gisbert fanselow & caroline féry university of potsdam introduction to optimality theory

Gisbert Fanselow & Caroline Féry

University of Potsdam

Introduction to Optimality Theory

Basic goals of the class

•Introduction of the key concepts of Optimality Theory•both in phonology and in syntax•identification of its precursors•discussion of OT’s successes•extensions of OT•applications of OT in processing and acquisition

The Plan for Today

1. A brief sketch of OT 2. Brief introduction of the issue:

representational (constraint related) or

derivational accounts?3. Three types of arguments for a constraint based view in

phonology and syntax

A brief sketch of OT

OT is a grammatical architecture.It involves a set of constraints on linguistic representations.

The constraints may be in conflict with each other

Conflicts are resolved by lexicographic constraint hierarchies.which are language-particular


Two plausible constraints from the domain of syntax:

A category should begin with its headPP: in the parkVP: kiss Mary in the parkAP: proud of Mary

Subjects should come first


The principles get in conflict with each other when a categories has both a head and a subject.

Conflict resolution is lexicographic if the principles appear in a hierarchy, such that conflicts are always resolved in favor of the higher principle.


Irish: Heads always go firstduirt Seán go-bhfuil Cathal ag rincesaid John that-is Charles –ing dance

English: Subjects are initialJohn claims that he likes Mary*Claims John that likes he Mary

The Plan for Today





Constraints

Constraints play a crucial role in the grammatical architecture of OT.

They govern the well-formedness of phonological output forms, and of syntactic surface structures.Grammars need not put so much emphasis on constraints. but those that do seem to fare particularly well in a number of domains.

Derivational Approaches I

The alternative to constraint-based/representational models is the derivational approach that figured prominently in the early days of generative grammar.

A derivational account explains grammatical wellformedness by formulating rules that generate exactly the set of grammatical items.

Derivational Phonology

In derivational phonology (as in Chomsky & Halle 1968. The Sound Pattern of English, SPE) rules derive a surface representation from a deep structure.

Deep structure

Rules

Surface structure


Derivational models make use of explicit rules for generating the surface expressions of a language.

The surface generalizations are however, expressed independently by the phonotactics of the individual languages.


Typical domains of application of derivational rules are allophonies and alternations (in SPE also non-alternating surface structures).

Derivation of long in SPE (p.211)

An example of derivation of a non-alternating form from an abstract underlying representationUnderlying representation/long/Tensing Rule l√€ng √€ _ + tiefla€ngDiphthongizationla€wngGlide Vocalization Rulela€ung

Derivation of long in SPE (p.211)

Vowel Shiftla€ongRounding Adjustmentlø€√ngNasal assimilation lø€√˜gg-Tilgung lø€√˜Surface form [lø√˜]

Why derivational accounts?

Why do we need derivations in phonology at all?

In some cases, a rule needs an environment to apply which is derived by another, independent rule. This is an instance of feeding.

A Feeding Example

Chukchi (1) r –> t/ _ [+coronal]p\kir-\k ‘to arrive’p\kit-t\k ‘you (pl) arrivedqeper ‘glutton’qapat-t∫\˜-\n ‘big glutton’

A Feeding Example

(2) [–sonorant] –> [+sonorant, nasal]/

–[+nasal]©e-mne-lin ‘he ground’

p\ne-k ‘grind’r\mn- \t ‘flesh sides of hides’ r\p\n ‘id’

A Feeding Example

(3) kun-nin ‘he bought’

kur-\k ‘to buy’

(3) shows that (1) must apply before (2). [r] of kur-\k first becomes [t] which then can become a sonorant again (but this time a nasal as a result of assimilation).

A Further Feeding Example

Take the underlying form /lang/ ‘long’ in GermanApply first the rule of nasal assimilation:+nasal –anterior+cons+coronal –> -coronal / – -ant

+high-cor

+high

A Further Feeding Example

Then apply the rule of g-deletion:

g –> ø / ˜ _ Co +syllabic

+stressed

Surface structure: [la˜](Wurzel 1980:960 ) On the surface there is a dorsal nasal motivated by the presence of [g] in the deep structure.

