28.3142, Review: Linguistic Theories; Phonology: McCarthy, Pater (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3142. Wed Jul 19 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3142, Review: Linguistic Theories; Phonology: McCarthy, Pater (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:20:07
From: Joshua Griffiths [grifjo06 at gmail.com]
Subject: Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36268477


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-3876.html

EDITOR: John J. McCarthy
EDITOR: Hoe  Pater
TITLE: Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism
SERIES TITLE: Advances in Optimality Theory
PUBLISHER: Equinox Publishing Ltd
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Joshua M. Griffiths, University of Texas

Reviews Editor: Robert A. Coté 

SUMMARY

Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism (ed. by John McCarthy and Joe Pater)
collects research on two alternative theories of constraint-based grammars
that have modified and expanded on the notions originally proposed in classic
Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004), namely Harmonic
Serialism (McCarthy 2000) and Harmonic Grammar (Legendre et al. 1990).  While
the two theories discussed in this volume have made key modifications to the
OT core architecture, their modifications have resulted in two drastically
different theories. What each theory modifies is made explicitly clear in the
preface: “ [Harmonic Serialism] questions the choice of parallel over serial
evaluation, while [Harmonic Grammar] questions the assumption that constraints
are ranked rather than weighted” (McCarthy & Pater 2016: viii). This
collection is divided into three parts. The first section consists of two
chapters authored by the editors, who provide an accessible introduction to
both theories at the core of this volume and lay the foundation for the more
technical chapters that follow in the other two parts. Part II, entitled
“Analysis and Typology,” makes up the majority of the volume and, focuses
primarily on the typological and theoretical predictions that these theories
make, including a chapter analyzing the implications for overlap between the
two theoretical frameworks. The final section of the book focuses on
computational learning, and while this section may be the least accessible to
most linguists, it does provide a basis for investigating the psychological
reality of these two theories by relating these theories back to the
connectionist tradition from which classic-OT originated.

The first chapter of the volume, Chapter 1, “Universal grammar with weighted
constraints,” by Joe Pater introduces Harmonic Grammar (HG) and is structured
primarily as a comparison and contrast between classic-OT and its predecessor
HG. Through these comparisons and contrasts, Pater argues for adapting
weighted constraints instead of the rankings that have been common in
phonological analysis since the introduction of classic-OT, while still
leaving open outstanding issues and questions for further research within this
particular framework. Pater begins by arguing against Prince & Smolensky’s
(1993/2004) initial claim that weighted constraints may predict typologically
implausible patterns. Pater ultimately puts forth two main reasons for which a
theory of weighted constraints is preferable to theories of strict domination.
The first is the introduction of cumulative constraint interaction (or “gang
effects”) as well as asymmetric trade-offs of constraints, while setting it
apart from theories with similar predictions (i.e. OT with locally conjoined
constraints, on which see Smolensky 2006). Second, Pater argues that HG allows
the use of scalar constraints, which have been known to undergenerate in
classic-OT. Pater concludes by expanding the pros and cons of both HG and OT
to serial representations of constraint-based grammars similar to Harmonic
Serialism as well as probabilistic grammars similar to MaxEnt grammar
(Goldwater & Johnson 2003), while discussing the necessity of computational
means in weighted constraint analysis. Overall, this chapter’s introduction to
theories of weighted constraints is simultaneously easily accessible and very
thorough, providing the necessary background for the half of the book
dedicated to theories of weighted constraints.


Chapter 2, “The Theory and Practice of Harmonic Serialism,” by John J.
McCarthy, serves as an introductory overview to Harmonic Serialism (HS).
McCarthy begins by laying out the core differences in the architectures of HS
as well as classic- (or parallel-) OT, contending that the key difference is
the power of the generative components of these grammars (GEN) in these
theories. In parallel-OT, GEN is unrestricted, meaning that any number of
changes can be made from the input to a potential candidate.  On the other
hand, in HS, GEN is restricted and only one change can be made at a time,
requiring a loop function. This ultimately leads to a serial grammar that is
in some ways reminiscent of rule-based derivational phonology, which was the
dominant framework for so long. This chapter continues outlining the
differences and similarities between HS and parallel-OT, even including a
section on how to construct an analysis in this particular framework. The
final sections of this chapter argue for the use of HS over parallel-OT
focusing primarily on HS’s implications for phonological opacity. This chapter
introduces the reader to McCarthy’s newest iteration of constraint-based
grammar in a clear and explicit fashion through the use of many
cross-linguistic data including classic case studies of Epenthesis in Cairene
Arabic and the complex interactions observed in Yawelmani. 

