OPTIMAL

1. (Optimality Theory) A surface form is optimal if it incurs the least serious violations of a set of constraints, taking into account their hierarchical ranking. Languages differ in the ranking of constraints; and any violations must be minimal. | René Kager, 1999
2. (Examples)
    ○ OT is a theory of constraint interaction and offers a framework of selecting optimal outputs; it does not say anything about the nature of representations or constraints themselves. This point is also important in that it enables OT to be employed in other fields than phonology. | Kyoko Yamaguchi, 2010
    ○ Generation of utterances in OT involves two functions, Gen and Eval. Gen takes an input and returns a (possibly infinite) set of output candidates. Some candidates might be identical to the input, others modified somewhat, others unrecognizable. Eval chooses the candidate that best satisfies a set of ranked constraints; this optimal candidate becomes the output. | Kie Zuraw, 2004
    ○ This has been an issue in all theories: input-output pairings are needed to establish a grammar, while a grammar is needed to establish the input representation. Smolensky (1996) argues that the learner will select the input representation that matches the adult output representation as the optimal input, even when the learner's grammar is still unlike the adult grammar. This follows from the combination of two OT tools, Richness of the Base and Lexicon Optimization. | Paul Boersma and Claartje Levelt, 2003
    ○ Grammar is deceptively simple under OT. At the universal level, there is a set of constraints on phonological representations (CON). There is also a means for generating relationships between an actual input and all potential outputs (GEN). Finally, there is a mechanism for simultaneously evaluating the potential outputs against the set of ranked constraints in order to select the optimal output for the input in question (EVAL). | D.B. Archangeli, 1999

OPTIMALITY
(Optimality Theory) The status of being most harmonic with respect to a set of conflicting constraints. It is now time to take a closer look at the concept of optimal in Optimality Theory (OT). The general idea is that the grammar evaluates an infinite set of candidate output forms, all analyses of a given input. From this candidate set it selects the optimal output, the one which "best matches" the set of conflicting constraints. But what precisely does it mean for an output to be "optimal"? Does it involve some sort of compromise between constraints of different strengths? Or is it perhaps the case that "weaker" constraints are rendered "inactive" when they come into conflict with "stronger" constraints?
 In fact optimality involves neither compromise nor suppression of constraints, but instead it is built on (strict) domination of constraints in a hierarchy.

Optimality
An output is optimal when it incurs the least serious violations of a set of constraints, taking into account their hierarchical ranking.

OPTIMALITY THEORY

1. (Phonology) Proposed as a universal grammar for phonology (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993). At the heart of OT is the idea of universal constraints, which are nevertheless violable. By being universal, the constraints themselves provide an explicit means of characterizing the cross-linguistic similarities that exist. By being violable, there is a means of expressing language variation: the degrees of violation tolerated for each constraint are unique to each language. OT proposes a single means of expressing which constraints are violable, namely, constraint ranking-violations of lower-ranked constraints are tolerated in order to satisfy higher-ranked constraints. | Diana Archangeli, 1999
2. (Grammar) OT sets up a basic dichotomy between the operational component of the grammar and the constraint component. The operational component, called GEN, constructs a set of candidate output forms that deviate from the input in various ways. The constraint component, called EVAL, selects a member of this set to be the actual output of the grammar.
    GEN functions something like the optional transformations in the Chomsky and Lasnik model or GB's Move α. GEN applies all linguistic operations freely, optionally, and sometimes repeatedly. This property of GEN, which is known as freedom of analysis, is assumed for two reasons:
   1. Because it is simpler to define GEN with freedom of analysis than without it.
   2. Because of the related assumption that GEN is universal.
   
