Optimality Theory 283

CHAPTER SEVEN

OPTIMALITY THEORY

Emmanuel Adedayo Osifeso

Introduction
Optimality theory, otherwise called OT, is relatively new among the
family of established phonological theories such as Generative
phonology (Chomsky and Halle, 1968), Natural generative phonology
(Hooper, 1976), Natural phonology (Stampe 1979), Autosegmental
phonology (Goldsmith, 1976, 1979), Lexical phonology (Strauss,
GE
1982), Metrical phonology (Liberman, 1985), Dependency phonology
N
(Anderson, Ewen & Staun, 1985) and Prosodic phonology (Nespor
and Vogel, 1986). Although OT started off as a phonological theory
and has had its widest applications in phonology, it has also been
extended to other aspects of language. Hence, it also has applications
in syntax, semantics and sociolinguistics (McCarthy, 2007). However,
its applications in these other aspects are rare in comparison to
phonology’s. The central argument in favour of OT is its explanatory
adequacy, compared to rule-based theories.
A number of studies, prior to the advent of OT had noted that rule-
based phonology lacked the mechanism to explain relationships
between phonological rules’ outputs. Kisseberth (1970) was the first of
such studies. It argued that the bracketing convention of the order of
SPE did not always select the sets of rules which had a natural
relationship with one another. This is because such relationship was
based on the similarity between the outputs that the rules produced.
Blumenfeld (2006, p. 1) notes that: “Over the years, Kissebert’s
original insight was developed, culminating in the realisation that the
weight and importance of output-based conspiracies was too great for
standard rule-based theory to handle.” Moreover, by the close of the
1980’s, there had been a consensus among leading scholars concerning
the importance of output constraints, although it was not yet clear what
the nature and functions of these constraints were. The foregoing
arguments became the springboard for the emergence of OT.
Originators of Optimality Theory
OT was originally proposed by the duo of Paul Smolensky and Alan
Prince in 1993 from a course taught by them in the Summer Institute
of the Linguistic Society of America. Although Paul Smolensky was
one of the two persons that proposed OT, a phenomenal theory of
language, he did not have a background in linguistics. Paul was born
on May 5, 1955. He was educated at Harvard University, where he got
A.B. in Physics (1976) and Indiana University Bloomington, where he
received M.S. in Physics (1977) and Ph.D. in Mathematical Physics
(1981). He received the Rumelhart Prize in 2005 for his pursuit of the
ICS Architecture, a model of cognition that aims to unify
Connectionism and Symbolism.

Paul also independently propounded the notion of local conjunction of

constraints. He, however, later collaborated with Bruce Tesar (his
former Ph.D. student) in the application of local conjunction to the
analysis of various ‘super-additive’ effects in OT. He was a professor
in the Computer Science Department and Institute of Cognitive
Science at the University of Colorado, prior to his joining the John
Hopkins University where he is currently a professor of Cognitive
Science. He is a founding member of the parallel Distributed
Processing Research Group, whose research focus is Connectionism.
He is also a member of the Centre for Language and Speech
Processing.

Paul’s main research focuses on integrating symbolic and neural

network computation for modelling reasoning and grammar in the
human mind/brain, and OT. His other research areas are phonology,
syntax, acquisition, learnability and processing. He has published
seven books and over one hundred and sixty (160) papers; some of
which he co-authored with scholars such as Alan Prince, Yoshiro
Miyata, Geraldine Legendre, M. Goldrick, K. Arnold, W. Raymond
among others. One of his doctoral students was Bruce Tesar, whose
PhD thesis was on Computational Optimality Theory (1995). The
thesis is an expansion of the scope of the OT originally proposed by
Prince and Smolensky (1993).
Meanwhile, Alan Sanford Prince was born on June 20, 1946. He got
his B.A. from McGill University in Quebec Canada, after which he
attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he
received his Ph.D. in 1975. Prince was named a fellow of the John
Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 1998. He was at different
times a professor of linguistics at Brandeis University Massachusetts,
University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Rutgers University-New
Brunswick where he was appointed the Board of Governors Professor
of Linguistics in 2010 and Professor Emeritus upon his retirement in
2015. His areas of research interests are: Phonology, Optimality
Theory, prosodic morphology, cognitive science of language,
algorithmic learning and computational environments for linguistic
theory. He has well over fifty major works published, some of which
he co-authored with scholars like Alan Prince, Bruce Tesar, Nazarre
Merchant, John Alderete, Paul de Lacy, Samek-Lodovici and John
McCarthy, among others.

The duo has applied OT in a number of works. Some of them include

“the initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in Optimality Theory”
(1996), “Optimality Theory in phonology” (2003), and “Optimality in
phonology II: Markedness, feature domains, and Local Constraint
Conjunction” (2006).

History of Optimality Theory

OT evolved from Generative Phonology. It, however, exhibited a
radical departure from Generative Phonology and other rule-based
theories such as autosegmental phonology and linear phonology. It is
sometimes called a connectionist theory of language because it has its
roots in neural network research. In terms of its era of emergence, OT
directly succeeds the theory of Harmonic Grammar which was
developed by the trio of Geraldine Legendre, Yoshiro Miyata and Paul
Smolensky in 1990. The emergence of OT in the rank of phonological
theories began informally in 1991 when Paul Smolensky and Alan
Prince started to present their joint work on a new approach to the
study of language, especially in the field of phonology. At that point in
time, there was no name for it yet. The name Optimality Theory came
to the fore in 1993 through their widely-circulated paper, Optimality
Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (Prince &
Smolensky, 2004). OT is a constraint-based theory of language which
proposes that the forms of language open to observation arise from the
interaction between conflicting constraints. It introduced a conception
of grammar in which well-formedness is defined as optimality, with
respect to a ranked set of universal constraints. In the OT version
originally proposed by the duo, there are two main types of
constraints: faithfulness and markedness constraints.
However, there have been subtle modifications to the theory
subsequently. The later versions have also admitted new classes of
constraints into the theory. The first of such modifications was
McCarthy and Prince (1993) which introduced alignment constraints
in addition to the two earlier faithfulness and markedness constraints.
Another of such is Smolensky (1995, 1997) which proposed the class
of local conjunction constraints (LC). LC implies that two constraints
can combine into a single constraint which is violated only when both
of its constituents are violated. In that proposal, a locally conjoined
constraint [A&B]D is violated if and only if constraint A and constraint
B are both violated within some domain D. According to Wolf (2007),
“LC has come to enjoy wide (certainly not universal) acceptance
among practitioners of OT”. This assertion is a testament to the fact
that the constraint class has subsequently gained recognition as one of
the established constraints classes in the circle of OT phonologists.