Chapter 3, “Cross-level Interactions in Harmonic Serialism” by John J.
McCarthy, Joe Pater, and Kathryn Pruitt” opens Part II, which focuses on the
use of HS and/or HG for linguistic and typological analysis. As the chapter’s
title suggests, the focus is HS, particularly how HS handles what the authors
refer to as cross-level interactions (CLIs) and more importantly how CLIs
serve as supporting evidence for HS. McCarthy et al. define a CLI as a
generalization in which a phonological process must span more than one level
of the prosodic hierarchy. The authors highlight that CLIs have been used as
evidence in arguing against serial theories of grammar (cf Kager 1999;
McCarthy 2002; Pater 2000). McCarthy et al. make it clear, however, that these
arguments do not hold for HS for two primary reasons: “violation of the
surface-true” and “full availability of structural operations.” The chapter
continues  discussing how past theories of phonology such as rule+constraint
theories as well as parallel-OT have handled CLIs.  Addressing a variety of
cross-linguistic issues such as foot construction in Hixkaryana and the
interaction of stress and syllable weight in Latin, the authors then continue
to flesh out the two aforementioned arguments as a defense of HS. The authors
conclude by presenting some of the limits of CLIs in HS as well as HS’s
overall strengths in handling CLIs.

Chapter 4, “Parallelism vs. Serialism, or Constraints vs. Rules? Tongan Stress
and Syllabification revisited” by Minta Elsman  expands upon the comparison of
parallel grammars versus serial grammars first discussed by Prince & Smolensky
(1993). Similarly to the logic of argumentation introduced by McCarthy et al.
in Chapter 3, Elsman exploits Prince & Smolensky’s initial argument for a
parallel-OT as a means of supporting HS. Elsman first discusses previous
analyses of Tongan stress and syllabification before proposing a HS analysis
of the same data. Elsman’s analysis proposes three steps: the syllabification
of V.V sequences, followed by the construction of a stressed foot at the right
edge of a word and finally, a “fusion” in which one syllable is deleted and
segments are reassigned to other syllables. Of important note is that
syllabification is a multi-step process, built serially in steps that work to
increase the harmony of the winning candidate. Elsman concludes by stating
that even though she and others argue for HS as opposed to parallel-OT, the
key argument is not the argument of a serial theory or a parallel theory,
rather her primary concern is that constraint-based formalisms are superior to
rule-based formalism, and that any argument in support of one theory over
another must identify what formal differences between the theories favor one
theory over the other.

Chapter 5 “Serial Restrictions on Feature/Stress Interactions” by Robert
Staubs by provides a clear example of how HS is able to shed light on
interactions between segmental phonology and prosody (stress), comparing his
proposed HS analysis of sonority-driven stress assignment in some toy data
with predictions made by a parallel-OT analysis of the same phenomena. He
argues that the gradualness of HS prevents the overgeneration that can result
from a parallel model such as classic-OT. Staubs’ argument centers primarily
on the use of positional markedness constraints, which have been argued to
over generate in parallel-OT (cf de Lacy 2002). Staubs ultimately argues that
the restrictiveness of HS that stems from its gradualness requirement is a
strength, not a weakness as has been argued for traditionally, since HS cannot
overgenerate in cases where parallel-OT might.

Aside from Pater’s introductory chapter Chapter 6 “Positional Constraints in
Optimality Theory and Harmonic Grammar” by Karen Jesney is the first chapter
in the volume that focuses primarily on Harmonic Grammar. Rich in data,
Jesney’s chapter discusses the typological predictions made by positional
constraints in both classic-OT and HG. In order to make proper typological
predictions, Jesney argues that classic-OT requires the use of both positional
markedness constraints (cf Itô, Mester, and Padgett 1995) as well as
positional faithfulness constraints (cf. Beckman 1997). Prior research,
however, has argued that positional faithfulness constraints can generate
opaque and non-local patterns that are not typologically sound (Jesney 2011).
Jesney ultimately argues that through the use of cumulative constraint
interaction, positional faithfulness constraints are not necessary in a theory
of weighted constraints such as HG.  Without positional faithfulness
constraints, Jesney argues that HG is able to produce a more restrictive
typology with a more general constraint set, and to avoid the highly specific
constraints that have often been a critique of constraint-based theories of
grammar.


