El vínculo entre la producción y la percepción y la teoría lingüística

Recent trends in infant (and adult) speech perception studies, especially in the psychological literature where much of the speech perception work is being and has been done, shows a growing focus on more integrated perception-production-sensorimotor (PPS) bases for perception (Werker & Gervain 2013). We look here at whether the results of such studies are significant for theoretical linguistics – specifically for the fundamental question of how the linguistic system is acquired. We examine a selection of recent experimental results, using Bruderer, Danielson, Kandhadai & Werker (2015) as the focal point.Las tendencias recientes en los estudios de percepción del habla infantil (y adulta), especialmente en la bibliografía de carácter psicológico en la que se ha enmarcado y se sigue enmarcando gran parte del trabajo sobre la percepción del habla, apuntan cada vez más hacia unas bases más integradas perceptivo-productivo-sensorimotoras (PPS) para la percepción (Werker & Gervain, 2013). En este trabajo analizamos si los resultados de tales estudios son significativos para la lingüística teórica, especialmente por lo que se refiere a la interrogante fundamental acerca de cómo se adquiere el sistema lingüístico. Examinamos una selección de resultados experimentales recientes, tomando como punto de referencia el trabajo de Bruderer, Danielson, Kandhadai & Werker (2015)

Evaluating the Empirical Basis for Output-Output Correspondence

Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure (1997

The internal syntax of -iva clauses in Vedic Sanskrit

In this paper we argue that a proper characterization of the synchronic internal syntax of clauses of comparison in Vedic Sanskrit can clarify issues of interpretation. We also briefly explore aspects of the diachrony of these structures.&nbsp

Output-Output Correspondence in Optimality Theory

Output-output correspondence (OOC) constraints, constraints which demand correspondence between independently occurring surface forms, have recently been added to the set of constraint types invoked in much OT work. In this paper we examine some of the better-known arguments originally adduced in support of OOC constraints, and argue that adoption of such a powerful mechanism is not justified, at least in the cases discussed. This paper deals specifically with the following: the incomplete/complete phase distinction of Rotuman, as analyzed by McCarthy (1995); English truncated hypocoristics, as discussed by Benua (1995); and the treatment of Base Identity and Uniform Exponence in Kenstowicz (1994). Three criticisms are leveled at the OOC-based analyses cited above. First, we find cases of 'opportunism.' For example, there is an unprincipled culling of the data and an unprincipled choice of bases in correspondence relations. Second, there is misanalysis, in that clearly significant generalizations are overlooked, technical aspects of the theory are improperly treated and implausible generalizations are accepted. Third, we believe that the analyses based on OOC lead to problematic predictions, some of which are strongly contraindicated by existing data, and others of which we consider highly suspect. We offer simple, principled solutions which we hope will contribute to a more constrained theory of phonology--one that perhaps has no place for OOC.The main example we discuss is McCarthy's (1995) study of Rotuman metathesis--a cover term for morphemic alternations of the type in (1) termed by Churchward (1940) 'complete/incomplete phase.' (1) Complete Incomplete pure puer titi'u titi' McCarthy followed, in its basic outlines, the original analysis of Churchward (1940) in attributing the synchronic conditions on metathesis to "syntactico-semantic principles". However, a detailed study of the conditions on incomplete phase formation in Rotuman reveals that "syntactico-semantic principles" are not involved in these alternations. Instead, we show that the phases are PHONOLOGICALLY conditioned. Producing the phases via output-output correspondence fails to capture the correct, purely phonological conditioning of the phases. Such an analysis also ignores an additional alternation in Rotuman roots known as 'broad' and 'narrow' versions. We show that there is no principled way of selecting a base for output-output correspondence in Rotuman if one wants to account for both the incomplete/complete and broad/narrow alternations. In the conclusion to a later paper, Kenstowicz (1995:433) raises some fundamental questions regarding the use of OOC. "Can [OOC] be restricted to situations in which one structure is a substring of the other? Or should we allow identity constraints to hold among a family of related words, e.g. to get the effects of paradigm leveling?" Kenstowicz goes on to note the vagueness of terms like 'family of related words' and 'isolation form'. Clearly, these terms need to be defined in order to select a base against which identity can be evaluated. As far as we can tell, these fundamental questions have yet to receive a satisfactory solution in the literature. The failings of the specific cases of OOC which we discuss, those of McCarthy, Benua and Kenstowicz, are related to the absence of clear guiding principles concerning these fundamental questions. If phonological theory wishes to be constrained by standards of explicitness and rigor, OOC should be eschewed until these fundamental questions receive a more satisfactory treatment

On the Empirical Basis of Output-Output Correspondence

The increased computational power provided to Optimality Theory by the addition of Output-Output Correspondence as a type of a constraint is critically evaluated in this paper. An examination of the most prominent supporting evidence - that of Rotuman (McCarthy 1995), English hypocoristics (Benua 1995), and the selection of cases presented in Kenstowicz (1994) - indicates that alternative accounts which do not require Otput-Output Correspondence as a formal mechanism are not only possible, but in each case strongly supported by the relevant data. We conclude that unless more compelling cases can be found, Optimality theory should not be allowed to become even less constrained by the addtion of Output-Output Correspondence as a type of constraint

Evaluating the Empirical Basis for Output-Output Correspondence

Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure (1997