The theory was later expanded by McCarthy and Prince (1995) and
McCarthy (2001). This expanded version was applied in one of
McCarthy’s (2008) work titled Doing Optimality Theory: Applying
Theory to Data.

Some sub-theories have also emerged within OT. These include

positional faithfulness theory, correspondence theory (McCarthy &
Prince 1995), sympathy theory (Itô & Mester, 1997) and a number of
learnability theories by Bruce Tesar, one of Smolensky’s tutees (Tesar
& Smolensky 2000).

The Rudiments of OT
OT has three basic components which it assumes to be universal.
These are: GEN (from generator), CON (from constraint) and EVAL
(from evaluator). GEN generates the list of potential outputs or
possible candidates. CON provides the criteria, that is, violable
constraints, used to decide between candidates; while EVAL chooses
the optimal candidate based on the constraints.

In contrast to Generative Phonology which applies a derivational

approach by generating surface outputs from a series of rules that
operates on underlying forms in a recursive manner, OT operates a
constraint-based approach. In the words of Clark, Yallop and Fletcher
(2007, p. 423): “constraints are universal, are governed by markedness
principles and are violable”. They further add that those “constraints
are ranked relative to each other and according to their strength”. The
three basic components of GEN, CON and EVAL are universal and
function as a system. Differences in grammars are a reflection of the
different rankings of the universal constraint set, CON. Moreover,
language acquisition results from the process of adjusting the ranking
of the constraints. OT operates on a principle called richness of the
base which supposes that there are no language-specific restrictions on
the input. This implies that every grammar can handle every input
possible.

Understanding OT Concepts: The Analogy from Marriage

The concept of the three basic universal components - GEN, CON and
EVAL – of the theory can be illustrated with the African marriage
system:
Imagine you are an African lady who is ready for marriage. You are
already receiving proposals from different men. Each of the men is
your potential husband but you can only marry one of them. Let us call
these potential husbands candidates; and you, a given language. So,
how do you determine the right man among the potential husbands?
You would probably have a set of criteria to guide your decision. The
criteria may include, among others: stature, religion, ethnicity,
character, complexion, compatibility and family/parental consent.
These are constraints on your list of potential husbands because they
automatically filter out some of the candidates. For example, you are
not going to marry a Muslim if your religion prohibits it (maybe you
are a strong Catholic). Sometimes, however, constraints do contradict
each other: you have a Catholic fiancé, yet your parents refuse to give
their consent. Your family/community values prescribes the ranking
(hierarchy) of the constraints. Hence, parental consent overrules
religious affiliation; and religious affiliation, in certain context,
supersedes ethnic bias. The candidate that makes it through the
‘hurdles’ in the best way possible goes home with the beautiful bride.
(Ironically, the main goal of dating in this context – ensuring that you
get married – is ranked the least, as this constraint is applied only if
more than one candidate or option made it through the other filters. If
not, once you do not have any other option, you would rather remain
single even if you have the intention of getting married.)
Put in another way, we have a given set of constraints (CON-A, CON-
B, CON-C, CON-D), which are hierarchically ranked in the order
CON-A to CON-D; CON-A being the highest and CON-D the lowest.
We can put it in this format:
CON-A >> CON-B >> CON-C >> CON-D
Note that the symbol ‘>>’ means the constraint to the left is ranked
higher or is more preferred than the one to the right side of it.

We also have a set of candidates: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Each of the given

constraints then evaluates each of the candidates. The result is that a
candidate either satisfies (fulfils the required condition) or violates (if
the action is prohibited) the constraint. The conventional way OT
represents such a situation is by using a tableau, which is illustrated
below:

CON-ACON-BCON-CCON-D
Cand1 *! *
• Cand2 *
Cand3*! * *
Cand4 *
Table 1.1: A hypothetical OT tableau
In OT convention, an asterisk (*) in a candidate’s column means that
the candidate violates the given constraint; an exclamation mark (!)
means a fatal violation, leading to the exit of that candidate from the
‘competition’; while the pointing finger ( ) signifies the winner
candidate. The winner does not have to be a ‘saint’: even if it commits
some ‘sins’ (violations), they must be lesser sins (lower ranked
constraints) compared to the rest of the candidates in the competition.
Hence, in the tableau Cand2 emerged winner despite being the only
one that violated constraint D (the lowest ranked constraint). It still
emerged the winner because, unlike Cand1 and Cand3, it did not
commit a fatal violation. Moreover, Cand4 which was its strongest
competitor violated CON-C which was a higher ranked constraint than
CON-D. The import of the foregoing is this: all constraints are
violable; and all candidates, including the winner, are capable of
violating at least one constraint in any given hierarchy. The winner
does not have to satisfy all constraints; it only has to satisfy them
better than the rest.

Back to our analogy: the following young men (candidates) are

interested in an Igbo (a Nigerian ethnic group) lady for marriage –
Musa, Yemi, Chibuzor and Chuks. The following values (constraints),
among others, are held by the lady’s community: R(eligion),
E(thnicity), F(inance), C(haracter) and S(tature). Different families in
the community can however rank the constraints differently, depending
on their ‘scale of preference’. The tableau for this hypothetical
marriage process can take this form:

R (Catholic)E (Igbo)F (rich)C (honest)S (tall)

Musa *! *
Yemi *
• Chibuzor * * *
Chuks*!
Table 1.2: Illustrating OT constraints with the African marriage
scenario

This particular family ranks religion (Catholic) higher than all other
constraints. Hence, any violation of it is a fatal violation. The
constraints hierarchy can thus be represented as follows: R (Catholic)
>>E (Igbo) >>F (rich) >>C (honest) >>S (tall). Consequently,
candidates Musa (a Hausa Muslim) and Chucks (an Igbo Anglican)
commit the fatal violation. As for Candidate Yemi, he violates just one
constraint, that is, constraint E (Igbo) which is ranked higher than
constraints F (rich), C (honest) and S (tall). However, Candidate
Chibuzor emerges winner despite violating more constraints (three)
than all the other candidates. This is because the three constraints are
the least ranking constrains in the hierarchy. As earlier mentioned, “the
winner does not have to be a ‘saint’: even if it commits some ‘sins’,
they must be lesser sins compared to the rest of the candidates in the
competition.”