One key component of parallel-OT is that constraints must be defined
negatively, assigning violations as opposed to rewards (the “Infinite Goodness
problem”). In chapter 7, “Positive Constraints and Finite Goodness in Harmonic
Serialism” by Wendell Kimper, Kimper argues that Infinite Goodness is not a
problem for HS, but rather positively defined constraints are feasible within
HS albeit with some limitations (e.g. HS’s weakened GEN function limits the
power of these constraints). He also argues that positive constraints are
exceptionally useful and desirable in defining autosegmental spread. Kimper
concludes by arguing that a CON that consists only of positively defined
constraints would generate various pathologies by not counting segments and
that proper implementation of these constraints would be within a CON that
contains both positively defined and negatively defined constraints. 

Chapter 8, “Contexts for Epenthesis in Harmonic Serialism” by Claire
Moore-Cantwell, takes up the concern that classic parallel OT’s capacity to
produce multiple repairs at once has the tendency to overgenerate, a problem
she refers to as the “too-many-solutions problem.” In order to resolve this
issue in HS, Moore-Cantwell posits a restriction on epenthesis, namely that it
can be used as a repair strategy for syllable-structure and segmental
markedness, but not to resolve issues of metrical markedness, including
clashes, lapses, and non-binary feet. Furthermore, she proposes that
epenthesis must occur in different steps of the derivation from syllable or
foot building, and that it must always satisfy Selkirk’s EXHAUSTIVITY
constraint, which penalizes any skipping of levels in the prosodic hierarchy.
Moore-Cantwell’s argument ultimately describes the typology of the
environments in which epenthesis can occur as well as what can be undertaken
to avoid particular pathologies in HS. 


Further continuing the discussion of epenthesis, Chapter 9, 
“Stress-Epenthesis Interactions in Harmonic Serialism” by Emily Elfner, is
concerned with the serial representation and analysis of prosody and
epenthesis, primarily how vowel epenthesis disturbs a language’s preferred
stress pattern. Elfner argues that HS is particularly adept in handling this
complicated issue since stress assignment and vowel epenthesis are two
distinct phenomena. Elfner looks at both transparent instances of this
interaction as well as opaque instances in a variety of different languages,
including Dakota, Swahili, and Levantine Arabic. Of particular interest here
is how Elfner combines aspects of both theoretical frameworks discussed in
this volume. Elfner frames her analysis of Levantine Arabic in Serial HG, a
serial evaluation of weighted constraints. Also of interest is the comparison
she draws between her HS analysis and how other serial constraint-based
grammars such as Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000) and OT with candidate chains
(McCarthy 2007) would handle the same phenomena, further strengthening this
volume’s focus in highlighting the strengths of HS.


Chapter 10, “Compensatory and Opaque Vowel Lengthening in Harmonic Serialism”
by Francesc Torres-Tamarit, begins by highlighting the inadequacies in
studying compensatory lengthening (CL) as well as double flop in classic-OT.
Since CL is a mora-preserving process, classic-OT cannot feasibly select the
proper output because the deletion of the mora-bearing coda consonant would
counterbleed the application of weight-by-position meaning that CL is
inherently opaque. Torres-Tamarit, therefore, argues that approaching CL
through the lens of HS solves the opacity problem, if syllabification is built
gradually in HS and if the deletion of a coda consonant is thought of as a
two-step process. Torres-Tamarit’s analysis works well for instances of
classic CL as well as instances of double-flop, lending credence to both of
these assumptions.


