O | Sank's Glossary of Linguistics

Sank's Glossary of Linguistics
O

OBJECT CLEFT CONSTRUCTION

(Syntax) Sentence in which the clefted constituent is the thematic object.
1. It's a cat (O) that the dog (S) is chasing (V).
A well-established finding in adult language processing is that constructions involving object-gaps, including object clefts, take adults longer to process than those involving subject-gaps (Wanner and Marastos 1978, Gibson 1998, Warren and Gibson 2002, Tily et al. 2013 a.o). | Athulya Aravind, Martin Hackl and Ken Wexler, 2017
(Syntax) In an object cleft such as (1), the pronoun whom replaces the object of the verb thanked in the cleft clause.
1. It was we whom the mayor thanked.
  (The cleft clause refers to the object we.)
| Elizabeth S. Johnson, 2015

OBJECT DROP
(Syntax) A subset of transitive verbs (non-core transitives, Levin 1999, 2017) allow object drop in English:

Verbs of contact—hitting, wiping, sweeping, pushing, etc. among them:
I'll sweep!
Scenario: Cleaning dishes after dinner party:
John washed and Mary dried.
Scenario: A car has stalled by the side of the road. John and Mary are trying to get it started again:
Mary pushed and John steered.

Glass (2014) amasses a corpus of examples of object drop and makes an interesting observation about them: If the action denoted by the verb is associated with a routine action with a predictable object, object drop is possible:

I haven't played all week. (Musicians? Soccer players?)

Glass finds higher rates of object drop with lift in weight-lifting magazines, and with buy and sell in real estate magazines. Her proposal: A dropped object with a transitive predicate must be recoverable. Recoverability can depend on the "common ground" of a particular community or on the speaker's goals in a context.
Other grammatical factors also facilitate object drop. Examples from Goldberg 2001:

Generic:
Tigers only kill at night.
Modal:
Dresses I would murder for.
Repeated action:
Scarface killed again.
Infinitive:
The singer always aimed to please/impress.

| Raffaella Folli and Heidi Harley, 2023

OBJECT SHIFT
(Syntax) The definition of "object shift" to be used here is a narrow one, covering only the kind of object shift typically found in the Scandinavian languages, following the original use of the term in Holmberg (1986). Sometimes object shift has been taken to include also at least some instances of scrambling as found in the Continental West Germanic languages (Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, German, and Yiddish).
Scrambling (as in the German examples (1b, c) below) and object shift (as in Icelandic (2b, c) and Danish (3c)) have in common that both move a DP leftward, from a position inside VP to a position outside VP but inside the same clause:

Scrambling (German):
1. Peter
  Peter
  
  hat_v
  has
  
  ohne
  without
  
  Zweifel
  doubt
  
  nie
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  Bücher
  books
  
  gelesen]
  read
  
  t_v
2. Peter
  Peter
  
  las_v
  read
  
  die
  the
  
  Bücher_i
  books
  
  ohne
  without
  
  Zweifel
  doubt
  
  nie
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_i
  
  t_v]
3. Peter
  Peter
  
  las_v
  read
  
  sie_i
  them
  
  ohne
  without
  
  Zweifel
  doubt
  
  nie
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_i
  
  t_v]
Object shift (Icelandic):
1. Pétur
  Peter
  
  hefur_v
  has
  
  eflaust
  doubtlessly
  
  aldrei
  never
  
  t_v
  
  [_VP
  
  lesið
  read
  
  bækur]
  books
2. Pétur
  Peter
  
  las_v
  read
  
  bækurnari
  books-the
  
  eflaust
  doubtlessly
  
  aldrei
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_v
  
  t_i]
3. Pétur
  Peter
  
  las_v
  read
  
  þæ
  them
  
  eflaust
  doubtlessly
  
  aldrei
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_v
  
  t_i]
Object shift (Danish):
1. Peter
  Peter
  
  har_v
  has
  
  uden
  without
  
  tvivl
  doubt
  
  aldrig
  never
  
  t_v
  
  [_VP
  
  læst
  read
  
  bøger]
  books
2. *Peter
  Peter
  
  læste_v
  read
  
  bøgernei
  books-the
  
  uden
  without
  
  tvivl
  doubt
  
  aldrig
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_v
  
  t_i]
3. Peter
  Peter
  
  læste_v
  read
  
  dem_i
  them
  
  uden
  without
  
  tvivl
  doubt
  
  aldrig
  never
  
  [_VP
  
  t_v
  
  t_i]

All the above examples are verb second (V2), i.e., the finite verb has been moved from the position marked t_v to its present position as the second constituent of the main clause. In addition, in all examples the base position of the object is inside the VP, i.e., to the right of the adverbials 'no doubt' and 'never', cf. (1a), (2a), and (3a). When scrambling (1b, c) or object shift ((2b, c) and (3c)) takes place, the object moves to a position to the left of these adverbials. From these examples, which focus on the similarities between object shift and scrambling, it might appear that there are no differences. This is not so; there are many differences between the two types of movement, as object shift is much more restricted than scrambling. Only object shift requires verb movement, and only object shift is restricted to DPs. | Sten Vikner, 2005

