Re: THEORY: OT Syntax (Was: Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial)

Marcus Smith sikayal:

BTW, I've been thrilled to see how this great theoretical discussion has
come along, and as soon as I'm not so swamped I'll join in again.  For
now, just a few comments:

> >  because 'Gen' should
> >generate all forms willynilly, and random or any other rearrangements
> >should simply not be part of the model.
>
> That depends on your theory of "Gen". Prince and Smolensky actually provide
> two different models. One - the one nearly everybody uses - generates all
> possible forms, then selects the most "optimal" form based on the
> constraints. The other only generates the forms relevant for the next
Huh?  This implies that Native Speaker X, before he says anything, stops
to generate every single conceivable combination of words and then applies
a bunch of constraints to rule out all of the illegal forms.  That gets
impossible pretty fast.  Do I misunderstand "Gen"?


> constraint on the list. After that constraint has made a decision, the
> optimal candidate is used as the base form for generating the next set to
> be judged from. McCarthy is the only person I know of to use such a model
> in Phonology (but I'm not a phonologist, so I don't know the literature).
> Under this second theory of Gen, you do not get the forms generated
> "willynilly". Indeed, McCarthy has suggested that Phonology should follow
> Syntax in using such a Gen. (That was at the West Coast Conference of
> Formal Linguistics, 2000).
>
This seems reasonable, at least with respect to syntax.  I don't quite see
how this would work with phonology.

Actually, I'm still quite confused about the theoretical framework for
OT.  How does the whole process get started?  Is there some sort of
maximally unmarked phrase structure to generate forms to choose from?  Are
sentences generated at random until one comes out right?  The examples of
more complex analyses that I've seen are valid, but the basic baffle me.

> >BTW, I'm assuming that you're keen to engage in 'lively debate'. But if I'm
> >coming across as bullying or obstreporous, just let me know & the thread
> >will immediately be aborted.
>
> Not at all. I would just like to point out that I am not an OT
> syntactician. I am an amateur dabbler, who spends most of his time split
> between Minimalism (which I am very dissatisfied with) and Field Work
> (which I love).
I am much the same, except that I'm a linguist-to-be, sitting through the
terribly easy "Intro to Ling" class in my freshman year and waiting to get
on to "the good stuff."  Good stuff, of course, is phonology or historicla
ling or just about anything that goes on on this list :-).


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
"It is of the new things that men tire--of fashions and proposals and
improvements and change.  It is the old things that startle and
intoxicate.  It is the old things that are young."
-G.K. Chesterton _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_