one /bju + gjig/ --> ju-gjig eleven bʃi + bju/ --> ʃi-bju forty Observation: Tibetan doesn t allow initial clusters; deletion is the means of achieving this target syllable structure, CV(C). Illustration: two different approaches Constraints ( Targets ) Rules (A --> B...) Tibetan analysis Reason for processes Language typology Illustration: imagine a set of possible outputs Input Set of candidate outputs Comments /bju + gjig/ a. jug.jig Deletion of C1 b. bug.jig Deletion of C2 c. bejug.jig Epenthesis of e d. ug.jig Double deletion e. kug.jig Double deletion, k epenthesis Task: explain how each candidate satisfies the syllable structure target and assess their pausibility. 2

3 Question: how do the two approaches compare in terms of their treatment of the implausible examples? Task: now assess the above candidates in a standard OT tableau (* = 1 violation) Input /bju + gjig/ NoComplex Onsets No Deletion No Insertion No Skipping f. bjug.jig * a. jug.jig b. bug.jig c. bejug.jig d. ug.jig e. kug.jig Question: how can one use the marks above to account for the plausible processes (a-c), and how they differ from (d-e)? What do all (a-c) have in common, and how are they different? 3

4 Question: what s the connection between (a-c) in rule-based phonology? PRINCIPLES OF OPTIMALITY THEORY Universal Constraints: all constraints are universal; present in every language Constraint Violability: constraints can be violated if they lead to satisfaction of higher ranking constraints. Constraint Ranking: constraints are prioritized on a language particular basis; top ranked constraints take precedence over lower ranked constraints Constraint types: markedness (constraints on surface forms) and faithfulness (constraints on relation between input and output, requiring similarity) Illustration: architecture of an OT grammar 4

5 DO SOMETHING, EXCEPT IF... Examples Classical Latin stress: the final syllable is extrametrical, unless it is the only syllable, E.g., (L L)<H>, cf. (H) Tagalog ( )um: prefix to stem if V-initial, otherwise, insert after the onset consonant(s), E.g., um-aral, cf. s-um-ulat Yidiny reduplication: copy the first foot of the stem, unless that would disobey the otherwise general pattern of NC assimilation E.g., kintal-kintalpa, cf. kala-kalampara Task: repeat the rule-based metrical account of Latin with the following forms: /H H/ --> (H)<H> /L L H/ --> /L H/ --> /H/ --> Question: discuss the interaction between Extrametricality, Culminativity, and Foot Binarity. What specific assumptions are necessary to account for the data? 5

6 Task: next consider the analysis of Latin as the result of the interaction of the constraints given below. Show your work in a standard OT table, where each row is a possible outcome. Foot Binarity: feet have at least two moras. Culminativity: every word has at least one stress foot. Extrametricality: the final syllable cannot be footed. 6