Weighted Constraints in Generative Linguistics

Harmonic Grammar (HG) and Optimality Theory (OT) are closely related formal frameworks for the study of language. In both, the structure of a given language is determined by the relative strengths of a set of constraints. They differ in how these strengths are represented: as numerical weights (HG) or as ranks (OT). Weighted constraints have advantages for the construction of accounts of language learning and other cognitive processes, partly because they allow for the adaptation of connectionist and statistical models. HG has been little studied in generative linguistics, however, largely due to influential claims that weighted constraints make incorrect predictions about the typology of natural languages, predictions that are not shared by the more popular OT. This paper makes the case that HG is in fact a promising framework for typological research, and reviews and extends the existing arguments for weighted over ranked constraints.

[1]  J. Goldsmith.  A Dynamic Computational Theory of Accent Systems , 2004 .

[2]  Giorgio Magri,et al.  Modeling Doubly Marked Lags with a Split Additive Model , 2007 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[4]  R. Mester,et al.  The Phonology of Voicing in Japanese: Theoretical Consequences for Morphological Accessibility , 2008 .

[5]  Joe Pater.  Gradual Learning and Convergence , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[6]  Grover Hudson,et al.  PHONOLOGY AND LANGUAGE USE , 2004 .

[7]  P. Fikkert.  Acquisition of phonology , 1995 .

[8]  Matthew Gordon,et al.  A Factorial Typology of Quantity-Insensitive Stress , 2002 .

[9]  D. Everett,et al.  On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement , 1984 .

[10]  Joe Pater,et al.  Serial Harmonic Grammar and Berber Syllabification , 2010 .

[11]  B. Elan Dresher.  Acquiring stress systems , 1992, Language Computations.

[12]  Bruce P. Hayes,et al.  Phonetically Driven Phonology: The Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding 1 , 2008 .

[13]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  Generalized alignment , 1993 .

[14]  David S. Touretzky,et al.  Connectionist Models and Linguistic Theory: Investigations of Stress Systems in Language , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  A Prince,et al.  Optimality: From Neural Networks to Universal Grammar , 1997, Science.

[16]  Markus Fischer.  A Robbins-Monro type learning algorithm for an entropy maximizing version of stochastic Optimality Theory , 2005 .

[17]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Maximum Entropy Models and Stochastic Optimality Theory , 2003 .

[18]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Restraint of Analysis , 2006 .

[19]  Emilio Salinas,et al.  Noisy neurons can certainly compute , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Graded Constraints on English Word Forms , 2006 .

[21]  Andries W. Coetzee,et al.  The Place of Variation in Phonological Theory , 2011 .

[22]  J. Stemberger,et al.  Optimality Theory , 2003 .

[23]  Walter Daelemans,et al.  Learnability in Optimality Theory , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[24]  Robert Daland,et al.  Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: insights from Harmonic Grammar networks* , 2009, Phonology.

[25]  P. Boersma,et al.  Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[26]  Frank Keller,et al.  Linear Optimality Theory as a Model of Gradience in Grammar , 2006 .

[27]  Paul Smolensky,et al.  Harmony in Linguistic Cognition , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Joe Pater,et al.  Form and Substance in Phonological Development , 2002 .

[29]  J. Ohala.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation , 1990 .

[30]  Mark S. Hewitt,et al.  Quantitative Consequences of Rhythmic Organization , 2002 .

[31]  Géraldine Legendre,et al.  Can Connectionism Contribute to Syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an Application ; CU-CS-485-90 , 1990 .

[32]  Ashley Farris-Trimble,et al.  Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology , 2008 .

[33]  G. Jäger,et al.  The winner takes it all — almost: cumulativity in grammatical variation , 2006 .

[34]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Optimality theory and phonological acquisition , 2004 .

[35]  Gregory R. Guy.  Violable is variable: Optimality theory and linguistic variation , 1997, Language Variation and Change.

[36]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Nonparametric bayesian models of lexical acquisition , 2007 .

[37]  Linda Lombardi,et al.  Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in Optimality Theory , 2008 .

[38]  B. Hayes.  Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies , 1995 .

[39]  J. Barlow,et al.  Optimality theory in phonological acquisition. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[40]  F ROSENBLATT,et al.  The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. , 1958, Psychological review.

[41]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[42]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model , 2003 .

[43]  Kohei Nishimura,et al.  Lyman's Law in Loanwords , 2006 .

[44]  John Goldsmith,et al.  The last phonological rule : reflections on constraints and derivations , 1993 .

[45]  Joe Pater,et al.  Morpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution , 2009 .

[46]  B. Lyman,et al.  The change from surd to sonant in Japanese compounds , 1894 .

[47]  Andrew Martin,et al.  The evolving lexicon , 2007 .

[48]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Optimality Theory in Phonology , 2004 .

[49]  K. Flack.  The Sources of Phonological Markedness , 2007 .

