This framework regards the grammar as consisting of two phonological levels of representation, sandwiched between two semantic and two phonetic levels (there may well be more levels, but this seems to be the minimum). Some levels and some mappings can be evaluated with direction-free constraints:
"Meaning" ------ semantic constraints \ reference constraints / 'Morphemes' ------ morphemic constraints \ lexical constraints / |Underlying Form| \ faithfulness constraints / /Surface Form/ ------ structural constraints \ cue constraints / [Auditory Form] \ sensorimotor constraints / [Articulatory Form] ------ articulatory constraints
Several linguistic processes can be defined on this grammar:
+-------> "Meaning" -----+ | | | | +-- +--> 'Morphemes' <--+ ---+ | | | | +--> |Underlying Form| <--+ --+ recognition | | production | | +-- +---> /Surface Form/ <----+ | | perception | | +--- [Auditory Form] <----+ | | [Articulatory Form] <----+
It is still an open question which of the mappings between the representations are serial ('modular') and which run in parallel instead.
The figure shows comprehension as a sequence of three modules, namely pre-lexical perception, morpheme (or word) recognition, and the access of meaning. The recognition module consists of two parallel mappings here. Other kinds of seriality and parallelism seem possible and plausible, though.
The figure shows production as a sequence of three modules, the last of which is a parallel mapping from Underlying Form to the three lower levels. This particular parallelism allows continuous phonetic considerations, such as articulatory effort and auditory distinctiveness, to influence discrete phonological decisions. Effects accounted for include licensing by cue, enhancement, apparent teleology in sound change, and incomplete neutralization.
Phonology without markedness constraints.|
Presentation ICLaVE 3, Amsterdam, 24 slides.
Praat OT grammars: Perception | Production | Spirants
||Prototypicality judgments as inverted perception.|
In Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds.): Gradience in Grammar, 167-184. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Abstract]
Earlier version: Rutgers Optimality Archive 742, 2005/05/17.
The evolution of phonotactic distributions in the lexicon.|
Presentation Workshop on Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, Stanford. 32 slides.
||Some listener-oriented accounts of h-aspiré in French.|
Lingua 117: 1989-2054.
Earlier version: Rutgers Optimality Archive 730, 2005/04/13.
Emergent ranking of faithfulness explains markedness and licensing by cue.|
Rutgers Optimality Archive 954. 30 pages.
Earlier version: Handout 14th Manchester Phonology Meeting, 2006/05/28.
||Paul Boersma & Silke Hamann:|
The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars.
Phonology 25: 217-270.
Material: scripts for the simulations and pictures.
Earlier version: Rutgers Optimality Archive 909, 2007/04/17.
Earlier version: Handout OCP 3, Budapest, 2006/01/17.
||Silke Hamann, Diana Apoussidou & Paul Boersma:|
Modelling the formation of phonotactic restrictions across the mental lexicon.
To appear in Proceedings of the 45th Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society.
A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution.|
In Anton Benz & Jason Mattausch (eds.), Bidirectional Optimality Theory, 33-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Earlier version: Handout LOT Summerschool, June 2006, and Jadertina Summerschool (Rutgers Optimality Archive 868), 2006/09/12.
Cue constraints and their interactions in phonological perception and production.|
In Paul Boersma & Silke Hamann (eds.): Phonology in perception, 55-110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Earlier version: Rutgers Optimality Archive 944, 2007/11/11.
A constraint-based explanation of the McGurk effect.|
To appear in a book for Norval Smith edited by Roland Noske and Bert Botma.
Earlier version: Rutgers Optimality Archive 869, 2006/09/15.