The Gradual Learning Algorithm (Boersma 1997) is a constraint ranking algorithm for learning Optimality-theoretic grammars. The purpose of this article is to assess the capabilities of the Gradual Learning Algorithm, particularly in comparison with the Constraint Demotion algorithm of Tesar and Smolensky (1993, 1996, 1998, 2000), which initiated the learnability research program for Optimality Theory. We argue that the Gradual Learning Algorithm has a number of special advantages: it can learn free variation, deal effectively with noisy learning data, and account for gradient wellformedness judgments. The case studies we examine involve Ilokano reduplication and metathesis, Finnish genitive plurals, and the distribution of English light and dark /l/.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

Recent experimental work indicates that by the age of ten months, infants have already learned a great deal about the phonotactics (legal sounds and sound sequences) of their language. This learning occurs before infants can utter words or apprehend most phonological alternations. I will show that this early learning stage can be modeled with Optimality Theory. Specifically, the Markedness and Faithfulness constraints can be ranked so as to characterize the phonotactics, even when no information about morphology or phonological alternations is yet available. Later on, the information acquired in infancy can help the child in coming to grips with the alternation pattern. I also propose a procedure for undoing some learning errors that are likely to occur at the earliest stages. There are two formal proposals. One is a constraint ranking algorithm, based closely on Tesar and Smolensky’s Constraint Demotion, which mimics the early, “phonotactics only” form of learning seen in infants. I illustrate the algorithm’s effectiveness by having it learn the phonotactic pattern of a simplified language modeled on Korean. The other proposal is that there are three distinct default rankings for phonological constraints: low for ordinary Faithfulness (used in learning phonotactics); low for Faithfulness to adult forms (in the child’s own production system); and high for output-to-output correspondence constraints.

Abstract not found

This paper draws on the generative literature in phonological acquisition, as well as on the work of phoneticians and psycholinguists, in an attempt to propose a unified view of the acquisition of phonological competence. We start with an examination of the Optimality Theoretic (OT) account of the well-known comprehension/production dilemma in child language presented in Smolensky (1996ab, henceforth S). We will argue that S's model encounters two serious difficulties --- the first concerning his proposed parsing algorithm and the second concerning the issue of the learnability of underlying forms. We offer alternative parsing algorithms and examine their implications for learnability and the initial ranking of OT constraints. Finally, we propose, based on evidence from a variety of sources, that the resolution of the comprehension /production dilemma lies not in phonological domain (linguistic competence), but rather in the domain of implementation of linguistic knowledge (performance). With a revision of certain aspects of the OT model for children's phonologies and of learnability theory in phonology, the paper attempts to contribute both to research on OT and to the study of phonological acquisition generally. It is not our aim here to argue for or against OT approaches to phonology. We will not hesitate, however, to point out flaws in the application of OT in the current literature. We hope that the improvements in the application of OT which we propose, as well as mention of points in which the theory seems to fare worse than alternative approaches, will lead to the kind of progress in the fields of phonology and acquisition that transcends the provinciality of particular frameworks.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

The markedness constraints of classic Optimality Theory assign violation-marks to output candidates without reference to the input or to other candidates. This article explores an alternative conception of markedness: markedness constraints compare the candidate under evaluation with another candidate, the most faithful one. Comparative constraints distinguish two situations: the candidate under evaluation contains an instance of a marked structure that is also present in the fully faithful candidate; or it contains an instance of a marked structure that is not present in the fully faithful candidate. Empirical consequences of comparative markedness are explored, including grandfather effects, derived environment effects, non-iterating processes, and counter-feeding opacity. Comparative markedness is found to have some advantages and some disadvantages in comparison with classic OT and alternatives like local conjunction, stratal OT, sympathy, and targeted constraints.

Abstract not found