Content uploaded by David Eric Holt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Eric Holt on Aug 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
2
Optimality Theory and
Spanish/Hispanic
Linguistics
D. Eric Holt
2.1 Introduction
In the early 1990s, Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993/
2004) emerged and quickly became the dominant framework within
which to carry out research in linguistic theory from a generative
perspective, at least in terms of phonology, with extensions and appli-
cations to other domains of linguistics as well, like certain aspects of
prosodic morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1994). (For a more in-depth
introduction to the working of OT, the reader is referred to the
foundational documents, as well as Archangeli and Langendoen 1997,
Kager 1999, much work by McCarthy and Prince, and others.)
A particular strength of this general framework is that it is addresses
linguistic universals and is inherently comparative/typological, and
optimality-theoretic approaches have provided effective analyses of
many phenomena both generally, and more relevantly for the pur-
poses of this Handbook,inSpanish,bothinisolationandacrossspace
(diatopically, dialectology), as well as over time (diachrony), and in
language learning (development).
2.2 How Optimality Theory Works
It is important to note that OT is an approach to grammar, rather than
a fixed or rigid model. Its fundamental characteristic is that it is constraint-
based (rather than rule-based, or otherwise), and that constraints are viol-
able, rather than universal in a hard or absolute sense. The architecture
posited includes the Generator (GEN), which takes an input form and
produces a set of potential output forms (called candidates) whose
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
satisfaction of the constraints is determined in parallel (rather than seri-
ally/in a multi-step derivation) by the Evaluator (E VAL). Constraints belong
to various families, principally these: markedness (relative ill-formedness or
complexity along various linguistic dimensions), faithfulness (the degree of
identity or correspondence of features and structures between underlying/
input and surface/output forms), and alignment (coincidence of segmental,
prosodic or morphosyntactic boundaries or edges).
The successful output form (winning candidate, conventionally indicated
with a pointing hand, E) minimally violates the set of constraints and the
hierarchical ranking of them that define a particular language’s grammar,
and is so considered optimal. Thus, an output form (roughly, the surface
form) will not satisfy all the constraints of a language (and may in fact incur
more violations), but is optimal or preferable to others because these violate
higher-ranked constraints and are thus eliminated from consideration (con-
ventionally indicated with the exclamation point, !, to signal to the reader
the fatal or determining violation). The content of the constraints (e.g. the
importance or place of phonetics, functionalist approaches, etc.), and other
matters of implementation (e.g. single-step vs. level-ordered derivation,
strict dominance of constraints vs. a stochastic/probabilistic evaluation,
1
cumulative/gang-up effects, etc.), are, strictly speaking, logically separable
from the basic architectural model sketched here and illustrated in
a tableau (a standard expositional device in OT) as Table 2.1, and researchers
have adopted vastly different assumptions that may still be classified as OT
approaches, as illustrated in Table 2.1.
2.3 Optimality Theory Approaches to Spanish and Hispanic
Linguistics
There is considerable OT literature that treats issues of Spanish, and of
Hispanic linguistics a bit more broadly. Just as for other languages, these
1
Under Stochastic Optimality Theory (Boersma and Hayes 2001), constraints occupy a certain range of values on
a continuous ranking scale, and, upon a given evaluation, specific values are determined and these selection points
condition the position of constraints in the tableau. This allows for the modeling of frequency distribution of empirical
data, as the degree of overlap of constraints varies and corresponds with the probability of ranking reversal; for
a visualization, see the discussion of Cutillas Espinosa (2004) in “Sociolinguistic and Other Variation”in Section 2.3.3.
Table 2.1 Illustration of Optimality Theory tableau
Input (≈underlying form) Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3
Output candidate (≈possible
surface form) 1
*!
Output candidate 2 *!
Output candidate 3E**
32 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
have been largely concerned with issues of phonology, but there are also
applications to other domains, a sampling of all of which will be sketched
out in the remainder of this chapter. (Cutillas Espinosa 2003 is an early
comprehensive work that outlines OT as applied to segments, syllables,
metrical theory and suprasegmentals, as well as the interaction between
phonology and morphology, and to issues of learning. Additionally,
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo and Herrera 2008 treat syntax and phonology. See also
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo et al. 2015.) While many phenomena have been analyzed,
as the theory evolves and new approaches emerge, further treatments will
continue to be necessary to improve explanatory adequacy and to reach
a more cohesive overall picture of Optimality Theory as a model of the
language faculty.
2.3.1 Phonology
Given that phonology is the area in which OT was first developed, it will be
no surprise that the great majority of work that treats Spanish is in this
subfield. What follows are some comprehensive works as well as other
studies that treat less-studied data.
Colina (2014) provides a thorough introduction to the underpinnings of
the overall theory, as well as discussion of developments and extensions
like the Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1994) model of
faithfulness, the more functionalist allied approach Dispersion Theory
(which looks at systemic markedness; see, e.g., Flemming 2002), and
Stratal OT (which is a version of a multi-level Lexical Phonology and
Morphology; in original form, rule-based; see work by Bermu
´dez-Otero).
Case studies include resyllabification (las alas >[la-sa-las], where ONSET
(“No vowel-initial syllables”), NOCODA (“Syllables cannot end in a coda”)
and various ALIGNMENT constraints (between edges of syllables, conso-
nants, and vowels) interact), and Chilean vocalization (/pobɾe/>[pow.ɾe],
where constraints on sonority and on spirantization come into play).
Bradley (2014) likewise presents an overview of the workings of OT of
some of the same phenomena as Colina, and includes a bibliography of
works in OT about Spanish.
Other data treated are the stop ~ spirant alternation ([b,d,g]~[β,ð,ɣ]),
the conspiracy of gliding and resyllabification in avoiding onsetless
syllables (/mi amiga/>[mja-mi-ɣa], *[mi-_a-mi-ɣa], where, when the two
words are syllabified together, /i/ is realized as part of a diphthong,
and the initial syllable of amiga comes to acquire an onset from
preceding mi), matters of word stress, and other issues of articulatory
or gestural phonology (e.g. intrusive vowels in consonant+ɾclusters,
e.g. /paɾte/ > [paɾ
a
te]), and discussion of the phonetic grounding of
markedness constraints. Colina (2009) offers an extended application
of OT to the syllabic phonology of Spanish: syllable types, phonotac-
tics, syllabification of C#V and V#V across words, interactions
Optimality Theory 33
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
between the syllable and morphology (including /s/ aspiration, velar-
ization of coda nasals, and the strengthening of onsets and of /r/), and
various cases of epenthesis and of deletion that serve as repair mechan-
isms to improve syllable structure. Likewise, Martı
´nez-Gil and Colina
(2006) present a collection of 20 papers on all aspects of Spanish
phonology (some of which are mentioned specifically in what follows).