Chapter 11, “Cyclicity and Non-Cyclicity in Maltese: Local Ordering of
Phonology and Morphology in OT-CC” by Matthew Wolf, reconsiders the classic
example of Maltese morphophonological alternations and syncope that lead to
cyclic stress. In Maltese,  vowels in unstressed open syllables are typically
deleted; however, the syncope process does not always occur in pronominal
suffixes.  It therefore follows that the vowels that cannot syncopate must be
stressed earlier in a phonological cycle, blocking the syncope process.
Interestingly, Wolf frames his analysis in neither Harmonic Serialism nor
Harmonic Grammar, but rather Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains (OT-CC),
a theory closely related to HS (McCarthy 2007).  Like HS, OT-CC posits
multi-step derivations from the Input to the Output, but HS focuses on the
competition between the candidates themselves, whereas OT-CC frames the
competition between the derivations (the ‘chains.’) Wolf shows that Maltese
stress is much more complicated than had initially been argued, finding that
opaque cases of cyclic stress are easily captured in OT-CC. He concludes by
arguing for the use of OT-CC over Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000).  Although OT-CC
is different from HS, Wolf’s chapter is a welcome addition to this volume by
introducing readers to another serial theoretical cousin of classic-OT. 

Chapter 12, “Learning Serial Constraint-Based Grammars” by Robert Staubs and
Joe Pater, opens the third part of this book, which is focused on questions of
learning and learnability regarding these two theories.  Staubs and Pater
focus on answering two questions.  First, they intend to answer questions
focusing on the learnability of hidden structures.  In the case of HS and
other serial theories of grammar, the steps between the underlying and surface
forms are hidden. In order to answer the question of the learnability of
hidden structures, Staubs and Pater consider a toy dataset with an opaque
stress-epenthesis interaction, using MaxEnt grammar (Goldwater and Johnson
2003) to define the probability distribution of the candidates.  Utilizing the
probabilities obtained from the MaxEnt grammar, the grammar produces
probabilities over the surface forms as the sum of the probabilities of the
derivation that lead up to them. The learner is successful, but the question
as to how the learner is able to calculate probabilities over infinite
possible paths is still open.  Pater and Staubs ultimately propose that
derivations can be thought of as Markov chains. The second question Staubs and
Pater address is the learning of variation. In order to do so, they apply the
model developed in the first half of the chapter to a dataset of French
variable schwa deletion and epenthesis. The learner is also successful in
describing this dataset. Staubs and Pater leave open potential areas for
future research.  They state that their new methodology allows for the
comparison of serial and parallel grammars.  Furthermore, they also state that
a gradual learning algorithm in this framework still needs to be developed. 
Although this chapter is more technical and less accessible than most of the
preceding chapters, the methodology introduced is promising, combining the
strengths of HG and HS. 

Chapter 13, “Convergence properties of a Gradual Learning Algorithm for
Harmonic Grammar” by Paul Boersma and Joe Pater, first defines what the
authors see as the central research question in the domain of learnability in
generative linguistics: “Is a given learning algorithm guaranteed to converge
on a grammar that is correct for any language defined by a given theory of
grammar?” (p. 389).  They immediately differentiate this from the goals
defined by language acquisitionists, meaning that although this chapter is
concerned with questions of (machine) learnability, it is not concerned with
the human ability to acquire language, despite the fact that these two lines
of research are closely related. This chapter is primarily concerned with
developing and describing an online gradual learning algorithm for HG
(HG-GLA). The first section of the chapter briefly describes HG and the
typical learning algorithm, describing in a detailed manner the steps the
learner takes in modifying the weights of a constraint set.  The following
section of the chapter begins by mathematically formalizing the proposed
HG-GLA and outlines how the perceptron convergence proof applies to the
HG-GLA. Boersma and Pater show that the HG-GLA can also be applied to variants
of HG including exponential, probabilistic and noisy models of HG.  They also
attempt to apply the HG-GLA to stochastic OT, but the learner would
occasionally fail to converge. The chapter concludes by showing how the HG-GLA
could be applied to situations in which learners do not have access to the
full structure of the learning data (i.e. hidden structures).  The results in
all of these learning situations further support HG’s effectiveness as a model
of generative grammar. 

