Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar

By A. Prince, Paul Smolensky. 2004

5,913 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fdcc6cdc5be85455e138c0d97f58e6084394a0e4

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

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Word Order and Scope: Transparent Interfaces and the ¾ Signature (2012, result): “15 Our reasoning here is in some ways parallel to the OT logic that ‘‘bans only the worst of the worst’’ (BOWOW; see Prince and Smolensky 2004, Smolensky and Legendre 2006).”
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN L2 SPEECH PERCEPTION RESEARCH AND PHONOLOGICAL THEORY (2004, methodology): “…is a formal perception grammar that determines an optimal output ~e+g+, a phonological category! on the basis of a given input ~e+g+, an auditory event!+ In our formalization of this grammar, the decision scheme works according to the constraintbased framework of OT ~Prince & Smolensky, 1993!”
The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy* (2008, background): “According to Féry, extrametricality of the final syllable is not a general principle in German, but can be derived from the interaction and ranking of the FOOTBINARITY and WEIGHT-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE constraints (both first proposed by Prince & Smolensky 1993) and ALIGNFT-R (McCarthy & Prince 1993).”
Less than zero: Correspondence and the null output (2007, methodology): “A central property of Optimality Theory is competition (Prince and Smolensky 2004).”
The Syllable in Optimality Theory: On the Sources of Opacity in OT: Coda Processes in German (2003, background): “Optimality Theory (OT) is built on output constraints.1 These constraints impose conflicting demands on candidates and are all violable, with precedence regulated by universal and languageparticular ranking specifications (see Prince & Smolensky 1993).”
The extended prosodic word (2009, methodology): “Different * A general constraint often invoked for such cases is *STRUC (Prince and Smolensky 2004) which militates against structure of any kind.”
Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model (2003, background): “Like Linear Optimality Theory, the MaxEnt model treats constraints as additive, thus accounting for cumulativity effects.”
The Role of Phonetic Knowledge in Phonological Patterning: Corpus and Survey Evidence from Tagalog Infixation (2007, background): “Certain Tagalog verbs take the infixes um and in (um is used for actor-focus forms, in for others) to mark realis aspect (um also marks infinitives), as shown in (6) (Schachter & Otanes 1972, French 1988, Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004, McCarthy & Prince 1993).”
Opacity and Ordering (2011, background): “…paid to opacity has been relatively recent and has been fueled by the field's massive (but incomplete) shift from the rule-based serialism framework of The Sound Pattern of English (Chomsky & Halle 1968) to the constraint-based parallelism framework of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993).”
Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism (2000, background): “There are excellent typological reasons for doing this, as the OT literature abundantly attests (see, e.g., Lombardi 1995, Myers 1997, Pater 1999, Prince 1998), but it is also the source of this problem with Harmonic Serialism.”