    EVAL receives the candidate set from GEN, evaluates it using some constraint hierarchy, and selects its most harmonic or optimal member as the output of the grammar. Assume that the hierarchy consists of the constraints C1, C2, and C3, in that order, and that the candidate set is {cand1, cand2, cand3}. If cand2 violates top-ranked C1 less than both cand1 and cand3 violate it, then cand2 is optimal. If, on the other hand, cand1 and cand2 both violate C1 equally, and if they violate C1 less than cand3 does, then cand3 is out of the running and the choice between cand1 and cand2 goes to C2, and so on from there. Constraint C1 dominates (ranks higher than) C2, which in turn dominates C3, i.e. in notation, [ C1 ≫ C2 ≫ C3 ] .
    Each language has its own constraint ranking. The strongest hypothesis is that constraint ranking is the only thing in the grammar that is language-particular: GEN, EVAL, and even the constraints themselves are universal.
    The universal constraint component is called CON, which itself consists of two types of constraints. Markedness constraints are similar to the surface-structure constraints or filters of the 1970's. The inventory of markedness constraints in CON is a substantive theory of linguistic well-formedness—e.g., complex consonant clusters or that-trace sequences are bad. A significant innovation in OT is the notion of a faithfulness constraint. Faithfulness constraints are inherently conservative, requiring the output of the grammar to resemble its input. Because markedness constraints favor some linguistic structures over others, they are often in tension with faithfulness constraints, which resist changes to input structures. This tension is called constraint conflict, and it is resolved in OT by ranking. | John J. McCarthy, 2007
3. (Phonology) OT is a linguistic model proposing that the observed forms of language arise from the optimal satisfaction of conflicting constraints. OT differs from other approaches to phonological analysis, which typically use rules rather than constraints. However, phonological models of representation, such as autosegmental phonology, prosodic phonology, and linear phonology (SPE), are equally compatible with rule-based and constraint-based models. OT views 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.
    Although much of the interest in OT has been associated with its use in phonology, the area to which OT was first applied, the theory is also applicable to other subfields of linguistics (e.g. syntax and semantics). OT is like other theories of generative grammar in its focus on the investigation of universal principles, linguistic typology and language acquisition. | Wikipedia, 2025
4. (Syntax) OT is a formal theory of constraint interaction in Universal Grammar. It is not a substantive theory of any phenomenon, syntactic or otherwise. It is not committed to any specific type of structural (or markedness) constraints. This is why OT analyses inspired by different types of substantive theories of syntax can be found in the literature, including Government-Binding Theory (e.g., Legendre et al. 1995, 1998, Grimshaw 1997, a.o.), Lexical-Functional Grammar (e.g., Bresnan 2001, Sells 2001), and the Minimalist Program (e.g., Speas 1997, 2001, Müller 2001). | Geraldine Légendre, 2001
5. (Semantics) In OT syntax, the input is usually considered to be a semantic structure (e.g., a predicate-argument structure), which gives rise to an, in principle, infinite number of syntactic structures of which the most harmonic or optimal one is eventually realized as the grammatical structure that syntactically expresses the semantic input. Thus, OT syntax optimizes syntactic structure with respect to a semantic input. One might say that OT syntax takes the perspective of a speaker, therefore, who has a certain thought and wants to express this correctly and optimally in a syntactic structure.
    OT semantics, on the other hand, takes the point of view of a hearer, who hears (or reads) an utterance with a certain syntactic structure and wants to interpret this structure correctly and optimally. In OT semantics, the input is a well-formed syntactic structure, which is associated with an, in principle, infinite number of possible interpretations (in accordance with the Free Interpretation Hypothesis) of which the most harmonic or optimal one is eventually arrived at as the correct interpretation of the syntactic input. The constraints that play a role in this interpretation process can be syntactic, phonological, pragmatic or semantic in nature. Since the set of constraints is assumed to be universal, some constraints may play a role in OT syntax as well. Obviously, then, the crucial difference between OT syntax and OT semantics does not lie in the nature of the constraints under consideration, but in the nature of the input and output forms. That is, in OT syntax, the candidates which are evaluated with respect to the relevant constraints are syntactic structures. In OT semantics, on the other hand, the candidate outputs that are subject to evaluation are interpretations. | Helen de Hoop and Petra Hendriks, 2001