EVALUATION

Although this volume is the latest installment in Equinox’s Advancements in
Optimality Theory series, it differs greatly from its predecessors since it
does not necessarily address OT, rather two of its theoretical cousins.  It
does, however, fit nicely into this series, since this volume serves as an
introduction to the core principles of both HS and HG for those who already
have a relatively firm understanding of Optimality Theory and other theories
of constraint-based phonology. Many of the discussions posed in this volume
relate HG and HS to OT, and the similarities and contrasts between these three
theoretical frameworks.

McCarthy and Pater are to be commended for the logical structure of the book
as well as the breadth of the information presented in this volume. The first
part of the book (“Introductions to Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism”),
which introduces the core tenets of the two theories in question, is effective
in its stated goals, laying the groundwork for the reader, who may be
unfamiliar with these topics, to understand the chapters in Part II. One minor
note, however, is that Chapter 1, which approachably introduces HG as well as
other theories and issues in theories of weighted constraints, may well
benefit from further discussion comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
the theories of weighted constraints addressed in the chapter, as well as when
one theory may be more practical than the other. Despite this, both Chapters 1
and 2 would be effective texts in introductory phonology coursework, primarily
at the graduate level.

Not all issues are equally represented and discussed in this volume.  Part II,
which makes up the bulk of the volume illustrates how both HS and HG can be
used to address many issues which have proven to be difficult for standard
Optimality Theoretic analyses. The studies presented in Part II can serve as
templates in how to effectively employ HS or HG (or a hybrid of both theories
as presented in Chapter 9). Moving on to Part III, however, there is little
discussion on learning and learnability, which have been argued to be one of
the tenets at the core of HS and other theories of weighted constraints. In
addressing the importance of learning as it pertains to theories of weighted
constraints, Pater (2009: 1000) has argued that “theories of language learning
and processing are being used increasingly in the explanation of typological
generalizations.” Despite the focus of learning and learnability in theories
of weighted constraints, questions related to learning and learnability are
not well-represented in this volume.  Although both chapters in part III are
informative, and chapter 12, effectively ties together both theories of
interest in this volume, it seems that this part does not fit cohesively with
Part II.  Part III is much more complex and technical than the preceding
chapters, since it requires a basic knowledge of the basic principles of
machine learning.

Each chapter explicitly states avenues of further research relating to these
theoretical frameworks, allowing other phonologists to explore questions of
interest as they pertain to both HS and HG.  Aside from the more technical
underpinnings presented in part III, the volume is very readable to most
phonologists, as there is a constant tone of contrast to standard OT presented
in all of the chapters. In the end, this volume is a welcome introduction to
key questions related to Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Since both
HG and HS are in their incipient stages, this book should be welcomed by both
seasoned phonologists as well as students of phonology.

REFERENCES

Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and
Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14 (1): 1—46. 

de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The Formal Expression of Markedness, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Amherst, MA: GLSA
Publications.

Goldwater, Sharon and Mark Johnson. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings
using a maximum entropy model. In Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson and Östen
Dahl (eds), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on ‘Variation within
Optimality Theory’, 111-120. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

Itô Junko, Armin Mester, and Jaye Padgett. 1995. Licensing and
underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 571-614.

Jesney, Karen. 2011. Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic
Serialism solution. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin and Brian Smith (eds.),
Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 403-416.
Amherst, MA: GLSA. [ROA-1018].

Kager, Rene. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:
351—367. 
Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, and Paul Smolensky. 1990. Can
connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an application. In
M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske, and K. Deaton (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 237—252. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society.

McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in
Optimality Theory. London, Equinox

Pater, Joe. 2000. Nonuniformity in English secondary stress: The role of
ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17:237-274

Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in Generative linguistics. Cognitive
Science. 33. 999-1035.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: constraint
interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell [Revision
of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University center for Cognitive Science].
Available on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.

Smolensky, Paul. 2006. Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness,
local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In Paul Smolensky
and Géraldine Legendre (eds.), The Harmonic mind: From neural computation to
optimality theoretic grammar, vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical
implications, 27-160. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Joshua M. Griffiths is a PhD. student in the Department of French & Italian at
the University of Texas at Austin. He is primarily interested in questions
pertaining to phonology, cognitive science, and second language acquisition.
He is particularly interested in phonological variation and the nature of the
phonological representation of variable structures.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3142	
----------------------------------------------------------