optimality in synchrony and diachrony

[Jess Tauber]

I've been very interested in this particular thread.  I'll make my points and
then get out.  Storage forms of lexical items to be acted on by faithfulness
and markedness constraints have to come from somewhere. Historical change
shows that simplification of complex structures is the rule once structures
have sufficient staying power and are in the lexicon proper. Combinatory
processes create new structures of higher complexity and markedness, which
can then undergo further simplification, etc., but these process are live,
synchronic ones. Mastication metaphorically. Yet  ultimately the origins of
roots must be in something similar to expressive vocabulary such as
ideophones, even if such origin is quite ancient, and the path traveled
through the generations and between languages tortuous. And as morphology
derives from free forms, it is probably safe to bet that everything boils
down to old expressive vocabulary.
It is of interest, then, that such vocabulary is often seemingly resistant to
historical changes, if only because it isn't really in the lexicon, but
created anew (if not de novo) with each use. And such vocabulary is hardly
integrated syntactically, and as such is extraclausal and uninflected. My own
research shows that expressive vocabulary obeys universal typological
principles. But humanity just can't leave well enough alone. Combination is
just too valuable a way to be precise, if not concise.  As integration does
start to occur the size and complexity of combinatory products starts getting
in the way of communicative efficiency, and so we have the slippery slope to
simplification. You've heard this all before, in other contexts.
I bring all this up because I believe we need a theoretical treatment of how
synchronic combination and historical change create inputs in the lexicon, as
much as we need one for outputs. Something akin to antimarkedness (if
ideophones are maximally unmarked already) to allow for the combinatory
creation of marked structures, and antifaithfulness, which would allow forms
to infringe/converge on structure already occupied by other forms. The system
starts from a state of matrix-like crystallinity of form/meaning, and ends up
with a fully mixed, seemingly randomly distributed state. It will be
interesting to see what formalists and functionalists, and the folks trying
to integrate the two viewpoints, have to say about it (assuming of course you
buy the main thrusts). Best to all.

Sincerely,
Jess Tauber
zylogy at aol.com