OT, functionalism, etc.

[Joan Bresnan]

This is a very interesting discussion, and I will try to respond to
specific questions raised, in this and a following msg.  But remember
that I am only a student of Optimality Theory and can't speak with the
voice of Authority.

James MacFarlane asked:

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

My reply was that OT does not require the constraints to be a-priori,
or even innate, but that innateness is quite compatible with
functionalism, a point already made on this list by Liz Bates some
time ago, when she distinguished the hypothesis of innateness from the
hypothesis of specificity to language (or autonomy).

I would like to add that OT does make an important claim of (near)
universality of constraints that is used to derive certain
learnability and typological results.  This is not something that
functionalists should find alien.  Couldn't conflicting constraints
such as iconicity and economy be universal, but prioritized
differently across different domains and different languages?

Sergio Meira asks:

> ...               I mean, any constraints which are derived
>from the biology of our speech aparatus must be a-priori. Or do I
>misunderstand the way this term is being used?

Well, my epistemology has grown rusty since my time as a student of
philosophy.  What you say could be true in an Aristotelian sense of
the a priori as that from a causal explanation can be logically
derived.  But I was thinking of the later philosophical uses of the
terms "a posteriori" and "a priori" to mean, roughly, what is derived
from experience (empirical truths) and what is derived from reason alone
(logical truths).   Functional OT phonology appeals to experimental
work in human speech perception and articulation to support the
constraints hypothesized, so I would not call these constraints a priori.

Sergio Meira states:

>If OT is only a theory of constraint interaction, then the sources
>and natures of constraints probably aren't important...

Please don't misunderstand me. OT does not claim that the sources and
natures of its constraints are unimportant.  My point was rather that
as a theory of constraint interaction OT does not dictate the
substance of the constraints.  It does assume that constraints are
(near) universal and violable, and it does urge simple and natural
constraints (so that the interactions are not concealed inside the
content of complex constraints), but these assumptions are compatible
with functionalist views, I believe.  It is true that a variety of
researchers have been attracted to OT, and in the field of syntax
these have included those who like to import their favorite
constraints from the Minimalist Program (or whatever) into the new
theory.  But a number of us have argued against this, and see
functional/typological work as the best source for well motivated
constraints in OT syntax.

Martin Haspelmath writes:

>But although especially in phonology more and more people seem to be
>interested in functional explanations of OT constraints, it is also true
>that most OT practitioners probably still think of constraints as
>abstract entities that are directly innate and need not and cannot be
>explained further.

I agree that this is true, especially in syntax.  If I may quote from
the conclusion of my paper "Optimal Syntax":

   Because OT per se is a theory of constraint interaction
   rather than a theory of substantive linguistic constraints, it is
   compatible with a wide range of substantive theoretical choices. (Some
   consider this an explanatory weakness of the framework, but it is also
   the source of its great integrative potential.)  In phonology and to a
   lesser extent morphology, OT has led to a fundamental rethinking of
   the domain and to the widespread adoption of nonderivational theories.
   Syntax, in contrast, is still greatly influenced by the derivational
   frameworks advanced by Chomsky, and much of the initial work applying
   OT to syntax reflects this way of thinking by simulating derivational
   analyses.  It is instructive to consider the history of architectural
   design, which shows that earlier designs, for example in
   bridge-building, persist long after the development of new materials
   with radically different engineering properties (e.g. steel compared
   to wood and stone).

Martin Haspelmath adds:

>If the new wave of (post-MIT) functionalism comes from Stanford/Santa
>Cruz, that's great. And if you people there occasionally acknowledge
>that some people have said similar things about language function
>explaining language form before, that would be nice.

I agree completely about this.  Many of the most attractive and
central ideas of OT about constraint interaction were anticipated by
researchers in Natural Morpology, Natural Syntax, and pragmatics.
That is one reason why OT seems to be a natural framework for
incorporating and further developing and testing these ideas.   The OT
framework was initially developed by phonologists, who may be forgiven
for not being aware of related work in different fields.  But it would be
unforgivable for us syntacticians to reinvent functional/typological
theories in the guise of OT, without any acknowledgement...

Geoffrey S. Nathan writes:

>  ...             It was interesting to note that at the Milwaukee
>conference on formalism and functionalism held a few years back there was a
>radical difference between the kinds of talks that the syntacticians and
>semanticists and typologists gave and those that the three phonologists
>gave.  I felt that Joan Bresnan, Bruce Hayes and I all had things to say to
>each other, and listened  and learned from each other, while the others
>seemed to be talking past each other.

I am pleased that we agree.  But it must have been my agreeable spirit
you were talking to in Milwaukee, because I wasn't there!

TTFN--

Joan


*----------------------------------------        ______     __o       __o
Joan Bresnan    bresnan at stanford.edu           ______     _`\<,_    _`\<,_
*----------------------------------------       ______   (*)/ (*)  (*)/ (*)