Recent work that involves instrumental measurement by electropalato-
graphy (EPG) of place and stricture assimilation data of Buenos Aires
Spanish is found in Kochetov and Colantoni (2011), who argue for modified
gestural representations and gestural coordination constraints. Buckley
(2014, 2016) treats secondary stress in Spanish, and distinguishes between
alignment at the lexical and phrasal levels, with variability in speech style
between rhetorical (e.g. gra(ma
`ti)(ca
`li)(da
´d)) and colloquial (e.g. (gra
`ma)ti
(ca
`li)(da
´d)) secondary stress placement still captured with categorical align-
ment, thus obviating the need for less restrictive gradient alignment.
Buckley (2016:97) acknowledges that the role of pragmatics here remains
a complex, open question.
2.3.2 Morphology and its Interface with Phonology
The formation of words via inflection or derivation (or otherwise)
often interacts in nontrivial ways with phonology; that is, the selec-
tion of some morphological structure may be dependent on certain
phonological sound patterns (locus of stress, presence of high or front
vowels, would-be occurrence of certain clusters of consonants, etc.).
These alternations of different forms of the same morpheme in related
words can be characterized in optimality-theoretic terms in a number
of ways. (See Colina 2011 for an overview of Spanish morphophonol-
ogy that includes OT; Colina 2009 likewise includes treatment of many
of these phenomena.)
Examples of alternations discussed in OT include coronal (t, d) and velar
(k, g) softening (e.g. cantar ~ cancio
´n, ele
´ctrico ~ electricidad, mago ~ magia),
diphthongization (e.g. pensar ~ pienso, bondad ~ bueno), nasal depalatalization
(e.g. don
˜a ~ don, desden
˜ar ~ desde
´n), diminutive formation (e.g. -ito vs. -ico;the
morphological level to/at which these suffixes are attached), the nature of
word-final -e and of plural alternations -(e)s (e.g. pan ~ panes, cafe
´(s)), and
others.
For hypocoristic truncations (e.g. colegio >cole, or nickname forms like
Francisco >Paco,orEnrique as any of Enri (left-anchored form), Rique (stress-
anchored form) or K-ike (reduplicative form), see much work by Pin˜ eros
(e.g. 2000a, 2000b) and Colina, as well as Roca and Felı
´u (2003), Gutie
´rrez
(2009), Grau Sempere (2013), and Sanz (2015), who offers
a transderivational approach.
For word-final -e and plural formation, Colina (2006) argues that the -es
allomorph (e.g. sol-es) is an attempt to improve upon morphological
34 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
structure in providing the consonant-final word (sol) with a terminal
element (-e), rather than being motivated by phonotactics, since /ls/is
indeed allowed in words such as solsticio and vals. The presence of -ein the
plurals is argued to be a case of the emergence of the unmarked (a “TETU”
effect) and the result of *CODA (“No coda”), which may be violated in
Spanish (as it is in sol), coming to be satisfied ([so-les]). See Bonet (2006)
for a different OT approach that includes discussion of gender allo-
morphs and that invokes RESPECT (“respect idiosyncratic lexical specifi-
cations”)andP
RIORITY (“respect lexical priority of order of allomorphs,”
here {o > e, Ø}). (Bradley and Smith 2011 likewise adopt an analysis based
on allomorph selection, lexical ordering, and subcategorization in their
treatment of diminutive formation in Judeo Spanish, and Smith 2011
adopts a similar approach for diminutivization in Sonoran Spanish in
Northern Mexico.)
For inflectional paradigms, see Morris (2005) and Saltarelli (2006),
who both work within McCarthy’s (2004) model of optimal paradigms
(OP). Morris looks at various cases of leveling in Old Spanish verbal
forms, including cases that would appear to show underapplication of
phonological processes like diphthongization (OSp. entriega >MSp.
entrega) and overapplication of metaphony/harmony in the presence
of yod (OSp. fugyo (< Lat. FUGIO), which attracts other members of the
paradigm, e.g. FUGIS >FOGES >fuges) and of velar softening (the
palatalization and affrication of [k] when followed by a front vowel,
e.g. venc¸er and related forms attracting ven[k]o]>venc¸o). Similar to TETU
effects, Morris argues that these show “ATU,”attraction to the
unmarked (where paradigm members adopt structures of some other
less-marked member, which acts as an attractor). Morris also indicates
that the OP approach cannot account for crucial intermediate stages,
just the final completed outcome, inviting further research on the
issue.
Saltarelli (2006) offers an account of Spanish number inflection in which
singular and plural forms are evaluated together (with R EALIZE NUMBER
interacting with other constraints), and operating with a hierarchy of
morphological categories (e.g. lexical (number) and functional (case, gen-
der, etc.)). Data treated include palatal/depalatal alternations ([ɲ/n,ʎ/l]),
cases of stress shift (re
´gimen ~ regı
´menes, cara
´cter ~ caracteres), invariant
forms (lunes ~ lunes, bı
´ceps ~ bı
´ceps) and stressed-vowel-final words (cafe
´(s),
baja
´(s) ~ baja
´(es)). For depalatalization (e.g. /desdeɲ/>desde
´n~desdenes, vs.
desden
˜ar), see also Lloret and Mascaro
´(2006), who offer a different
approach that employs positional faithfulness as well as output–output
correspondence constraints (IDENTITY–BASE) that favor assimilated/neu-
tralized place of articulation, with a strong interpretation of what may
be considered a base. Within Stratal OT, Bermu
´dez-Otero (2006) also treats
depalatalization, as well as diphthongization and other denominal
derivation.
