A syntactic-semantic optimality theoretic model on Hakka topic-comment construction

Yu-Ching Tseng

Abstract


The purpose of this paper is to show how the basic Topic-Comment ordering pattern of the Hakka can be accounted for by the constraint-based optimality theory. Part of the linguistic data used in this paper is adopted from Xu (2002), while those examples presented to show syntactic tests are created by the author. These sentences have been further checked and confirmed by a native speaker of Hakka. This paper proposes an Optimality Theoretic (OT) model that takes into account both syntactic and semantic considerations. It shows that semantic information comes into play successively at different points of OT grammar. First, integrating semantic information into the schema of OT syntax works precisely to describe the Hakka topic-initial sentence pattern. The alignment constraints incorporate information about the semantically defined topic and comment constructions into the constraint design, which interacts with other markedness constraints to filter linguistic constructions during production. Second, semantic constraints are formed to further evaluate form-meaning pairs during the process of interpretation. In this aspect, semantic notions including contrastiveness and markedness are incorporated into the theoretical plan with the purpose of pairing syntactically well-formed sentences with appropriate meaning. The paper successfully presents an optimization model illustrating how syntax and semantics cooperate to pair meanings with linguistic constructions in forming linguistic expressions. 


Keywords


syntax-semantics interface; Optimality Theory; Hakka

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (1998). Optimal questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 443-490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006020702441

Alderete, J. (1997). Dissimilation as local conjunction. In K. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 27 (pp. 17-32). Graduate Linguistic Student Association of University of Massachusetts. https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3M32XFG

Archangeli, D. (1997). Optimality theory: an introduction to linguistics in the 1990s. In D. Archangeli & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality Theory: An introduction (pp. 1-32). Blackwell.

Bakovic, E. (2004). All or nothing: Partial identity avoidance as cooperative interaction [Unpublished manuscript]. University of California San Diego.

Beaver, D. & Lee, H. (2004). Input-output mismatches in optimality theory. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 112-153). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501409_6

Bhatt, R. M. & Bolonyai, Á. (2011). Code-switching and the optimal grammar of bilingual language use. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(4), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000295

Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.3.189

Chafe, W. (1976). Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subject, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25-55). Academic Press.

Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21-51). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha

Chao. Y. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.

Chen, M. Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi. Cambridge University Press.

Chen, Y. & Yeh, C. (2007). Topic identification in Chinese discourse based on centering model. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 17(2), 83-96.

de Swart, H. & de Hoop, H. (2000). Topic and focus. In L. Cheng & R. Sybesma (Eds.), The first glot international state-of-the-article book (pp. 105-130). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822861.105

Fischer, S. (2004). Optimal binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(3), 481-526. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000027668.22030.aa

Giusti, G. (2006). Parallels in clausal and nominal periphery. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 151-172). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.3.163

Givón, T. (1991). Isomorphism in grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language, 15(1), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.04giv

Goldsmith. A. J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3), 373-422.

Hendriks, P., & de Hoop, H. (2001). Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005607111810

Hendriks P., de Hoop H., K. I., de Swart H., & Zwarts, J. (2010) Conflicts in Interpretation. Equinox Publishing.

Holton, D. (1995). Assimilation and dissimilation of Sundanese liquids. In J. Beckman, L. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory, University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18 (pp. 167-180). Graduate Linguistic Student Association of University of Massachusetts.

Hsiao, Y. E. (2015). Rethinking OCP effects on tone sandhi. Language and Linguistics, 16(6), 927-945. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15602616

Hsu, H. C. (2005). An optimality-theoretic analysis of syllable contraction in Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 33(1), 114-139.

Huddlestone, K., & de Swart, H. (2014). A bidirectional optimality theoretic analysis of multiple negative indefinites in Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 43,137-164. https://doi.org/10.5774/43-0-167

Inkelas, S. (1995). The consequences of optimization for underspecification. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25 (pp. 287-302). Graduate Linguistic Student Association of University of Massachusetts. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3PG1PS3

Itô, J. & Mester, R. A. (2003). Japanese morphophonemics markedness and word structure. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4014.001.0001

Jäger, G. (2004). Learning constraint sub-hierarchies. The bidirectional gradual learning algorithm. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality Theory and pragmatics (pp. 112-153). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501409_11

Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge University Press.

Klein, T. B. (2004). Infixation and segmental constraint effects: UM and IN in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak. Lingua, 115(7), 959-995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.12.002

Kiparsky, P. (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review, 17, 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351

Leben, W. R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Legendre, G. (2000). Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F. & van der Weijer, J. (Eds.), Optimality theory: Syntax, phonology and acquisition (pp. 423-462). Oxford University Press.

Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., & Wilson, C. (1998). When is less more? Faithfulness and minimal links in Wh-chains. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (Eds.), Is the best good enough? (pp. 249-289). The MIT Press.

Li, C. & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). Academic Press.

Lin, H. S. (2005). Prosodic correspondence in Tone Sandhi. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 229-265.

Lin, H. S. (2011). Sequential and tonal markedness in Dongshi Hakka tone sandhi. Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 313-357.

McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(3), 373-418.

McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 207-263.

McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993a). Generalized alignment. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 79–153). Kluwer.

McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1993b). Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series.

Molnár, V. (2002). Contrast: From a contrastive perspective. In H. Hallelgard, S. Johansson, B. Behrens & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147-161). Rodopi.

Müller, G. (2002). Two types of remnant movement. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers & H. Gärtner (Eds.), Dimensions of movement (pp. 209-241). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.48.10mul

Müller, G. (2009). Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of merge and agree. In K. K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments (pp. 269-308). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.269

Myers, S. (1997). OCP effects in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 847-892. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005875608905

Neeleman, A., Titov, E., Van de Koot, H.& Vermeulen, R. (2009). A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In J. van Craenenbroeck (Ed.), Alternatives to cartography (pp. 15-52). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217124.15

Orgun, C. O. & Sprouse, R. L. (1999). From MPARSE to CONTROL: Deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology, 16(2), 191-224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675799003747

Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Wiley-Blackwell.

Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53-94.

Salzmann, M. (2006). Variation in resumption requires violable constraints. A case study in Alemannic relativization. In H. Broekhuis & R. Vogel (Eds.), Optimality theory and minimalism: Interface theories 28 (pp. 99-132). Linguistics in Potsdam.

Tomioka, S. (2010). Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In M. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds.), Information structure (pp. 115-138). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0006

Tseng, Y. C. (2008). A typology of syntactic OCP effects: A study of OCP in Hakka syntax and Optimality Theory [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. State University of New York.

Tseng, Y. C. (2011). Hakka noun phrases: A bidirectional OT approach on Hakka relative clauses. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 37(1), 45-71. https://doi.org/10.6241/concentric.ling.201101_37(1).0002

Tseng, Y. C. (2012). An optimality theoretic analysis of the distribution of Hakka prepositions DI, DO, BUN, LAU, TUNG, ZIONG. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 171-209. https://doi.org/10.6241/concentric.ling.201211_38(2).0002

Tseng, Y. C. (2020). An interface of syntactic and semantic OT accounts of Hakka KAI in [ADJP/NP KAI N] constructions. Studia Linguistica: A Journal of General Linguistics, 74(3), 553-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12134

Tung, C. M. (2011). Yinping tone sandhi in Meinong Hakka: An OT analysis [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Chengchi University.

Urbanczyk, S. (1995). Double reduplications in parallel. In J. Beckman, L. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory, University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18 (pp. 499-531). Graduate Linguistic Student Association of University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Wilson, C. (2001). Bidirectional optimization and the theory of anaphora. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimality theoretic syntax (pp. 465-507). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5161.003.0018

Wunderlich, D. (2001). How gaps and substitutions can become optimal: An OT account of argument linking in Yimas. Transactions of the Philological Society, 99, 315-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00084

Xu, Z. (2000). Ke Jia Hua Xiao Wang Zi [Hakka Little Prince]. Southern Materials Center.

Zeevat, H. (2001). The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.3.243




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i2.18723

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.