A Formal Approach to Optimality Theory

Since its introduction by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky in 1993, OT
has enjoyed huge popularity in the linguistic circle, especially among
phonologists. Just like most theories that are connected to generative
linguistics, the goal of OT is to account for how the underlying
representation (UR) is mapped onto the surface representation (SR) in
any given language. The UR, largely some lists of elements taken from
the mental lexicon, is usually obtained through extra-linguistic
processes. OT, according to Tesar, Grimshaw & Prince (1999), ‘builds
from a notion of “best satisfaction” – optimality rather than perfection.’
This implies that the optimal candidate wins, not because it is faultless
among the lot, rather because it satisfies the criteria best. With regards
to accounting for UR and SR, Figure 1.1 (below) states the basic
architecture of an OT grammar. It consists of two main constituents:
GEN and EVAL. GEN operates at the level of UR as it generates a set
of candidates as the input. Moreover, EVAL serves as the ‘electoral
officer’ using the constraints as criteria to evaluate the candidates and
return one of them, the one that satisfies the criteria best, as the elected
candidate. That candidate becomes the output, SR.

OT’s concept of richness of the base principle suggests that the set of
possible inputs is universal because it is common to all languages.
Likewise, GEN and CON are universal tendencies among all
languages. However, although EVAL is also universal, its modus
operandi varies from language to language. According to Prince and
Smolensky (2004, p. 6), “The account of interlinguistic differences is
entirely tied to the different ways the constraint-system H-eval can be
put together, given UG.” (i.e. universal grammar). This is due to the
relative variation of the ranking of constraints among languages; while
a language ranks a particular constraint low, another may rank it high
on its hierarchy. Hence, constraint ranking is an only language specific
criterion; and in order to acquire a language, therefore, it requires
learning the appropriate constraint hierarchy in the language. This
process is referred to as grammar learning algorithm (Tesar and
Smolensky, 2000; Boersma and Hayes, 2001; Prince and Tesar, 2004;
Pater, 2005). The algorithm, according to Biros (2000, p. 10), “is
expected to return a hierarchy that produces the correct outputs for the
given underlying forms”. Note that Prince and Smolensky refers to
EVAL as H-eval. According to them, “The function H-eval evaluates
the relative Harmony of the candidates, imposing an order on the entire
set.” (p. 6). This order imposed by EVAL leads to the determination of
the optimal candidate. They further add that “An optimal output is at
the top of the harmonic order on the candidate set; by definition, it best
satisfies the constraint system.” (p. 6).

In addition, Coetzee (2004) proposes that every language has a

benchmark on the constraint hierarchy which “divides the constraint
set into those constraints that a language is willing to violate and those
that a language is not willing to violate.” Consequently, any candidate
that is disapproved by a constraint that is ranked higher than the
benchmark will not manifest as output if there is/are (an)other
candidate(s) in the competition that is/are not disapproved by any other
constraint ranked higher than the benchmark.

For instance, a language without complex clusters in its phonology

must be able to deal with an input such as /flask/. However, languages
in this category will resolve this problem differently: some will
epenthesize (by means of vowel(s) insertion) (e.g. /fulasik/, or
/fulasiki/ if all codas are banned), while some will delete (e.g. /fas/,
/fat/, /las/, or /lat/). Given any input, GEN generates an infinite number
of possible realisations (candidates) of that input. A language’s ranking
of constraints (otherwise called its grammar) determines which of the
infinite candidates will be ranked as the optimal output. For a
candidate to be optimal, it must have incurred the smallest number of
violations of the highest ranking constraints.

EVAL
Set of
UR
candi Con
d-ates 3 Con Con
SR
2 1
222
Figure 1.1: The basic Optimality Theory Architecture

The underlying representation (UR) supplies the input, from where the
GEN generates a set of candidates. These candidates are then
subjected to EVAL which evaluates them and returns the optimal
candidate as the output (surface representation). EVAL is like a filter
conduit where the constraints filter out the candidates that are not
harmonic with the grammar. Samek-Lodovici and Prince (1996, p. 6)
define candidate as “an atomic, unanalyzed notion”. The candidates
are competitors competing for the optimal slot. Constraints are the
eliminators; they eliminate weak competitors by assigning violation
marks (asterisks) and candidates with higher number of asterisks leave
the arena for the one with the least number.

Optimality Theory distinguishes itself as a formidable theory in the

sense that it abandons two key presuppositions of earlier work. First of
which is “that grammatical theory allows individual grammars to
narrowly and parochially specify the Structural Description and
Structural Change of rules.” (Prince & Smolensky, 2002, p. 6).
Instead, it proposes GEN which has the capacity to produce an infinite
array of candidates for any given input as the basic structural resources
of the linguistic theory. Of course, the conception is that the expected
surface structure exists among the generated candidates, and the
constraint framework has the capacity to cherry-pick it.

The Second reason, in the view of Prince and Smolensky, is that

“Optimality Theory abandons the widely held view that constraints are
language-particular statements of phonotactic truth.” and instead, it
proposes “the assertion that the constraints of Con are universal and of
very general formulation, with great potential for disagreement over
the well-formedness of analyses” (Prince and Smolensky, 2002, p. 6).
Consequently, every individual grammar is imbued with a mechanism
by which it ranks these constraints; and the higher-/highest-ranked
constraint is returned elected in any competition. The constraints are
simple and universal; variation among languages is only a function of
differences in constraint ranking.