Derivationalism in Syntax

Modern Syntax also started out as a derivational theory. The so-called Standard Theory has been one of its most influential versions

LEXICON Deep Structure

Surface Structure

From the Lexicon to D-Structures

Explicit phrase structure Explicit phrase structure rulesrules

S NP VP John kisses MaryNP Det A N the nice manVP V sleepsVP V NP kisses MaryVP V PP laughs at MaryVP V NP PP gave it to MaryVP V NP NP gave him a bookVP V NP S‘ told him that ...

From deep structures to the surface

Explicit transformationsExplicit transformations

X NP V (P) NP Y1 2 3 4 5 6

=>1 5 be V+en5 by+2 6

that John laughs at Mary todaythat Mary is laughed at by John today

Why derivations in syntax?

Many theories believe that wh-phrase move to clause-initial position in a number of derivational steps ...do you think that he claims that she will sell whatwhatdo you think that he claims whatwhat that she will selldo you think whatwhat that he claims that she will sell

whatwhat do you think that he claims that she will sell


In more complex cases, each of these steps can be followed by the licensing of reflexive pronouns - which is strictly bound to the next subject:

Which picture of herself do you think that he claims that she will sell?do you think that he claims that she will sell which picture of herself ?


But we also get:Which picture of himself do you think that he claims that she will sell?

do you think that he claims which picture of himself that she will sell?

It is hard to see how this can be explained with reference to tiny derivational steps ...

Representational aspects

Derivational theories tend to have a „representational“ residue ... Phonotactic Constraints (concerning e.g. the basic syllabic makeup of English or German) were stated in addition to rules --> constraints on the form of lexical entries

No syllable-initial nasal followed by a stop (Co.lo.mbo)

The Plan for Today





Problems of derivationalism

In spite of the advantages discussed above, purely derivational models were criticized for at least 3 reasons1) They were accused of being too unconstrained2) They imply that information is duplicated in grammar3) They lead to the rule conspiracy problem

Why is derivational phonology unsatisfying?

1. Rules and their ordering are unconstrained.All kinds of processes can be accounted for: natural and unnatural, marked and unmarked, possible and impossible ones.

Possible and natural rulePossible and natural rule:[coronal] –> [labial] / _ [coronal] (tp –> pp)

Impossible and unnatural ruleImpossible and unnatural rule:[voice] –> [labial] –> _ [voice] (dd –> bd)


The complexity of the two rules is the same. If features are unorganized, assimilation is predicted to happen between unrelated features.


A specific rule ordering is determined by the need of a single language. Two languages or two dialects of a single language can have the same rules, but with a reverse ordering.

Two dialects of German and g-deletionFirst dialect (Standard German) /lang/la˜g Assimilation of ˜ to gla˜ g-deletion – Final Devoicing [la˜]

Second dialect (Northeren German) /lang/la˜g Assimilation of ˜ to glank Final Devoicing – g-deletion [la˜k]

Impossible rule orderingsPseudo-Yokuts (Kiparsky)In real life, some rule ordering are not possibleUnderlying /maat/

R 1: Epenthesis maati (the trimoraic syllable is resolved)

R 2: Palatalisition maatji ([t] –> [tj] before [i]: R 1 feeds R 2)

R 3: Apocope maatj ([i] is deleted word finally)R 4: Shortening matj (the trimoraic syllable is

resolved)Surface [math] (McCarthy 2000)

Constraining Rules in Syntax

Typical syntactic rules of the early period were felt to be too unconstrained because they

failed to express parallels between modules of grammar,

and between the grammars of the world‘s languages.

A set of early phrase structure rules

VP V sleepsVP V NP kisses MaryVP V PP laughs at MaryVP V NP PP gave it to MaryVP V NP NP gave him a bookVP V NP S‘ told him that ...

