optimality in synchrony and diachrony

[Martin Haspelmath]

Joan, Matthew and Fritz,

Thanks a lot for this truly illuminating discussion on the place of
functional constraints in grammatical explanation. I think Matthew
formulated the most coherent functionalist position very clearly:
functional forces operate in language change, and should not be part of
grammatical description (functionalist pronouncements have often been
less clear, so that Fritz understandably citicizes functionalists for
"stating functional forces in the grammar itself", 1998:141).

In this debate, my tendency is to side with Matthew and Fritz. In my
paper "Optimality and diachronic adaptation" (ROA-302-0399) I argued in
particular that the diachronic dimension is necessary for true
explanation. (This paper will appear in Zeitschrift fuer
Sprachwissenschaft, with peer commentary by Newmeyer, Croft, Traugott,
Wurzel, Dahl, Haider, Kirby, and others.)

I am not so sure, however, that both sides could not be right, i.e. that
functional factors are crucial for shaping grammars in diachronic
change, AND that the best synchronic description is one that uses these
constraints, perhaps in an OT-like fashion. Matthew, why would you
exclude this possibility? (We have seen Fritz's answer, but as Joan
pointed out, it is quite incomplete.)

Joan, I must confess that I didn't understand your remarks that address
Matthew's claim that OT "is trying to build explanation for why
languages are the way they are into the grammars themselves":

>OT has no grammatical rules that refer to economy or to iconicity.
>Language particularity is ultimately simply a harmonic function over
>the space of possible forms.  If you look inside an OT "grammar", you
>find a representational basis (this is sometimes called "GEN") which
>specifies the set of possible structures, and an optimizing component
>(called "EVAL") which optimizes the candidate structures against the
>conflicting universal constraints in such a way as to minimize
>violations.  The constraint component is "external" to the structure
>component.

Are you saying that functional OT constraints are neither "built into
the grammars themselves" nor are restricted to diachrony? Could you
please clarify this?

I think I didn't understand the thrust of Joan's example about the
devoicing tendency across languages and in particular languages either.
This is something that typologists have long been aware of (see e.g.
Bill Croft's markedness chapter in his typology textbook). The usual
functionalist explanation for both cross-linguistic patterns and
language-particular regularities is that they show the effect of
diachronic change.

Martin

--
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Inselstr. 22
D-04103 Leipzig (Tel. (MPI) +49-341-9952 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616)