Concepts within Optimality Theory

Constraints
Kager (1999 p. 9) defines a constraint as “a structural requirement that
may be either satisfied or violated by an output form”. There are two
notable facts about constraints as suggested by Samek-Lodovici and
Prince (as cited in Potts and Pullum 2002, p. 362): first, constraints
perform certain functions; second, such functions are performed on
candidates. Constraints constitute the principal explanatory device in
OT. They serve as ways of characterising language universals. Every
language has its ranking of constraints and the variations between
these rankings is reflected in the observed differences between
languages. No constraint operates outside the constraint hierarchy
for a language. Likewise, there are no separate constraints operating on
inputs or outputs. Khalid Abdul and Jrainikh (2018) explain
constraints by making a parallel between them (constraints) and rules:
“Constraints are instructions to avoid a given configuration …. Rules
are instructions to create a given configuration.” (p. 10). They further
add that constraints represent configurations that are systematically
avoided both within and across languages by means of processes.
Following this latter statement, a constraint such as ∗CCC (no three
consecutive consonant clusters in a syllable) for instance could be
avoided by deletion, epenthesis, or fusion.

Types of Constraints
Generally speaking, there are two types of constraints in all languages.
These are faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints (Prince
and Smolensky, 1993). This position is corroborated by Kager (1999)
who adds that this classification is premised on the fact that every
constraint evaluates one specific aspect of output markedness or
faithfulness. Moreover, McCarthy (2007, p. 14) categorically states
that those two are the only constraints domiciled in CON: “CON
contains only markedness and faithfulness constraints”.

Constraints Classification Based on Function

Based on function, constraints are grouped into different categories.
Florida Linguistics Association (FLA) (2013) gives the following in its
listing of established and acceptable constraints groupings:
Faithfulness constraints, Markedness constraints, Alignment
constraints and Outlying constraints. Meanwhile, Ashley et al. (2010)
recognise two additional constraints: Local Conjunction and
Antifaithfulness. They assert that there are 1666 constraints
established among language scholars. These are categorised into six as
shown in the table below:

Constraint Type Number Percentage

Markedness 902 54.1%
Faithfulness 492 29.5%
Alignment 241 14.5%
Local Conjunction 11 0.7%
Others/Miscellaneous 11 0.7%
Antifaithfulness 9 0.5%
TOTAL 1666 100%
Table 2.2: Constraint type, number and percentage

Among the major family of constraints, the three most prominent and
commonly used constraint types in OT are Markedness, Faithfulness
and Alignment. Let us consider each of them in some details.

Faithfulness Constraints
Faithfulness constraints are the class of constraints that require the
output structure to strictly resemble the input. McCarthy (2007)
considers them to be inherently conservative because they resist any
form of change(s) to the input structure. Prince and Smolensky (1993,
2004) note that faithfulness constraints act to preserve the input. They
identify two basic types: MAX and DEP. The MAX (that is maximise
the input) sub-group penalise for deletion. MAX is violated whenever
any input segment is deleted in the output. DEP (that is, depend on the
input for all material) penalise for insertion. The constraint is violated
whenever any epenthetic material is added to the input.
McCarthy & Prince (1995), in addition to MAX and DEP, propose
IDENT(F) as a third member of the basic families of faithfulness
constraints. The constraint prohibits any alteration to the value of
feature F. IDENT is from the word ‘identical’. The names of each of
the constraints may be suffixed with ‘-IO’ or ‘-BR’. ‘-IO’ represents
input/output, while ‘-BR’ stands for base/reduplicant. ‘-BR’ is
essentially used in analysis of reduplication. However, the ‘F’
in IDENT(F) represents the distinctive feature of the segment being
analysed. Therefore, it can be substituted with the name of any
distinctive feature as appropriate. For example, IDENT-IO(V) for voice,
or IDENT-IO(P) for place. MAX and DEP seem to have replaced an
earlier couple of constraints set - PARSE and FILL - proposed by Prince
& Smolensky (1993). PARSE states that ‘underlying segments must be
parsed into syllable structure’ and FILL states that ‘syllable positions
must be filled with underlying segments’ (p. 94).
PARSE and FILL perform essentially the same functions
as MAX and DEP. The difference between them is that while
PARSE and FILL evaluate only the output, MAX and DEP evaluate the
relation between the input and the output. Hence, PARSE’s and FILL’s
function is rather similar to that of markedness constraints (McCarthy,
2008, p. 209).
This function of theirs originates from Prince & Smolensky’s
containment theory, a model which assumes that any input segment
not realised by the output is not deleted but rather ‘left unparsed’ by a
syllable (Kager, 1999, p. 99-100). However, correspondence theory,
another model proposed by McCarthy & Prince (1995, 1999), has
subsequently replaced it as the standard framework (McCarthy, 2008,
p. 27). Correspondence theory is a proposal of a relation that holds
between root nodes. For instance, the root node /n/ in the input /ɑni/
can be in correspondence relation with the root node /ŋ/ in the output /
ŋɑni/. de Lacy (2010) however argues that in the course of processing
an output candidate from an input, GEN has the freedom of generating
correspondence relations. As a result, there will also be a candidate
consisting of the input /ɑni/ and even an output /ŋɑni/ where
/n/corresponds to /ŋ/.