Optimality Theory 35
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
For a broader discussion of OT in morphology, see Xu (2016), who
discusses various OT approaches to the morphology–phonology interface
and presents in abbreviated form their differing mechanisms and assump-
tions. Xu states that the assumptions of conventional OT, designed origin-
ally for phonology, are inadequate and need to be extended to account for
certain aspects of morphology, like phonologically-conditioned allomorph
selection, syncretism, and blocking and extension of morphological expo-
nence. Regarding the tenets of various OT approaches, there are differ-
ences in terms of whether morphosyntactic features may be changed, how
a morph is introduced (via input, output candidate or constraint), the types
of constraints employed, and the question of serial vs. parallel derivation,
among others (Xu 2016, sec. 3). These approaches include Realization OT
(Xu and Aronoff 2011a, 2011b, and advocated by Xu), Optimal Interleaving
(Wolf 2008, building on OT with Candidate Chains, McCarthy 2007),
Optimal Construction Morphology (Caballero and Inkelas 2013), and
Distributed Optimality (Trommer 2001). Xu offers a sketch of an analysis
of Spanish conjunction allomorphy (o ~ u, i ~ e) within Realization OT that
is claimed to be superior to the conventional OT approach to this data
given by Bonet and Harbour (2012). (Among several other cases studied, Xu
also offers analyses of Romanian syncretic verb forms and Latin second
declension forms.)
For other studies of Romance phonology and morphology (Spanish
diphthongization and suffixation, definite article allomorphy in Galician
and Italian, other phenomena in French, Catalan, and Romanian), includ-
ing discussion of serial vs. parallel versions of OT, see Bonet and Lloret
(2016). See also the works mentioned in the section on dialect variation by
Holt (2000) and Wiltshire (2006), as well as by Elsman and Holt (2009),
which includes discussion of issues of grammaticalization, where one type
of linguistic form becomes another or takes on new functions, which
under OT would be due to a change in the grammar/constraint ranking
and/or structural reanalysis. (See also Kiparsky 2012, who, in an extended
discussion of optimization and grammaticalization/degrammaticaliza-
tion, mentions the upgrading of affixal -mos to clitic =nos in Spanish, but
offers no formal treatment of it.)
2.3.3 Other Applications
OT is inherently comparative, given that the Evaluation function identifies
the optimal output candidate from among a set of forms that compete
along multiple dimensions. The application of such an approach is also
naturally extended to analyze or model different varieties of a language,
either over time (historical change) or space (dialectology) or situation
(register/sociolects); and similarly for stages of development within
a single language, either as a first (native, L1) or second (often foreign,
L2) language.
36 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Historical Change and Dialect Variation
OT approaches to historical change and dialect variation look at not only
the interaction of faithfulness and markedness constraints, but also the
role of listener-based, perceptual, cognitive, systemic, and external (for-
eign) influences on linguistic structure and change (by reranking or rea-
nalysis of underlying forms) at all levels of grammatical analysis, though
most commonly on the segmental inventory, syllable and prosodic struc-
ture, and intersecting points of morphology (Holt 2006:378).
Because OT is inherently comparative, much work in all linguistic fields
compares the grammars of related dialects and languages. This means that
treatments of Spanish are often not exclusive, instead also treating more
than one variety of Spanish, or Spanish and some other variety of Romance
(Portuguese, Galician, Leonese, Catalan, French, Italian) or even more cross-
linguistically (especially when some structure or constraint is being ana-
lyzed from a typological perspective). One example of this is Pin˜ eros (2006),
who treats the phonology of nasal consonants in five dialects of Spanish,
giving evidence of place assimilation, neutralization, velarization, and
absorption. Pin˜ eros argues that A LIGN-C(NASAL) is gradiently violable in its
interactions with AGREE(P LACE)andthePLACE HIERARCHY; when grammars
opt for unmarked coda segments, coronals surface, but when grammars
prefer the least consonantal nasal, velarization obtains (2006:169). Another
example is Wiltshire (2006), who analyzes the status of prefix boundaries in
several varieties of Spanish and their importance for /s/aspiration
(Caribbean), /n/ velarization (Granadan), and the realization of [Ø]
(Argentine); Wiltshire argues for an internal word boundary, with align-
ment constraints targeting both lexical and prosodic edges, and interacting
with positional faithfulness and with WEAK|
PW
, a cover term for marked-
ness constraints that favor increasing sonority in word-final position. See
also Holt (2000) for singular/plural nasal alternations in Galician,Mirandese,
and Spanish, and Elsman and Holt (2009) for preposition+article contrac-
tions in two varieties of Old Leonese.
For an extended overview of OT and language change in Spanish, see
Holt (2006), and the entries from its Appendix (“Bibliography on
Optimality Theory and Language Variation and Change in Spanish”), and,
for historical sound change in OT from a broader perspective, see Holt
(2015).
Sociolinguistic and Other Variation
Since language use is inherently variable, it is natural for some branch of
linguistic theory to be concerned with its formalization, and some practi-
tioners of OT have endeavored to incorporate the insights of both (linguis-
tic theory and sociolinguistics) in their analyses of variable data of various
sorts.
Cutillas Espinosa (2004) offers an analysis of variable coda /-s/ realization
in two different contexts of Murcian Spanish broadcasting. He offers
Optimality Theory 37
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
a three-grammar model with continuous ranking values (that is,
a stochastic/probabilistic approach). In this approach, there are two refer-
ence grammars, G
1
(that of the Peninsular standard, where /-s/ is retained,
due to dominance of MAX “no deletion”) and G
3
(that of the local Murcian
norm, where /-s/ is usually elided, due to dominance of NOCODA), with an
intermediate G
2
whose variable output (here, [-s]~[Ø]) depends on social or
other personal factors (2004:179). G
2
is instantiated by variable selection
points of the two constraints under consideration, under conscious and
meaningful control by the speaker who wishes to convey judgments or
access the prestige associated with each variety. (See Figure 2.1, where the
overlap of constraints that allows for variability is visualized.)
Holt (2004) treats sporadic sound changes in Old Spanish, not apparently
sociolinguistically conditioned, where so-called bad syllable contact,
either within word or at verb+clitic boundary, leads variably to metathesis,
intrusive stop formation, palatalization, simplification or other resolution
(Lat. CAT(E)NATU ‘chained’ > OSp. cadnado ~ candado ~ can
˜ado; dezid lo ‘say.
PL.IMP it’ > OSp. dezidlo ~dezildo). This is modeled under a partially-ranked
OT grammar with constraints on sonority sequencing and syllable contact,
linearity, featural identity, and others. The results predicted by the combi-
natorics of these constraints match fairly closely with frequency of
attested variable forms.
