In this article we show how Optimality Theory yields a highly general Constraint Demotion principle for grammar learning. The resulting learning procedure specifically exploits the grammatical structure of Optimality Theory, independent of the content of substantive constraints defining any given grammatical module. We decompose the learning problem and present formal results for a central subproblem, deducing the constraint ranking particular to a target language, given structural descriptions of positive examples. The structure imposed on the space of possible grammars by Optimality Theory allows efficient convergence to a correct grammar. We discuss implications for learning from overt data only, as well as other learning issues. We argue that Optimality Theory promotes confluence of the demands of more effective learnability and deeper linguistic explanation.

this paper is to introduce, by means of the detailed analysis of a single grammatical problem, the rudiments of a grammatical theory which assigns a central role to the notion of grammatical construction. To adopt a constructional approach is to undertake a commitment in principle to account for the entirety of each language. 2 This means that the relatively general patterns of the language, such as the one licensing the ordering of a finite auxiliary verb before its subject in English as illustrated in (1), and the more idiomatic patterns, such as those exemplified in (2), stand on an equal footing as data for which the grammar must provide an account. (1) a What have you done? b Never will I leave you. c So will she. d Long may you prosper! e Had I known, . . . f Am I tired! g . . . as were the others h Thus did the hen reward Beecher. (2) a by and large b [to] have a field day c [to] have to hand it to [someone] d (*A/*The) Fool that I was, . . . e in x's own right Given such a commitment, the construction grammarian is required to develop an explicit system of representation, capable of encoding economically and without loss of generalization, all the constructions (or patterns) of the language, from the most idiomatic to the most general. This goal was advanced in the form of a promissory note in an earlier paper that dealt with the English let alone construction: "It appears to us that the machinery needed for describing the so-called minor or peripheral constructions of the sort which has occupied us here will have 1 The authors gratefully acknowledge much fruitful discussion regarding the content of this paper with Mary Catherine O'Connor. We are indebted to Yunsook Chung, Ron Kaplan, Ray Jackendoff, Susanne Riehemann and Ivan Sag for comments on earlier dr...

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

"Paradigms are primarily and mainly of single words but where short groups of words or phrases (e.g., Latin, and some Greek, perfective passives,) are syntactically comparable to single words in the corresponding places of a different paradigm they are obviously to be included in paradigms themselves."-Robins 1959:124 Our intention in this paper is to develop an explanatory account of the special characteristics of periphrastic expressions by refining the traditional notion of PARADIGM employed within inferential-realizational approaches to morphology (Anderson 1992, Aronoff 1994, Zwicky 1990, Stump 1993, 2001). Our proposal draws on this notion in order to develop a substantive reconceptualization of the form and function of the lexicon in constraint-based theories of syntax. In particular, we argue that the paradigms defined by a language's morphology sometimes include periphrastic combinations (PERIPHRASES). As we show, this conclusion affords a simple resolution of a number of neglected problems which periphrases pose for theories of syntax; it also necessitates a radical

Alternations that are partly phonologically, partly morphologically conditioned are a central problem in phonological theory. In Optimality Theory, two types of solutions have been proposed: morphologically specialized phonological constraints (interface constraints) and different constraint rankings for different morphological categories (cophonologies). This paper presents empirical evidence that distinguishes between these two hypotheses. Stem-final vowel alternations in Finnish are governed by a mixed set of conditions that range from purely phonological to morphological and lexical, from iron-clad exceptionless regularities to quantitative tendencies. Using a standard dictionary as the data base, we show that phonological conditioning plays the dominant role, but in cases where phonology underdetermines the output, morphological conditioning may emerge. We then show that partial ordering of constraints, commonly used to model variation, extends to morphological condi...

The "phase" alternation in Rotuman is remarkable (and has attracted a good deal of previous attention) for two reasons. First, the shape differences between phases are quite diverse, involving resyllabification, deletion, umlaut, and metathesis. Second, the phase alternation produces prosodic structures that are otherwise unattested in this language, replacing simple (C)V syllables with closed and diphthongal ones. In this article, I argue that Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) helps to make sense of both these observations. I also go on to use these results to support some claims about the nature of templates and prosodic circumscription in the theory of Prosodic Morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1986).

Abstract not found

this paper: call attention to a less-discussed pattern, in which strong positions have systematically simpler structures than weak positions (6) Lakhota: codas are generally banned in roots, but they may surface in affixes, function words, and reduplicants (data below) Proposal: such patterns are best captured by markedness constraints whose domain in the root (RSCs) (7) Outline of the paper . Description of Lakhota: possible roots, affixes, clitics, and reduplicants . The same set of codas is allowed everywhere . . . except roots . Root-domain Structure Constraints: markedness constraints whose domain of application is the root (or lexical category) . Discussion: the motivation of root-specific constraints on syllable structure, and some unresolved issues 2 The distribution of codas in Lakhota (8) Preliminaries on Lakhota . Siouan language, spoken primarily in N. and S. Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Canada . Data from Boas and Deloria (1941), Buechel (1970), Shaw (1980), Munro (1989), and field work with a native speaker, Mary Rose Iron Teeth . Consonant inventory unaspirated p t tS k aspirated p h1 ejective p' t' tS' k' fricatives s, z, s' S, Z, S' x, G, x' nasals m n N liquid l glides j w (9) Lakhota words allow a fairly rich set of onsets (A representative selection) Stop + stop: pte `cow' tke `heavy' a `but' kt u `wear' Stop + fric/affric: ps `rice' pSa `sneeze' kSto (emph. clitic) tSi `with' Fric + stop: xttu `evening' xp `lie down' stu `in love' Skate `play' Obstruent + sonorant: blo `potato' gli `arrive home' gn `cheat, fool' sni `cold' Nasal + nasal: mni `water' (10) Word-final codas are generally not permitted . (*[kat], *[tax], *[man]) (11) Word-medially: arguably also no codas . Same clu...

this paper is to show that Structural Immunity, a time-tested technique, fares better than recent proposals couched within Optimality Theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993) in handling nonderived environment blocking and in connecting that phenomenon to other types of blocking. In addition, we shall see that the structural approach leads to a new perspective on the "Richness of the Base" hypothesis in OT.