Formal Grammar pp 142-158 | Cite as

On the Expressivity of Optimality Theory versus Ordered Rewrite Rules

  • Brian Buccola
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8036)

Abstract

I prove that there are phonological patterns which are expressible by ordered rewrite rules but not by any Optimality Theoretic (OT) grammar whose constraint set contains only markedness constraints and single–state faithfulness constraints, i.e. faithfulness constraints that assign violation marks to pairs of single input–output segments in correspondence, with no reference to other segments in the input or output. The intention is to capture formally the widespread intuition that certain opaque patterns, which are expressible by ordered rewrite rules, are problematic for classic, or traditional, OT.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chomsky, N., Halle, M.: The Sound Pattern of English. The MIT Press (1968)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prince, A., Smolensky, P.: Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell Publishers (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, C.D.: Formal Aspects of Phonological Description. Mouton (1972)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan, R.M., Kay, M.: Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20(3), 331–378 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heinz, J.: Computational phonology—part I: Foundations. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 140–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerdemann, D., Hulden, M.: Practical finite state optimality theory. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Finite State Methods and Natural Language Processing, pp. 10–19 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riggle, J.: Generation Recognition and Learning in Finite State Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, UCLA (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, R., Satta, G.: Optimality Theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24(2), 307–315 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karttunen, L.: The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite State Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–12 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinz, J.: Computational phonology—part II: Grammars, learning, and the future. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(4), 153–168 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarthy, J.: Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. Equinox Publishing Ltd. (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baković, E.: Opacity and ordering. In: Goldsmith, J.A., Riggle, J., Yu, A.C.L. (eds.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn., Blackwell Publishers (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, J.: Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16, 331–399 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiparsky, P.: Historical linguistics. In: Dingwall, W.O. (ed.) A Survey of Linguistic Science. University of Maryland Linguistics Program, College Park (1971)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiparsky, P.: Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In: Fujimura, O., Smith, D.L. (eds.) Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, TEC (1973)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kager, R.: Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graf, T.: Reference–set constraints as linear tree transductions via controlled optimality systems. In: de Groote, P., Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.) Formal Grammar 2010/2011. LNCS, vol. 7395, pp. 97–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bethin, C.Y.: Phonological rules in the nominative singular and genitive plural of the Slavic substantive declension. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign–Urbana (1978)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenstowicz, M., Kisseberth, C.: Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. Academic Press (1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Law, H.: Morphological structure of Isthmus Nahuat. International Journal of American Languages 24, 108–129 (1958)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hulstaert, G.: Grammaire du Lomongo. Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale (1961)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Rijk, R.: Vowel interaction in Bizcayan Basque. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 2(5), 149–167 (1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Buccola
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations