• English Language & Literature Teaching
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.37-54
• /
• 2002

Some Korean speakers have trouble in learning the correct pronunciation of many complex English words which have clusters in their onset and coda position. This study shows that the difficulties Korean students have acquiring English pronunciation partly come from syllable structure differences between English and Korean. We provide an analysis based on Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) of the syllable structure difference and suggest that Korean speakers learn the different constraint ranking between English and Korean. This will offer Korean speakers with some helpful methods which will facilitate their learning.

• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.44-50
• /
• 2017

The topic of selection of a grammatical subject in a correlative conjunction phrase has long failed to attract the attention of linguists due to some difficulties not only in figuring out the internal structure of NP's conjoined by a correlative conjunction but also in its heavy dependency on the representational aspects each correlative conjunction demonstrates. In this paper, I have explored the seemingly complex patterns in the selection of a grammatical subject in a correlative conjunction phrase in the frame of the Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 2008). I show that, with the help of three newly developed constraints such as MinDist, Focus, and PARSE which are ranked relatively to each other, an optimal grammatical subject out of two NP candidates conjoined by a correlative conjunction can be correctly selectable.

• Proceedings of the KSPS conference
• /
• 2000.07a
• /
• pp.365-365
• /
• 2000

English segments adopted into Korean can be divided into three types: Some English segments /$m, {\;}n, {\;}{\eta}, {\;}p^h, {\;}t^h, {\;}k^h$/ are adopted into the original sound [$m, {\;}n, {\;}{\eta}, {\;}p^h, {\;}t^h, {\;}k^h$] in Korean. Other segments /b, d, g/ appear in the voiceless stop form [p, t, k]. Generative Phonology explains the presence of the above English segments in Korean but it cannot explain why the English segments /$f, {\;}v, {\;}{\Theta}, {\;}{\breve{z}}, {\;}{\breve{c}}, {\;}{\breve{j}}$/ disappear during the adopting process. I present a set of universal constraints from the Optimality Theory proposed by Prince and Smolensky(l993) and I show how English segments differently adopted into Korean can be explained by these universal constraints such as Faith(feature). N oAffricateStop, Faith(nasal), NoNasalStop, Faith(voice), NoVoicedStop and the interaction of these constraints. I conclude that this Optimality Theory provides insights that better capture the nature of the phonological phenomena of English segments in Korean.

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.9 no.8
• /
• pp.783-790
• /
• 2019

Cognitive science attempts to explain human intelligence on the basis of success of artificial neural network, which is called connectionism. The neural network, e.g., deep learning, seemingly promises connectionism to go beyond what it is. But those(Fodor & Pylyshyn, Fodor, & McLaughlin) who advocate classical computationalism, or symbolism claim that connectionism must fail since it cannot represent the relation between human thoughts and human language. The neural network lacks systematicity, so any output of neural network is at best association or accidental combination of data plugged in input units. In this paper, I first introduce structure of artificial neural network and what connectionism amounts to. Second, I shed light on the problem of systematicity the classical computationalists pose for the connectionists. Third, I briefly introduce how those who advocate connectionism respond to the criticism while noticing Smolensky's theory of vector product. Finally, I examine the debate of computationalism and connectionism on systematicity, and show how the problem of systematicity contributes to the development of connectionism and computationalism both.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.129-152
• /
• 2009

The paper aims to prove symmetries of the left and right edges of a morphological unit through the analysis of English blends. Blends are the words derived from two existing words by snipping the middle parts out and putting the rest together, such as smog (

• Proceedings of the KSPS conference
• /
• 1996.10a
• /
• pp.109-116
• /
• 1996

In this paper, I would like to explore the possibility that the nature of place assimilation can be captured in terms of the OCP within the Optimality Theory (Mccarthy & Prince 1999. 1995; Prince & Smolensky 1993). In derivational models, each assimilatory process would be expressed through a different autosegmental rule. However, what any such model misses is a clear generalization that all of those processes have the effect of avoiding a configuration in which two consonantal place nodes are adjacent across a syllable boundary, as illustrated in (1):(equation omitted) In a derivational model, it is a coincidence that across languages there are changes that have the result of modifying a structure of the form (1a) into the other structure that does not have adjacent consonantal place nodes (1b). OT allows us to express this effect through a constraint given in (2) that forbids adjacent place nodes: (2) OCP(PL): Adjacent place nodes are prohibited. At this point, then, a question arises as to how consonantal and vocalic place nodes are formally distinguished in the output for the purpose of applying the OCP(PL). Besides, the OCP(PL) would affect equally complex onsets and codas as well as coda-onset clusters in languages that have them such as English. To remedy this problem, following Mccarthy (1994), I assume that the canonical markedness constraint is a prohibition defined over no more than two segments, $\alpha$ and $\beta$: that is, $^{*}\{{\alpha, {\;}{\beta{\}$ with appropriate conditions imposed on $\alpha$ and $\beta$. I propose the OCP(PL) again in the following format (3) OCP(PL) (table omitted) $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the target and the trigger of place assimilation, respectively. The '*' is a reminder that, in this format, constraints specify negative targets or prohibited configurations. Any structure matching the specifications is in violation of this constraint. Now, in correspondence terms, the meaning of the OCP(PL) is this: the constraint is violated if a consonantal place $\alpha$ is immediately followed by a consonantal place $\bebt$ in surface. One advantage of this format is that the OCP(PL) would also be invoked in dealing with place assimilation within complex coda (e.g., sink [si(equation omitted)k]): we can make the constraint scan the consonantal clusters only, excluding any intervening vowels. Finally, the onset clusters typically do not undergo place assimilation. I propose that the onsets be protected by certain constraint which ensures that the coda, not the onset loses the place feature.