[50]  K. Hale.  DEEP-SURFACE CANONICAL DISPARITIES IN RELATION TO ANALYSIS AND CHANGE: AN AUSTRALIAN EXAMPLE , 1973 .

[51]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory , 2001 .

[52]  Michael Hammond.  Parameters of Metrical Theory and Learnability , 1990 .

[53]  P. Boersma.  Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 4.4.24) , 2006 .

[54]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Induction of First-Order Decision Lists: Results on Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs , 1995, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[55]  Bertrand Kiefer,et al.  Anything goes , 1991, Nature.

[56]  Joe Pater,et al.  Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic , 2008 .

[57]  J. Stemberger,et al.  Handbook of Phonological Development: From the Perspective of Constraint-Based Nonlinear Phonology , 1999 .

[58]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[59]  Luigi Burzio.  Missing players: Phonology and the past-tense debate , 2002 .

[60]  Géraldine Legendre,et al.  The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic GrammarVolume I: Cognitive Architecture (Bradford Books) , 2006 .

[61]  S. Pinker,et al.  On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition , 1988, Cognition.

[62]  Neilson V. Smith,et al.  The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study , 2010 .

[63]  T. Mark Ellison,et al.  The Universal Constraint Set: Convention, not Fact , 2000 .

[64]  Mark E. Johnson,et al.  Optimality–theoretic Lexical Functional Grammar , 2002 .

[65]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Model theory and the content of OT constraints , 2002, Phonology.

[66]  Jennifer L. Smith.  Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions , 2004 .

[67]  D. Dinnsen.  Constraints in phonological acquisition , 2004 .

[68]  Rajesh Bhatt,et al.  Harmonic grammar with linear programming , 2007 .

[69]  Tamás Biró,et al.  Quadratic Alignment Constraints and Finite State Optimality Theory , 2003 .

[70]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  The prosody-morphology interface: Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology , 1999 .

[71]  Shigeto Kawahara,et al.  A Faithfulness Ranking Projected from a Perceptibility Scale: The Case of [+ Voice] in Japanese , 2006 .

[72]  Anne-Michelle Tessier,et al.  Re-evaluating learning biases in Harmonic Grammar , 2007 .

[73]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[74]  Joe Pater.  Minimal Violation and Phonological Development , 1997 .

[75]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception , 2009 .

[76]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader , 2003 .

[77]  Elizabeth Hume,et al.  Metathesis: Formal and Functional Considerations , 2001 .

[78]  Junko Ito,et al.  Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure , 2003 .

[79]  G. Dell,et al.  Becoming syntactic. , 2006, Psychological review.

[80]  Ulrich Schade,et al.  A local connectionist account of consonant harmony in child language , 2000, Cogn. Sci..

[81]  Joe Pater,et al.  Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Vol. 1: Cognitive architecture. Pp. xxiv+563. Vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical implications. Pp. xxiv+611. , 2009, Phonology.

[82]  L. Lombardi.  Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in Optimality Theory , 1999 .

[83]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Model of Phonotactics and Phonotactic Learning , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[84]  Bruce Hayes.  Phonetically Driven Phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding [Formalist phonology position paper] , 1999 .

[85]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology , 1999 .

[86]  A. Anttila.  The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology: Variation and optionality , 2007 .

[87]  R. Port,et al.  Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in German , 1989 .

[88]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Analytic bias and phonological typology * , 2008 .

[89]  J. Goldsmith.  Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology , 1990 .

[90]  Jason Eisner,et al.  Introduction to the special section on linguistically apt statistical methods , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[91]  J. McCarthy.  OT constraints are categorical , 2003, Phonology.

[92]  Colin Wilson,et al.  Learning Phonology With Substantive Bias: An Experimental and Computational Study of Velar Palatalization , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[93]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology* , 2010, Phonology.

[94]  Edward Flemming.  Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology , 2001, Phonology.

[95]  Bernard Widrow,et al.  Adaptive switching circuits , 1988 .

[96]  Bruce Tesar,et al.  A Comparison of Lexicographic and Linear Numeric Optimization Using Violation Difference Ratios * , 2007 .

[97]  P. Sells,et al.  Optimality-Theoretic Lexical-Functional Grammar , 2006 .

[98]  J. Hawkins.  Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[99]  Jason Eisner,et al.  FootForm Decomposed: Using primitive constraints in OT , 1997 .

[100]  Edith A. Moravcsik.  Possible and probable languages , 2006 .

[101]  Paul de Lacy,et al.  Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology , 2006 .

[102]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Stochastic Lexical-Functional Grammars , 2000 .

[103]  Junko Ito.  The phonology of voincing in Japanese , 1986 .

[104]  M. Hale,et al.  Substance Abuse and Dysfunctionalism: Current Trends in Phonology , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[105]  A. Prince.  The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology: The pursuit of theory , 2007 .

[106]  Joe Pater,et al.  Direction of Assimilation in Child Consonant Harmony , 2003, Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.