Scribd
Upload
176 views

6-Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory views language as a system of universal constraints that can conflict. Phonological systems differ because languages rank these constraints differently. Constraints may be contradictory, so the higher ranked constraint will take priority if two conflict. Optimality Theory was introduced by Prince and Smolensky as a framework for linguistic analysis and was later expanded by Prince and McCarthy. It provides an analysis of second language phonology through examining how learners rank faithfulness constraints versus markedness constraints. Different constraint rankings can lead to different substitution patterns observed in learners' productions.

Uploaded by

aryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
176 views

6-Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory views language as a system of universal constraints that can conflict. Phonological systems differ because languages rank these constraints differently. Constraints may be contradictory, so the higher ranked constraint will take priority if two conflict. Optimality Theory was introduced by Prince and Smolensky as a framework for linguistic analysis and was later expanded by Prince and McCarthy. It provides an analysis of second language phonology through examining how learners rank faithfulness constraints versus markedness constraints. Different constraint rankings can lead to different substitution patterns observed in learners' productions.

Uploaded by

aryan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Optimality Theory

in Phonology
• Optimality Theory (OT) views language as a system of conflicting
universal constraints, and different phonological systems as a result of
different rankings of these constraints.
• In other words, languages have different phonologies, because
• (a) languages differ in the importance they attach to various
constraints (constraint hierarchy),
• (b) constraints may be contradictory, and thus be violated; if two
constraints are contradictory, the one that is ranked higher will have
priority.
• Prince and Smolensky (1993) introduced the Optimality Theory
(OT), as a framework for Linguistic analysis,

• Kager (1999) gave an introduction to the theory.

• The theory was later expanded by Prince and John McCarthy


in (2001)

• Optimality theory is usually considered a development of


generative grammar.
L2 phonology and OT
• Our first example comes from a segmental substitution of the English
/ɵ/ as [s] or [t] in languages that lack the interdental fricative (Lombardi
2003).
• What is interesting here is that some languages use [s] and others utilize
[t] despite the fact that all first languages have both segments.
• The idea advanced by Lombardi is that languages that use the substitute
[s] (e.g. German, French, Japanese) do so because of native language
transfer, whereas others that use the substitute [t] (e.g. Turkish, Persian,
Russian) do so because of a universal markedness constraint (fricatives
are more marked than stops, thus *[continuant] >> *[stop]).
• Also relevant is the markedness constraint *ɵ, which conspires against
the occurrence of interdentals in inventories.
• Finally, the relevant faithfulness constraint for this substitution is
IDENT-manner, which is defined by the manner features [stop],
[continuant], and [strident].
• The explanation lies in the ranking of the manner faithfulness
constraint relative to the markedness constraints.
• We have the following tableaux for the two different substitutions.
• Our final example comes from final obstruent devoicing.
• As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this is a common process seen in the
speech of many learners of English coming from a variety of languages such as
German, Russian, Turkish, Dutch, and Bulgarian, to name a few.
• Final devoicing, however, has also been observed in learners of English whose
language does not allow any obstruents (voiced or voiceless) in final position.
• Broselow et al. (1998) analyze such a situation in Mandarin L1 speakers
learning English.
• While English allows both voiced and voiceless stops in final position,
Mandarin lacks both in this position.
• When Mandarin speakers learn English, the clash created by the above-
mentioned mismatch is resolved by a variety of different strategies
including:
• epenthesis (e.g. bag → [bægə]),
• deletion (e.g. bag → [bæ]),
• final devoicing (e.g. bag → [bæk]).
• The last option is an unexpected one because there is no such rule in the
native language.
• Thus, the outcome is not a result of interference, nor is it coming from
the target language.
Tasks
• Draw the optimality tableau for the following processes happened in
the utterance of intermediate learners:

• /sku:l/ → [ʔesku:l]
• /præktis/ → [peræktis]
• /bʊk/ →[buk]
• /sɪt/ →[sit]
• /wen/ →[ven]
• /sɪks/ →[sɪsk]

You might also like