Finally, an example of the interaction of variation with acquisition
comes from Dı
´az-Campos and Colina (2006), who look at the acquisition
of phonological variation in first language speakers. (Additional discussion
of acquisition follows in the section on acquisition.) Specifically, they
analyze the school variety of Venezuelan Spanish, where younger lower-
socioeconomic class children show lower retention of approximant [ð
̞], but
older children show increased retention that more closely resembles the
academic variety norm (e.g. [pwe] vs. [pweð̞e]). Various constraints are
employed that target segmental and contextual markedness, along with posi-
tional faithfulness, modeled in the stochastic approach to learning in OT, the
100 0
+strict –strict
Fringes
NOCODA Strictness
Band
MAX Strictness
Band
Figure 2.1 Strictness bands of NOCODA and MAX following Hayes’(2000) model (from
Cutillas Espinosa 2004)
38 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Gradual Learning Algorithm. (See also below in discussion of acquisition.)
Under their approach, older children activate the constraint ranking of the
more formal speech style upon exposure to the institutional setting, where
retention of [ð̞] is favored (2006:444).
Acquisition
Regarding acquisition in OT, the learner must master both the lexicon and
the grammatical system (and the interaction between these), and the
interplay of markedness versus faithfulness as it develops over time.
That is, it is a common assumption that children begin with markedness
constraints dominating others, which is consistent with an immature
articulatory system (in the case of segmental phonology) and with the
notion that simpler structures are naturally more basic (less marked) and
(therefore) easier to master (in the case of other areas of phonology, and
other areas of grammar). Over time, with biological/articulatory and cog-
nitive maturation, more complex structures emerge due to the demotion
of more limiting constraints, with the concomitant emerging of faithful-
ness constraints that allow for a wider or fuller and adult-like range of
expression.
Two prominent learning models are the Constraint Demotion
Algorithm (CDA; Tesar and Smolensky 2000) and the Gradual Learning
Algorithm (GLA; Boersma and Hayes 2001). The CDA, couched within
standard OT, detects differences in constraint ranking between the cur-
rent and target grammar, and iteratively applies a constraint demotion
process, with each demotion corresponding to a stage in the interlanguage
development of the learner. For learning in stochastic OT, the GLA is fed
with data, relevant frequencies, and degree of constraint violations, and
subsequently the necessary changes in the ranking values are made
accordingly to more closely model actual usage.
Aspects of Spanish L1 acquisition that have been treated in OT include
syllable structure and the role of frequency of input of various syllable
types (Morales-Front 2006, arguing for the GLA and against the CDA),
consonant clusters and the role of sonority (Barlow 2006, with universal
ordering of sonority being incorporated into a fine-grained decomposed
set of ONSET constraints that favors lower-sonority segments; see also
Barlow 2003, 2005), word- and phrase-level stress, and the role of mastery
of acoustic parameters (Lleo
´and Arias 2006, who argue that stress assign-
ment is mastered early on in terms of footing, foot type, phrasal head-
edness, and alignment, but that proper production of phonetic parameters
of amplitude, pitch, and duration emerges consistently only later).
For simultaneous bilingual L1 acquisition, Lleo
´(2002) looks at early child
data from German–Spanish bilinguals, and analyzes the acquisition of
prosodic word size and the truncation common in early learners’ speech
(e.g. Spanish: mariposa as [boza], later [pa’bɔta]; German: Melone as [jojo]), as
they transition from producing a single metrical foot to larger prosodic
Optimality Theory 39
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
units, success at which shows a slight delay (overcome by age 2;0) when
compared to monolinguals. Metrical constraints on the alignment of
metrical feet with prosodic words and on the parsing of syllables and the
composition of feet are argued to be undominated in the initial stage of
grammar, but come to be demoted. H EAD-MAX also plays a prominent role,
in that the stressed syllable of the target word is retained in children’s
production. Lleo
´argues that considerations of markedness must be incor-
porated into the analysis to account for the prolonged use by bilinguals of
truncated form, though this delay is short lived. (See also Lleo
´2006 and
Lleo
´and Arias 2009.)
For bilingual language processing, Goldrick et al. (2016) use the formal-
ism of Gradient Symbolic Computation (Smolensky et al. 2014), an exten-
sion of OT, in offering a computational account of co-activation and code
mixing in bilingual grammars. They model blend representations, where
multiple elements are co-present within the linguistic representation (e.g.
DOG and PERRO both in the (same) head of some noun phrase (NP)), not
merely being simultaneously activated (2016:858).
For Spanish L2 acquisition that has been treated in OT, Cabrelli Amaro
(2017) looks at the role of prosodic structure and of proficiency level in the
acquisition by English-speaking learners of Spanish of this language’s
process of spirantization of voiced stops (/bdg/>[β̞ð̞ɣ̞]). Since the
approximant allophones are absent from English, they do pose
a challenge to master in the path to acquisition, success at which is seen
to depend on prosodic position (word-medially first, then also word-
initially). Cabrelli Amaro adopts the GLA (Boersma and Hayes 2001) and
implements her analysis in a stochastic version of OT, in which learners
can converge on a target-like constraint ranking but still occasionally
produce a non-target-like output in those cases where crucial constraints
partially overlap and implementation yields a constraint reversal.
Constraints employed include positional faithfulness constraints on the
identity of the feature [continuant] in the onset (syllable, prosodic word,
intonational phrase), and markedness constraints on the occurrence of
stops and approximants post-vocalically, with the former being higher
ranked in the L1 ranking and as the starting point for the interlanguage
L2 Spanish grammar. Learners take in evidence for spirantized forms and
gradually demote IDENTITY-INPUTOUTPUT(CONT) below the domain-based
positional faithfulness constraints.
For a treatment of Spanish L2 vowels, Boersma and Escudero’s (2008)
account for how Dutch learners come to perceive a smaller L2 vowel
inventory (12 vs. 5 vowels), some of which are easier to learn than others.
They provide both an analysis couched within Stochastic OT that includes
a separate perception grammar employing negative constraints on dura-
tion and spectral quality (first and second formats, F1, F2), and computa-
tional simulations. They argue that Dutch vowel categories are reused for
Spanish vowels, with learning to properly map auditory continua to the
40 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
five Spanish vowels. They argue that their account of perception (in a two-
stage comprehension model) and its acquisition bridges the gap between
phonological theory and the computational modeling of speech proces-
sing (2008:298).
For transfer and developmental effects of Spanish speakers learning
English, Hancin-Bhatt and Bhatt (1997) offer an OT analysis of ESL syllable
structure; they compare the differential learning paths of L1 speakers of
Spanish and Japanese, whose different L1 phonotactics means a different
initial state of the L2 grammar (constraint ranking), assuming a Full
Transfer model of acquisition (see also Chapters 30 and 31, this volume).
