R O A
 VIEW ROA 222 
GO

222-1097 
Parsing syllables: modeling OT computationally
Author 
Michael Hammond <hammond@u.arizona.edu> [Details]
Comment 
22pp. (Code for the parser available at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hammond)
Length 
22 pp.
Files 
 PDF 74kb PS 351kb (gzip 96kb)   RTF 162kb (gzip 26kb) 
Abstract 


Parsing syllables: modeling OT computationally
Michael Hammond
University of Arizona
Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993; McCarthy & Prince, 1993) maintains that phonological generalizations can be treated by a two-step process. First, all possible pronunciations for some string are generated by the GEN operation. Then, the best of these different pronunciations is chosen by a set of ranked and violable constraints. This is the dominant theory of phonology today. This theory poses a serious problem for theories of phonological performance; the model cannot be implemented in real time because the candidate set is infinite. Even if we eliminate a number of options in generating candidates, we are still left with an extremely large number of candidate pronunciations to sift through in finite time.
In this paper, I propose to implement syllabification in OT as a parser. I propose several innovations that result in a finite and small candidate set. The candidate set problem is handled with several moves: i) MAX and DEP violations are not hypothesized by the parser, ii) candidates are encoded locally, and iii) EVAL is applied constraint by constraint.
The parser I propose is implemented in Prolog. It has a number of desirable consequences. First, it runs and thus provides an existence proof that syllabification can be implemented in OT. There are a number of other desirable consequences as well. First, constraints are implemented as finite-state transducers. Second, the parser makes several interesting claims about the phonological properties of so-called nonrecoverable insertions and deletions. Third, the implementation suggests some particular reformulations of some of the benchmark constraints in the OT arsenal, e.g. *COMPLEX, PARSE, ONSET, and NOCODA.
Finally, the implementation is compared with various other proposals in the literature, e.g. Ellison (1994), Hammond (1995), Tesar (1995), and Eisner (1997).
Type 
 Manuscript
 JUMP TO GO  
 Item Display:



R O A