Search Results

well as the shells’ attributes, influence the decision in different directions (e.g., growth necessitates shells with large IV/W ratios, but these may be too thin and brittle; Osorno et al., 2005); hence optimality theory (Krebs & Kacelnik, 1991; Kacelnik, 2006) should provide best framework to study

In: Behaviour

idýll-ic, Miltón-ic, titán-ic etc.; he handles this in a constraint-based approach, appealing to a high ranking of faithfulness in the phonology (more specifically of metrical faithfulness in the stem-level constraint hierarchy countenanced in his framework, Stratal Optimality Theory

In: Indo-European Linguistics

contrast. In Joan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure , 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Piggott, Glyne L. 1980. Aspects of Odawa Morphophonemics . New York: Garland Publishing. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory . Oxford

In: Language Dynamics and Change

based on the restrictive foot typology of Kager (1993) and optimality theory as presented in Prince and Smolensky (1993). Part of this approach is representing different levels of constituency in the line. The lowest level is the ‘metrical position’. The sequence of metrical positions is then structured

In: Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics

(2001) both propose explanations for this fact. On Jebbour 1996, 1999, see DE02:122–132. Bensoukas’s (2001) thoughtful work contains a serious attempt to provide a unified account of imperfective stem formation in Tashlhiyt. This account, which is couched in the framework of Optimality Theory, analyzes

In: Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics

Optimality Theory ( OT ; Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). The basic gemination pattern is analyzed in 4.3.1; I then proceed in 4.3.2 to the exceptional non-gemination of pre-stop voiceless stops and show that it can be neatly captured in OT as a blocking effect. 4.3.1 Deriving gemination of voiceless

In: Indo-European Linguistics

analysis, presumably because this would threaten the basic assumptions of optimality theory itself (for discussion see MAYNARD SMITH, 1978). How can we test whether a given behaviour is optimal or not? First, the terms adaptive and optimal should be defined at least preliminarily. According to SIH (1980

In: Behaviour

concepts that the cognitive optimum hypothesis forecasts.” Although Day does not support this claim by examples, it is true that the cognitive optimum theory (Boyer 2001 : 85-87) is mostly supported by anecdotal evidence (but see Barrett et al. 2009 ). Part of the problem is that cognitive theorists have

In: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion

employed in recent typological world on the syllable” (64). Whoever may want to explain this state of affairs by invoking decreolization should know that I have found no historical data in support of this hypothesis ( Mufwene 1994 ). In the next chapter, Eric Russell Webb applies Optimality Theory to

In: Journal of Language Contact

). These adaptive and inherent mnemonic advantages attributed to cognitive templates derive from cognitive optimum theory and are fundamental to the original theoretical formulation of the memorability of counterintuitive concepts (Boyer and Ramble, 2001 ; Sperber, 1996 ). This study also hinges on

In: Journal of Cognition and Culture