The authors employ constraints relating to sonority sequencing and mini-
mal sonority distance, as well as other markedness (NoCODA,*COMPLEX
(ONSET,CODA), CODACONDITION) and faithfulness (P ARSE,FILL, now super-
seded in a Correspondence model)
2
constraints, their interaction models
the effects for ESL clusters in terms of epenthesis, deletion, and eventual
mastery of the wider and more complex range of English syllable margins.
Escudero and Boersma (2004) offer a stochastic OT treatment, together
with the GLA, of Spanish-speaking learners’ acquisition of the ship–sheep
contrast in Scottish or Southern British English. They formulate negative
constraints based on perceptual cues (here, relevant are height, tenseness,
and duration) within a formal perceptual grammar, and claim that within
this model (and replicated with computer simulations), the dialect-
dependent and L2-specific facts provide evidence for the hypotheses of
Full Transfer and Full Access (2004:583).
For Spanish acquisition that has been treated in OT in other subfields,
some early work (LaFond 2001, 2003) looked at the syntax–pragmatics
interface and the L2 learning by English speakers of null subjects (Øvoy
al cine), subject–verb inversion (vino Juan), and that-trace effects (¿Quie
´n crees
que ganara
´la carrera? vs. ‘Who do you think (*that) will win the race?’),
phenomena often subsumed under a single ‘pro-drop’ parameter. LaFond
offers a more nuanced analysis that accounts for the fact that these three
properties are not acquired simultaneously, and argues that these effects
obtain independently through the demotion of syntactic constraints in the
English native grammar (SUBJECT,PARSE,TRACE-LEXICALLY-GOVERNED)
such that they become dominated by constraints related to discourse
function (DROPTOPIC,ALIGNFOCUS-RIGHT).
3
(This learning is modeled
via Tesar and Smolensky’s 2000 CDA.) (See also LaFond 2001, LaFond
et al. 2001.)
2
For those readers less familiar with these constraints, the N OCODA constraint prohibits codas, the *C OMPLEX(ONSET,
CODA) constraint prohibits consonant clusters in the syllable onset and coda, respectively, and the CODACONDITION
constraint imposes specific constraints on the place features that are (or are not) allowed in the coda. Likewise, the
PARSE constraint states that all elements in the input must be expressed in the output and the F ILL constraint states
that every element in the output must be present in the input.
3
The S UBJECT constraint requires the highest A-specifier in an extended projection to be filled, D ROPTOPIC states that
arguments coreferent with the topic must be structurally unrealized, and A LIGN FOCUS-RIGHT requires that the left
edge of focus constituents must align with the right edge of the maximal projection (LaFond 2003).
Optimality Theory 41
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
For a case of acquisition in the case of a syntax–morphology mis-
match, Bermu
´dez-Otero (2007) looks at so-called Spanish pseudoplur-
als, arguing that phonological cues help guide their acquisition. He
distinguishes singular forms like Carlos from virus, which are syntacti-
cally and phonologically the same (nouns ending in /-s/), but whose
structural difference emerges only in derivational contexts (viz. Carlote
vs. virusote). The emergence of the Spanish pseudoplural nouns shows
that phonological properties of words can trigger syntax–morphology
mismatches during language acquisition (2007:231). While mostly not
really an OT analysis, Bermu
´dez-Otero does argue for certain “parsing
preferences”that are violable and partially conflicting and that read
very much like OT constraints (e.g. Avoid masculine a-stems, Avoid pseudo-
plurals, Avoid athematic stems, etc.; and that are presented in hierarchical
form in his Ex. (40)). These, however, may “gang up,”so are perhaps
more akin to the constraints of Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic
Serialism (e.g. McCarthy and Pater 2016), a more recent development
of traditional OT, that allows for cumulative effects of the violation of
lower-ranked constraints that overcome higher-ranked ones, not possi-
ble in standard OT. These and other notions are developed further in
Bermu
´dez-Otero (forthcoming).
Syntax, Semantics, Discourse, and Pragmatics
As an overall approach to grammar via constraint ranking, OT is also
applied to other areas of grammar which evidence their own types of
universals, restrictions, and interactions both within and at the interface
between modules. Syntax deals with the generation of grammatical sen-
tences, with semantics and pragmatics dealing with interpretation, and
there are abundant cases where these interact (e.g. scope relations, co-
reference, control). A full discussion of these matters is beyond the scope
of this chapter, and a sampling of issues and of treatments is given below.
(The reader is referred to the chapters in Legendre et al. 2001, and other
more recent works, e.g. Legendre 2016, Blutner 2000.)
A number of authors treat issues of word order in Spanish. For the
ordering of clitic pronouns in Romance (including Spanish, and including
spurious se), see Grimshaw (2001), where constraints on PERSON,NUMBER,
and CASE interact with alignment and others. For clitic left-dislocation
(CLLD) and the interaction of prosody and syntactic movement (e.g.
(A Marı
´a)
PrP1
(no le enviara
´ningu
´n paquete)), see Feldhausen (2016),
who employs ALIGN-TOPIC,R, A LIGN-CP,L,whichbothintroduceboundaries,
mitigated against by the structure-avoiding constraint MIN-N-PHRASES
(“minimize the number of prosodic phrases”), and markedness constraints
on the size of prosodic phrases, MIN-BIN and M AX-BIN
(IP
HEAD
)
.(Seealso
Feldhausen 2014a, 2014b.)
Additionally, for subject inversion in relative clauses (e.g. el libro que __
escribio
´la maestra), see Gutie
´rrez-Bravo (2005), who argues for conflict
42 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
between syntactic (e.g. Extended Projection Principle, EPP) and intona-
tional (e.g. TOPICFIRST,WEIGHT-TO-PROMINENCE) requirements. (See also
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo and Monforte 2008, as well as Bakovic 1998, who intro-
duces a markedness subhierarchy for different types of argument opera-
tors in his analysis of wh-movement and inversion in matrix and
subordinate clauses. For these and other issues relating to word order,
see also Gutie
´rrez-Bravo 2007, 2008, 2010.)
And for further matters of focus and prosody, Gabriel (2010) treats word
order in Argentine Spanish under a Minimalist OT framework. Other
works on prosody and its interfaces include much work by Feldhausen
and colleagues. For example, Feldhausen and Vanrell (2014) present com-
parative work with Catalan on strategies of focus (clefting, nuclear stress,
prosodically-motivated movement) under a stochastic approach that
employs the constraints STRESSFOCUS,HEAD-IP, S UBJECT,FAITHSYNTAX,
*P-MOVEMENT, and FOCUSCLEFT.
