Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff


CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 432.00 / US$ 583.00 / GBP 354.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 99.00 / US$ 149.00 / GBP 80.00*
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …

Automated tableau generation using SPOT (Syntax Prosody in Optimality Theory)

Jennifer Bellik
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
 / Nick Kalivoda
  • Department of Linguistics, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-05-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0051

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Abstract

Much recent work on the syntax-prosody interface has been based in Optimality Theory. The typical analysis explicitly considers only a small number of candidates that could reasonably be expected to be optimal under some ranking, often without an explicit definition of GEN. Manually generating all the possible candidates, however, is prohibitively time-consuming for most input structures – the Too Many Candidates Problem. Existing software for OT uses regular expressions for automated generation and evaluation of candidates. However, regular expressions are too low in the Chomsky Hierarchy of language types to represent trees of arbitrary size, which are needed for syntax-prosody work. This paper presents a new computational tool for research in this area: Syntax-Prosody in Optimality Theory (SPOT). For a given input, SPOT generates all prosodic parses under certain assumptions about GEN, and evaluates them against all constraints in CON. This allows for in-depth comparison of the typological predictions made by different theories of GEN and CON at the syntax-prosody interface.

Keywords: syntax-prosody interface; Optimality Theory; Computational Tools in Phonology; prosody; OTWorkplace

References

  • Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston & Dasha Henderer. 2011. Prosodic movement. In Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 231–239. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston & Toru Ishii. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1). 47–77.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bane, Max & Jason Riggle. 2010. PYPHON 1.0. Software package. http://code.google.com/p/clml/.

  • Bane, Max & Jason Riggle. 2012. Consequences of candidate omission. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 695–706.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bellik, Jennifer & Nick Kalivoda. 2016. Adjunction and branchingness effects in syntax-prosody mapping. In Gunnar Ólafur Hansson, Ashley Farris-Trimble, Kevin McMullin & Douglas Pulleyblank (eds.), Supplemental proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology Article 2, 1–11. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

  • Bellik, Jennifer & Nick Kalivoda. 2017. Danish stød in recursive prosodic words. Poster presented at Northwestern Phon{etics, ology} Conference, University of British Columbia, May 19–21.Google Scholar

  • Bellik, Jennifer, Ozan Bellik & Nick Kalivoda. 2017. Syntax prosody in OT (SPOT). JavaScript application. https://github.com/syntax-prosody-ot.

  • Bennett, Ryan. 2012. Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner & James McCloskey. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47(2). 169–234.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bickmore, Lee. 1989. Kinyambo prosody. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bickmore, Lee. 1990. Branching nodes and prosodic categories. In Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds.), The phonology-syntax connection, 1–18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax-prosody interactions in Irish. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar & Kie Zuraw. 2013. OTSoft 2.5. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.

  • Hedding, Andrew. 2017. Phonological phrasing of ditransitives in Arrasate Basque. Ms. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistic Research Center, LRC-92-09, University of California, Santa Cruz. [A slightly revised version appeared in Festschrift for Shosuke Haraguchi, 2003.]Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55(Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 4). 97–111.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Barış Kabak & Janet Grijzenhout (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 135–194. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kalivoda, Nick. 2018. Syntax-prosody mismatches in Optimality Theory. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 2006. The insufficiency of paper-and-pencil linguistics: The case of Finnish prosody. In Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, 287–300. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3. 311–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination “reset” and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84. 530–544.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langendoen, D. Terence. 1987. On the phrasing of coordinate compound structures. In Brian Joseph & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), A festschrift for Ilse Lehiste 186–196. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Seunghun J. & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2015. Constituency in sentence phonology: An introduction. Phonology 32(1). 1–18.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 499–546.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Myrberg, Sara. 2013. Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30(1). 73–124.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • OEIS A054726. Online encyclopedia of integer sequences. https://oeis.org/A054726 (accessed 5 April, 2018).

  • Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004[1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.]Google Scholar

  • Prince, Alan, Bruce Tesar & Nazarré Merchant. 2017. OTWorkplace. https://sites.google.com/site/otworkplace.

  • R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar

  • Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46. 657–709.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 439–470. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Merle Horne (ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment: Studies presented to Gösta Bruce, 231–261. Dordrecht & Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, E. 2003. The prosodic structure of function words. In McCarthy J, (ed.), Optimality theory in phonology: A reader, Chapter 25. Oxford, UK: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 435–484. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth & Gorka Elordieta. 2010. The role for prosodic markedness constraints in phonological phrase formation in two pitch accent languages. Handout of paper presented at Tone and Intonation in Europe (TIE) 4, Stockholm University, Department of Scandinavian Languages. http://www.hum.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=13236anda=73666 (accessed 15 August 2015).

  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 219–255.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 183–237.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zec, Draga. 2005. Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22(1). 77–112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zec, D. & Inkelas, S. (eds.) 1990. The phonology-syntax connection, Chicago, IL, USA: CSLI Publications and the University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-06

Accepted: 2018-07-12

Published Online: 2019-05-08

Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue 1, 20170051, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0051.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in