Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-w9nzq Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-07-31T14:48:42.864Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Computation also matters: a response to Pater (2018)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Adam Jardine
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This article responds to Pater (2018) by arguing for a view of phonology that captures the computational properties of phonological processes. Jardine's (2016) statement that tone is formally more complex than segmental phonology is not a claim, as Pater characterises it, but an empirical observation. This article outlines how phonological theories can incorporate such observations, and integrate them with considerations of phonological substance. The conclusion is that, while computational characterisations are not necessarily alternatives to Optimality Theory, it is extremely diffcult to capture the computational nature of phonological processes in Optimality Theory, due to the expressive power of global optimisation.

Type
Squibs and replies
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

This paper owes much to invaluable discussion with Jeff Heinz and Bill Idsardi and to the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers. All errors are my own.

References

Applegate, Richard B. (1972). Ineseño Chumash grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Avcu, Enes (2018). Experimental investigation of the subregular hypothesis. WCCFL 35. 7786.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bickmore, Lee S. & Kula, Nancy C. (2013). Ternary spreading and the OCP in Copperbelt Bemba. Studies in African Linguistics 42. 101132.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane (2014). Strictly local phonological processes. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane & Heinz, Jeffrey (2018). Strict locality and phonological maps. LI 49. 2360.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, Jardine, Adam & Heinz, Jeffrey (2015). Learning repairs for marked structures. In Albright, Adam & Fullwood, Michelle A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v2i0.3760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2011). Markedness and faithfulness constraints. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 14901512.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason (1997). Efficient generation in primitive Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the ACL and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 313320.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert & Satta, Giorgio (1998). Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24. 307315.Google Scholar
Gerdemann, Dale & Hulden, Mans (2012). Practical finite state Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Finite State Methods and Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. 1019.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) (2011). The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2010). Consonant harmony: long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2009). On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26. 303351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2010). Learning long-distance phonotactics. LI 41. 623661.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey & Lai, Regine (2013). Vowel harmony and subsequentiality. In Kornai, András & Kuhlmann, Marco (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language. Sofia: Association for Computational Linguistics. 5263.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1998). Positional prominence and the ‘prosodic trough’ in Yaka. Phonology 15. 4175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2011). Tone: is it different? In Goldsmith et al. (2011). 197239.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2016). Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33. 247283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2017). The local nature of tone-association patterns. Phonology 34. 363384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2019). The expressivity of autosegmental grammars. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 28. 954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam & Heinz, Jeffrey (2016). Learning Tier-based Strictly 2-Local languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4. 8798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. & Odden, David (2003). Tone. In Nurse, Derek & Philippson, Gérard (eds.) The Bantu languages. London & New York: Routledge. 5970.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C. & Bickmore, Lee S. (2015). Phrasal phonology in Copperbelt Bemba. Phonology 32. 147176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, Andrew (2018). Precedence is pathological: the problem of alphabetical sorting. Poster presented at the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Luo, Huan (2017). Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality. Glossa 2(1):52. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010). Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Hume, Elizabeth & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Tones and features. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 195222.Google Scholar
McCollum, Adam, Baković, Eric, Mai, Anna & Meinhardt, Eric (2017). Conditional blocking in Tutrugbu requires non-determinism: implications for the subregular hypothesis. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistic Society, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
McCollum, Adam & Essegbey, James (2018). Unbounded harmony is not always myopic: evidence from Tutrugbu. WCCFL 35. 251258.Google Scholar
McMullin, Kevin & Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2015). Long-distance phonotactics as Tier-Based Strictly 2-Local languages. In Albright, Adam & Fullwood, Michelle A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v2i0.3750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onn, Farid M. (1980). Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology: a generative approach. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2018). Substance matters: a reply to Jardine (2016). Phonology 35. 151156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Amanda (2017). All dissimilation is computationally subsequential. Lg 93. e353e371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0076.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggle, Jason (2004). Generation, recognition, and learning in finite-state Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2011). Harmony systems. In Goldsmith, et al. (2011). 240290.Google Scholar
Schützenberger, M. P. (1977). Sur une variante des fonctions séquentielles. Theoretical Computer Science 4. 4757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strother-Garcia, Kristina (2018). Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification is quantifier-free. In Gaja Jarosz, Brendan O'Connor & Joe Pater (eds.) Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 2018. 145153. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/scil/vol1/iss1/16.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (2014). Output-driven phonology: theory and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2010). Nonmyopic harmony and the nature of derivations. LI 41. 169179.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2003). Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: marks, targets, and derivations. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Unbounded spreading is myopic. Paper presented at the Phonology Fest Workshop on Current Perspectives on Phonology, Indiana University.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Computation also matters: a response to Pater (2018)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Computation also matters: a response to Pater (2018)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Computation also matters: a response to Pater (2018)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *