Outlines of OT

1
Outlines of OT

• Plan of todays presentation
• Introduction and discussion of key concepts of OT
• Inputs and the GEN component
• Candidates and the Eval components
• Constraints
• Typologies Faithfulness Markedness

2
OT concentrates on surface forms

• No derivations
• Rules play little (if any) role at all
• No rule ordering
• Generation of surface forms (candidates, outputs)
• Surface forms generated by GEN are subjected to
  an EVAL component
• OT Syntax is, in a sense, the most conservative
  successor of the Government Binding Model

3
The two steps of the theory Gen and Eval

• Gen is generation of the candidates
• Gen(ini) cand1, cand2, ....
• Gen functions alike in all languages.
• Eval is evaluation of the candidates
• Eval( cand1, cand2, .... ) outreal
• Differs from language to language, since Eval
  depends on the constraint hierarchy.
•  

4
Inputs in Phonology

• Generation of candidates on the basis of inputs.
• The standard view about inputs is that they are
  equivalent to the underlying forms of the
  Generative Phonology.
• We will follow this position for the moment
• and adopt a more elaborate view of inputs later
  on.

5
Inputs in syntax 1

• The nature of inputs is the least understood
  question in OT syntax.
• Options are
• Sets of lexical entries
• but then maybe
• who did Mary kiss
• could never surface, because of the competition
  with
• who kissed Mary

6
Inputs in syntax 2

• Input
• Lexical items, and the correlation of predicates
  with arguments (Grimshaw)
• (PREDICATE ARGUMENT STRUCTURES)
• kiss, John, who
• kiss (ag, pat) ag John, pat who
• PAS Representation of Scope (Legendre)
• Kernel Sentences?

7
Gen

• In the original version of OT, Gen generates an
  indefinite number of candidates for each input,
  but there are some limits to the generative power
  of Gen. In phonology
• - Prosodic structureNo syllable is dominated by
  moras
• - Features No impossible features configurations
  can be generated
• Gen is limited by hard constraints.
•  

8
Two different views of Gen

• Containment Theory (original)
• According to Prince Smolensky (1993) and
  McCarthy Prince (1993), every output contains
  its input.
• Correspondence Theory (standard)
• According to McCarthy Prince (1995), Gen is
  completely free. (Freedom of analysis)
• Add as much structure as you want.

9
Gen in Containment

• For an input like /le ami/ the friend,
  candidates are generated which include all
  segments
• le ami
• lltegt ami
• le ami

10
Gen in Containment

• The single segments are organized in syllables,
  which themselves are organized in higher prosodic
  constituents, according to general principles
  (so-called hard constraints)
• s s
• / \ / \
• l a m i

11
Gen in Correspondence

• According to McCarthy Prince (1995), Gen is
  completely free. (Freedom of analysis)
• Add as much structure as you want.
• The candidates are now free. The relation between
  input and candidates is expressed by subscripts
• lt l1e2 a3m4i5 gt l1e2 a3m4i5
• l1 a3m4i5
• l1e2 t6a3m4i5
• h1e2 l6au3gh4s5

12
Gen in Correspondence

• In correspondence the role of hard constraints is
  not as clear as it was in the containment model.
  If all kinds of strange structures can be
  generated, the elimination of bad candidates is
  executed on the basis of the constraint
  hierarchy.
• Strongly deviant candidates (syllables dominated
  by moras ) are eliminated by undominated
  constraints.
• Undominated constraints are hard constraints

13
Gen in phonology and in syntax

• For phonology, correspondence makes better
  analysis (but see turbidity in session 9)
• For syntax, containment makes better analysis
  (syntax is turbid!)

14
GEN in Syntax

• As in phonology, there is a GEN component that
  generates the set of all possible candidate
  relative to a given input.
• Ever since Chomsky 1972/Chomsky 1981, generative
  syntacticians have believed the generative
  component of grammar to be trivial.

15
The most trivial version of GEN 1

• If we think of a simplified version of what the
  Minimalist Program suggests, then GEN might
  consist of two processes
• MERGE items from a given set of lexical items
• MOVE items from one slot to another

16
The most trivial version of GEN 2

• A lexical array John,will, kiss, Mary
• MERGE
• Kiss Mary gtgt kiss Mary
• Will kiss Mary gtgt will kiss Mary
• John will kiss Mary gtgt John will kiss Mary
• MOVE
• Will John kiss Mary

17
The most trivial version of GEN 3

• A lexical array
• John,will, kiss, Mary
• MERGE may yield
• Mary John Mary John
• kiss kiss Mary John
• MOVE may yield
• John kiss Mary
• John kiss Mary will
• EVAL will take care of that!

