Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:14:18.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraint weighting and constraint domination: a formal comparison*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2007

Jie Zhang
Jie Zhang
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The advent of Optimality Theory has revived the interest in articulatorily and perceptually driven markedness in phonological research. To some researchers, the cross-linguistic prevalence of such markedness relations is indication that synchronic phonological grammar should include phonetic details. However, there are at least two distinct ways in which phonetics can be incorporated in an optimality-theoretic grammar: traditional constraint domination and Flemming (2001) 's proposal that the costs of constraint violations should be weighted and summed. I argue that constraint weighting is unnecessary as an innovation in Optimality Theory. The arguments are twofold. First, using constraint families with intrinsic rankings, constraint domination formally predicts the same range of phonological realisations as constraint weighting. Second, with proper constraint definitions and rankings, both the additive effect and the locus effect predicted by constraint weighting can be replicated in constraint domination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , December 2007 , pp. 433 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Bonilha, Giovana Ferreira Gonçalves (2002). Conjoined constraints and phonological acquisition. Available as ROA-533 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Broad, David J. & Clermont, Frantz (1987). A methodology for modeling vowel formant contours in CVC context. JASA 81. 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (1993). Nasalisation in English: phonology or phonetics? Phonology 10. 43–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan & Hewitt, Mark (1997). Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory. Available as ROA-229 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21. 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, James L. & Saslow, Michael G. (1958). Pitch discrimination for synthetic vowels. JASA 30. 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1997). Phonetic optimization: compromise in speech production. In Miglio, Viola & Morén, Bruce (eds.) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics5. Selected Phonology Papers from the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997. 72–91.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, J. Donald (1952). Pitch discrimination. JASA 24. 750–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. S. & Umeda, N. (1987). Difference limens for fundamental frequency contours in sentences. JASA 81. 1139–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Johan 't (1981). Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. JASA 69. 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Johan 't, Collier, René & Cohen, Antonie (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) (2004). Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1985). Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In Fromkin, Victoria (ed.) Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press. 115–132.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1990). Phonetic representations in a generative grammar. JPh 18. 321–334.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. LI 27. 341–350.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (2000). Geminate inalterability and lenition. Lg 76. 509–545.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. (1973). Discrimination of fundamental frequency contours in synthetic speech: implications for models of pitch perception. JASA 53. 8–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klatt, Dennis H. (1987). Review of text-to-speech conversion for English. JASA 82. 737–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. JASA 35. 1773–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John (2002). Comparative markedness. In Carpenter, Angela, Coetzee, Andries & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 171–246.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. JASA 88. 1286–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott & Smolensky, Paul (2002). Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. WCCFL 21. 306–319.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2002). Constraint conjunction versus grounded constraint subhierarchies in Optimality Theory. Available as ROA-530 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (1990). Phonological and phonetic representation. JPh 18. 375–394.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (1991). The whole theory of sound structure. Phonetica 48. 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2000). What people know about sounds of language. Studies in the Linguisitc Sciences 29. 111–120.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
>Pierrehumbert, Janet & Beckman, Mary E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2000). The special and the general. Paper presented at the 24th Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Handout available (September 2007) at http://ling.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/prince.html.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2001). Invariance under re-ranking. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California. Handout available (September 2007) at http://ling.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/prince.html.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3. 25–145.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (to appear). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-Map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Inkelas, Sharon & Hanson, Kristin (eds.) On the nature of the word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sussman, Harvey M. (1989). Neural coding of relational invariance in speech: human language analogs to the barn owl. Psychological Review 96. 631–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sussman, Harvey M., McCaffrey, Helen A. & Matthews, Sandra A. (1991). An investigation of locus equations as a source of relational invariance for stop place categorization. JASA 90. 1309–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, Bernard & del Gobbo, Francesca (2002). Local conjunction in Italian and French phonology. In Wiltshire, Caroline & Camps, Joaquim (eds.) Romance phonology and variation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Jie (2002). The effects of duration and sonority on contour tone: typological survey and formal analysis. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. (1997). Features, gestures, and Igbo vowels: an approach to the phonology-phonetics interface. Lg 73. 227–274.Google Scholar