OR NODE
(Relational Network Theory) A node in relational network notation. The OR node takes two forms, one in compact relational network notation and one in narrow relational network notation.
 In compact relational network notation, an OR node looks like a single square bracket turned on its side and pointing upward or downward. To one side, either the upward or the downward, is connected one line; this is the singular side of the node. To the other side are connected two or more lines; this is the plural side of the node. The lines on the plural side are shown, by their connections to the OR node, to be in a disjunctive relationship. The OR node thus shows a relationship of alternation as opposed to the AND node, which shows combination.
 Like the AND node, the OR node has two general types, the ordered OR and the unordered OR:
 Sequential ordering would make no sense for the OR node, since only one of the alternatives occurs at a time. For disjunctions, we have precedence ordering: the line shown off to the side of the OR node takes precedence over the other line: If it can be taken, it is. The other line is the default line. The line which takes precedence is drawn off to the side, either the right or the left side, depending only on the practical consideration of which will give the more readable diagram. The typical situation is that the line which takes precedence is immediately connected to the node specifying the conditions under which the line can be taken. The other line, connected at the center of the node, is the default line, taken if the conditions for the precedence line are not present.
 In general, a downward OR (one line above; two or more below) represents alternation, while an upward OR (one line below; two or more above) represents ambiguity—that is, multiple functions for an element of expression. (Lamb 1999) | Glottopedia, 2018

ORTHOGRAPHIC GEMINATION

1. (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
2. (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, 2017
3. (Cognitive) In many languages, including English, spellings sometimes contain double letters or geminates (e.g., O in BROOM). Findings from neuropsychological studies of spelling disorders suggest that gemination is more than just two independent instances of the same letter. For example, Fischer-Baum and Rapp (2014) describe a patient who produced more geminate additions in non-geminate words (e.g., MARK → MARRK) after spelling a geminate word (e.g., BROOM) than a non-geminate word (e.g., BROAD). The perseveration of the gemination independently of the letter identity implies the existence of a special geminate feature (see also Caramazza and Miceli 1990). Other models, e.g., McCloskey et al. (1994), also propose a special mechanism for gemination, but without proposing a geminate feature. | Christopher R. Hepner, Svetlana Pinet, and Nazbanou Nozari, 2018

ORTHOPHONY

1. (Speech Production) The art of correct articulation; voice training. | Webster's, 1913
2. (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
3. (Speech Production) We will take a closer look at only a small fragment of a large body of errors which can be detected in political speeches in Polish broadcast media, namely on those which violate orthophony—the correct pronunciation of words. | Krzysztof Jaskuła, 2016
4. (Acoustics) The art of recording an acoustical sound field from a room and the reproduction of it by means of loudspeakers. | Ana M. Monsalve Caballero, 1997

OUTPUT-TO-OUTPUT CORRESPONDENCE

1. (Optimality Theory) Output-output correspondence (OOC) constraints demand correspondence between independently occurring surface forms. | Mark Hale and Madelyn Kissock, 2000
2. (Optimality Theory) We will consider similarities in the shapes of morphologically related words which are not due to common inputs. We will pursue the idea that such similarities involve the notion of output-to-output correspondence, the maximization of phonological identity between morphologically related output forms.
    A theoretical precursor of OO-correspondence, the notion of paradigm uniformity, enjoyed a long tradition in pre-generative linguistics (see for example Kuryɫowicz 1949). This notion played a modest role in generative phonology (but see Kiparsky 1982), where similarities between morphologically related forms were attributed to derivational means, in particular the phonological cycle. Recently, paradigm uniformity has been revived in OT by Benua (1995), Flemming (1995), McCarthy (1995), Burzio (1996), Kenstowicz (1996), Steriade (1996), and others. Disregarding the technical differences between these proposals (referred to as either "paradigm uniformity", "uniform exponence", "base-identity", or "OO-correspondence"), we will subsume all under the general notion of OO-correspondence.
    OO-correspondence elaborates on the notion of "reduplicative identity". | René Kager, 1999

OVERGENERATION

1. (Syntax) A generative grammar overgenerates when it generates ungrammatical sentences. | Line Mikkelsen, 2006
2. (Grammar) We would like the Formal Grammar (FG) 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, 2010

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, 2024

Page Created by Split April 24, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x