Markedness Constraints
The term ‘markedness’ refers to those characteristics of languages that
are considered to be universally more complex and/or rarer in
languages. It refers to a phonological feature or property that is
generally uncommon or unusual among languages. For instance, /p/
and /b/ contrast in English - /b/ is characterised by the presence of
voicing, while /p/ lacks it. Moreover, in Thai, /pʰ/ and /p/ contrast. /pʰ/
has aspiration, while /p/ lacks it. Thus, the candidate that is
characterised by the presence of a mark is said to be ‘marked’, while
that which does not have it is said to be ‘unmarked’. Potts and Pullum
(2002) regard markedness constraints as the simplest OT constraints
from the model-theoretic perspective. They claim that the constraints
“place conditions on individual candidate outputs, i.e. on structures
that are, in most theories, trees” (p. 366). Markedness constraints relate
to rules about structure. These include constraints against segments
that are difficult to pronounce like consonant clusters, as well as
alignment-related constraints. Prince and Smolensky (1993) propose a
list of markedness constraints which operate across languages. These
include:
i. NUC: Syllables must have nuclei.
ii. –CODA (NOCODA): Syllables must not have codas.
iii. ONS (ONSET): Syllables must have onsets.
iv. HNUC: A nuclear segment must be more sonorous than another
(from ‘harmonic nucleus’).
v. *COMPLEX (i.e. no complex syllable is allowed): A syllable must
be V, CV or VC.
vi. CODACOND (CODACONDITION): Coda consonants cannot have
place features that are not shared by an onset consonant.
vii. NONFIN (NONFINALITY): A word-final syllable (or foot) must
not bear stress.
viii. FTBIN (FOOTBINARITY): A foot must be two syllables (or
moras).
ix. PK-PROM (PEAKPROMINENCE): Light syllables must not be
stressed.
x. WSP (WEIGHT-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE): Heavy syllables must
be stressed.
 Alignment Constraints
Alignment is a phenomenon in which languages show a preference for
certain linguistic features to be aligned with other linguistic features. It
refers to the tendency for certain linguistic features to coincide in a
language. Such features include the location of primary word stress
word-initially, or a question marker word-finally. Alignment was
initially proposed as a constraint in OT by Prince and Smolensky
(1993) in order to explain infixation. It was later developed by
McCarthy and Prince (1993). According to McCarthy (2011),
alignment constraints require that the edges of linguistic structures
coincide. He adds that alignment constraints have the capacity to
discriminate among candidates that are imperfectly aligned; but this is
when they are evaluated gradiently. Alignment is used to explain word
stress patterns in a number of languages such as Polish and Garawa. It
is also used to explain loan word phenomenon in Japanese (McCarthy
and Prince, 1993; Kager, 2001).

Constraints Classification Based on Mode of Evaluation

Based on their mode of evaluation, constraints can also be classified
into two types: Categorical constraints and Gradient constraints
(McCarthy, 2003).

Categorical Constraints
According to McCarthy and Prince (1993), categorical constraints
constitute the majority of proposed OT constraints. When candidates
are being evaluated in the course of a phonological analysis, this class
of constraints makes categorical statements or judgements. They
require that they (that is, the constraints themselves) are either satisfied
or not satisfied. They assign not more than one violation mark to a
candidate, except if the form under evaluation has several violating
structures in it. McCarthy (2003, p. 75-76) asserts that categorical
constraints “never assign more than one violation-mark, unless the
candidate under evaluation contains more than one instance of the
marked structure or the unfaithful mapping that the constraint
proscribes.”

Gradient Constraints
Unlike categorical constraints which assign not more than one violation
mark to a candidate in their evaluation, gradient constraints evaluate the
range of deviation. Thus, gradient constraints can assign multiple
violation marks even when there is only one instance of the non-
conforming structure. McCarthy argues that gradient constraints are
predominantly of the alignment family. He however proposes that all
relevant constraints in OT must be categorical. He is of the opinion that
the different gradient constraints that have been proposed are
unnecessary as most of them have undesirable consequences on
phonological analysis. Hence, he argues that “OT's universal constraint
component CON permits only categorical constraints.” (McCarthy,
2003 p. 76).

Weaknesses of the Theory

The major challenges faced by OT seem to relate to “its radical
commitment to locating ALL phonological generalisations in the
output” (Blumenfeld 2006, p. 1). These weaknesses are of two
categories: the first is that OT cannot adequately account for seriality
and opacity. Seriality refers to instances in which the conditioning
environment of a phonological process is not met in the output
(surface representation); while opacity relates to instances in which the
conditioning environments are present but the processes do not apply.
Seriality and opacity are well accounted for in derivational theory
through extrinsic rule ordering. Since OT does not have such a
mechanism, it suffers a systematic challenge in accounting for opaque
interactions. A number of works has however been done in a bid to
address this seeming inadequacy of OT. The outcome has yielded two
strategies. According to Blumenfeld (p. 1-2), the first is the
introduction of strata architecture in OT; the second is the modification
of the set of constraints and their interpretation in order to allow
opacity to be solely handled by output-oriented constraints.
The second category of the challenge is that generalisations in OT are
not surface-based. Recent studies have shown that Kisseberth’s (1970)
work which earlier supported surface conspiracies has a flip side
which is an argument against the radical surface orientation of OT.
This is well illustrated in Steriade’s (2001) study, which deals with the
typology of repairs for the constraint against final voiced stops.
Standard OT does not have a direct way of addressing such repairs. It
seems that surface-oriented constraints have a way of producing some
input-output mappings and not others. This critique of OT has been
referred to in some quarters as the TOO-MANY-SOLUTIONS
problem. In addition, the theory does not provide a framework for
addressing some other phonological phenomena such as syllable
structure or the manner in which phonological features interact.

Application of Optimality Theory

Topic: An OT Analysis of Word Stress in Educated Nigerian (Yoruba)
English
1.0 Introduction
Nigerian English has evolved as a dialect of world Englishes both in
the spoken and the written form. The spoken form of the dialect has
also brought about different regional varieties such as Yoruba English,
Hausa English, Igbo English etc. These regional varieties are geo-
ethnic based because each of them is spoken across a geographical
territory and predominantly among a dominant ethnic group in the
country. The patterning of word stress is a major distinguishing factor
between spoken Nigerian English (sNE) and spoken British English
(sBE). Moreover, the various regional varieties of sNE are
distinguishable from one another by the same concept of word stress
patterning. Hence, one of the major ways in which the difference
between Yoruba English and Hausa English or Igbo English becomes
noticeable is when one considers the variation in their individual word
stress patterning. Since the regional varieties of sNE are predominantly
geo-ethnic, it suggests that Igbo English, for example, is
predominantly spoken in the south-eastern part of the country where
Igbo language is traditionally spoken. In the same vein, Yoruba
English is predominantly spoken within the south-western part of the
country, the traditional home of the Yoruba language. Additionally,
each of these regional variants of Nigerian English (NE) is greatly
influenced by both the segmental and the suprasegmental features of
the indigenous language of the region. Hence, the sNE variant
predominantly used in the south-western part of the country is
influenced by the segmental and suprasegmental features of Yoruba, a
member of the Kwa sub-group of the Benue-Congo language family
(Pulleyblank, 1997; Gussenhoven and Jacobs, 2005).
This study investigates the word stress patterning of spoken Nigerian
English from the perspective of educated Yoruba speakers in the
south-western part of Nigeria. It employs Optimality Theory (OT) as
the analytical tool. OT sees the spoken language as existing in two
levels of representation, which it refers to as ‘input’ and ‘output’. It
resorts to the three ‘universal’ basic components of GEN(erator),
CON(straint) and EVAL(uator) for its analytical undertakings in any
language. Previous studies on spoken Nigerian English and its various
regional variants have largely been based on Generative and Metrical
Phonological approaches. This study thus employs a relatively
different theoretical approach to the study of word stress analysis in
sNE by employing OT.