OBJECTHOOD
(Syntax) The standard (syntactic) definition of a transitive construction refers to the presence of a direct object (DO). That is, the presence of a DO is considered a feature equivalent to transitivity. (See Lazard 1998, Plungjan and Raxilina 1998, Kittilä 2002, Næss 2007, a.o.) Accordingly, transitive constructions can be determined as those, and only those, that require a DO. Thus, verifying transitivity of a clause amounts to the verification of the objecthood of those nouns which can be considered potential candidates for DOs.
The passivization test (also referred to by some authors as "subjectivization"), appears to be the most, if not the only, reliable DO criterion, even in spite of the fact that some languages lack a passive. | Leonid Kulokov, 2012

OBLIGATORY CONTOUR PRINCIPLE

(Autosegmental Phonology) A hypothesis that states that (certain) consecutive identical features are banned in underlying representations. The OCP is most frequently cited when discussing the tones of tonal languages (stating for example that the same morpheme may not have two underlying high tones), but it has also been applied to other aspects of phonology. | Wikipedia, 2020
(Autosegmental Phonology) The OCP was originally proposed as a prohibition against adjacent identical tones in lexical representations (Leben 1973), but in recent theoretical work it has been expanded to account for a variety of processes that involve avoidance of adjacent identical segments (McCarthy 1986) and adjacent identical features (Yip 1988). Yip suggested that the OCP is essentially a universal disfavoring of identical sequences on the same tier. McCarthy (1988) gave a general formulation of the principle: "Adjacent identical elements are prohibited." On a featured level, these observations might be formalized as:
The Obligatory Contour Principle
*[αF] [αF]
| Gregory R. Guy and Charles Boberg, 1997
(Autosegmental Phonology) A sequence of adjacent identical tones can be represented:
1. As a single tone mapped onto multiple vowels.
2. As a one-to-one mapping between multiple tones and vowels.
3. Or as a combination of these extremes.
The "Obligatory Contour Principle" (OCP) has been proposed as a constraint which restricts tonal representations to a one-to-many mapping between tones and vowels. | David Odden, 1986

OBLIGATORY CONTROL
(Syntax) Standard instances of (obligatory) control are present in the following sentences:

Susan promised us to help.
(Subject control with the obligatory control predicate promise)
Fred stopped laughing.
(Subject control with the obligatory control predicate stop)
We tried to leave.
(Subject control with the obligatory control predicate try)
Sue asked Bill to stop.
(Object control with the obligatory control predicate ask)
They told you to support the effort.
(Object control with the obligatory control predicate tell)
Someone forced him to do it.
(Object control with the obligatory control predicate force)

Each of these sentences contains two verbal predicates. Each time the control verb is on the left, and the verb whose arguments are controlled is on the right. The control verb determines which expression is interpreted as the subject of the verb on the right. Examples (1)-(3) show subject control, since the subject of the control verb is also the understood subject of the subordinate verb. Examples (4)-(6) are instances of object control, because the object of the control verb is understood as the subject of the subordinate verb. | Wikipedia, 2015

OMNIVOROUS NUMBER
(Grammar) When a number probe skips over all singular DPs. Occurs in Kaqchikel Agent Focus (Preminger 2011):

Omnivorous number in Kaqchikel:
1. ja
  FOC
  
  rje'
  them
  
  x-e-tz'et-ö
  PRF-3PL-see-AF
  
  rja'
  him
  
  'It was them who saw him.'
2. ja
  FOC
  
  rja'
  him
  
  x-e-tz'et-ö
  PRF-3PL-see-AF
  
  rje'
  them
  
  'It was him who saw them.'

| Coppe van Urk, 2015

OMNIVOROUS PERSON
(Grammar) When a person probe skips over DPs that are not 1st or 2nd person. Found in Nez Perce complementizer agreement, for example (Deal 2015).

