A Comparative Study of Optimality Theory and Dorsal-Ventral Model of Speech processing

Sadegh Eftekhary Far Sayed Farid Khalifehloo Hashem Farhang Doost Majid Torabi Moghddam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18535/sshj.v8i01.891

##plugins.themes.novelty.article.sidebar##

Issue
Vol. 8 No. 01 (2024)
Published
2024-01-19
PDF

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

1. Baker E, Blumsteim SE, Goodglass H. Interaction between phonological and semantic factors in auditory comprehension. Neuropsychologia
1981;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.
3. Barlow, J. A. & Gierut, J. A. (1999).
Optimality Theory in phonological
Acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 42.1482-1498.
4. Bijan Khan, M. (2005). Phonology: Optimality Theory. Tehran: Samt.
5. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
6. Dabir Moghaddam, M. (2014). Theorical Linguistics: Emergence and Development of Generative Grammar (2nd ed.). Tehran: Samt.
7. Damasio A.R. (1992).Aphasia. New
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 of
Optimality Theory, PhD thesis in General Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
9. Hickok, G. (2009). The Functional Neuroanatomy of Language. Physics of life Reviews, 6(3), 121-143.
10. 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.
[PubMed: 15037127]
12. Hickok G, Poeppel D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience 8:393–402.
13. Hillis AE. (2007). Aphasia: progress in the last quarter of a century.
Neurology; 69 (2): 200–213.
[PubMed:17620554]
14. Jam, B. (2009). Optimality theory and its application in explaining phonological processes, PhD thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.
15. Kager, R. (2004). Optimality Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Kemmerer, D. (2014).The cognitive neuroscience of language: An introduction. New York:
Psychology Press.
17. McCarthy, John J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
18. Mohr JP, Pessin MS, Finkelstein S, Funkenstein HH, Duncan GW, Davis KR. (1978). Broca’ aphasia: Pathological and clinical.
Neurology; 28: 311–324. [PubMed: 565019]
19. Nilipour, R. (2017). Cognitive
Linguistics: The Second
Epistemological Revolution in Linguistics, Tehran, Hermes
Publications.
20. Prince A, Smolensky P. (1997). Optimality: From Neural Network to Universal Grammar. Science. Vol 275: 1604-10.

Sadegh Eftekary Far et al.
21. Saur D, Kreher BW, Schnell S,
Kümmerer D, Kellmeyer P, Vry MS, and others. (2008). Ventral and dorsal pathways for language.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
105:18035–40.

Authors

Sadegh Eftekhary Far
Speech Therapist, PhD candidate in Cognitive linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Sayed Farid Khalifehloo
Assistant prof. English Language Department, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
Hashem Farhang Doost
Speech Therapist and Phd of Cognitive Neuroscience, Lecturer at Tehran University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Majid Torabi Moghddam
Asistant prof, Faculty of foreign Languages, Department of linguistics, Velayat University, Iranshahr, Iran
[1]
“A Comparative Study of Optimality Theory and Dorsal-Ventral Model of Speech processing”, Soc. sci. humanities j., vol. 8, no. 01, pp. 3381–3393, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.18535/sshj.v8i01.891.