How Functional is OT?

[jmacfarl at unm.edu]

On 9 Dec 99, at 9:46, Joan Bresnan wrote:
> Bresnan (that's me) has a collaborative
> research project with Judith Aissen at Santa Cruz on "Optimal
> Typology" which focusses on using Optimality Theory as a formal tool
> to explore syntactic markedness hierarchies and explain some of their
> problematic properties (softness, variable expression,
recurrence). We are
> arguing for using typologically motivated and functionally
grounded
> constraints, much as has happened in phonology.  Edward Flemming in
> phonology is one of the leading young exponents of the OT functionalist
> approach to phonology which argues that perception shapes the structure of
> language.

Dear Funknetters,

As I understand it, OT posits innate or a-priori constraints on the
well-formedness of linguistic structure.  This leaves me confused
when people refer to OT as a functional theory.

For example, in Bresenan's description of her work....

We are arguing for using typologically motivated and functionally
grounded constraints, much as has happened in phonology.

My question is how does "function" inform "constraints" if these
constraints are said to be innate or a-priori?

Thanks,


*************************
James MacFarlane
University of New Mexico
*************************