skip to main content
research-article

An OT-ET Analysis of Polish Singular-Plural Pairs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Optimality Theory (OT) and Exemplar Theory (ET) are two enchanting theories to many scholars, but each still faces criticism and remaining persistent problems. Application of both theories to areas in linguistics where conflicts may arise has been attempted, but still the suitability of combining the two theories to resolve contradictions awaits further analysis and verification. This article takes Polish singular-plural pairs as the object of study and argues in favor of an OT-ET combined model of analyzing the linguistic phenomenon. First, an underlying representation is identified to be the input in an OT analysis. Then two main changes are recognized between the input and output, and are regarded as instances of positional neutralization, and their relevant constraints and constraint hierarchies are presented. Following this, challenges are posed to OT despite its merits. It turns out that the combined OT-ET model works well, with historical development, underspecification, constraint hierarchy, and resemblance to existing word clouds, among others, all playing relevant parts. The current study adds to the extensiveness of language data analyzed for or against combining OT and ET, and sketches the analysis pattern of thus doing, with a view to offering more real-life language materials for an OT-ET combined model.

References

  1. A. Prince and P. Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Malden, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. J. Van de Weijer. 2019. Where now with optimality theory? Acta Linguistica Academica 66, 1 (2019), 115–135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. D. Archangeli and D. Langendoen. 1997. Optimality Theory: An Overview. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Kager. 2001. Optimality Theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing, China.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P. De Lacy. 2007. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. McCarthy. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. McCarthy. 2004. Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. McCarthy. 2007. Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. Equinox, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. McCarthy. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. McCarthy. 2008. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25, 2 (2008), 271–319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. J. McCarthy. 2010. An introduction to harmonic serialism. Language and Linguistic Compass 4, 10 (2010), 1001–1018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. McCarthy and J. Pater. 2016. Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Equinox, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. B. Hyde. 2016. Layering and Directionality: Metrical Stress in Optimality Theory. Equinox, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Goldinger, D. Pisoni, and J. Logan. 1991. On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17 (1991), 152–162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. D. Medin and M. Schaffer. 1978. A context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85 (1978), 207–238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Nosofsky. 1988. Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14 (1988), 54–65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. K. Johnson. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Talker Variability in Speech Perception, K. Johnson and J. Mullennix (Eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 145–166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Pierrehumbert. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, J. Bybee and P. Hopper (Eds.). John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 137–157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Bybee. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (2006), 711–733.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J. Bybee. 2012. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, G. Trousdale and T. Hoffmann (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 49–69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Wedel. 2007. Feedback and regularity in the lexicon. Phonology 24 (2007), 147–185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. K. Jesney. 2011. Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Pater. 2012. Serial harmonic grammar and Berber syllabification. In Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Lisa Selkirk, T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya, and M. Sugahara (Eds.). Equinox, London, UK, 43–72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Q. Ma. 2016. A survey of harmonic serialism. Contemporary Linguistics 18, 3 (2016), 401–415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Q. Ma and L. Wu. 2018. On the computational complexity of optimality theory. Tongji University Journal (Social Science Section) 29, 1 (2018), 108–115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. L. Zhu and Q. Ma. 2018. Review of the overseas studies on phonological acquisition. Foreign Language Research 3 (2018), 58–64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Qin. 2018. On the initial state in OT grammar. Foreign Language Research 2 (2018), 18–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Q. Ma. 2012. Optimality theory with candidate chains: Problem and solution. Journal of Shanxi University (Philosophy & Social Science) 35, 1 (2012), 30–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Van de Weijer. 2017. Emergent phonological constraints: The acquisition of *COMPLEX in English. Acta Linguistica Academica 64 (2017), 153–165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. Van de Weijer and Marina Tzakosta. 2017. The status of *COMPLEX in Greek. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, T. Georgakopoulos (Ed.). Vol. 2. Edition Romiosini & Center for Modern Greece, Berlin, Germany, 1259–1274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Zheng. 2016. An OT analysis of English existential clauses. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice 1 (2016), 25–33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. L. Zhu. 2017. A syntax-prosody interface perspective of the consecutive 3rd tone Sandhi: Take Lao Li Mai Hao Jiu as an example. Journal of Foreign Languages 40, 1 (2017), 66–76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J. Van de Weijer. 2014. The origin of OT constraint. Lingua 142 (2014), 66–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. D. Odden. 2005. Introducing Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. J. Pater. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The Prosody-Morphology Interface, R. Kager, H. Van der Hulst, and W. Zonneveld (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 310–343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. J. Zheng and J. Van de Weijer. 2013. An OT analysis of nasal-obstruent clusters in English. Journal of Foreign Languages 36, 6 (2013), 2–17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J. Van de Weijer. 2012. Grammar as Selection: Combining Optimality Theory and Exemplar Theory. Kougaku Shuppan, Nagoya, Japan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. C. Kisseberth. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1970), 291–306.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. E. Buckley. 2001. Polish o-Raising and phonological explanation. In Proceedings of the LSA Annual Meeting. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. E. Gussmann. 1980. Studies in Abstract Phonology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. N. Chomsky and M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. D. Archangeli. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. B. Dresher. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An OT-ET Analysis of Polish Singular-Plural Pairs

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!