Abstract
We show that, in general, Optimality Theory (OT) grammars containing a restricted family of locally-conjoined constraints (Smolensky 2006) make the same typological predictions as corresponding Harmonic Grammar (HG) grammars. We provide an intuition for the generalization using a simple constrast and neutralization typology, as well as a formal proof. This demonstration adds structure to claims about the (non)equivalence of HG and OT with local conjunction (Legendre et al. 2006, Pater 2016) and provides a tool for understanding how different sets of constraints lead to the same typological predictions in HG and OT.
Highlights
In this paper we demonstrate that, in general, Optimality Theory (OT) grammars containing particular, identifiable members of a restricted family of conjoined constraints (Smolensky, 2006) make the same typological predictions as corresponding Harmonic Grammar (HG) grammars
4.4 Demonstration of predictive equivalence In this subsection we show that the conjoined constraintaugmented constraint sets generated by the procedure given in (6) make equivalent typological predictions in both HG and OT frameworks
In the preceding sections we have shown that the generally divergent typological predictions of HG and OT can be made convergent by the targeted addition of conjoined constraints to the constraint set, conjoined constraints the conjuncts of which form a crucial ganging cumulativity set in the HG typology
Summary
In this paper we demonstrate that, in general, Optimality Theory (OT) grammars containing particular, identifiable members of a restricted family of conjoined constraints (Smolensky, 2006) make the same typological predictions as corresponding Harmonic Grammar (HG) grammars. Building on an example case, we propose a general method for identifying the members of this restricted family of conjoined constraints in the equalizer of HG and OT, and provide a proof of its intended function. This demonstration adds more structure to claims about the (non)equivalence of HG and OT with local conjunction (Legendre et al, 2006; Pater, 2016) and provides a tool for understanding how different sets of constraints lead to the same typological predictions in HG and OT (Pater, 2016; Jesney, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
