Full citations for course readings can be found on the reading list.
See also the course overview for a general outline of course topics.

Jump to the most recent date

• Covered: Intro to course. Fundamental characteristics and results of basic OT.
• Assignment: Pater (1999), with reading guide

• Covered: Pater (1999); arguments in favor of a phonetically grounded constraint
• Assignment: Hayes (1999), with reading guide
• Room change: We will meet in Dey 402 starting next class (Tu Aug 31)

• Covered: Hayes (1999). What model is proposed here for a phonetically grounded constraint set? What are the implications? (Next time: How does Hayes' model change the way we might view the OT system and the process of language acquisition?)
• Assignment: Kirchner (2000), with reading guide

• Covered: Hayes (1999) -- follow-up discussion
  • Does the Inductive Grounding model as defined here succeed in biasing the system toward phonologically simple constraints?
  • If the constraints in CON are not innate, is CON universal? What are the advantages of universal constraints vs. language-particular constraints?
• Assignment: Zhang (2004), with reading guide
  • We will start with discussion of the Kirchner paper next time, but be prepared to move on to Zhang and to compare the two proposals.

• Covered: Kirchner (2000); LAZY as a "direct phonetics" constraint. How does this constraint function in the system? What is its phonetic basis? What are its typological predictions?
• Assignment: No new reading for Thursday (and no new reading reaction is due).
  • We will discuss Zhang (2004) next time.
  • Be thinking about what article you will lead discussion for!

• Covered: Zhang (2004). What factors distinguish between (a) general evidence that phonetics influences or restricts phonology and (b) evidence that there are direct-phonetics (non-symbolic/categorical) constraints in the grammar?
• Assignment: Steriade (2001a), with reading guide
  • Biljana is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Steriade (2001a). What evidence shows that perceptual factors are important in phonology? How does perceptual similarity account for the two different place assimilation (neutralization) patterns?
• Assignment: Steriade (2001b), with reading guide
  • Please send RRs to me -- there is no student discussion leader this time
  • Also, if you would like to propose topics or areas of interest for potential inclusion in the reading list for the second half of the course, please send an e-mail by Thursday morning

• Covered: Steriade (2001b). What does the system of faithfulness (correspondence) constraints look like in this model? What would the set of "contexts" look like if fully worked out? Does the P-map model restrict factorial typology enough? Too much?
• Assignment: Hyman (2001), with reading guide
  • Susannah is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Hyman (2001). Are there phonological processes that are not phonetically motivated? What consequences would such processes have for our phonological model?
• Assignment: Blevins & Garrett (2004), with reading guide
  • Becky is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Blevins & Garrett (2004). Can all apparent phonetic effects on phonological patterns be given a diachronic, rather than a synchronic, explanation?
• Assignment: Smith (2004), with reading guide
  • Sookyee is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.
• Reminder: The first article review is due by Thu Sept 30.

• Covered: Smith (2004). Does "abstract" functional grounding, or functional grounding involving perceptual salience, pose problems for the diachronic misperception model?
• Assignment: Moreton & Amano (1999) + Hallé et al. (1998), with reading guide
  • Yu is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.
• Reminder: The first article review is due by Thursday.

• Covered: Moreton & Amano (1999) and Hallé et al. (1998). What evidence do these papers present for language-particular effects in speech perception? What implications do these findings have for the models of the phonetics-phonology interface that we have looked at?
• Assignment: There is no article to read for the next class. What to do instead:
  • Find some language data that exemplify something we've talked about in the course at some point: a phonological process that is phonetically grounded, or one that seems to be "unnatural," or one that is morphologically restricted, or a pattern that looks better from a synchronic or diachronic perspective, etc. Submit your examples (and a brief description of what they illustrate) by e-mail in place of a reading reaction for Tuesday's class.
  • Prepare for a general discussion that ties together the phonological models we have examined so far, with a focus on the P-map and diachronic models. You might want to look over the reading-guide handouts to see what issues are raised in the "Points for further thought and discussion" sections.

