Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:25:54.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OT constraints are categorical

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2004

John J. McCarthy
John J. McCarthy
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Optimality Theory, constraints come in two types, which are distinguished by their mode of evaluation. Categorical constraints are either satisfied or not; a categorical constraint assigns no more than one violation-mark, unless there are several violating structures in the form under evaluation. Gradient constraints evaluate extent of deviation; they can assign multiple marks even when there is just a single instance of the non-conforming structure. This article proposes a restrictive definition of what an OT constraint is, from which it follows that all constraints must be categorical. The various gradient constraints that have been proposed are examined, and it is argued that none is necessary and many have undesirable consequences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , May 2003 , pp. 75 - 138
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

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

For their comments, criticisms, and suggestions, I am grateful to the participants in the UMass phonology seminar and reading group: Michael Becker, Della Chambless, Paul de Lacy, Kathryn Flack, Maria Gouskova, Shigeto Kawahara, Jin-Hyung Kim, John Kingston, Steve Parker, Joe Pater, Lisa Selkirk, Taka Shinya, Monica Sieh, Melissa Svendsen, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Adam Werle, Ellen Woolford and Hosuk Yoon. I am likewise grateful to audiences at the 2nd North American Phonology Conference, especially Paul Boersma, Mary Bradshaw, Stuart Davis, San Duanmu, David Odden and Bert Vaux, and at SWOT 8, especially Diana Archangeli, Mike Hammond, Junko Itô, K. P. Mohanan, Jaye Padgett, Alan Prince, Paul Smolensky and Adam Ussishkin. I have also received valuable comments on the manuscript from Maria Gouskova, Jane Grimshaw, Linda Lombardi, Nicole Nelson, Orhan Orgun, Alan Prince, Colin Wilson and Ellen Woolford. I owe a special debt to the Phonology associate editor and four anonymous reviewers who provided a total of 30 single-spaced pages of commentary on my initial submission. I hope this article is the better for all this assistance.