18
A less trivial version of GEN 1

• Grimshaw 1997 proposes that we distinguish the
  operations
• MERGE items from a lexical array
• MOVE
• from
• The addition of functional material/ functional
  heads not present in the input

19
A less trivial version of GEN 2

• Input I, say, Mary, kiss, John
• Outputs e.g.
• Kiss John
• I kiss John
• THAT-insertion
• That I kiss John
• Etc ...

20
A less trivial version of GEN 3

• What else could be missing?
• Delete!
• a man who that we like
• a man who we like
• a man that we like
• a man we like

21
A less trivial version of GEN 4

• MERGE respects Predicate-Argument Structure
• A can merge with B only if A checks a feature
  of B
• He is sleeping a cat
• would not be generated at all
• (but maybe the sentence DOES make sense!)

22
An even less trivial version

• MERGE respects X-bar-Theory
• Whenever A and B are merged, the label of AB is
  a projection of A or of B
• YES VP V NP
• NO AP V PP
• ... But we might wish to allow for headless
  phrases ....
• S NP VP

23
An even less trivial version (ctd)

• GEN GB style syntax
• (Woolford)
• Possible candidates for the passive
• Dass der Wagen repariert wird
• that the-nom car repaired is
• Dass den Wagen repariert wird
• that the-acc car repaired is
• but not, say
• Dass des Wagens repariert wird

24
An even less trivial version (ctd)

• GEN core syntax (Pesetsky)
• GEN specifies everything in syntax that is NOT
  concerned with the spellout of abstract categories

25
An even less trivial version

• MOVE respects constraints on movement
• who did you weep because she left
• which city did you find Bills letter from in
  the waste paper basket?
• It is tempting 2 do so because of
• ABSOLUTE UNGRAMMATICALITY

26
Ineffability

• Absolute ungrammaticality ineffability certain
  inputs yield NO grammatical output!

27
Candidates in phonology

• Generation of candidates is either constrained
  (Containment) or unconstrained (Correspondence).
• Assuming the correspondence view, all kinds of
  candidates can be generated, also the absurd
  ones, like those violating the prosodic
  hierarchy. They are eliminated by high-ranking
  constraints.

28
Candidates in syntax

• The most straightforward OT syntax has surface
  structure representations as the candidate set.
• But more complex options are conceivable ...
• and may be necessary
• ltD-S, S-S, LFgt triples
• Derivations ...

29
Constraints

• -constraints are ranked and violable
• -violation is minimal
• -well-formedness is comparative
• -possible rankings define factorial typologies

30
Constraints

• Constraints are universal restrictions on the
  well-formedness of structures GB
• They affect surface structure only
• (in conservative OT) NOT GB
• They are violable, if that is in the interest of
  other principles NOT GB

31
Monostratality

• (Conservative) OT syntax is thus a monostratal
  approach to syntax.
• In particular, there is no
• clear separation of a purely phonological and a
  purely semantic component (vs. the PF-LF
  branch after surface structure in the GB-model)
• intrinsic ordering of syntactic and phonological
  operations

32
Monostratality

• Prosodic Triggering of movement
• dao mu ga je Ivan
• given him.it.is Ivan
• The GB-unsolved riddle of V movement in
  Croatian
• Semantic parallelism conjunction reduction

33
Constraints

• Constraints should be simple if we wanna take
  them serious
• NOT GB
• Violation is minimal
• Wellformedness is comparative
• Factorial typology
• Vs. Parameter setting

34
Faithfulness and markedness constraints

• Faithfulness constraints require identity between
  input and output.
• Whether a given constraint is an instance of a
  faithfulness requirement is a function of what
  counts as an input.

35
Faithfulness and markedness constraints

• The addition or deletion of elements beyond the
  input violates faithfulness on obvious grounds.
• In Correspondence Theory (from now on we will use
  only this version of OT for phonology), following
  families of constraints are active

36
Faithfulness constraints in phonology

• MAX No deletion of segments or features.
• DEP No epenthesis of segments or features.
• IDENT(F) No change in the featural make-up
• CONTIGUITY Contiguous segments in the input are
  contiguous in the output.
• HEAD-MATCH A head in the input is a head in the
  output.