4
(See also Patin et al. 2017.)
For matters of morphological case, Lestrade (2010) offers a functionally
motivated account of the use of case (particularly when it indicates spatial
relations) that combines insights from syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
typology, and corpus research, with proposed constraints inspired by
Grice’s cooperative principle (1975). (Spanish is mentioned occasionally
in discussions of typology.) Lestrade advocates for a bidirectional architec-
ture where both speaker and hearer perspective are evaluated, and Case
offers the optimal solution for the expression of a meaning. P. de Swart
(2007, esp. ch. 3) likewise adopts a bidirectional account in his analysis of
Direct Object Marking (DOM) and the use of so-called “personal”aas an aid
to avoiding ambiguity and recovering grammatical relations when issues
of animacy, definiteness, and specificity are at play.
For verbal aspect, Koontz-Garboden (2004) offers a stochastic OT analysis
of contact-induced language change (which he also calls indirect transfer)
of the expression of progressive aspect in Spanish under influence from
English (synthetic sale vs. analytic esta
´saliendo). He employs constraints
*PROGRESSIVE and *HABITUAL along with M AX-λ(“All attribute/value pairs
in the input f-structure are morpholexically represented in the output”)
and *AFFIX; results are further modeled under the GLA.
For matters of negation, there are several treatments. See de Swart
(2010) for a typological treatment of the expression and interpretation of
negation (negative quantifiers, negative words, uses as Negative Polarity
Items, NPIs) in Spanish, Romance, and other languages. She distinguishes
4
The S TRES SFOCUS constraint requires that the focus be realized with main stress. H EAD-I P, on the other hand,
demands that the main stress occur in the rightmost position in its intonational phrase; and F AITHSYNTAX militates
against syntactic material being added to the input. * P - M OVEM ENT (see Zubizarreta 1998) prohibits prosodically-
motivated movement such that non-focal material is moved to a non-final position as the result of prosodic demands;
more formally, “phonetic material that does not belong to the verbal chain C-T-vis never realized below C, T, and v”
(adapted from Gabriel’s2010STAY-PHONETICFORM). Finally, F OCUSCLEFT requires a focus element to be clefted
(Feldhausen and Vanrell 2014, 2015).
Optimality Theory 43
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
strict negative concord from nonstrict depending on whether it obtains
preverbally and postverbally, a distinction that falls out from the con-
straint ranking of *NEG,NEGFIRST,FOCUSLAST, and others. See Espinal
et al. (2016) for double negation in Catalan and Spanish, where syntax and
prosody (pitch accent, boundary tones) interact in a bidirectional model, in
which forms and meanings converge in the interpretation of sentences
like No ha llamado nadie, which shows nonstrict negative concord (nonstrict,
because negative concord does not obtain in Spanish when the n-word
appears preverbally, e.g. Nadie ha llamado).
For acquisition of issues of syntax and its intersection with discourse
pragmatics, see the works previously cited by LaFond (2001, 2003) and
LaFond et al. (2001), as well as Lleo
´(2001), who treats the interaction
between prosody and emergence of the article in the early acquisition of
Spanish and German.
2.4 Brief Concluding Remarks
In the past 25 years, OT has been a leading force in linguistic theory and
a reevaluation of what constitutes the human language faculty. While
a majority of early works treated issues of phonology, the scope of data
treated and the interactions between modules of grammar has increased
greatly, and many interesting analyses have been proposed in all areas,
a selection of which is surveyed above, that both advance our understand-
ing of Spanish as well as offer refinements to the theory itself. There
continue to be many open questions, and readers are invited to continue
in the exploration of OT and Spanish and Hispanic linguistics.
References
Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. (1997). Optimality Theory: An Overview.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Bakovic, E. (1998). Optimality and Inversion in Spanish. In P. Barbosa,
D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the Best Good
Enough? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 35–58.
Barlow, J. (2003). Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in
Spanish. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,48(3–4), 179–210.
Barlow, J. (2005). Sonority Effects in the Production of Consonant Clusters
by Spanish Speaking Children. In D. Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of
the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First
and Second Languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–14.
Barlow, J. (2006). Constraint Conflict in the Acquisition of Clusters in
Spanish. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality Theoretic
Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 523–48.
44 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Bermu
´dez-Otero, R. (2006). Morphological Structure and Phonological
Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and
S. Colina (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278–311.
Bermu
´dez-Otero, R. (2007). Spanish Pseudoplurals: Phonological Cues in
the Acquisition of a Syntax–Morphology Mismatch. In M. Baerman,
G. Corbett, D. Brown, and A. Hippisley (eds.), Deponency and
Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy). Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 231–269.
Bermu
´dez-Otero, R. (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blutner, R. (2000). Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language
Interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17 (3), 189–216.
Boersma, P. and Escudero, P. (2008). Learning to Perceive a Smaller L2
Vowel Inventory: An Optimality Theory Account. In P. Avery,
B. E. Dresher, and K. Rice (eds.), Contrast in Phonology: Theory, Perception,
Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 271–302.
Boersma, P. and Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning
Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (1), 45–86.
Bonet, E. (2006). Gender Allomorphy and Epenthesis in Spanish.
In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in
Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 312–338.
Bonet, E. and Harbour, D. (2012). Contextual Allomorphy. In J. Trommer
(ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 195–235.
Bonet, E. and Lloret, M.-R. (2016). Romance Phonology and Morphology in
Optimality Theory. In S. Fischer and C. Gabriel (eds.), Manual of
Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter,
pp. 113–147.
Bradley, T. G. (2014). Optimality Theory and Spanish Phonology. Language
and Linguistics Compass,8,65–88. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12065.
Bradley, T. G. and Smith, J. (2011). The Phonology–Morphology Interface in
Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and
Subcategorization Approach. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics,
4 (2), 247–300.
Buckley, E. (2014). Spanish Secondary Stress without Gradient Alignment.
In H.-L. Huang, E. Poole, and A. Rysling (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual
Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate
Linguistic Student Association, pp. 39–50.
Buckley, E. (2016). Foot Alignment in Spanish Secondary Stress.
In J. Heinz, R. Goedemans, and H. van der Hulst (eds.), Dimensions of
Phonological Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 79–100.