2.0 Methodological Framework

The data for the analysis were got from thirty (30) Yoruba NE speakers
across six state-owned universities in the south-western states of the
country. The participants were all postgraduate students in either of
Arts/Humanities, Social Sciences or the Sciences faculties. Five
participants were sampled from each of the universities. The
universities are: Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos State; Olabisi
Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State; Ladoke Akintola
University, Ogbomoso, Oyo State; Osun State University, Osogbo,
Osun State; Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko, Ondo State
and Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State. The participants
sampled from each university also represent the indigenes of the
respective states.

The participants were given a short passage comprising four sentences

to read into a tape recorder. Four polysyllabic words in the passage,
which were predetermined by the researcher, were analysed
perceptually in terms of the stress patterning. The outcome of the
perceptual analysis was further subjected to OT analysis.

3.0 Data Presentation

The following are the four sentences that constitute the data of the
research:
1. The report highlights a number of instances of injustice.
2. I saw Catherine this morning.
3. Who is your favourite author?
4. This iron is guaranteed for a year against faulty workmanship.
The four highlighted words, one each in the four sentences, were
subjected to OT analysis.

4.0 Analysis of Data

The subjects’ articulation of the four words (highlights, Catherine,
favourite, workmanship) were subjected to stress analysis using the
following relevant OT constraints:
FT-BN - Feet are binary under moraic or syllabic analysis.

ALL-FT-RIGHT - (Word, Head Foot): (Align foot right) ‘Every foot

stands at the right edge of Prosodic Word. The right edge of the word
must match the right edge of the head foot.

NON-FINALITY - No foot is final in PrWd (Prosodic word).

UNEVEN-IAMB - A light-heavy syllable is a better iamb than a light-

light or a heavy syllable.
WSP - (Weight Stress Principle): Heavy syllables attract stress.

ALL-FT-LEFT (Align foot left) - Every foot stands at the left edge of
Prosodic Word. The left edge of the word must match the left edge of
the head foot.

MAXLex – output segments of lexical words (nouns, verbs and

adjectives) must be the same as in the input.

FAITH V – The vowels in the input must be the same as those in the
output.
IDENT (central) - Output have a central vowel identical to that of the
input

*IDENT(Syllable) – Output syllable must not be identical with that of the

input.

The constraints are adapted from Kager (1999), de Lacy (2002) and
McCarthy (2007).

Tableau 1: Emergence of highLIGHTS

Input: /ʹhaɪ.laɪts/
UNEVEN- WSP ALL-FT- NON-
IAMB LEFT FINALITY
a. *!
 (haɪ).laɪts
• b. haɪ.(laɪts) * *

Two candidates competed in the tableau for the output. While

candidate (a) violates only one constraint out of the four constraints in
the ranking, candidate (b) violates two constraints - ALL-FT-LEFT
and NON-FINALITY. However, candidate (a) lost out because it
commits a fatal violation, since its violation is against UNEVEN-
IAMB, the highest ranked constraint. Candidate (b), highLIGHTS,
therefore emerges the winner because the two constraints it violates
are the lower ranked ones. This is shown by the pointing finger. The
constraints ranking is: UNEVEN-IAMB >> WSP >> ALL-FT-LEFT
>> NON-FINALITY.

Tableau 2: Competition for the emergence of catheRINE

Input: /ʹKæθ.ᵊr.ɪn /
UNEVEN- WSP ALL-FT- NON-
IAMB LEFT FINALITY
a. kæθ.ᵊ.(ri:n) * *
b. (Kæθ).ᵊr.ɪn *!
c. * *
kæ.θæ(r.i:n)

Both candidates (a) and (c) commit the same number of violations and
on the same lower ranked constraints (ALL-FT-LEFT and NON-
FINALITY). However, candidate (b) commits a fatal violation of the
highest ranked constraint - UNEVEN-IAMB and that automatically
drops it out of the race. The other two candidates are tied. The
constraints ranking is: UNEVEN-IAMB >> WSP >> ALL-FT-LEFT
>> NON-FINALITY. It however remains for us to find a winner
between the two candidates that are tied in the competition. To resolve
this, another constraint or two have to be introduced while we drop at
least one of the constraints in which they tie. Hence, we bring in
FAITH V and IDENT(central) and then drop NON-FINALITY.

