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

Joshua M. Griffiths
The University of Texas at Austin
Summary

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

Table of contents

A great deal of the research on the history of generative linguistics has focused either on the incipient stages of the generative revolution or on the effect of Chomsky’s influence on generative syntax. One of the first generative revolutions in American phonology, though, was sparked when Morris Halle delivered a talk to the LSA on the voicing of Russian obstruents (Halle 1957); which was boosted by the publication of the Sound Pattern of Russian (Halle 1959), but as argued by Goldsmith (2008) the nascent stages of generative phonology could be traced as far back as Bloomfield (1926, 1939) or Wells (1949). Moreover, Chomsky, Halle, & Lukoff (1956) proposed frameworks which resembled generative phonology even before the delivery of Halle’s 1957 address. Like generative syntax, generative phonology has its fair share of supporters and critics, and the ideas have seen myriad revisions since their initial formalization by Halle (1957, 1959, 1962). The most pre-eminent revision was developed by Chomsky & Halle (1968), which provided a framework in which most phonologists were willing to develop their work. Chomsky’s and Halle’s Sound Pattern of English (SPE) analyses seemed to work well for many of the initial problems that phonologists encountered in formalizing structural analyses in a generative framework. In particular, SPE provided a thorough, robust description of processes that seemed cognitively plausible, and was attractive as it was couched within a theory that was familiar and widely-accepted: Feature Theory (Trubetskoij 1969).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

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 https://​linguistlist​.org​/issues​/6​/6–162​.html#3
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 8.105–115.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 2.225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Seung-Hoon Shin
1999 “The Syllable Contact Constraint in Korean: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.285–312. 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. (http://​ruccs​.rutgers​.edu​/images​/tech​_rpt​/tr4​/minproj4​.pdf). Accessed: 28 May 2019.
1997 “Projection, Heads, and Optimality”. Linguistic Inquiry 28.373–422.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 18.54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 “Comments on the Rise of Optimality Theory by L. Burzio”. GLOT International 1.27–28.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 48:525–540. 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 1.291–306.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 38.169–195.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
2000 “Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism”. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 40. (https://​scholarworks​.umass​.edu​/linguist​_faculty​_pubs​/40). 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
1993 Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. (http://​works​.bepress​.com​/cgi​/viewcontent​.cgi​?article​=1052​&context​=john​_j​_mccarthy). 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. (https://​princeshortschrift​.wordpress​.com​/archives​/pinker). 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. (https://​princeshortschrift​.files​.wordpress​.com​/2015​/05​/prince​-smolensky​-90​-sger​-proposal​-universal​-phonology​-reduced​.pdf). 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. (https://​princeshortschrift​.files​.wordpress​.com​/2015​/05​/prince​-smolensky​-91​-tr​-connectionism​-and​-harmony​-theory​-in​-linguistics​-cu​-cs​-533​-591​-ocr​.pdf). 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. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1938 “Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist”. Psychiatry 1.7–12. 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 (http://​roa​.rutgers​.edu​/files​/154​-1196​/roa​-154​-smolensky​-2​.pdf). Accessed: 21 June 2019.
2015 “Pre- and Early-OT Memorabilia”. Short ’schrift for Alan Prince, ed. by Eric Baković, published online June 2015. (https://​princeshortschrift​.wordpress​.com​/archives​/smolensky/). 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