• Covered: General discussion of Unit 1 papers.
  • How does diachronic change interact with synchronic phonology? Where are the possible points of intersection between phonetic factors, or functional grounding, and the general synchronic-diachronic phonological system?
  • What are some points of difference among the proposals we have been talking about? What are some kinds of evidence that might support or argue against particular models or approaches?
  • Language examples contributed by course participants (available for download here on the class Blackboard site)
• Assignment: Pater (2004)
  • Susannah is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Pater (2004). What is his evidence that we need separate "grammars" (or F constraints) for perception vs. production in child language? How does his model fit in with other aspects of the phonology/phonetics interface?
  • A further point to think about: What happens to M constraints that do remain ranked above Faith(LS)? How do these interact with Faith(SL) and/or Faith(AS)? Are we making any predictions here that are relevant for perceptual assimilation?
• Assignment: Maye et al. (2002) and Maye & Weiss (2003)
  • Biljana is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Maye et al. (2002) and Maye & Weiss (2003). What do their experimental findings show that infants can be sensitive to? What are the implications for phonological acquisition?
  • Further points to think about: From these results, can we deaw any conclusions about constraint rankings? How might an infant develop beyond phonetic categories to acquire phonological categories?
• Assignment: Paper proposals are due Thursday.
  • Please be prepared to give a short summary of your proposal in class on Thursday.
  • We will also use Thursday's class to discuss some more of the language data that people have submitted.

• Covered: Discussion of paper proposals. Discussion of interesting language data contributed by participants (continued from Oct 5 class). General discussion on models of L1 acquisition and the phonetics/phonology interface, with handout.
• Assignment: Grijzenhout & van Rooy (2001)
  • Becky is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Grijzenhout & van Rooy (2001). What are the implications of "interlanguage" phonology for deciding among models of innate vs. acquired constraints and rankings? If we change the formal analysis of the coda-devoicing pattern (contextual markedness vs. positional faithfulness), do our conclusions about the relative strengths of different models change too?
• Assignment: Peperkamp & Dupoux (2003) and Mielke (2003)
  • Sookyee is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.
  • Page 214 of the Mielke paper may print as a blank page. If this happens, get the "Optional download..." file for the Mielke paper on Blackboard and print p 214 from there.

• Covered: Peperkamp & Dupoux (2003) and Mielke (2003). What is P&D's model of loanword adaptation? How well does it capture the findings of experiments pertaining to the perception of non-native categories discussed by Mielke and other papers we have read? And, how do Mielke's findings relate to (a) other empirical findings and (b) phonological models pertaining to interactions between perception and phonological grammar?
• Assignment: Yip (2002)
  • Yu is discussion leader; please send your reading reactions to her as well as to me.

• Covered: Yip (2002). What is the evidence that loanword phonology is different from host-language non-loan phonology? How does the evidence that Yip presents bear on the question of whether loanword adaptation is a perceptual or a phonological effect?
• Assignment: Davidson (2004)

• Covered: Davidson (2004). What are some of the articulatory factors that influence accurate production of non-native forms? Can auditorily-grounded markedness constraints affect production patterns?
• Assignment: Padgett (2002)

• Covered: Padgett (2002). Why does Padgett feel that we should rethink the formal mechanism of local conjunction? How does he make use of phonetic factors to predict attested patterns of "worst-of-the-worst" effects? Do his proposals require symbolic or direct-phonetic approaches to constraints (or both)?
• Assignment: Beckman (2004) -- Reading reactions are only optional for this article, but do be prepared to discuss it in class.

• Covered: Beckman (2003). The claim here is that for Fyem, an analysis based on constraint conjunction is better than a Padgett-style analysis based on a scale of phonetic difficulty. How does she make her argument? Can the Padgett approach be defended?
• Assignment:
  • First drafts of final papers are due Thursday
  • Elaine will present on Thursday
  • If there is time, we will look through the Gouskova (2003) handout together in class

• Covered:
  • A look at articulatory and perceptual factors involved in NT and ND sequences. Are *NT, *ND functionally grounded? Can these constraints be reduced to anything more general? (presentation by Elaine)
  • Gouskova (2003) -- a proposal involving a formal restriction on sets of constraints that are themselves based in functional factors.
• Assignment:
  • Peer reviews are due Tuesday
  • In Tuesday's class, be prepared to discuss your peer review with the author of the paper

• Covered: Final paper peer-review meetings.
• Assignment:
  • Final presentations Tuesday and Thursday
  • Reminder: Article review #2 due Thursday

• Tu Nov 30: Paper presentations | Susannah, Yu
• Th Dec 2: Paper presentations | Biljana, Sookyee, Becky
• Th Dec 2: Article Review #2 due [last day of class]
• Th Dec 9: Final papers due

Back to top