Optimality Theory and the Previous Generative Tradition

Being within the generative approach to language, OT, nonetheless, moves away from some of the assumptions in the preceding PP model and in the MP.

Archangeli (1997) and Speas (1997) discuss some of these differences and also analyze some of the commonalities between these generative approaches.

There are two main conflicting issues between OT and MP approaches: 1) the way in which they capture the idea of language as the ideal net; and 2) the interrelated notions of markedness and constraints.⁵⁴

1.4.1.1. The Ideal Net: Grammatical versus Ungrammatical Sentences

All the possible grammatical sentences in a language constitute the ideal net on which generative linguistics focus. The MP offers a generative mechanism that allows the ungrammatical expressions to escape, permitting only the grammatical

52 See Ordóñez (1997) for an analysis of VOS/VSO orders following the scrambling hypothesis.

53 See Archangeli (1997). For OT in syntax see Pesetsky (1997) and Speas (1997).

ones to be accounted for. On the contrary, OT opts for the ideal separator, that is, a very simple mechanism (GEN, as we will see later on) that allows ungrammatical expressions to be created essentially without restriction, leaving all the work of separating out the ungrammatical ones to filtering devices (EVAL). Both the MP and OT attempt to account for ungrammatical constructions in a given language, but the way in which they deal with this issue is somehow opposite. In the MP, the strategy consists of avoiding the presence of ungrammatical structures; while for OT, it consists of rejecting their possible formation.

1.4.1.2. Markedness and Constraints

The concept of markedness makes reference to the robustness of a given property within a language. In the case of OT, markedness is crucial to the model and it is defined on the basis of two issues: 1) each constraint is a markedness statement; and 2) specific aspects of markedness result from the ranking.

When comparing phenomena across languages, the understanding of the variation that does occur also helps to determine these areas where there is no variation. In the MP the more common properties or patterns are thought to be universal. However, due to variation, not all universals are manifested in the same way in all languages. The more robust a universal is in a particular language, the less marked the language is in that respect. A highly marked property is one which has minimal or no claims to universality. Therefore, and viewing this situation from an OT perspective, constraint violations characterize markedness, patterns, variation and also universals. Having this as a starting point, OT redefines the role

54 The notions of markedness and constraints are crucial to OT. Markedness is represented in OT by constraint violation while constraint satisfaction corresponds to unmarked properties. Though we

of constraints and proposes that languages have in common a set of constraints which are violable. Languages vary in the ranking that they impose upon these violable constraints. In this way, the lower the ranking, the more violable the constraint is. So for both the MP and OT, constraints are present in the language, but while in the case of the MP all languages share a core of inviolable principles and differ syntactically as a result of how certain details of each principle are stated (parameters), OT focuses on violable ranked constraints.⁵⁵

One more thing should be said about constraints. As Archangeli (1997) defends, OT goes for the modular nature of language, since it emphasizes a single constraint hierarchy which internally ranks all constraints, whether syntactic, morphological, phonological, phonetic or semantic.⁵⁶ Therefore, this possibility predicts interaction between components and, at the same time, justifies that particular syntactic constraints might be violated in order to satisfy a phonetic or morphological constraint or viceversa.⁵⁷

Hence, as far as cross linguistic variation is concerned, the differences are clear: under a PP theory, we are dealing with different parameter settings; from a minimalist perspective, the differences are parametrized in terms of different features or in terms of feature strength (strong versus weak) and the compliance

initially present them separately, their interaction will soon be obvious.

55 From a minimalist perspective, then, a principle is a statement which expresses a property shared by all languages; principles, therefore, cannot be violated. But as an OT perspective pinpoints, these principles are not absolute either: many principles contain a universal portion and then an open parameter, which may take on different values in different languages, possibly restricted to differences in the strength of grammatical features. (Speas 1997)

56 The basic idea of modularity (Fodor 1983) is that the principles responsible for different aspects of an utterance are themselves structured differently. These modules belong to a central system that is more structured than Fodor assumes (Chomsky 1998).

57 This vision contrasts sharply with the view of grammar as having a separate and independent syntactic component, phonetic component, etc. Later, we will suggest that this idea can be applied to the case of French subject-verb agreement, with a [+ strong] lexical agreement but a [-strong]

phonetic agreement. Pesetsky (1997) proposes an OT analysis of English and French relative clauses in terms of movement and pronunciation.

with economy principles; and OT, in turn, defends the different rankings of violable constraints, depending on the language, leaving aside the concepts of inviolable principles and parameters and viewing feature strength as part of a process of ranking selection:⁵⁸

(50) Principle Essence Hedge

satisfy all syntactic features must overtly if they are strong and be satisfied covertly at LF if they are weak The interesting connecting point between the MP and OT is the economy condition. In fact, economy principles are the area in which principles are allowed to be violated in the MP. Under a minimalist perspective, economy principles have to apply in all cases and at all points in the derivation. Under an OT view, these strict economy principles can be, and in fact are, violated under certain circumstances (namely, to comply with another principle that is ranked higher and cannot be violated either). For example, in the domain of movement, the fewest possible number of moves is none, so, as Speas (1997) defends, an unhedged version of least effort would be violated every time there is movement in the syntax.⁵⁹ Similarly, a strict version of procrastinate is violated whenever there is overt movement; but this violation is acceptable as long as it is necessary in order to avoid violating, following OT terminology, some other UG principle. The way these principles actually work is, therefore, very close to an optimality approach.

58 Notice that Chomsky’s (1998) narrow syntax also involves devices that are imperfections unless shown to be motivated by design specifications.

59 A hedge is a clause that extends the principle in order to cover problematic cases which do not obey a simple version of the principle. Thus, hedges take care of cases that would otherwise be violations.