Tableau 3: Emergence of catheRINE

Input: /ʹKæθ.ᵊr.ɪn /
UNEVEN- WSP ALL-FT- FAITH IDENT
IAMB LEFT V (central)
• a. kæθ.ᵊ.(ri:n) *
c. kæ.θæ(r.i:n) * * *

Candidate (a) eventually emerges the optimal candidate because it

commits the least number of violations. Its only violation is ALL-FT-
LEFT which is a lower constraint in the ranking. Meanwhile candidate
(c) also violates ALL-FT-LEFT, in addition to two other lower
constraints in the ranking, FAITH V and IDENT (central). FAITH V
demands sameness between the input and output vowels, while IDENT
(central)
demands that the output have a central vowel identical to that of
the input. While candidate (a) has the schwa vowel /ǝ/, candidate (c)
replaces it with /æ/, thus violating FAITH V. Additionally, the
substitution of /ǝ/ with /æ/, which is a back vowel, by candidate (c)
also makes it violate IDENT (central). Consequently, candidate (c)
becomes the loser candidate while candidate (a) emerges the optimal
one. The constraints ranking is: UNEVEN-IAMB >> WSP >> ALL-
FT-LEFT >> FAITH V >> IDENT (central).
Tableau 4: Competition for the emergence of favouRITE
Input: /ʹfeɪ.vᵊr.aɪt/
ALL-FT-R FT-BN UNEVEN- NON-
IAMB FINALITY
a. (feɪ).vᵊr.ɪt *! * *
b. feɪ.(vᵊr).ɪt *! * *
c. feɪ.vǝ(r.ɪt) *
d. feɪ.vǝ(r.aɪt) *

In this tableau, candidates (a) and (b) both violate the highest ranked
constraints, ALL-FT-R and FT-BN, as well as two lower ranked
constraints. Having both committed fatal violations, they are
automatically out of the competition. The two surviving candidates (‘c’
and ‘d’) are however tied on the violation rating, having both violated
NON-FINALITY. The constraints ranking here is: ALL-FT-R >> FT-
BN >> UNEVEN-IAMB >> NON-FINALITY. To resolve the conflict,
two other constraints have to be brought into the hierarchy. These are
*IDENT(Syllable) and MAXLex. This is expressed in Tableau 5.

Tableau 5: Emergence of favouRITE

Input: /ʹfeɪ.vᵊr.aɪt/
ALL- FT-BN UNEVEN- *IDENT(Syllable) MAXLex
FT-R IAMB
c. feɪ.vǝ(r.ɪt) *!
d. *
feɪ.vǝ(r.aɪt)

To establish the constraints ranking for the realisation of the optimal

candidate for ‘favourite’, one of the observations to consider is that ‘a
high vowel becomes a glide at the end of a lexical morpheme’ as
reported in the case of Emai (McCarthy, 2007, p. 11). However, in the
case of educated (Yoruba) NE speakers, we can presume that a high
vowel becomes a diphthong as exhibited in ‘favourite’ which is
realised as [feɪ.vǝ¢r.aɪt]. *IDENT(Syllable) permits vowel → glide
mapping, while MAXLex prevents deletion of same vowel. Since
deletion is prevented, then *IDENT(Syllable) must dominate MAXLex.
Consequently, as the tableau shows, candidate (c) violates *IDENT
(Syllable), which is ranked higher than MAXLex. Consequently, it is a
fatal violation. As a result, candidate (d), favouRITE, emerges the
optimal. The constraints ranking is: ALL-FT-R >> FT-BN >>
UNEVEN-IAMB >>*IDENT(Syllable) >> MAXLex.

Tableau 6: Emergence of workMANship

Input: /ʹwɜ:k.mən.ʃɪp/
UNEVEN- WSP ALL-FT- NON-
IAMB LEFT FINALITY
a. *!*
(wᴐ:k).mӕn.ʃɪp
• b. wᴐk.(mӕn).ʃɪp *
c. wᴐ:k.mən. *! * ** *
(ʃɪp)

From the tableau, candidate (a) does not violate the lower ranking
constraints on the hierarchy as well as WSP which is a higher ranking
constraint, but it violates UNEVEN-IAMB, another higher ranking
constraint, which attracts a fatal penalty. Likewise, candidate (c)
commits a fatal violation of UNEVEN-IAMB along with the violation
of the lower ranking constraints on the hierarchy. Consequently, both
candidates (‘a’ and ‘c’) are disqualified from the competition, leaving
candidate (b) as the only candidate left in the race. Thus, it becomes
the optimal candidate. The constraints ranking here is: UNEVEN-
IAMB >> WSP >> ALL-FT-LEFT >> NON-FINALITY.

5.0 Discussion
From the Optimality analysis, it is evident that the most prominent
constraint among educated Yoruba NE (eYNE) speakers is UNEVEN-
IAMB which prefers the assignment of stress on light-heavy syllables
(syllables made up of light mora + heavy mora) to light-light (syllables
made up of two successive light moras) or heavy (made up of heavy
mora) syllables. Trisyllabic nouns are usually stressed finally or
penultimately; hence, NON-FINALITY ranks low among eYNE
speakers. In the same vein, ALL-FT-LEFT ranks low because of the
tendency for rightward stress placement among eYNE speakers.
However, both WSP and UNEVEN-IAMB rank higher because heavy
syllables are those that usually attract stress among eYNE speakers
(hence, WSP); and since eYNE speakers’ words are not usually
stressed along the left edge of the word, UNEVEN-IAMB is preferred
to both ALL-FT-LEFT and NON-FINALITY. Hence the constraints
ranking for ‘workmanship’ is UNEVEN-IAMB, WSP >> ALL-FT-
LEFT >> NON-FINALITY. Consequently, we may conclude that NE
is iambic in nature; unlike sBE which, according to Tremblay (2008)
“is generally analysed as having a trochaic (i.e., stressed-unstressed)
foot whose right edge is aligned with the right edge of the prosodic
word.” Despite the variation in word stress placement between
educated Yoruba NE speakers and sBE speakers, there exists a level of
correlation between the two: where sBE has a final stressed syllable,
educated Yoruba NE speakers agree with sBE, probably due to its
tendency to align stress rightwards.

6.0 Findings
The findings in this study are as follows:
1. The most prominent constraint among eYNE speakers is
UNEVEN-IAMB.
2. sNE is iambic in nature; unlike sBE which is trochaic.
However, despite the variation in word stress placement
between sNE and sBE, there exists a level of correlation
between the two: where sBE has a final stressed syllable, sNE
agrees with sBE, probably due to its tendency to align stress
rightwards.
3. The study also demonstrates the adequacy of OT to explicate
word stress as used by eYNE speakers.

7.0 Contributions to Knowledge

The study has proven the applicability of Optimality theory, to a
regional variant of Nigerian English, having established UNEVEN-
IAMB and WSP as higher constraints than NONFINALITY in eYNE
speakers’ word stress patterning. Hence, scholars in fields of spoken
Nigerian English can easily employ OT as an adequate analytical tool.