Caballero, G. and Inkelas, S. (2013). Word Construction: Tracing an
Optimal Path through the Lexicon. Morphology, 23 (2), 103–143.
Optimality Theory 45
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017). The Role of Prosodic Structure in the L2
Acquisition of Spanish Stop Lenition. Second Language Research, 33 (2),
233–269.
Colina, S. (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in our Understanding of
Spanish Syllable Structure. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.),
Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 172–204.
Colina, S. (2009). Spanish Phonology: A Syllabic Perspective. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Colina, S. (2011). Spanish Morphophonology. Studies in Hispanic and
Lusophone Linguistics, 4 (1), 173–9.1
Colina, S. (2014). La teorı
´a de la optimidad en la fonologı
´a del espan˜ ol.
In Rafael Nu
´n˜ ez Ceden˜ o, Sonia Colina, and Travis G. Bradley (eds.),
Fonologı
´a generativa contempora
´nea de la lengua espan
˜ola (2nd edn).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 291–317.
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2003). Teorı
´a lingu
¨ı
´stica de la optimidad: fonologı
´a,
morfologı
´a y aprendizaje. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2004). Meaningful Variability: A Sociolinguistically-
GroundedApproachtoVariationinOptimalityTheory.International Journal
of English Studies, 4 (2), 165–184.
de Swart, H. (2010). Expression and Interpretation of Negation. An OT Typology.
Dordrecht: Springer.
de Swart, P. (2007). Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking (Doctoral
dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Dı
´az-Campos, M. and Colina, S. (2006). The Interaction between
Faithfulness Constraints and Sociolinguistic Variation: The Acquisition
of Phonological Variation in First Language Speakers. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil
and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology.
Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 424–446.
Elsman, M. M. and Holt, D. E. (2009). When Small Words Collide:
Morphological Reduction and Phonological Compensation in Old
Leonese Contractions. In R. Leow, H. Campos, and D. Lardiere (eds.),
Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and
Acquisition. Georgetown University Press, pp. 21–33.
Escudero, P. and Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the Gap between L2 Speech
Perception Research and Phonological Theory. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 26 (4), 551–585.
Espinal, M. T., Tubau, S., Borra
`s-Comes, J., and Prieto, P. (2016). Double
Negation in Catalan and Spanish: Interaction between Syntax and
Prosody. In P. Larrive
´e and C. Lee (eds.), Negation and Polarity:
Experimental Perspectives, Language, Cognition, and Mind. Berlin: Springer,
pp. 145–176.
Feldhausen, I. (2014a). Modeling Individual Variation in Prosody: The Case
of Spanish Clitic Left-Dislocations. In S. Fuchs, M. Grice, A. Hermes,
L. Lancia, and M. Mu¨ cke (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar
46 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne: University of Cologne,
pp. 114–117.
Feldhausen, I. (2014b). The Intonation of Left-Dislocations in Spanish and
Other Romance Languages –Experimental and Theoretical Studies on
Prosodic Phrasing and Inter-Speaker Variation (Habilitation thesis).
Goethe-Universita¨t Frankfurt.
Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-Speaker Variation, OT, and the Prosody of CLLD
in Spanish. Probus, 28 (2), 293–333.
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2014). Prosody, Focus and Word Order in
Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. In S. Fuchs,
M. Grice, A. Hermes, L. Lancia, and M. Mu¨ cke (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th
International Seminar on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne:
University of Cologne, pp. 122–125.
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2015). Oraciones hendidas y otras estrate-
gias de marcaje del foco en espan˜ ol: Una aproximacio
´n desde la Teorı
´a
de la Optimidad Estoca
´stica. Revista Internacional de Lingu
¨ı
´stica
Iberoamericana, 13 (2), 39–60.
Flemming, E. (2002). Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York:
Garland.
Gabriel, C. (2010). On Focus, Prosody, and Word Order in Argentinean
Spanish: A Minimalist OT Account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da
Linguagem, 4, 183–222.
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., and Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in Bilingual
Grammars: A Computational Account of Code Mixing. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 19 (5), 857–876.
Grau Sempere, A. (2013). Reconsidering Syllabic Minimality in Spanish
Truncation. Estudios de Lingu
¨ı
´stica Universidad de Alicante, 27, 121–143.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.),
Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press,
pp. 41–58.
Grimshaw, J. (2001). Optimal Clitic Positions and the Lexicon in
Romance Clitic Systems. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, and
S. Vikner (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, pp. 205–240.
Gutie
´rrez, L. (2009). Procesos fonolo
´gicos utilizados en la formacio
´nde
hipocorı
´sticos: una aproximacio
´n desde la fonologı
´a no lineal (Doctoral
dissertation). Universidad de Concepcio
´n, Chile.
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. (2005). Structural Markedness and Syntactic Structure.
New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. (2007). Prominence Scales and Unmarked Word Order
in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 235–271.
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. (2008). Topicalization and Preverbal Subjects in
Spanish wh-Interrogatives. In J. Bruhn de Garavito and E. Valenzuela
(eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 225–236.
Optimality Theory 47
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. (2010). Inputs and Faithfulness in OT Syntax: The Case
of Subjects and Topics in Spanish Infinitival Clauses. Revista Virtual de
Estudos da Linguagem, 8, 134–154.
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R., Arellanes Arellanes, F., and Cha
´vez Peo
´n, M. (eds.).
(2015). Nuevos estudios de teorı
´a de la optimidad. Mexico City: El Colegio
de Me
´xico.
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. and Herrera, E. (eds.). (2008). Teorı
´a de optimidad: estudios
de sintaxis y fonologı
´a. Mexico City: El Colegio de Me
´xico
Gutie
´rrez-Bravo, R. and Monforte, J. (2008). La alternancia sujeto inicial/
verbo inicial y la Teorı
´a de Optimidad. In R. Gutie
´rrez Bravo and
E. Herrera (eds.), Teorı
´a de optimidad: estudios de sintaxis y fonologı
´a.
Mexico City: El Colegio de Me
´xico, pp. 61–90.
Hancin-Bhatt, B. and Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 Syllables: Interactions of
Transfer and Developmental Effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19 (3), 331–378.
Hayes, Bruce (2000). Gradient Well-Formedness in Optimality Theory.
In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality
Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 88–120.
Holt, D. E. (2000). Comparative Optimality-Theoretic Dialectology:
Singular/Plural Nasal Alternations in Galician, Mirandese (Leonese)
and Spanish. In H. Campos, E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front, and
T. J. Walsh (eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium:
Papers from the Third Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla, pp. 125–143.
