<OT> New Posting: ROA-687

[roa at ruccs.rutgers.edu]

ROA 687-0904

What it Means to be a Loser: Non-optimal Candidates in Optimality Theory

Andries W Coetzee <coetzee at umich.edu>

Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=687


Abstract:
In this dissertation I propose a rank-ordering model of
EVAL. This model differs from classic OT as follows: In
classic OT, EVAL distinguishes the best candidate from the
losers, but does not distinguish between different losers.
I argue that EVAL imposes a harmonic rank-ordering on the
complete candidate set, so that also the losers are ordered
relative to each other. I show how this model of EVAL can
account for non-categorical phenomena such as variation
and phonological processing.


Variation. In variation there is more than one pronunciation
for a single input. Grammar determines the possible variants
and the relative frequency of the variants. I argue that
EVAL imposes a harmonic rank-ordering on the entire candidate
set, and that language users can access more than the best
candidate from this rank-ordering. However, the accessibility
of a candidate depends on its position in the rank-ordering.
The higher a candidate appears, the more often it will be
selected as output. The best candidate is then the most
frequent variant, the second best candidate the second most
frequent variant, etc. I apply this model to vowel deletion
in Latvian and Portuguese, and
to [t, d]-deletion in English.
 
Phonological processing. Language users rely on grammar
in word-likeness judgments and lexical decision tasks. The
more well-formed a non-word, the more wordlike language
users will judge it to be. A more well-formed a non-word
is considered more seriously as a possible word, and language
users will be slower to reject it in a lexical decision
task. The rank-ordering model of EVAL accounts for this
as follows: EVAL compares non-words and imposes a rank-ordering
on them. The higher a non-word occurs in this rank-ordering,
the more well-formed it is. Therefore, the higher a non-word
occurs, the more word-like it will be judged to be, and
the more slowly it will be rejected in lexical
decision tasks. I illustrate this by discussing two sets
of experiments on how grammar influences phonological processing.
The first set investigates the influence of the OCP on processing
in Hebrew, and the second the influence of a constraint
on [sCvC]-words in English.

Comments: Ph.D. Dissertation, UMass
Keywords: variation, processing, EVAL, lexical decision, wordlikeness, vowel deletion
Areas: Phonology,Formal Analysis,Psycholinguistics
Type: PhD Dissertation

Direct link: http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=687