Suggestions for Further Studies

This study focused on the application of OT as a theoretical
framework for the analysis of word stress patterning by educated
Yoruba NE speakers. This is by no means an exhaustive study in itself.
The following are areas of further research that can build on this study:
1. Since the study focused on content words only, other
researches can focus on grammatical word classes such as
preposition, determiners and conjunction.
2. Other regional variants of the Nigerian English such as Igbo
English, Hausa English, Ibibio English could also be studied
using OT to investigate their word stress patterning.
3. Stress patterns of structures above the word such as the phrase
and the clause can also be investigated using OT as an
analytical tool.

References

Anderson, J. M., Ewen, C. J., & Staun, J. (1985). Principles of

dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ashley, K., Disch, L., Ford, C., MacSaveny, E., Parker, S., Unseth, C.
Yoder, B. (2010). How many constraints are there? A
preliminary inventory of OT phonological constraints.
Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, Dallas. Retrieved
 from http://academia.edu>how_many_constraints_
Biros, T. (2000). Finding the right words: implementing optimality
theory with simulated annealing. Groningen Dissertations in
Linguistic 62.
Blumenfeld, A. (2006). Constraints on phonological interactions.
(Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, USA).
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical Test of the Gradual
Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 43-86.
Clark, J., Yallop, C. & Fletcher, J. (2007). An introduction to phonetics
and phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New
York: Harper and Row.
Coetzee, W. A. (2004). What it means to be a loser: Non-optimal
candidates in optimality theory. PhD thesis, University of
Massachussets, Amherst.
de Lacy, P (2010). Markedness and Faithfulness Constraints.
Companion to Phonology.
Blackwell Publishing.
Florida Linguistics Association (2013). A listing of established and
accepted constraints with explanation of OT. Retrieved July 20,
2015 from floridalinguistics.com
Goldsmith, A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Bloomington:
Indiana University Linguistic club
Goldsmith, A. (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. Dinnsen:
202-222.
Gussenhoven, C. & Jacobs, H. (2005) (2nd edn.). Understanding
phonology. London: Hodder and Arnold.
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology.
New York: Academic Press.
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1997). Sympathy theory and German truncations.
In Migio, V. & Morén, B. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Hopkins
Optimality Workshop/Maryland Mayfest 1997. University of
Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Retrieved from
http://ruccs.rutgers/roa.html.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kager, R. (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing.
Handout of talk presented at Fifth HIL Phonology Conference
(HILP5), University of Potsdam. [Available on Rutgers
Optimality Archive, ROA - 514]
Khalid Abdul, W., & Jrainikh, K. (2018). Phonological Rules,
Constraints and Processes A Presentation for a Course in
Phonetics and Phonology PhD Program First Semester.
University of Babylon. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/328412499
Kisseberth, C. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules.
Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291-306
Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic
Grammar: A formal multi-level connectionist theory of
linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations.
In Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the
Cognitive Science Society (pp. 388–395). Cambridge, MA:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liberman, M. Y. (1985). The intonational system of English. New
York: Garland. (Published version of doctoral dissertation, MIT
1975.)
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993). Generalised alignment. Yearbook of
Morphology: 79-154. (Also published as Technical report 7,
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Centre for Cognitive
Science, 1-69.)
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative
identity. In Beckman, J., Walsh, D. & Urbanczyk, S. (Eds.)
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics
18. (pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Retrieved 27 February, 2015 from http://
scholarworks.umass.edu> …> 10
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic
morphology. In Kager, H., van der Hulst & Zonneveld, W.
 (eds.). The morphology interface. 218-309. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. (2001). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. (2007). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology.
52.10.1017/S0952675703004470
McCarthy, J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in
Optimality theory. London: Equinox Publishing.
McCarthy, J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory: Applying theory to
data. Blackwell Publishing.
McCarthy, J. (2011). Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory
1http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/100
Nespor, M. & Vogel, M. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Pater, J. (2005). Learning a Stratified Grammar. In Brugos, A., Clark-
th
Cotton, R. M. & Ha, S. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29 Boston
University Conference on Language Development (pp. 482-
492). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Potts, C., & Pullum, K. G. (2002). Model theory and the content of OT
constraints* Phonology 19, 361–393. DOI:
10.1017/S0952675703004408
Prince, A. And Smolensky, P. (2003). Optimality Theory in
phonology. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (ed.),
Frawley, W. Oxford University Press.
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: constraint
interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. (Also
published as Technical report TR-2. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Cognitive Science Centre.
Prince, A. & Tesar, B. (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In
Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (Eds.), Constraints in
phonological acquisition. (pp. 245-291). CUP.
Pulleyblank, D. (1996). Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: a
comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 41. 295-347.
Samek-Lodovici, V. & Prince, A. (1999). Optima. Ms, University of
London & Rutgers University, New Brunswick. Available as
ROA-363 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.
Smolensky, P. (1995). On the structure of Con, the constraint
component of UG. Handhout of talk at UCLA, April 7. ROA-
86
Smolensky, P. (1996). The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in
Optimality Theory. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-4,
Cognitive Science Department, John Hopkins University.
ROA-154. Accepted for publication in 1997 Linguistic Inquiry.
Smolensky, P. (2006). Optimality in phonology II: Markedness,
feature domains, and Local Constraint Conjunction”. In [1].
Chapter 14. Vol. 2, 27-160.
Steriade, D. (2001). The phonology of perceptibility effects. The P-map
and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms.
UCLA/MIT.
Strauss, S. L. (1982). Lexicalist phonology of English and German.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Tesar, B., Grimshaw, J. & Prince, A. (1999). Linguistic and cognitive
explanation in optimality theory. In Lepore, E. & Pylyshyn, E.
(Eds.) What is Cognitive Science? (Chapter 10) Blackwell.
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory.
London: The MIT Press.
Tremblay, A. (2008). Is second language lexical access prosodically
constrained? Processing of word stress by French Canadian
second language learners of English. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29, 553–584.
Wolf, M. (2007). What constraints connectives should OT allow?
Retrieved from roa.rutgers.edu>files> 926