Optimality and Economy of Expression in Japanese and Korean
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In this paper I will discuss certain cases in Japanese and Korean morphosyntax where forms compete to express the same semantic and grammatical information, and attempt to show that in each instance the most economical form is chosen. Presenting an account in terms of Optimality Theory (OT; see Prince and Smolensky (1993), Grimshaw (1995)), I will argue that constraints such as ‘Avoid Word’ and ‘Avoid Afﬁx’ (as in (1)) are motivated as the forces behind the economization. (1) Avoid Word, Avoid Afﬁx. In OT, constraints are violable and ranked. For a given input—in this paper, abstract grammatical and semantic information—the optimal output is the morpho-syntactic expression which best satisﬁes the constraints in their ranking, even if some constraints are violated. If the constraints in (1) were the only forces on grammatical expression, the optimal output would be silence; but such an output would fail to express any of the information in the input. Hence, there are constraints on what is called ‘Faithfulness’ in OT, constraints which require linguistic material to faithfully express the abstract input information. In the next section of the paper, I discuss cases where a single word competes with a syntactic formation to express the same input information, illustrating a case where ‘Blocking’ extends from morphology into syntax.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Petra Hendriks & Helen de Hoop (2001). Optimality Theoretic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-32.
David M. Jacobs, Sverker Runeson & Isabell E. K. Andersson (2001). Reliance on Constraints Means Detection of Information. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):679-680.
David Makinson & Leendert van der Torre (2001). Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):155-185.
Kjell Johan Sæbø (2007). Focus Interpretation in Thetic Statements: Alternative Semantics and Optimality Theory Pragmatics. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (1):15-33.
Erik D. Thiessen (2010). Effects of Visual Information on Adults' and Infants' Auditory Statistical Learning. Cognitive Science 34 (6):1093-1106.
Dan Klein & Christopher D. Manning, From Instance-Level Constraints to Space-Level Constraints: Making the Most of Prior Knowledge in Data Clustering.
Robert Stalnaker (2009). Iterated Belief Revision. Erkenntnis 70 (2):189 - 209.
Radu J. Bogdan (1988). Information and Semantic Cognition: An Ontological Account. Mind and Language 3 (2):81-122.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads2 ( #347,529 of 1,100,492 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,155 of 1,100,492 )
How can I increase my downloads?