Correspondence in OT syntax and Minimal Link
      effects

Vogel, Ralf

doi:10.1515/9783110197365.401

Cited by 30 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The OT-evaluator, of course, differs from the one proposed in MP in that it uses ranked constraints instead of interface condition, but they do resemble them in that they often incorporates aspects of the interpretative systems; cf. Vogel (2004;this volume).…”

Section: Output Representations Generatormentioning

confidence: 98%

1. Introduction

2010

Journal of the ICRU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter will motivate why it is useful to consider the topic of derivations and fi ltering in more detail. We will argue against the popular belief that the minimalist program and optimality theory are incompatible theories in that the former places the explanatory burden on the generative device (the computational system C HL) whereas the latter places it on the fi ltering device (the OT evaluator). Although this belief may be correct in as far as it describes existing tendencies, we will argue that minimalist and optimality theoretic approaches normally adopt more or less the same global architecture of grammar: both assume that a generator defi nes a set S of potentially well-formed expressions that can be generated on the basis of a given input and that there is an evaluator that selects the expressions from S that are actually grammatical in a given language L. For this reason, we believe that it has a high priority to investigate the role of the two components in more detail in the hope that this will provide a better understanding of the differences and similarities between the two approaches. We will conclude this introduction with a brief review of the studies collected in this book.

show abstract

Section: Output Representations Generatormentioning

confidence: 98%

1. Introduction

2010

Journal of the ICRU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the correspondence-theoretic interpretation of faithfulness we can summarise work in LFG-OT (Sells 2001a;Sells 2001b;Kuhn 2003). My own contributions in this line are Vogel (2001;2002;2004;2009). For a critical view, see Heck et al (2002).…”

Section: Faithfulness In Ot Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructionist OT. The case of German verb inflection

Vogel

2019

The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I explore the properties of a variant of OT morpho-syntax that is based on the standard OT mechanism of markedness/faithfulness interaction. For this variant to play out successfully, the idea of universally specifi ed input structures is given up. Instead, language particular input structures are used, as it is generally assumed that there can only be language particular lexicons, not universal ones. For the description of these input structures, a constructionist representation is proposed. The core idea of this approach is that a construction consists in a set of components, both on the form and the meaning side. These components, in fact, are constraints on the form of linguistic expressions that are instances of the respective constructions. Morphological faithfulness, then, is the fulfi lment of these component constraints. As it turns out in my exemplary analysis of infl ectional patterns in the present tense singular forms of German verbs, the assumption that faithfulness to components is violable leads to a simpler grammatical analysis that avoids the assumption of infl ectional subclasses with differing, but regular and predictable patterns. The basic mechanism is an OT-style interaction of phonological and morphological faithfulness.

show abstract

“…I will phrase the following sketch of constructionist OT syntax within a correspondence theoretic approach (McCarthy and Prince, 1995;Vogel, 2004a): three radically distinct levels of representation have to be distinguished, a semantic one, a morphosyntactic one and a phonetic one. Construction grammar provides a theory for morphosyntax on the one hand, and for the lexicon on the other hand.…”

Section: Constructionist Ot?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…⊕ needs to be defined differently for each generator, of course. We do not go into this here.4 5 SeeVogel (2004aVogel ( ,b, 2006Vogel ( , 2009 for applications of correspondence based OT syntax andVogel (2013) for a more recent discussion of the syntactic generator and using faithfulness in OT syntax.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal constructions

Vogel¹

2016

Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

first draft version -This paper deals with a well-known problem in the discussion of argument linking, the flexibility that we find with particular verbs, and the constraints governing the integration of verbs with so-called argument structure constructions. We will show that traditional approaches as well as construction grammar need additional machinery to deal with variable argument linking. I will present an optimisation approach to variable argument linking that uses construction grammar as format for morphosyntax.Section 1 introduces the phenomenon. Section 2 introduces the concept of argument structure constructions from construction grammar. Section 3 provides a detailed analysis of the problem and offers an optimality theoretic account. Further aspects are discussed in sections 4 and 5. Section 6 briefly discusses formal aspects of the proposed constructionist model of OT syntax.

show abstract

Correspondence in OT syntax and Minimal Link effects

Cited by 30 publications

References 20 publications

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

Constructionist OT. The case of German verb inflection

Optimal constructions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About