Complementizer agreement in Nez Perce favors [participant]:
1. ke-m
  C-2
  
  kaa
  then
  
  pro_2SG
  
  'e-cew'cew'-teetu
  3OBJ-call-TAM
  
  Angel-ne
  Angel-ACC
  
  'When you call Angel, ...'
2. ke-m
  C-2
  
  kaa
  then
  
  Angel-nim
  Angel-NOM
  
  hi-cew'cew'-teetu
  3SUBJ-call-TAM
  
  pro_2SG
  
  'When Angel calls you, ...'

| Coppe van Urk, 2015

OPEN-CHOICE PRINCIPLE

(Grammar) Represents the traditional assumption that practically each Position in a clause offers a choice (Sinclair 1991). | Britt Erman and Beatrice Warren, 2000
(Grammar) In 1991 the late John Sinclair, who is renowned for his pioneering work in the field of corpus-based lexicography, propounded an elegantly simple theory. In Sinclair's view, the prime determinants of our language behavior are the principles of idiom and open choice, and the principle of idiom takes precedence over the principle of open choice: "The principle of idiom is that a language learner has available to him or her a large number of semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices, even though they might appear to be analyzable into segments". | Dirk Siepmann, 2011
(Grammar) Idiom forms found in canonized idiom dictionaries and other accepted resources can appear in literal (Open Choice Principle) contexts in authentic language (the boy kicked the bucket of apples) or in nonliteral contexts (the old dog finally kicked the bucket)—the Idiom Principle. | Kaitlyn Alayne VanWagoner, 2017

OPEN-ENDEDNESS
(General) The limitless ability to produce and understand totally new utterances is called "open-endedness", and it should be perfectly clear to you that, without it, our languages and indeed our lives would be unrecognizably different from what they are. Perhaps no other feature of language so dramatically illustrates the vast, unbridgeable gulf separating human language from the signaling systems of all other creatures.
The importance of open-endedness has been realized by linguists for decades. The term was coined by the American linguist Charles Hockett in 1960, though others have sometimes preferred the labels productivity or creativity. | R.L. Trask, 2007

OPEN SYLLABLE LENGTHENING
(Diachronic) The process by which short vowels become long in an open syllable. It occurs in many languages at a phonetic or allophonic level, and no meaningful distinction in length is made. However, as it became phonemic in many Germanic languages, it is especially significant in them, both historically and in the modern languages.
Open syllable lengthening affected the stressed syllables of all Germanic languages in their history to some degree. Curiously, it seems to have affected the languages around a similar time, between the 12th and the 16th centuries, during the late Middle Ages.
The lengthening often also applied in reverse at some point by shortening long vowels in closed syllables. As a consequence of the combination of the two changes, vowel length and consonant length came to be in complementary distribution: one of the two features is no longer distinctive but is predictable from the other. | Wikipedia, 2022

OPTATIVE UTTERANCE
(Grammar) An utterance that expresses a wish, regret, hope or desire without containing a lexical item that means 'wish', 'regret', 'hope' or 'desire' (cf. Rifkin 2000, Asarina and Shklovsky 2008). Optatives are typically perceived to be a type of exclamation, defined as utterances that are predominantly used to exclaim (cf. Quirk et al. 1972, 1985; Rifkin, 2000).

Latin:

Utinam
that

ne
not

...

tetigissent
touch.3PL.PLUP.SUBJ

litora
shores

puppes
ships

'[Almighty Jupiter,] if only the [Attic] ships had never touched the [Knossian] shores!' (Catullus 64.171-172; adapted from Palmer 2001; translation is mine)

The Latin example in (1) clearly fits the above definition of an optative utterance. The meaning that is expressed can be roughly paraphrased as in (2) or (3). (All paraphrases are preliminary, and nothing hinges on the choice between the two.)

I wish [that the Attic ships had never touched the Knossian shores].
It would be good [if the Attic ships had never touched the Knossian shores].

Optative utterances exhibit variation along several different axes, two of which can be stated as follows. First, optatives allow for form variation in their left periphery. The optative in (4) is initiated by that, whereas its counterpart in (5) is initiated by if:

Oh, that I had told them both a year ago!
(Martin F. Tupper. 1851. The Twins: A Domestic Novel. Hartford: Silas Andrus.)
If only I had told them both a year ago!

Second, optatives vary in terms of the prototypical particles that they contain. (6) contains only, (7) contains just, and (8,9) contain but.

If I'd only listened to my parents!
If I could just make them understand my point of view!
If I could but explain! (Quirk et al. 1985)
Oh that Apollo would but drive his horses slowly, that the day might be three hours longer; for it is too soon to depart, [...]
(A. Marsh. 1682. The Ten Pleasures of Marriage. London: The Navarre Society.)

| Patrick Georg Grosz, 2011

OPTIMALITY THEORY
(Phonology) A linguistic model proposing that the observed forms of language arise from the interaction between conflicting constraints. OT differs from other approaches to phonological analysis, such as autosegmental phonology and linear phonology (SPE), which typically use rules rather than constraints. OT models grammars as systems that provide mappings from inputs to outputs; typically, the inputs are conceived of as underlying representations, and the outputs as their surface realizations.
There are three basic components of the theory:

GEN takes an input, and generates the list of possible outputs, or candidates.
CON provides the criteria, in the form of strictly ordered violable constraints, used to decide between candidates.
EVAL chooses the optimal candidate based on the constraints, and this candidate is the output.

