Re: THEORY: [CONLANG] OT Syntax

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, And Rosta wrote:

> > Under Stochastic OT, constraints are not in a simple "linear". Each
> > constraint is a "wave": imagine the one positive peak of a sine wave, and
> > you get the idea. Each constraint is a separate wave, and they overlap. So,
> > say 10% of the time, Constraint A precedes Constraint B, but the remaining
> > 90% Constraint B precedes Constraint A. This means that in 10% of the
> > utterances, the optimal candidate will be determine by A instead of B, but
> > in the other 90% the candidate faithful to B will win out over the one
> > faithful to A.
> >
> > There is a paper relating this to Syntax by Ash Asudeh at Stanford.
> > Unfortunately, I have not been able to read it yet, because the copies he
> > uploaded to Rutgers are corrupt.
>
> For a model of competence, this seems wrong to me. All that matters is that
> Sentence X and Sentence Y are both grammatical; their frequency in usage is
> an irrelevance.
But for people who aren't satisfied with mere competence, then frequency
is a desirable thing to model. Even if you don't like the frequency
portion, however, it still derives optionality in a principled way.

> > But you must admit that quizshow questions are stylistically marked.
> > Therefore it is not unreasonable to claim that this sylistic aspect has
> > prevented movement, but in the interpretational portion of the derivation
> > (LF in a GB grammar, post-Spell-Out in Minimalism), the wh-element does in
> > fact raise. The typical argument that this is indeed the case is that
> > quizshow questions are ungrammatical in exactly the same contexts as
> > wh-fronted questions. In fact, wh-in-situ is what motivated the existance
> > of LF movement in the first place.
>
> I'll admit that quizshow questions are stylistically marked, but I'd be
> unhappy to admit stylistic markedness as a syntactic feature.
I, on the other hand, don't see the point in keeping syntax and style
separate.

> At any rate, the argument I'd prefer to make is that what is really misguided
> about Minimalism is that there is some kind of default form that is altered
> only when it violates some constraint or other in the course of a derivation
> -- that visible movement occurs only when there's something wrong with the
> version without visible movement.
I find Chomsky's strong claim that all movement is morphologically
motivated to be the most misguided portion of the theory. I think I can
show that there is movement in Chickasaw that does not relate to any
morphological feature at all.

> > Fieldwork is addictive. Pam Munro told me that once, but I didn't believe
> > her. Now I do.
>
> I hate the idea of relying on informants. If you work on English, as I do,
> you know that the judgements of most people, linguists and nonlinguists
> alike, are abominably unreliable. It takes the Dwight Bolingers of this
> world to have the acuity of perception to produce really accurate
> judgements. (And you don't have to be a native-speaker, either; expert
> non-native speakers (Ivan Derzhanski-type speakers) tend to make better
> judgements than natives.)
The inability of native speakers to make reliable judgements has always
been to me an argument against the type of UG Chomskyans believe in. If we
do have such highly principled and constrained grammars in our minds, why
do people disagree about them so much?

> I suppose if you're interested in Bernard Comrie-level description, it
> doesn't matter. But if you wanted to get embroiled in really really tiny
> but really really crucial details of binding constraints, say, then it'd
> be a nightmare.
I have to disagree here. I definitely don't do the Comrie-level work, but
have had very little difficulty working out such details as whether or not
Chickasaw verbs raise overtly or not; whether it must have Agr
projections; if it obeys the binding conditions; etc. Fine, so I can't get
reliable judgements on such issues as really bizarre binding situations --
but so what? At this point, theories of syntax only deal well with
European languages, Japanese, Chinese, and a few others; the languages of
Africa, America, Australia, and espcially Oceania cannot be adequately
dealt with. And many of the principles syntacticians hold dear are wrong
in the larger picture. For example, the Zapotecan languages (as well as
many "non-configurational" languages) blatantly and frequently violate
the binding theory (especially Principle C of the GB tradition). What good
is it to work on the fine details, when the theory we assume does not hold
cross-linguistically and must be modified?

> > While do.
>
> Does that mean "will do"?
Oops.  Yes it does.

> Are you thinking of Bresnan's new book, or what? Finding a decent exposition
> of LFG was a perennial problem.
I don't know what I'm going to read. I have access to a good library, and
our reading room has "Working Papers in Linguistics" from tons of
Universities spanning many years. I should be able to dig up something
somewhere.

Marcus