Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:29:13.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Violable is variable: Optimality theory and linguistic variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Gregory R. Guy
Gregory R. Guy
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimality theory (OT) (McCarthy & Prince, 1993; Prince & Smolensky, 1993) has been proposed as a constraint-based theory of phonology in which the phonological facts of each language are accounted for by a language-specific ordering of a universal inventory of constraints. The constraints, expressing desirable (i.e., optimal) phonological states, evaluate possible candidate forms, selecting the optimal output. Any constraint may be violated by a surface form if it is overridden by a higherranked constraint; the ordinal sequence of constraints provides a weak quantification of constraint effects. Variability has been treated within OT by varying constraint orders. This model is analogous in several important respects to the variable rule model (VR) of Labov (1969) and Cedergren and Sankoff (1974). In VR, variable constraints express desirable phonological states which are variably realized on the surface, when not overridden by other constraints; constraints are probabilistically quantified. This article compares the OT and VR models, arguing that the VR model is superior on theoretical and empirical grounds: constraint effects in VR are stable, transparent, and learnable. Moreover, the probabilistic treatment of constraint effects allows VR to model successfully cases in which multiple violations of a single constraint lead to a cumulative reduction in likelihood of a form; such cases cannot be efficiently treated in OT.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1997 , pp. 333 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

REFERENCES

Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1993). The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1992). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Boberg, Charles. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change 9:149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., & Lee, Shinsook. (1994). Variation as optimally in Korean cluster reduction. Paper presented at ESCOL, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1993). Variable rules. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1994). An OT perspective on phonological variation. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIH, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Introduction. In Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and anti-gemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17:207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43:84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John, & Prince, Alan S. (1993). Prosodic morphology I. Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi. (1996). Language contact and language change in the Faetar speech community. Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania (IRCS Report 96–08). Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, & Reynolds, William. (1997). Optimality Theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9:37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole. (1988). On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6:71–96.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Reynolds, William. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale, & Sankoff, David. (1978). Advances in variable rule methodology. In Sankoff, D. (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 57–69.Google Scholar
Santa, Ana A. Otto. (1996). Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English. Language Variation and Change 8:63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesar, B., & Smolensky, Paul. (1995). The learnability of Optimality Theory. In Aranovich, R., Byrne, W., Preuss, S., & Senturia, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association/CSLI. 122–137.Google Scholar
Veatch, Thomas. (1991). English vowels: Their surface phonology and phonetic implementation in vernacular dialects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. (1988). The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry 19:65–100.Google Scholar
Zubritskaya, Katya. (1997). Mechanism of sound change in Optimality Theory. Language Variation and Change 9:121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar