Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biases in Harmonic Grammar: the road to restrictive learning

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the Optimality-Theoretic learnability and acquisition literature it has been proposed that certain classes of constraints must be biased toward particular rankings (e.g., Markedness ≫ IO-Faithfulness; Specific IO-Faithfulness ≫ General IO-Faithfulness). While sometimes difficult to implement efficiently or comprehensively, these biases are necessary to explain how learners acquire the most restrictive grammar consistent with positive evidence from the target language, and how innovative patterns emerge during the course of child phonological development. This paper demonstrates that altering the mode of constraint interaction from strict ranking as in Optimality Theory to additive weighting as in Harmonic Grammar (HG) reduces the number of classes of constraints that must be distinguished by such biases. Using weighted constraints and a version of the Gradual Learning Algorithm (GLA), the only distinction needed is between Output-based constraints, which must be biased toward high weights, and Input-Output-based constraints, which must be biased toward the lowest weights possible. We implement this distinction within the HG-GLA model by assigning different initial weights and plasticity values to the two classes of constraints. This implementation suffices to ensure that restrictive grammars are learned, and also predicts the emergence of a variety of attested intermediate stages during the course of acquisition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ROA = Rutgers Optimality Archive. http://roa.rutgers.edu.

  • Albright, Adam. 2005. The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Paradigms in phonological theory, eds. Laura Downing, Tracy Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albright, Adam. 2008. Inflectional paradigms have bases too: arguments from Yiddish. In The bases of inflectional identity, eds. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderete, John. 1999. Morphologically-governed accent in optimality theory. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation [ROA-309].

  • Alderete, John. 2008. Using learnability as a filter on computable functions: a new approach to Anderson and Browne’s generalization. Lingua 118: 1177–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Michael. 2009. Phonological trends in the lexicon: the role of constraints. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation.

  • Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation.

  • Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation.

  • Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. University of Amsterdam dissertation.

  • Boersma, Paul. 2006. The acquisition and evolution of faithfulness rankings. Paper presented at Manchester Phonology Meeting 14, May 2006.

  • Boersma, Paul. 2008. Emergent ranking of faithfulness explains markedness and licensing by cue. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam [ROA-954].

  • Boersma, Paul, and Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 45–86 [ROA-348]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul, and Claartje Levelt. 2000. Gradual constraint-ranking learning algorithm predicts acquisition order. In Proceedings of the 30th child language research forum, ed. Eve V. Clark, 229–237. Stanford: CSLI [ROA-361].

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul, and Claartje Levelt. 2003. Optimality Theory and phonological acquisition. Annual Review of Language Acquisition 3: 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul, and Joe Pater. 2007. Gradual learning of phonotactic constraints. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam & UMass Amherst. Paper presented at 38th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, October, 2007.

  • Boersma, Paul, and Joe Pater. 2008. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam & University of Massachusetts Amherst [ROA-970].

  • Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2009. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. www.praat.org.

  • Chambless, Della. 2006. Asymmetries in consonant cluster acquisition. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation.

  • Curtin, Suzanne. 1999. Positional prominence in the acquisition of prosodic structure. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Society, 89–100.

  • Curtin, Suzanne. 2001. Representational richness in phonological development. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.

  • Curtin, Suzanne and Kie Zuraw. 2002. Explaining constraint demotion in a developing system. In BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University conference on language development, eds. Anna H.-J. Do, Laura Domínguez, and Aimee Johansen. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In Proceedings of the 25th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Jill Beckman. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association [ROA-50].

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinnsen, Daniel A., and Laura W. McGarrity. 2004. On the nature of alternations in phonological acquisition. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 10: 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinnsen, Daniel A., Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Judith A. Gierut. 2001. The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37: 503–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnanadesikan, Amalia. 2004. Markedness and faithfulness in child phonology. In Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, eds. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 73–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ROA-67].

    Google Scholar 

  • Goad, Heather, and Yvan Rose. 2004. Input elaboration, head faithfulness and evidence for representation in the acquisition of left-edge clusters in West Germanic. In Fixing priorities: constraints in phonological acquisition, eds. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 109–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ROA-448].

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldwater, Sharon, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Proceedings of the workshop on variation within Optimality Theory, 111–120. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 1998. Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 656–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance: an integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14: 315–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Fixing priorities: constraints in phonological acquisition, eds. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ROA-327].

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Bruce, and Zsuzsa Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23: 59–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440 [ROA-858].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Maximum entropy models and stochastic Optimality Theory. In Architectures, rules, and preferences: a festschrift for Joan Bresnan, eds. Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Chris Manning, Jane Simpson, and Annie Zaenen, 467–479. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarosz Snover, Gaja. 2006. Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars—maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University dissertation [ROA-884].

  • Jesney, Karen. 2005. Chain shift in phonological acquisition. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary MA Thesis. http://people.umass.edu/kjesney/Jesney2005MA.pdf.

  • Jesney, Karen, and Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2007. Restrictiveness in gradual learning of Harmonic Grammar. Manuscript UMass Amherst & University of Alberta. Paper presented at the North East computational phonology circle (NecPhon 1), November, 2007.

