OT and diachronic functionalism

[Joan Bresnan]

1. Fritz Newmeyer asks whether I subscribe to (a), (b), or (c):

   a. Constraints are universal, and may or may not be functionally
       motivated

   b. Constraints are universal and functionally motivated

   c. Constraints are universal and are functional motivations
      themselves.  ????

I am subscribing to (b) as a hypothesis [not a religious tenet].

2. Fritz asks how (b) or (c) can be reconciled with the existence of
divergent word order patterns in English: predominant right branching
coexisting with the left branching genitive N construction.  If
harmonic consistency in branching direction is functionally motivated
(as argued by Dryer, Hawkins, etc.), how can we explain disharmonic
patterns except as dysfunctional historical relics that belie (b) above?

The mistake here, I think, is to talk about the functional motivation
of *constructions* (or sentence types) instead of the functional
motivation of *constraints* (which is what I am talking about).
Constraints may be functionally motivated and yet conflict with each
other, as for example constraints favoring ease of perception conflict
with constraints favoring ease of production.  There are many
dimensions of harmony or markedness all at work at the same time,
and a specific syntactic pattern which is optimal may in fact violate
many well-motivated constraints.  Consistency of branching direction
is certainly not the only motivation at work in determining word
order.  As all good functional/typological linguists know, across
languages possessive constructions often have special syntax,
particularly when involving inalienable possession (but not
exclusively so, if I am not mistaken).  Hierarchies of animacy and
topicality have often been invoked to account for this.  (Cathy
O'Connor has a very nice OT analysis of a case of this in Northern
Pomo, a completely dependent-marking language everywhere except in the
syntax of possession, which is both head-marking and strongly
influenced by animacy and discourse topicality factors.)

Many formalists would say that such things are merely historical
wrinkles or accidents, reflecting nothing systematic about language.
But I'm not so sure...

Joan