Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 46:1/2 (2019) ► pp.133–162

On the rapid expansion of optimality theory at the end of the twentieth century

 | The University of Texas at Austin
Despite being a recent development in generative linguistics, Optimality Theory (OT, Prince & Smolensky 1993) has had a profound impact on linguistics, particularly on phonology in North America. OT posits that observed forms of language arise due to conflicting linguistic constraints. When proposed in 1993, OT saw virtually overnight success in American phonology despite not having been the first theory of grammar to focus solely on the constraint. I argue, that the reasons for which OT saw such immediate success due in large part to the efforts of Prince and Smolensky to work at getting the word out, the state of American phonology at the time which felt stagnant to some, and the coincidence of OT’s birth with the Internet Boom which Prince and Smolensky used to their advantage
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Optimality theory & its connectionist origins
  • 3.A brief history of constraints in linguistic theory
  • 4.The state of American phonology at OT’s inception
  • 5.On OT’s lesser reception in syntax
  • 6.Conclusion and OT’s future
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00041.gri
References (79)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 2000. “Reflections on ‘On the Phonetic Rules of Russian’”. Folia Linguistica 34:1/2.11–28.Google Scholar
2001. “Why linguistics needs the Cognitive Scientist”. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes 64:1.11–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, & David Pestsky. 1995. Call for Papers: Is the Best Good Enough? Workshop on optimality in syntactic theory. Found at [URL]
Bartling, Sönke & Sascha Friesike. 2014. “Towards another Scientific Revolution”. Opening Science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing ed. by Sönke Bartling & Sascha Friesike. Heidelberg: Springer, 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1997. “Rules in Optimality Theory: Two case studies.” Derivations and Constraints in Phonology ed. by Iggy Roca, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 227–260.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language 2:3.153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1939. “Menomini Morphophonemics”. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 81.105–115.Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Morris Halle. 1989. “Why phonology is different”. Linguistic Inquiry 20:1.51–70.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1995. “The Rise of Optimality Theory”. The First GLOT International State–of-the-Article-Book: The Latest in Linguistics ed. by Lisa Chen & Rint Sybesma. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 199–220.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”. A View from Building 20 ed. by Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Some Observations on Economy in Generative Grammar”. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax ed. by Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pestsky, 115–128. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle, & Fred Lukoff. 1956. “On Accent and Juncture in English”. For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt & H. MacLean. The Hague: Mouton, 65–80.Google Scholar
Clements, G[eorge] N[ick]. 1985. “The Geometry of Phonological Features”. Phonology Yearbook 21.225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Seung-Hoon Shin. 1999. “The Syllable Contact Constraint in Korean: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 81.285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B[ezalel] Elan. 1996. “The Rise of Optimality Theory in First Century Palestine”. GLOT International 2:1/2.8.Google Scholar
Gardner, Howard. 1987. The Mind’s New Science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ginsparg, Paul. 2011. “ArXiv at 20”. Nature 476:7359.145–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
, ed. 1993. The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Generative phonology in the late 1940s”. Phonology 25:1.37–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. “Minimal Projection Heads and Optimality”. In Technical Report RuCCS TR-4, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
. 1997. “Projection, Heads, and Optimality”. Linguistic Inquiry 281.373–422.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2004. “Relational Hierarchies in Optimality Theory: The case of syllable contact”. Phonology 21:2.201–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1957. “On the Phonetic Rules of Russian”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.
. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1962. “Phonology in Generative Grammar”. Word 181.54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “Comments on the Rise of Optimality Theory by L. Burzio”. GLOT International 11.27–28.Google Scholar
. 1997. “On Stress and Accent in Indo-European”. Language, 73:2.275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebbe, Donald O. 1949. The Organization of Behaviour: A neuropsychological theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Holt, D[avid] Eric, ed. 2003. Optimality Theory and Language Change. Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1972. “The Syllable in Phonological Theory”. Language 481:525–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology”. Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981, ed. by Hanʼguk Ŏnŏ Hakhoe. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, 3–91.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. “On the Functional Unity of Phonological Rules”. Linguistic Inquiry 11.291–306.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Jane Grimshaw & Sten Vikner, ed. 2001. Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, & Paul Smolensky. 1990a. “Can Connectionism Contribute to Syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application”. Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata & Paul Smolensky. 1990b. “Harmonic Grammar: A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: An application”. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, William Raymond & Paul Smolensky. 1993. “An Optimality-Theoretic Typology of Case and Grammatical Voice Systems”. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals, 464–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Geraldine, Colin Wilson, Paul Smolensky, Kristin Homer & William Raymond. 1995. “Optimality in wh-chains”. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 607–636. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lipski, John. 1990. “Spanish Taps and Trills: Phonological structure of an isolated opposition”. Folia Linguistica, 24:3/4.153–172.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1993. “A Case of Surface Constraint Violation”. Constraint-Based Theories in Multilinear Phonology, Special Issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics 381.169–195.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2000. “Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism”. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 401. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
McCarthy, John. 2001. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying theory to data. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe. eds. 2016. Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Bristol, Conn: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic Morphology. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019
Medler, David A. 1998. “A Brief History of Connectionism”. Neural Computing Surveys 1:2.18–72.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. 1987. “Preference Laws and Gradient Change: Selected developments in Romance”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32:2.115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. “On Epenthesis”. Folia Linguistica 23:3/4.293–316.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. & Theo Vennemann. 1983. “Sound Change and Syllable Structure in Germanic Phonology”. Language 59:3.514–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1991. “Persistent Rules”. Linguistic Inquiry 22:2.315–344.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2014. “Getting the Word Out: The early Generativists’ multipronged efforts to diffuse their ideas”. Language 90:1.241–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 2011. “Rules and Constraints”. The Handbook of Phonological Theory ed. by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1987. “On Constraints and Repair Strategies”. The Linguistic Review 6:1.71–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 1993. “Introduction: The emergence of constraints in generative phonology and a comparison of three current constraint-based models”. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38:2.127–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2019. “Generative Linguistics and Neural Networks at 60: Foundation, friction, and fusion”. Language 95:1.e41–e74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2015. “A Consequential Collaboration”. Short ’schrift for Alan Prince, ed. by Eric Baković, published online June 2015. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
Pinker, Steven & Alan Prince. 1998. “On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition”. Cognition 28:1/2.73–193.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1990. “NSF Small Grant for Experimental Research (SGER) Proposal”. Short ’schrift for Alan Prince, ed. by Eric Baković, published online June 2015. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
. 1991. “Notes on Connectionism and Harmony Theory in Linguistics”. Technical Report CU-CS-533-91, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [Updated reprint of 1993 unpublished manuscript]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 1992. “On Deriving Sonority: A structural account of sonority relationships”. Phonology 9:1.61–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1986. Infinite Syntax. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. & James L. McClelland. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 11: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1938. “Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist”. Psychiatry 11.7–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. “The Initial State and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory ROA-154”. Rutgers Optimality Archive published online 1996. ([URL]). Accessed: 21 June 2019.
. 2015. “Pre- and Early-OT Memorabilia”. Short ’schrift for Alan Prince, ed. by Eric Baković, published online June 2015. ([URL]). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
Smolensky, Paul & Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thorndike, Edward L. 1932. The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Columbia University Teachers’ College. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Till, James E. “Predecessors of Preprint Servers”. Learned Publishing 14:1.7–13. DOI logo
Trubetskoij, Nikolaj S. 1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Turing, A[lan] M. 1947. “Lecture to the London Mathematical Society on 20 February 1947”. A. M. Turing’s ACE Report of 1946 and Other Papers ed. by Brian E. Carpenter & R. W. Doran, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 106–124.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2008. “Why the phonological component must be serial and rule-based”. Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena ed. by Bert Vaux & Andrew Nevins, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure: And the explanation of sound change with special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S. 1949. “Automatic Alternation”. Language 25:2.99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Yoshimi, Jeff
2023. Pluralist neurophenomenology: a reply to Lopes. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences DOI logo
Anderson, Stephen R.
2021. A short history of phonology in America. In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 327 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.