37
Faithfulness constraints in syntax

• DEP No epenthesis of segments or features.
• Do not insert words into syntactic
  representations!
• Full Interpretation Do not insert expletive
  material
• TEL Do not insert function words
• MAX No deletion of segments or features.
• RECOV Do not delete non-recoverable material
• Parse(Scope)

38
Faithfulness constraints in syntax

• IDENT(F) No change in the featural make-up
• CONTIGUITY Contiguous segments in the input are
  contiguous in the output.
• STAY/ECON Do not move elements!
• STAY could also be a DEP violation
• No Trace!!

39
Faithfulness and markedness constraints

• Markedness constraints require unmarkedness of
  the output.
• Markedness constraints depend heavily on results
  of the markedness theory and typology.
• Even though it is not always clear how to decide
  what is unmarked. There are unclear and even
  contradictory cases (more on markedness later).

40
Markedness constraints in phonology

• ONSET Syllables have onsets.
• NOCODA Syllables dont have codas
• NOCOMPLEXONSET Onsets are not complex.
• NOCOMPLEXCODA Codas are not complex.
• NOVOICEDOBSTRUENT Obstruents are voiceless.

41
Markedness constraints in syntax

• EPP All IPs have a filled specifier position
• WH-CRIT All wh-CP have a filled specifier
  position
• DFCF The Spec and head position of a CP cannot
  be filled simultaneously
• UNIQUESPECIFIER Each XP has at most one
  specifier
• CASE The highest position of a Chain must have
  Case

42
Eval

• Eval evaluates all candidates against a unique
  input. Evaluation is executed by a constraint
  hierarchy (constraints are ranked)
• Extensions of Eval
• Sympathy Theory candidates can also be evaluated
  against other candidates.
• Output-Output Correspondence candidates are
  evaluated against the output of another
  evaluation.

43
Eval

• Eval evaluates all candidates against a unique
  input. Evaluation is executed by a constraint
  hierarchy (constraints are ranked)
• Extensions of Eval
• Sympathy Theory candidates can also be evaluated
  against other candidates.
• Output-Output Correspondence candidates are
  evaluated against the output of another
  evaluation.

44
UG

• Universal Grammar is the set of all constraints.
• There are no parameters left!
• Grammar determines the nature of
• possible lexical entries, not vice versa

45
Universal grammar

• Universal grammar in OT consists of the set of
  all constraints.
• However, the definition of this set is an
  extremely difficult task.
• In phonology we have some clues of how to do
  that constraints should be phonetically
  grounded, and in agreement with the results of
  typological studies.

46
Grounding

• In syntax, some of the principles may be
  semantically grounded (Szabolcsi)
• Some may be grounded in pragmatics
  (Erteshik-Shir)
• Other may be grounded in perception (Hawkins)
• Or perhaps it is different ...
• SYNTAX is the KING and explains everything else!

47
Grammar of the single languages

• Grammars of individual languages consist of
  orderings of the constraints.
• The grammar of each language (dialects,
  sociolects, idiolects) is defined by just one
  non-permutable hierarchy of the constraints.

48
Factorial typology

• Permutations of the constraints result ideally in
  possible (but not necessarily existing) grammars.
• Not all constraints are permutable
• Some constraints have a universal, fixed ordering
  (markedness hierarchies)

49
OT solves the conspiracy problem

• Remember the conspiracy problem
• Several rules have the same aim (hiatus
  resolution for example)
• The answer of OT phonotactics alone is
  responsible for the well-formedness (and no
  longer the rules)

50
Universal tendency in OT

• In OT the universal tendencies are accounted for
  by the interaction of universal violable
  constraints. The constraints define the grammar.
• There is just one constraint prohibiting hiatus.
  How languages achieve resolution of hiatus
  depends on the ordering of several faithfulness
  constraints and (ideally) just one markedness
  constraint (ONSET).

51
NoHiatus in French
52
NoHiatus in German
53
Allowed hiatus in Maori
54
Grammars of individual languages

• Grammars of individual languages consist of
  orderings of the constraints
• No parametrization!
• Lexical differences are a consequence of grammars
• NOT the other way round (as in GB)

55
Conflict Resolution

• Conflict resolution is lexicographic
• A The finite verb is leftmost
• B Specifiers are leftmost
• B A
• V XP YP ZP !
• XP V YP ZP
• XP YP V ZP !

56
Faithfulness and Markedness

• Full Interpretation Do not insert meaningless
  elements/PAS must be respected
• IP John did not t leave
• IP Did not John leave

57
Faithfulness and Markedness

• OpSpec Wh-phrases c-command the extended
  V-projection they modify
• OpSpec ECON
• wh.in situ
• wh moved