Abstract 1. Introduction to OT syntax General tendencies that hold in or across languages are easy to find. For example, sentences in English usually have a subject. The subject often is the first element in the sentence. In many cases, the subject is the agent of the action expressed by the verb. Crucially, these statements are mere tendencies, not absolute laws. It is very difficult to find observable properties that hold without exception across languages. If we were to formulate these general statements as rules, these rules would often have to be broken because of a number of exceptions. In standard generative syntax, constraints are assumed to be inviolable, i.e., they must be satisfied in a grammatical sentence. In order to “save” generalizations (rules) from apparent violations (counterexamples) in the linguistic data, generally three strategies are applied: 1. assume empty structure to satisfy the constraint (invisibly); 2. assume an abstract level at which the constraint is satisfied (invisibly); 3. modify the constraint, making it less general, so that it is satisfied by the data.
[1]
Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.
The Prosodic Structure of Function Words
,
2008
.
[2]
Judith Aissen,et al.
Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory
,
1999
.
[3]
Ad Neeleman,et al.
Optimal Questions
,
1998
.
[4]
G. Müller,et al.
Partial wh-movement and Optimality Theory
,
1997
.
[5]
Alec Marantz,et al.
No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon
,
1997
.
[6]
J. Grimshaw.
Projection, heads, and optimality
,
1997
.
[7]
M. Silverstein.
7. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity
,
1986
.
[8]
M. Rita Manzini,et al.
Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory
,
1987
.
[9]
Judith Aissen,et al.
Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy
,
2003
.
[10]
J. van de Weijer,et al.
The Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory: Derivations and Evaluation
,
2000
.
[11]
Eric Baković.
Optimality and inversion in Spanish
,
1998
.