Learnability in Optimality Theory

By Bruce Tesar, Paul Smolensky. Linguistic Inquiry, 2000

829 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/007d4a4c92bef42c02feaa744a2ca5f193f1dec2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Grammaticality and Ungrammaticality in Phonology (2008, methodology): “…to select grammatical forms, and that it does not have anything to say about the relationship among ungrammatical forms: 'the highest-Harmony member of a candidate set is the only grammatical one, all other candidates being equally ungrammatical' (2006:353, see also Tesar and Smolensky 1998:230).”
Gradual Learning and Convergence (2008, background): “They argue that this success, along with the robustness of the GLA in the face of noise in the learning data, favors it over the Constraint Demotion Algorithm (CDA; Tesar and Smolensky 1998, 2000), the standard learnability algorithm for Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004).”
Weighted Constraints in Generative Linguistics (2009, methodology): “In OT, whether optima are consistent, that is, whether they can be made optimal by a single ranking, can be determined using the Recursive Constraint Demotion Algorithm (Tesar & Smolensky, 1998, 2000).”
Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony (2006, methodology): “The discussion will be confined to the learning of the rankings shown in (34); we assume that the constraint inventory itself is either innate (Tesar & Smolensky 2000) or else is accessible to the child through some form of inductive learning (Hayes 1999).”
Cognitive Science in the era of Artificial Intelligence: A roadmap for reverse-engineering the infant language-learner (2016, neutral): “The other line consists in measuring the linguistic knowledge of infants of various ages across different languages through the administration of experimental tests (see Jusczyk, 1997; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 2010 for reviews).”
The linguistic perception of similar L2 sounds (2009, background): “This line of thinking has recently been followed by a number of phonologists to model different aspects of speech perception, e.g. Boersma 1998, Tesar & Smolensky 2000, Broselow to appear, Pater 2004.”
What Is Optimality Theory? (2007, positive): “Given the right kind of data, the constraint demotion learning algorithm rapidly and efficiently finds a ranking that will correctly reproduce the data (Tesar and Smolensky 1998, 2000).”
On the Learning of Arbitrary Phonological Rules (2005, background): “…of cognitive representations, the crucial explanation in nasal assimilation and many other phonological patterns is that the direction of change is phonetically grounded (cf. Archangeli & Pulleyblank, 1994; LANGUAGE LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT, 1(3&4), 289–316 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum…”