Holt, D. E. (2003). The Emergence of Palatal Sonorants and Alternating
Diphthongs in Hispano-Romance. In D. E. Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and
Language Change. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 285–305.
Holt, D. E. (2004). Optimization of Syllable Contact in Old Spanish via the
Sporadic Sound Change Metathesis. Probus, 16 (1), 43–61.
Holt, D. E. (2006). Optimality Theory and Language Change in Spanish.
In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Advances in
Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 378–396.
Holt, D. E. (2015). Historical Sound Change in Optimality Theory:
Achievements and Challenges. In P. Honeybone and J. Salmons (eds.),
Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 545–562.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as Optimization. In D. Jonas,
J. Whitman, and A. Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature,
Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.
Kochetov, A. and Colantoni, L. (2011). Place vs. Stricture in Spanish Nasal
Assimilation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28. Available from sites
.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/kochetov-colantoni (last access October 9,
2017).
48 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2004). Language Contact and Spanish Aspectual
Expression: A Formal Analysis. Lingua, 114 (9–10), 1291–1330.
LaFond, L. L. (2001). The Pro-Drop Parameter in Second Language
Acquisition Revisited: A Developmental Account (Doctoral dissertation).
University of South Carolina.
LaFond, L. L. (2003). Putting the Pieces Together: Second Language Learning
of Null Subjects, Inversion, and That-Trace. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, and
H. Goodluck (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second
Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 168–175.
LaFond, L., Hayes, R., and Bhatt, R. (2001). Constraint Demotion and Null-
Subjects in Spanish L2 Acquisition. In J. Camps and C. Wiltshire (eds.),
Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 121–135.
Legendre, G. (2016). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics.
From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.) (2001). Optimality-Theoretic
Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lestrade, S. (2010). The Space of Case (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud
University, Nijmegen.
Lleo
´, C. (2001). The Interface of Phonology and Syntax: The Emergence of
the Article in the Early Acquisition of Spanish and German.
In J. Weissenborn and B. Ho¨hle (eds.), Approaches to Bootstrapping:
Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early
Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–44.
Lleo
´, C. (2002). The Role of Markedness in the Acquisition of Complex
Prosodic Structures by German–Spanish Bilinguals. International Journal
of Bilingualism, 6 (3), 291–313.
Lleo
´, C. (2006). The Acquisition of Prosodic Word Structures in Spanish by
Monolingual and Spanish–German Bilingual Children. Language and
Speech, 49, 205–229.
Lleo
´, C. and Arias, J. (2006). Foot, Word and Phrase Constraints in First
Language Acquisition of Spanish Stress. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina
(ed.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 472–496.
Lleo
´, C. and Arias, J. (2009). The Role of Weight-by-Position in the Prosodic
Development of Spanish and German. In J. Grijzenhout and B. Kabak
(eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 221–248.
Lloret, M.-R. and Mascaro
´, J. (2006). Depalatalization in Spanish Revised.
In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in
Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins,
pp. 74–98.
Martı
´nez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.) (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in
Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Optimality Theory 49
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
McCarthy, J. J. (2004). Optimal Paradigms. In L. J. Downing, T. A. Hall, and
R. Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 170–210.
McCarthy, J. J. (2007). Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality
Theory. London: Equinox.
McCarthy, J. J. and Pater, J. (eds.) (2016). Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic
Serialism. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Limited.
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1994). The Emergence of the Unmarked:
Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. In M. Gonza
´lez (ed.), NELS 24:
Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate
Linguistic Student Association, pp. 333–379.
Morales-Front, A. (2006). Acquisition of Syllable Structure in Spanish.
In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in
Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 497–524.
Morris, R. (2005). Attraction to the Unmarked in Old Spanish Leveling.
In D. Eddington (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 180–191.
Patin, C., Feldhausen, I., and Delais-Roussarie, E. (2017). Structure
prosodique et dislocation a
`gauche dans les langues romanes et
bantu: vers une approche typologique unifie
´eenOT.
In A. Lemare
´chal, P. Koch, and P. Swiggers (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe
Congre
`s international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy,
15–20 juillet 2013), Section 1 : Linguistique ge
´ne
´rale/linguistique romane.
Nancy ATILF, pp. 107–119. Available from www.atilf.fr/cilpr2013/
actes/section-1.html (last access October 13, 2017).
Pin˜ eros, C. E. (2000a). Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish
Truncation. Linguistics, 38 (1), 63–98.
Pin˜ eros, C. E. (2000b). Foot-Sensitive Word Minimization in Spanish.
Probus, 12 (2), 291–324.
Pin˜ eros, C.E. (2006). The Phonology of Nasal Consonants in Five
Spanish Dialects. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality
Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
pp. 146–171.
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint
Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University and University of
Colorado at Boulder. Revised version published Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Roca, I. and Felı
´u, E. (2003). Morphology in Truncation: The Role of the
Spanish Desinence. In G. Booij and J. van Maarle (eds.), Yearbook of
Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 187–243.
Saltarelli, (2006). A Paradigm Account of Spanish Number. In F. Martı
´nez-
Gil and S. Colina (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 339–357.
Sanz, J. (2015). The Phonology and Morphology of Spanish Hypocoristics
(Master’s thesis). The Arctic University of Norway.
50 D. ERIC HOLT
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
Smith, J. A. (2011). Subcategorization and Optimality Theory: The Case of
Spanish Diminutives (Doctoral dissertation). University of California,
Davis.
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., and Mathis, D. (2014). Optimization and
Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for
Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition. Cognitive
Science, 38 (6), 1102–1138.
Tesar, B. and Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trommer, J. (2001). Distributed Optimality (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Potsdam.
Wiltshire, C. (2006). Prefix Boundaries in Spanish Varieties: A Non-
Derivational OT Account. In F. Martı
´nez-Gil and S. Colina (eds.),
Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 358–377.
Wolf, M. (2008). Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology–Morphology
Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Xu, Z. (2016). The Role of Morphology in Optimality Theory. In A. Hippisley
and G. T. Stump (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 550–587.
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011a). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach
to Blocking and Extended Morphological Exponence. Journal of Linguistics,
47 (3), 673–707.
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011b). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach
to Full and Partial Identity of Forms. In M. Maiden, J. Charles Smith,
M. Goldbach, and M. O. Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological Autonomy:
Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 257–286.
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Optimality Theory 51
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779194.003
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of South Carolina Libraries, on 02 Aug 2021 at 16:52:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