OT assumes that these components are universal. Differences in grammars reflect different rankings of the universal constraint set, CON. Part of language acquisition can then be described as the process of adjusting the ranking of these constraints.
OT was originally proposed by the linguists Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky in 1993, and later expanded by Prince and John J. McCarthy. Although much of the interest in optimality theory has been associated with its use in phonology, the area to which optimality theory was first applied, the theory is also applicable to other subfields of linguistics (e.g. syntax and semantics).
OT is usually considered a development of generative grammar, which shares its focus on the investigation of universal principles, linguistic typology and language acquisition.
OT is often called a connectionist theory of language, because it has its roots in neural network research, though the relationship is now largely of historical interest. It arose in part as a successor to the theory of Harmonic Grammar, developed in 1990 by Géraldine Legendre, Yoshiro Miyata and Paul Smolensky. | Wikipedia, ?

ORTHOGRAPHIC GEMINATION

(Phonology) Like English and German, the orthographic doubling of a consonant in French is not in any way a reliable guide to consonantal lengthening, as it is (with some notable exceptions) in Italian. Consonant doubling in spelling is a result of the complex early development of the written forms of a language, and in the case of European languages finds its roots in the orthographic conventions of Latin, Middle High German, Old English, Old French, and other medieval tongues for which written versions exist. | Leslie De'Ath, 2007
(Acquisition) The present study investigated whether orthography can lead experienced learners of English_L2 to make a phonological contrast in their speech production that does not exist in English. Double consonants represent geminate (long) consonants in Italian but not in English. ... These results provide arguably the first evidence that L2 orthographic forms can lead experienced L2 speakers to make a contrast in their L2 production that does not exist in the language. The effect arises because L2 speakers are affected by the interaction between the L2 orthographic form (number of letters), and their native orthography-phonology mappings, whereby double consonant letters represent geminate consonants. | Bene Bassetti, 2007

ORTHOPHONY

(Speech Production) The art of correct articulation; voice training. | Webster's, 1913
(Speech Production) The training of the vocal organs, on the rudiments of articulation and "expression,"—including the organic discipline of "vocal gymnastics". | James Edward Murdoch, William Russell, and George James Webb, 1845

OVERGENERATION

(Syntax) A generative grammar overgenerates when it generates ungrammatical sentences. | Line Mikkelsen, 2006
(Grammar) We would like the Formal Grammar we have built to be able to recognize/generate all and only the grammatical sentences.
1. "Overgeneration": If the FG generates as grammatical also sentences which are not grammatical, we say that it overgenerates.
2. Undergeneration: If the FG does not generate some sentences which are actually grammatical, we say that it undergenerates.
| Raffaella Bernardini, 2005

OVERLAP
(Phonetics) A simple example of articulatory overlap occurs in an utterance containing a sequence of two stop consonants, as in the casually produced utterance top tag. Each of the stop consonants like /p/ and /t/ is normally defined by a particular type of noise burst–a relatively flat spectrum for /p/ and a spectrum with greater amplitude in the high-frequency range for /t/. If a consonant like /p/ were in intervocalic position, some enhancing attributes would be generated as the articulators move from the region associated with the preceding vowel to the region of the defining gesture. Other enhancing gestures occur during the transition to the following segment. In the top tag example, the transition toward the labial closure for /p/ generates enhancing cues for the labial place of articulation. However, the noise burst that would normally signal the labial place of articulation is obliterated because the tongue blade closure for /t/ occurs before the lip closure for /p/ is released, i.e., the two closures overlap. Any cue for the labial place of articulation immediately prior to the /t/ release is probably also obscured. In the case of /t/, there is little direct evidence of the presence of the alveolar place during the time preceding the /t/ release. The alveolar burst, however, provides strong evidence for alveolar place, as does the transition from this burst into the following vowel /æ/. Thus some cues exist for /t/, but only weaker cues for /p/. The "defining" cue for /p/ is actually obliterated.
Perhaps a more extreme example of gestural overlap occurs with a casual production of the sequence I can't go up. Such a sequence can sometimes be produced with no alveolar closure to provide evidence for the cluster /nt/. | Kenneth Noble Stevens and Samuel Jay Keyser, 2008

OVERREGULARIZATION
(Acquisition) Erroneous regularization. In overregularization the regular ways of modifying or connecting words are mistakenly applied to words that require irregular modifications or connections. It is a normal effect observed in the language of beginner and intermediate language-learners, whether native-speaker children or foreign-speaker adults. Because most natural languages have some irregular forms, moving beyond overregularization is a part of mastering them. Usually learners' brains move beyond overregularization naturally, as a consequence of being immersed in the language.
The same person may sometimes overregularize and sometimes say the correct form. Native-speaker adults can overregularize, but this does not happen often. | Wikipedia, 2022

Page Created By Split December 17, 2023

B a c k T o I n d e x