Problem 1 for phrase structure rules

(All?) Syntactic Categories are endocentric

C is endocentric if the syntactic behavior of C (=the category of C) is determined by one part of C.

X is a verb phrase because it contains a verb

Problem 1 for phrase structure rules

The early rule format is too unconstrained because it allows for non-endocentric categories as well:

VP N PP VP Comp A N

Solutions

The X-bar-Scheme

XP ... X ...where X is any category

as a METACONSTRAINT on rulesas A RULE + language particular statements such as the head must be left in VP, etc.

Why is derivational phonology unsatisfying? Second problem

2. Duplication Problem: Rules and phonotactics replicate each other

- Phonotactics says: 1) obstruent clusters share a single voicing

specification; there are no geminates.2) Rules trigger voicing agreement in obstruent

clusters and eliminate geminates

Why is derivational phonology unsatisfying? Second problem

Plural in English: Plural morpheme is realized as [s], [z] or [iz] depending on the preceding segment.

cats dogs judgespets cars churches

In a rule approach, one allomorph is taken as underlying and the others are derived by rules: voicing agreement and [i] is inserted between two sibilants.

The Subcategorization Problem

The generative component of the syntax must specify what the simple syntactic configurations of a language are ...

... The same type of information reappears in the lexical entries

Some rules for German VPs

VP VVP NP VVP NP NP VVP PP VVP NP PP V

Positive results

dass Hans that John

VP V weinte wept

VP NP V das Buch verfasste

the book wrote

VP NP NP V der Maria den Fritz vorstellteintroduced Fritz to Mary

VP PP V mit ihr strittwith her argued

Negative results

dass HansVP V verfasste

*wrote

VP NP V das Buch rechnetthe book reckons

VP NP NP V der Maria den Fritz weinte

wept Fritz to Mary

Subcategorization

Verbs fit into certain environments only befahren: requires an NP object

„drive on“

vorstellen: requires two NP objects

„introduce“

stellen: requires an NP and a PP„put“

Subcategorization

existieren: does not combine with an object

„exist“

This information must be specified in the lexicon

Duplication

And this information reappears in the phrase structure rules!

What would happen if we enter a VP rule like VP V NP PP NP PP AP Comp A?Nothing!Because we have no verb to insert into such a structure

Consequence:

The rule can be trivial

VP .... V ....because the rest is done by the lexicon

Some theories claim:EVERYTHING is done in the lexicon

Constraints on Variables:

A related problem was discovered by Ross:

Rules must obey the same or at least very similar constraints

Coordinate Structures

I love Mary and Bill*who do you love Mary and __*John, I love Mary and __*a man who I love Mary and __*she is more intelligent than you are handsome and __

Subject Islands

To invite Mary is fun*I wonder who to invite is fun*he said that John, to invite is fun*a man who to invite _ is fun*she is more intelligent than to be _ is fun

Wh - Islands

I wonder when I should kiss Mary*who do you wonder when I should kiss_ *John, I wonder when I should kiss _*a man who I wonder when I should kiss _*she is more intelligent that I wonder whether you are _

Adjunct - Islands

I weep because I saw Mary *who do you weep because I saw _*John, I wept because I saw _*a man who I wept because I saw _*she is more intelligent than I am envious because you are _

Ross‘s Proposal

Movement rules are very simple

They specify what can move to what kind of position

They are constrained by a universal constraint component:No rule can involve X and Y if X and Y are separated by a wh-island ..

Extensions of Ross‘s Proposal

The movement rule is trivialized

Move A from B to C!

The Constraints check for the well-formedness of the output

Why is derivational phonology unsatisfying? Third problem

3. Conspiracies of the rules (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth)

Different rules have the same purpose, but this is not visible from the rules themselves.

Consider hiatus in several languages.

Avoidance of hiatus by vowel deletion

French a. *le ami –> l’ami ‘the friendb. *je arrive cet après-midi –> j’arrive cet

a.-m.Rule: V –> Ø / _ V (vowel deletion)•The rule is blocked if a morpheme

would be left unrealizedElle a eu un enfant.

Avoidance of hiatus by consonant epenthesis

• GermanChaot –> Cha?ot ‘chaotic person’, Ruin –> Ru?

in• Axininca Campa i-N-koma-i –> i˜komati ‘he will paddle’

• Rule:ø –> C / V _ V (consonant epenthesis)• The rule does not apply in German if the the

second syllable is unstressed: Théo, Muséum

Avoidance of hiatus by glide formation

• Dutch: bioscoop –> bijoscoop ‘movie• Ilokano: da?o ‘kind of tree’ pagda?o-an -> pagda?wan

Rule:Ø -> j (glide formation)• The rule does not apply in some

segmental environment

Avoidance of hiatus by glide formation and compensatory lengthening

• Luganda (Bantu) Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1979)

mu ami –> mw. ami Glide formation mw. ami–> mw aami CL ‘chief, pl.’• Vowel deletion + compensatory

lengthening C high V V

1 2 3 –> 1+2glide ø 3[long]

Excursus: Ordering is crucialIt must be observed that the ordering

vowel deletion + compensatory lengthening is crucial. When the two rules are reversed, the context for lengthening is no longer present.

mu ami CL is blocked mu ami –> mw. ami Glide formation *[mw ami]

Summary of conspiracy in phonology

Rules like vowel deletion, consonant epenthesis and glide formation in the intervocalic environment ‘conspire’ to avoid hiatus.

In other words, rules aim at something, but different rules can have the same aim. In a rewriting rule A –> B/ C _ D, the aim is CBD.

Summary of conspiracy in phonology

However, nothing in the format of the rules we just saw specifies what the rules try to achieve. Thus, one can formulate a rule B –> A/ C _ D, whose aim is CAD, the reverse of the rule above. If one looks at derivations in the SPE style it is sometimes difficult to figure out what the aim of some rules is.

Conspiracy in Syntax

For quite some time, linguists working in the Chomskyan paradigm refused to concede that there might be conspiracy phenomena in syntaxThe earliest concession was in the domain of the interpretation of pronounsThe issue of why a rule applies was not studied systematically before the early nineties!

The Fin Second Conspiracy 1

English:I kissed Mary

NEGATION & DO-INSERTION*I not kissed MaryI did not kiss Mary


English:I must not kiss Mary

Verb Movementto not have kissed Mary ... I have not kissed MaryVerb movement & do-insertion must be applied such that the finite verb follows the subject


He believes that John loves Mary

* __ was believed that John loves MaryMovement that John loves Mary was believed by manyExpletive Insertionit was believed that John loves Mary


He shoots a moose

*__ was a moose shot

Expletive Insertionthere was a moose shot __Movementa moose was shot __

Fin Second in English IPs

In the core of the English IP, the finite verb must be the second element

Verb movement & do-insertionNP-movement & there/it insertion

Short adverbs can be ignored

Fin Second in Other Languages

Breton Word Order:

Preposing of Non-finite verb if nothing appears in focus positionLennet en deus Yann al levrread 3-have John the bookYann en deus lennet al levrAl levr en deus lennet Yann*En deus lennet Yann al levr


Verb preposing/expletive insertion in IcelandicFram hefur komidh adh fiskadh hefur veridh í leyfisleysiforth has come that fished has been illegally

Fram hefur komidh adh thadh hefur veridh fiskadh í leyfisleysiforth has come that it has been fished illegally


Verb preposing in Croatian if the clitics would not be in second position otherwise

dao mu ga je mu ga je Ivangiven him.it.is Ivan


At least six rules conspireFocus MovementSubject MovementExpletive Insertiondo-insertionstylistic frontingstrange verb preposing

Conspiracies

There are no successful accounts of why expletive insertion, stylistic fronting or subject placement apply in the way the do ...Besides those that make, in one way or the other, reference to the fact that the finite verb must be the second element in the clause!

Summary of conspiracy from phonology‘s perspective:

From the three problems we identified with rule ordering, a representational model gives a better solution only to the first one, the unconstrainedness of the rules.The other two problems, duplication and conspiracy are not addressed by representational models.

and from the perspective of syntax

(GB-) Syntax became strictly representational, all explanation was done by constraints ...

In this sense, OT syntax is a direct offspring of GB ...

Brief summary

Derivational theories face a number of problems.

Grammatical accounts therefore need a representational/constraint-based component.

Representations• Representational models express linguistic

generalizations in terms of the results of the derivations. Some structures are possible, some others are not.

• Representations just specify which rules and alternations are possible, not whether they apply.

• Everything can be generated but unallowed structures are unlicensed and thus eliminated. The notion of filter is crucial.

Representations (nonlinear)• Typical domains of application in phonology

are

• Autosegmental : tonal phonology• Metrical Phonology: stress• Templates: Syllable structure, prosodic

phonology• Features geometry: allowed and unallowed

feature representation, assimilation and dissimilation (OCP)

Syllable templates

• Syllable templates specify which kind of syllables are possible in a language. Unsyllabifiable segments are repaired by epenthesis or deletion.

• Palestinian Arabic: Syllables are maximally CVC

If an input cannot be syllabified straightforwardly, an epenthetic [i] is inserted before the unsyllabifiable consonant./dars/ –> da.ris ‘course/dars + ha/ –> da.ris.ha ‘her course/÷akl/ –> ÷a.kil ‘food’

Syllable templates

• In PA, epenthesis is a direct consequence of the association of the segments to syllabic positions. The unsyllabifiable consonant has no slot in which to fit in (syllablles are projected from vowels), and, to avoid deletion, the only solution is to create a new syllable by insertion of a vowel.

• Other languages choose to delete ‘unsyllabifiable’ consonants.

• Notice the derivational component is still needed to account for epenthesis (or deletion).

Possible assimilations

/b/ –> [p] /t/

/ | Laryngeal Laryngeal

| | [+voiced] [–voiced]

Possible processes Assimilation of the whole laryngeal node or just the feature

[voiced]

Impossible assimilation

/b/ –>? [t] |

Laryngeal Laryngeal Supralaryngeal | | |

[+voiced] [–voiced] [coronal]

Impossible process Assimilation of the feature [coronal] to the laryngeal node:

the result ist ill-formed.

Summary of representations

• Representations are surface-oriented, since some forms are filtered out by not corresponding to the representational requirements.

• In theories which heavily rely on representations, a derivational component is still present, to account

for the kind of repair found in different languages.

Problems for representations

Here is a list of standard problems for representational accounts of syntax:subjacency effects:movement seems cyclicwho do you think that she loves*who do you wonder who loves


Derivational residues in Case theorywem hast du gesagt dass er meint dass er hilftwho-dat have you said that he thinks that he helps

wen hast du gesagt dass er meint dass er unterstütztwho-acc have you said that he thinks that he supports


Derivational residues in binding theory

which pictures of herself does he say that Mary saw at the exhibition


Derivational residues in quantifier scope theoryUNAMBIGUOUSdass ein Mann jede Frau liebtthat some man every woman loves

AMBIGUOUSdass jede Frau ein Mann t liebtthe sentence still has the scope option of the pre-scrambling structure


Standard solution:Trace theory!

Perhaps insufficient (see Chomsky 1993)

OT faces a certain problem here - but only if it slavishly follows GB-accounts

gisbert fanselow & caroline féry university of potsdam introduction to optimality theory

Documents

syntax slide

mary slide

brief sketch of ot ot

derivational rules

acquisition slide

derivational accounts

optimality theory slide

brief sketch of ot irish