2003•The Linguistic ReviewRequires access

Complex constraints and linguistic typology in Optimality Theory

Haruka Fukazawa, Linda Lombardi

Open publisher page 24 citations

Abstract

In Optimality Theory it is possible to construct complex constraints from simpler elements. The question arises as to how far we can simplify the content of UG by decomposing complex constraints in this way. In this paper we argue that although the goal of a simple UG without overproliferation of constraints may be valid, it should not come at the expense of correct typological predictions. We show that incorrect cross-linguistic predictions are made if certain constraints are considered to be constructed from primitive elements. These incorrect predictions can be eliminated if we place certain restrictions on constraint conjunction and therefore must assume that the constraints in question are part of UG in their complex form. We will discuss the issues of the phonetic motivation for complex constraints and of distinguishing the universal from the language-specific.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In Optimality Theory it is possible to construct complex constraints from simpler elements. The question arises as to how far we can simplify the content of UG by decomposing complex constraints in this way. In this paper we argue that although the goal of a simple UG without overproliferation of constraints may be valid, it should not come at the expense of correct typological predictions. We show that incorrect cross-linguistic predictions are made if certain constraints are considered to be constructed from primitive elements. These incorrect predictions can be eliminated if we place certain restrictions on constraint conjunction and therefore must assume that the constraints in question are part of UG in their complex form. We will discuss the issues of the phonetic motivation for complex constraints and of distinguishing the universal from the language-specific.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 24 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In Optimality Theory it is possible to construct complex constraints from simpler elements. The question arises as to how far we can simplify the content of UG by decomposing complex constraints in this way. In this paper we argue that although the goal of a simple UG without overproliferation of constraints may be valid, it should not come at the expense of correct typological predictions. We show that incorrect cross-linguistic predictions are made if certain constraints are considered to be constructed from primitive elements. These incorrect predictions can be eliminated if we place certain restrictions on constraint conjunction and therefore must assume that the constraints in question are part of UG in their complex form. We will discuss the issues of the phonetic motivation for complex constraints and of distinguishing the universal from the language-specific.

Key concepts: Linguistics, Typology, Optimality theory, Linguistic typology, Theoretical linguistics, Linguistic universal, Cognitive linguistics, Linguistic description

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Complex constraints and linguistic typology in Optimality Theory — Research Paper | ScholarLens