Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T19:40:24.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanism of sound change in Optimality Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Katya Zubritskaya
Katya Zubritskaya
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I examine the ongoing loss of palatalization assimilation in Modern Standard Russian within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT) (McCarthy & Prince, 1993a; Prince & Smolensky, 1993) and show that this theory offers new, meaningful explanations for the role of markedness and naturalness in the mechanism of a sound change. I also argue that OT provides new possibilities for relating quantitative patterns to the formal principles of grammatical organization. In particular, in OT, suggested cross-linguistically invariant relations between phonological factors predict a general pattern of influence that these factors have on the quantitative outcome of a change. I suggest that a change operates as a gradual weakening or strengthening of whole subhierarchies of constraints with universally fixed rankings (constraint families, which implement markedness scales in OT). In an examination of variable data, I argue that the major differences in quantitative patterns mirror the fixed constraint ranking within such constraint families and constraint violation/nonviolation in OT grammar. I also discuss the problem of modeling variable data within OT, which, like other formal phonological theories, permits no output variation. I examine a grammar competition model explored in OT literature and argue instead for constraint competition with constraint weight in production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 121 - 148
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

Antilla, A. (1995). How to derive variation from grammar. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Language Variation and Linguistic Theory, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. (1972). The integration of linguistic theory: Internal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive analysis. In Stockwell, R. & Macaulay, R. (Eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 22–31.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clements, G. (1990). Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified theory. In Laks, B. & Railland, A. (Eds.), L'architecture et la géométrie des représentations phonologiques. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Ganiev, Z. (1971). On pronunciation of workers born in Moscow. In Razvitie fonetiki sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, Volume 2, Panov, G. (Ed.). Moscow: Nauka, Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1993). Harmonic phonology. In Goldsmith, J. (Ed.), The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 21–60.Google Scholar
Hume, E. (1992). Front vowels, coronal consonants, and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1929). Remarques sur L'évolution Phonologique du Russe Comparée à Celle des Autres Langues Slaves. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 2. (Reprinted in Selected Writings, Volume 1.)Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–136). Tokyo: Taikusha.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Phonological change. In Newmeyer, F. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 363–415.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1993). Variable rules. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop #1, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1995). Phonological basis of sound change. In Goldsmith, J. A. (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.), Language variation and change. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52.) Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krisin, V. (Ed.). (1974). Russkij jazyk po dannym massovogo obsledovanija. Moscow: Nauka, Russian Language Institute and Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Panov, G. (Ed.). (1968). Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazika. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stockwell, R. & Macaulay, R. (Eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 101–171.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. (1994). Optimality and optionality. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993a). Prosodic morphology 1: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993b). Generalized alignment. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Gonzalez, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. (1993). Fields of attraction in phonology. In Goldsmith, G. (Ed.), The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 61–116.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Reynolds, B. (1994). Variation and Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Reynolds, B., & Nagy, N. (1994). Variation in Faetar. An Optimality account. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIII, Stanford.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. In Studies in generative grammar. Volume 17. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rubach, J., & Booij, G. (1990). Syllable structure assignment in Polish. Phonology 7, 121–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1990). A two-root theory of length. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1984). Harmony theory: Thermal parallel models in a computational context. Technical Report 8404, Institute for Cognitive Science, Univ. of California at San Diego. In Smolensky, P. & Riley, M. (Eds.), Harmony theory: Problem solving, parallel cognitive models, and thermal physics.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1993). Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Handout, Rutgers Optimality Workshop #1.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1979). A dissertation in natural phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zubritskaya, K. (1994). The categorical and variable phonology of Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zubritskaya, K. (1995). Palatalization mutations as coalescence in correspondence model of OT. Paper presented at the 4th meeting of the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar