Abstract
This article conducts a comparative study between Optimality Theory in linguistics (Prince and Smolensky 1993) and the Dorsal-Ventral Model of Speech processing (Hickok and Poeppel 2004). The study makes use of the descriptive-analytical method. In Optimality Theory there are two major types of constraints: Faithfulness and Markedness. According to this theory, linguistic forms arise from interaction between Faithfulness and Markedness constraints. In contrast, the Dorsal-Ventral model of speech processing has two dorsal and ventral streams. The ventral stream is for speech comprehension, and the dorsal stream is for speech production. Here we first compared the ventral and then dorsal stream with the Optimality Theory. By comparing the ventral stream with Optimality Theory, the selection of optimal phonological representation has been described. By comparing the dorsal stream, the selection of optimal phonetic representation has been described. Following this stage, clinical evidences are mentioned to increase the strength of research analyses, and finally conclusions are presented. The results show that Optimality Theory is also neurologically compatible with the Dorsal-Ventral model of speech processing. Since in Optimality Theory, it is constraints that determine the optimal output, the neural explanation of constraints is currently not possible.
References
- Baker E, Blumsteim SE, Goodglass H. Interaction between phonological and semantic factors in auditory comprehension. NeuropsychologiaGoogle Scholar ↗
- ;19:1–15. [PubMed: 7231654] 2. Barlow, J. A. (2001). Case study: Optimality theory and the assessment and treatment of phonological disorders. Language, speech and hearing services in schools, 32(4), 242- 256.Google Scholar ↗
- Barlow, J. A. & Gierut, J. A. (1999).Google Scholar ↗
- Optimality Theory in phonologicalGoogle Scholar ↗
- Acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 42.1482-1498.Google Scholar ↗
- Bijan Khan, M. (2005). Phonology: Optimality Theory. Tehran: Samt.Google Scholar ↗
- Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Cambridge,Google Scholar ↗
- Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Dabir Moghaddam, M. (2014). Theorical Linguistics: Emergence and Development of Generative Grammar (2nd ed.). Tehran: Samt.Google Scholar ↗
- Damasio A.R. (1992).Aphasia. NewGoogle Scholar ↗
- England Journal of Medicine; 326:531–539. [PubMed: 1732792] 8. Firoozian Pour Esfahani, A. (2014). Investigation of phonological processes in the speech of deaf children with cochlear implants based on the framework ofGoogle Scholar ↗
- Optimality Theory, PhD thesis in General Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.Google Scholar ↗
- Hickok, G. (2009). The Functional Neuroanatomy of Language. Physics of life Reviews, 6(3), 121-143.Google Scholar ↗
- Hickok G, Poeppel D. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends In Cognitive Sciences; 4: 131–138. [PubMed: 10740277] 11. Hickok G, Poeppel D. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition; 92: 67–99.Google Scholar ↗
- [PubMed: 15037127]Google Scholar ↗
- Hickok G, Poeppel D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature ReviewsGoogle Scholar ↗
- Neuroscience 8:393–402.Google Scholar ↗
- Hillis AE. (2007). Aphasia: progress in the last quarter of a century.Google Scholar ↗
- Neurology; 69 (2): 200–213.Google Scholar ↗
- [PubMed:17620554]Google Scholar ↗
- Jam, B. (2009). Optimality theory and its application in explaining phonological processes, PhD thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.Google Scholar ↗
- Kager, R. (2004). Optimality Theory.Google Scholar ↗
- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Kemmerer, D. (2014).The cognitive neuroscience of language: An introduction. New York:Google Scholar ↗
- Psychology Press.Google Scholar ↗
- McCarthy, John J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: CambridgeGoogle Scholar ↗
- University Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Mohr JP, Pessin MS, Finkelstein S, Funkenstein HH, Duncan GW, Davis KR. (1978). Broca’ aphasia: Pathological and clinical.Google Scholar ↗
- Neurology; 28: 311–324. [PubMed: 565019]Google Scholar ↗
- Nilipour, R. (2017). CognitiveGoogle Scholar ↗
- Linguistics: The SecondGoogle Scholar ↗
- Epistemological Revolution in Linguistics, Tehran, HermesGoogle Scholar ↗
- Publications.Google Scholar ↗
- Prince A, Smolensky P. (1997). Optimality: From Neural Network to Universal Grammar. Science. Vol 275: 1604-10.Google Scholar ↗
- Sadegh Eftekary Far et al.Google Scholar ↗
- Saur D, Kreher BW, Schnell S,Google Scholar ↗
- Kümmerer D, Kellmeyer P, Vry MS, and others. (2008). Ventral and dorsal pathways for language.Google Scholar ↗
- Proc Natl Acad Sci USAGoogle Scholar ↗
- :18035–40.Google Scholar ↗