  • Jesney, Karen, and Anne-Michelle Tessier. 2009. Gradual learning and faithfulness: consequences of ranked vs. weighted constraints. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 38, eds. Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman, 375–388. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazazis, Kostas. 1969. Possible evidence for (near-)underlying forms in the speech of a child. In Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 5), eds. Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia McGreen, and Jerry L. Morgan, 382–388. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazazis, Kostas. 1972. Some remarks on palatalization in Modern Greek. Research on Language & Social Interaction 5(2): 330–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehoe, Margaret. 2000. Truncation without shape constraints: the latter stages of prosodic acquisition. Language Acquisition 8(1): 23–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehoe, Margaret, and Carol Stoel-Gammon. 1997. Truncation patterns in English-speaking children’s word productions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40: 526–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.

  • Keller, Frank. 2006. Linear Optimality Theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives, eds. Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Ralph Vogel, and Matthias Schlesewsky. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, and Paul Smolensky. 1990. Harmonic Grammar—a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic wellformedness: an application. In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 884–891. Cambridge: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macken, Marlys A. 1980. The child’s lexical representation: the ‘puzzle-puddle-pickle’ evidence. Journal of Linguistics 16: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magri, Giorgio. 2007. The subset problem in Optimality Theory. Manuscript, MIT.

  • Marshall, Chloe R., and Heather, K.J. van der Lely. 2009. Effects of word position and stress and onset cluster production: evidence from typical development, specific language impairment, and dyslexia. Language 85: 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 1998. Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. In Papers from the thirty-second regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 32), part 2: the panels, eds. M. Catherine Gruber, Derrick Higgins, Kenneth Olsen, and Tamra Wysocki, 123–150. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in optimality theory: university of Massachusetts occasional papers, Vol. 18, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA [ROA-60].

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreton, Elliott. 2000. Phonological grammar in speech perception. Amherst, MA: UMass Amherst dissertation.

  • Moreton, Elliott. 2002. Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84: 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 1997. Minimal violation in phonological development. Language Acquisition 6(3): 201–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2004. Bridging the gap between perception and production with minimally violable constraints. In Fixing priorities: constraints in phonological acquisition, eds. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 219–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2008. Gradual learning and convergence. Linguistic Inquiry 39(2): 334–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighed constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe, Chris Potts, and Rajesh Bhatt. 2007. Linguistic Optimization. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts Amherst [ROA-872].

  • Potts, Christopher, Joe Pater, Karen Jesney, Rajesh Bhatt, and Michael Becker. 2010. Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27(1): 77–117 [ROA-984].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan. 2002. Arguing optimality. In Papers in optimality theory II, eds. Andries Coetzee, Angela Carpenter, and Paul de Lacy, Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan. 2003. Anything goes. In New century of phonology and phonological theory, eds. Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata, and Shinichi Tanaka, 66–90. Tokyo: Kaitakusha [ROA-536].

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, 1993. Revised version published by Blackwell, 2004 [ROA-537].

  • Prince, Alan, and Bruce Tesar. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In Fixing priorities: constraints in phonological acquisition, eds. René Kager, Joe Pater, and Wim Zonneveld, 245–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [ROA-353].

    Google Scholar 

  • Revithiadou, Anthi, and Marina Tzakosta. 2004. Markedness hierarchies vs. positional faithfulness and the role of multiple grammars in the acquisition of Greek. In Proceedings of generative approaches to language acquisition (GALA). Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and prosodic licensing in the L1 acquisition of phonology. Montreal, PQ: McGill University dissertation.

  • Rosenblatt, Frank. 1958. The Perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review 65: 386–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Jennifer L. 2000. Positional faithfulness and learnability in Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of ESCOL 99, eds. Rebecca Daly and Anastasia Riehl, 203–214. Ithaca: CLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Neilson V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: a case study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, Paul. 1996. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 720–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stampe, David. 1973. A dissertation in natural phonology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago dissertation.

  • Tesar, Bruce. 1997. An iterative strategy for learning metrical stress in Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of the twenty-first annual Boston University conference on language acquisition, eds. Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes, and Annabel Greenhill, 615–626. Somerville: Cascadilla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29(2): 229–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2006. Testing for OO-Faithfulness in artificial phonological acquisition. In Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University conference on language development, eds. David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia, and Colleen Zaller, 619–639. Somerville: Cascadilla [ROA-817].

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2007. Biases and stages in phonological acquisition. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation [ROA-883].

  • Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2009. Frequency of violation and constraint-based phonological learning. Lingua 119(1): 6–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velleman, Shelley L. 1988. The role of perception in later phonological development. Applied Psycholinguistics 9: 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werker, Janet, and Richard Tees. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behaviour and Development 7: 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 226 South College, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Karen Jesney

  2. University of Alberta, 4-22 Assiniboia Hall, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E7, Canada

    Anne-Michelle Tessier

Authors
  1. Karen Jesney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne-Michelle Tessier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Michelle Tessier.

Additional information

We gratefully acknowledge the extensive help of Joe Pater on every stage of this work, as well as the contributions of Michael Becker, Paul Boersma, Gaja Jarosz, John McCarthy, Pat Pratt, Bruce Tesar, Matt Wolf, and the audiences at NELS38 and NecPhon1. We also wish to thank the three anonymous NLLT reviewers and the associate editor for their very thorough, challenging, and insightful comments. This work has been supported in part by NSF grant BCS-0813829 to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and by SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship #752-2005-1708 to K. Jesney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jesney, K., Tessier, AM. Biases in Harmonic Grammar: the road to restrictive learning. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 29, 251–290 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation