Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:57:54.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological typology in Optimality Theory and Formal Language Theory: goals and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Joe Pater
Joe Pater*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Amherst
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much recent work has studied phonological typology in terms of Formal Language Theory (e.g. the Chomsky hierarchy). This paper considers whether Optimality Theory grammars might be constrained to generate only regular languages, and also whether the tools of formal language theory might be used for constructing phonological theories similar to those within Optimality Theory. It offers reasons to be optimistic about the first possibility, and sceptical about the second.

Type
Squibs and replies
Information
Phonology , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 351 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Thank you to the Spring 2019 UMass Amherst Sound Workshop for discussion, especially to Andrew Lamont, who also provided comments on a draft of this manuscript. This research was supported by NSF grants BCS-1424077 and BCS-1650957 to the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

References

Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1980). On cognitive structures and their development. In Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo (ed.) Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge & Kegan. 36–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason (1997). What constraints should OT allow? Handout from paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago. Available as ROA-204 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert & Satta, Giorgio (1998). Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24. 307–315.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1980). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2007). The inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2016). Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33. 247–283.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2019). Computation also matters: a response to Pater (2018). Phonology 36. 341–350.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lamont, Andrew (2019). Majority Rule in Harmonic Serialism. In Hout, Katherine, Mai, Anna, McCollum, Adam, Rose, Sharon & Zaslansky, Matt (eds.) Supplemental proceedings of the 2018 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v7i0.4546.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). Harmonic serialism and parallelism. NELS 30. 501–524.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27. 77–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar