optimality theory

[Geoffrey S. Nathan]

Martin Haspelmath wrote:

>I would be interested in hearing some views on Optimality Theory. Is
this
>a development within formalist linguistics that has the potential of
>bringing it closer to a realistic, cognitive-functional view of language?
>Or is it just another formalism that attracts attention mainly because it
>exploits recent advances in word processing technology?

        As some FUNKNETters know, I am one of the last few living
Natural Phonologists, and I have been following the development of OT
closely.  I believe it certainly can be given a functional interpretation,
despite the outrage shown by its developers at that possibility[1].  I also
second Martin's belief that this is what Naturalists have been saying all
along, albeit not within formal terms.  Certainly concepts within Natural
Phonology (such as the principle that Rules precede Processes, and that
Fortitions Preced Lenitions) can be reinterpreted as universal constraint
rankings.  Several of us have been exploring ways in which child language
acquisition, and casual speech processes could be conceived of as a
return to less marked rankings as well.  What is particularly appealing
about OT is it provides a way to talk about constraints taking precedence
over one another without the serial order metaphor that formal phonology
has used since the early sixties.  While I do not share the fascination
about connnectionism shown by many functional linguists, I have always
been uncomfortable with the concept of rule ordering for what really does
seem to be preferential application.  But there are still problems with
current OT, because derivations can buy you things that you can't get
with exclusively static preferences.
        By way of advertisement, I will be talking about some of these
issues at the upcoming Milwaukee conference on formalism and
functionalism.

Footnote

[1]     In the original manuscript Prince and Smolensky present a
possible objection to OT that it is too functional, and that 'Vagueness of
formulation is reinstated as the favored mode of discourse, and Pullum's
worst fears are realized" (P&S 1993:197).  They actually say that a little
functionalism, of the right sort, is needed within formal theory. (p. 198)

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky.  1993. Optimality Theory.  Technical
Reports of the Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.



Geoffrey S. Nathan
Department of Linguistics
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Carbondale, IL, 62901-4517

Home phone:  618 549-0106

GEOFFN at SIU.EDU