Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:31:45.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: The Emergence of Constraints in Generative Phonology and a Comparison of Three Current Constraint-Based Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Darlene Lacharité  and
Carole Paradis
Darlene Lacharité
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Carole Paradis
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Constraints, which go also by the names “conditions”, “filters”, and less transparently, “principles” and “parameters” are currently opposed to (contextual and non-contextual) arbitrary rules, and are argued to be more explanatory in the scientific sense that they can: 1) reduce the number of sources and/or causes of a given phenomenon; 2) link apparently unrelated facts; and 3) make more predictions, if formulated adequately and related to universal grammar (UG). Although the notion of phonological constraints was not born with generative phonology (see, e.g., Hockett 1958:282), it is within that framework that they have begun to receive more formal treatment (Paradis and Nikiema 1993:45).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 38 , special_issue 2: Special Issue: Constraint-Based Theories in Multilinear Phonology , June 1993 , pp. 127 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archangeli, Diana 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morphology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana 1988. Aspects of Underspecification Theory. Phonology. 5:183–207.Google Scholar
Bird, Steven, Coleman, John, Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Scobbie, James 1993. Declarative Phonology. In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists. Crochetière, André, Boulanger, Jean-Claude and Ouellon, Conrad, eds. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. [In press.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clayton, Mary L. 1976. The Redundancy of Underlying Morpheme Structure Conditions. Language. 52:295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John 1993. Declarative Lexical Phonology. Ms.Google Scholar
Dresher, Bezalel Elan 1985. Constraints on Empty Positions in Tiered Phonology. Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa. 14:1–51.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John 1976. An Overview of Autosegmental Phonology. Linguistic Analysis. 2:23–68.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John 1991. Phonology as an Intelligent System. Pp. 247–267 in Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman. Jo Napoli, Donna and Kegl, Ann, eds. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John, ed. 1993. The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [In press.]Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John, and Larson, Gary 1992. Using Neural Networks in a Harmonic Phonology. Pp. 94–125 in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Canakis, Costas, Chan, Grace, and Denton, Jeannette, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko 1988. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger 1985. The Internal Structure of Phonological Elements: A Theory of Charm and Government. Pp. 305–328 in Phonology Yearbook 2. Ewen, Colin and Anderson, John, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. Pp. 1–91 in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Yang, I.-S., ed. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles 1970. On the Functional Unity of Phonological Rules. Linguistic Inquiry. 1:291–306.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John 1986. OCP Effects: Gemination and Anti-Gemination. Linguistic Inquiry. 7:187–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan 1993. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Ms.Google Scholar
McClelland, David, Rumelhart, Norman, and the PDP Research Group 1987. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1988a. On Constraints and Repair Strategies. The Linguistic Review. 6:71–97.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1988b. Towards a Theory of Constraint Violations. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. 5:1–43.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1990a. Focus in Gere Configurational Constraints. Pp. 53–63 in Current Approaches to African Linguistics. Hutchison, John and Manfredi, Victor, eds. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1990b. Les conflits de contraintes en phonologie. Paper read at Association canadienne française pour l’avancement des sciences, Québec.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1993a. Phonologie generative multilinéaire. Pp. 11–47 in Tendances actuelles en linguistique. Nespoulous, Jean-Luc, ed. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1993b. Le dictionnaire comme source de malformations phonologiques. In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists. Crochetière, André, Boulanger, Jean-Claude and Ouellon, Conrad, eds. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. [In press.]Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and El Fenne, Fatim 1993. French Verbal Inflection Revisited: Constraints, Repairs and Floating Consonants. In New Trends in French Phonology and Phonetics. Durand, Jacques, Hintze, Marie-Anne and Battye, Adrian, eds. Lingua. [To appear.]Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, Lebel, Caroline, and LaCharité, Darlene 1993. Adaptation d’emprunts: les conditions de la préservation segmentale. Paper read at Canadian Linguistics Association, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Nikiema, Emmanuel 1993. Historique de la notion de “contrainte” en phonologie générative. Langues et linguistique. 19:45–70.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François 1988. Locality in a Theory of Constraint Violations. GLOW Newsletter. 22:46–48.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François 1991. Asymmetry and Visibility in Consonant Articulations. Pp. 1–28 in The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas 1986. Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren and Avery, Peter 1991. On the Relationship between Laterality and Coronality. Pp. 101–124 in The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin 1993. A Constraint-Based Approach to Phonology and Morphology. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James 1991. Attribute Value Phonology. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James 1992. Toward Declarative Phonology. Pp. 1–27 in Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science. Bird, Steven, ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi 1973. The Role of Surface Phonetic Constraints in Generative Phonology. Language. 49:87–106.Google Scholar
Singh, Rajendra 1985. Prosodic Adaptation in Interphonology. Lingua. 67:269–282.Google Scholar
Singh, Rajendra 1987. Well-Formedness Conditions and Phonological Theory. Pp. 273–286 in Phonologica 1984. Dressler, Wolfgang, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, Rajendra 1992. Two Morphological Notes: A Sharp and A Flat. Revue québécoise de linguistique. 21:183–191.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard 1967. Redundancy Rules in Phonology. Language. 43:393–436.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira 1988. The Obligatory Contour Principle and Phonological Rules: A Loss of Identity. Linguistic Inquiry. 19:65–101.Google Scholar