Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T00:52:19.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What OT is, and what it is not1

Review products

de LacyPaul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. x+697.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2009

TOBIAS SCHEER
TOBIAS SCHEER*
Affiliation:
Université de Nice, CNRS 6039
*
Author's address: Laboratoire Bases, Corpus, Langage (BCL, UMR 6039), Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, CNRS; MSH de Nice, 98 Bd E. Herriot, 06200Nice, France[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 193 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

[1]

I am indebted to two anonymous JL reviewers as well as to Paul de Lacy, whose comments have greatly helped to improve the article.

References

REFERENCES

Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33, 238–266.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. The analysis of French shwa: Or, how to get something for nothing. Language 58, 534–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalizations. Phonology 24, 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. Forthcoming. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickmore, Lee. 1995. Accounting for compensatory lengthening in the CV and moraic frameworks. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.), Frontiers of phonology, 119–148. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia. 2008. The syntax of phonology: A radically substance-free approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrick & Krämer, Martin (eds.). 2007. Freedom of analysis? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula & Koster, Jan (eds.). 2005. Organizing grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 2005. Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão de. 2002. Formally-grounded phonology: From constraint-based theories to theory-based constraints. Studia Linguistica 56, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão de. 2006. Markedness gradient in the Portuguese verb: How morphology and phonology interact. In Fónagy, Ivan, Kawaguchi, Yuji & Moriguchi, Tsunekazu (eds.), Prosody and syntax, 157–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Asli. 1994. Vowel harmony and switching in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 4, 31–52. [Also in Kardela, Henryk & Szymanek, Bogdan (eds.), A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann, 29–56. Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin, 1996.]Google Scholar
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Asli. 1996. Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 6, 1–25. [Also in Cyran, (ed.), 65–88.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Halle, Morris & Lukoff, Fred. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace, McLean, Hugh & Schooneveld, Cornelis van (eds.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Churchland, Patricia. 1993. Can neurobiology teach us anything about consciousness? The American Philosophical Association 67.3, 23–40.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz (ed.). 1998. Structure and interpretation: Studies in phonology. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2003. Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology. Lublin: Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar
Dinsmore, John (ed.). 1992. The symbolic and connectionist paradigms: Closing the gap. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dresher, Elan. 2003. Contrast and asymmetries in inventories. In Anna-Maria di Sciullo, (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition, 239–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, Elan. 2008. The logic of contrast. In Freidin, et al. (eds.), 359–380.Google Scholar
Dresher, Elan. In press. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Beats-and-binding phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The modularity of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry & Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinker, Steven & Mehler, Jacques (eds.), Connections and symbols, 3–73. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.). 2008. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Howard. 1985. The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund & Harris, John. 1998. Final codas: Why the west was wrong. In Cyran, (ed.), 139–162.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund & Harris, John. 2002. Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–42.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 1998. Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 656–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2000. Substance abuse and dysfunctionalism: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 2008. Reduplication. In Freidin, et al. (eds.), 325–357.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 351–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 83–105.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 2005. Why phonology is the same. In Broekhuis, et al. (eds.), 252–262.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 1999a. Head-driven phonology. In Hulst, van der & Ritter, (eds.), 113–167.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 1999b. Theories of the syllable. In Hulst, van der & Ritter, (eds.), 13–52.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy (eds.). 1999c. The syllable: Views and facts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 2000. The SPE-heritage of Optimality Theory. The Linguistic Review 17, 259–289.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard & Rhodes, Richard (eds.). 1996. Natural Phonology: The state of the art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William. 2000. Clarifying opacity. The Linguistic Review 17, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 2001. Working with licensing constraints. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (ed.), Constraints and preferences, 251–268. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 2005. ‘GP, I'll have to put your flat feet on the ground’. In Broekhuis, et al. (eds.), 283–288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, Elinor. 2005. Phrasal reduplication and dual description. In Hurch, Bernhard (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 239–261. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 421–441.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1991. Catalexis. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 291–306.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Introduction. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations, 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 419–441. Salford, England: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Ploch, Stefan (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye, 339–363. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology 4, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John. 1972. How to represent natural sound patterns. Project on Linguistic Analysis (Berkeley) 16, 40–57.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2002. The phonological and morphological status of the Prosodic Word Adjunct. Linguistische Berichte (special issue) 11, 209–235.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2003. Ambisyllabicity and fricative voicing in West-Germanic dialects. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 304–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2005. The first person singular in Dutch dialects. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), 1–12. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2006. A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms., Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005a. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005b. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for the evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser and Chomsky). Cognition 97, 211–225.Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, Markus. 2006. The structure of length. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado (ROA version August 2002).Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raimy, Eric & Cairns, Charles (ed.). Forthcoming. Architecture and representations in phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt. 2003. OT, 10 years later. Presented at the PFC [Phonologie du Français Contemporain] conference Phonologie et phonétique du français: Données et théories, Paris, 11–13 December.Google Scholar
Ritter, Nancy. 2006. Georgian consonant clusters: The complexity is in the structure, not in the melody. The Linguistic Review 23, 429–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1997. Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational Optimality Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 551–581. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L. & Research Group, the PDP (eds.). 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the micro-structure of cognition, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology, vol.1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. Forthcoming. How morpho-syntax talks to phonology: A survey of extra-phonological information in phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. In press. Generative phonology and its evolution. In Botma, Bert, Kula, Nancy & Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.), The Continuum companion to phonology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1987. Connectionist AI, symbolic AI, and the brain. Artificial Intelligence Review 1, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1988. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Brain and Behavioural Sciences 11, 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Geraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A non-linear analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22, 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillings, Neil, Weisler, Steven, Chase, Christopher, Feinstein, Mark, Garfield, Jay & Rissland, Edwina. 1995. Cognitive science: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20, 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szigetvári, Péter. 2001. Dismantling syllable structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48, 155–181.Google Scholar
Szigetvári, Péter & Scheer, Tobias. 2005. Unified representations for the syllable and stress. Phonology 22, 37–75.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2003. Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar, and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane & Farrell, Patrick (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91.Google Scholar