Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T16:43:23.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraint conjunction in weighted probabilistic grammar*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Stephanie S. Shih
Stephanie S. Shih*
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
*
E-mail: stephsus@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines a key difference between constraint conjunction and constraint weight additivity, arguing that the two do not have the same empirical coverage. In particular, constraint conjunction in weighted probabilistic grammar allows for superadditive constraint interaction, where the effect of violating two constraints goes beyond the additive combination of the two constraints’ weights alone. A case study from parasitic tone harmony in Dioula d'Odienné demonstrates superadditive local and long-distance segmental feature similarities that increase the likelihood of tone harmony. Superadditivity in Dioula d'Odienné is formally captured in Maximum Entropy Harmonic Grammar by weighted constraint conjunction. Counter to previous approaches that supplant constraint conjunction with weight additivity in Harmonic Grammar, information-theoretic model comparison reveals that weighted constraint conjunction improves the grammar's explanatory power when modelling quantitative natural language patterns.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , August 2017 , pp. 243 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

*

Acknowledgements to Kie Zuraw, Eric Bakovi«, Christopher Green, Lauren Hall-Lew, Gunnar Hansson, Sharon Inkelas, Laura McPherson, Joe Pater, Brian Smith, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Colin Wilson and audiences at WCCFL 33, GLOW 38 and UCs Merced and Berkeley for discussion on various portions of this work. Thanks also to Jeff Heinz and Bill Idsardi, and two anonymous reviewers for detailed comments. Errors are inevitable in stochastic systems, and the author accepts blame for any that remain herein.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam (2009). Cumulative violations and complexity thresholds: evidence from Lakhota. Paper presented at the 17th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Anderson, David R. (2008). Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Anderson, David R. & Burnham, Kenneth P. (2002). Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 66. 912–918.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G. (2013). Dissimilation, consonant harmony, and surface correspondence. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G. (2015a). The phonology of consonants: harmony, dissimilation, and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G. (2015b). Assimilation, dissimilation, and surface correspondence in Sundanese. NLLT 33. 371–415.Google Scholar
Braconnier, C. (1982). Le système tonal du dioula d'Odienné. Abidjan: Université d'Abidjan.Google Scholar
Braconnier, C. (1983). Phonologie du dioula d'Odienné. Abidjan: Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique.Google Scholar
Braconnier, C. & Diaby, S. (1982). Dioula d'Odienné (parler de Samatiguila): matérial lexical. Abidjan: Institut de Linguistique Appliquée.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & Anderson, David R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & Anderson, David R. (2004). Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33. 261–304.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2002). Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints. In Boucher, Paul (ed.) Many morphologies. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 142–177.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan J. & Hewitt, Mark (1997). Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory. Ms, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & Brandeis University. Available as ROA-229 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. (2008). Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179–228.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Green, Christopher R. & Davis, Stuart (2014). Superadditivity and limitations on syllable complexity in Bambara words. In Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. & Barlow, Jessica A. (eds.) Perspectives on phonological theory and acquisition: papers in honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 223–247.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2007). Blocking effects in agreement by correspondence. LI 38. 395–409.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2010). Consonant harmony: long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2014). (Dis)agreement by (non)correspondence: inspecting the foundations. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC Conference Archive. Slides available (May 2017) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2014/ABCC/Hansson.pdf.3-62.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin & George, Ben (2009). Maxent grammar tool. Software package. Available (May 2017) at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/MaxentGrammarTool/.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin & Shisko, Anne (2012). Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Milton. Lg 88. 691–731.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Shih, Stephanie S. (2014). Unstable surface correspondence as the source of local conspiracies. NELS 44:1. 191–204.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Shih, Stephanie S. (2016). Tone melodies in the age of surface correspondence. CLS 51. 269–283.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (1998). Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available as ROA-255 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Japanese morphophonemics: markedness and word structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard (2007). Maximum entropy models and Stochastic Optimality Theory. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, rules, and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI. 467–479.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette (2006). The winner takes it all – almost: cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics 44. 937–971.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2014). Complex process interaction: weighted constraints vs. ranked constraints and rules. Paper presented at the Interaction of Grammatical Building Blocks (IGRA): Workshop on Building Blocks, University of Leipzig. Available (May 2017) at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jesney/Jesney2014IGRA_handout.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail R. (1995). The typology of rounding harmony: an optimality theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kullback, S. & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22. 79–86.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 884–891.Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian (2014). Doubly triggered harmony in Laal as subphonemic Agreement by Correspondence. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. Available (May 2017) at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/38.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2005). Locality of conjunction. WCCFL 24. 254–262.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2016). Universal Grammar with weighted constraints. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 1–46.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe & Moreton, Elliot (2012). Structurally biased phonology: complexity in learning and typology. The EFL Journal 3:2. 1–44.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27. 77–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Russell (2012). Vowel harmony as Agreement by Correspondence. Annual Report of the UC Berkeley Phonology Laboratory. 138–168. Available (May 2017) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2012/rhodes_abc_vh.pdf.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Sasa, Tomomasa (2009). Treatment of vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. (2013). Consonant–tone interaction as Agreement by Correspondence. Ms, Stanford University & University of California, Berkeley. Available (May 2017) at http://cogsci.ucmerced.edu/shih/shih-ctoneABC-draftms_1-18-13.pdf.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. (2014). Towards optimal rhythm. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. & Inkelas, Sharon (2014). A subsegmental correspondence approach to contour tone (dis)harmony patterns. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. Available (May 2017) at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/22.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1993). Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop. Available as ROA-87 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (2006). Optimality in phonology II: harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 27–160.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stone, M. (1977). An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and Akaike's criterion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 39. 44–47.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2000). Long-distance consonantal identity effects. WCCFL 19. 532–545.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2009). Similarity-sensitive blocking and transparency in Menominee. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco. Slides available (May 2017) at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~rwalker/MenomineeLSAHdt.pdf.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2014). Prominence-control and multiple triggers in vowel harmony: an ABC analysis. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC Conference Archive. 202–213. Slides available (May 2017) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/annual_report/documents/2014/ABCC/Walker.pdf.Google Scholar
Wayment, Adam (2009). Assimilation as attraction: computing distance, similarity, and locality in phonology. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin & Obdeyn, Marieke (2009). Simplifying subsidiary theory: statistical evidence from Arabic, Muna, Shona, and Wargamay. Ms, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2002). Aggressive reduplication. Phonology 19. 395–439.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Shih supplementary material

Shih supplementary material 1

Download Shih supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 152.9 KB