University of Education Lahore

Department of English

Topic: Optimality Theory 1

Programme: BS English Semester VIII

Course Title: Advanced Phonology

Course Code: ENGL 4134

Instructor Name: Alamdar Nabi

Objectives:
• Introduction to Optimality Theory (OT)

• Background and theorists of OT

• Some Key Terms

• Architecture of OT

• Rules Vs Constraints

• Markedness and Faithfulness

• Function of OT 2
Introduction: Optimality Theory
• Crosslinguistic Variation for Phonology
• Inspired by neural Networks
• A major role of output constraints
• Constraints compete through a process as a candidate
• Parallel Evaluation also plays its role.
• Conflicting Constraints have an optimization
• Prince and Smolensky 1993

3
Background of OT`

• Introduced by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky in 1993

• Expanded by Alan Prince and John J. McCarthy in 2001
• Many others also contributed in the development of OT e.g. Kager
• A major development in the Generative Linguistics

4
An Analogy
A student has to purchase a pair of Shoes which costs Rs. 1000 and a
book which also costs the same amount. The student has only one
thousand Rs. If he considers shoes more important, he loses the book
and if he considers the book more important, he will lose the pair of
shoes. Thus he has either of the following two rankings;

• Shoes>>Book

Or Book>>Shoes
5
Some Important Key Terms
• Optimality: Optimal Output from an Input
• Lexicon (Lex)
• Generator (Gen)
• Candidate (Optimal-Losing)
• Evaluator (Eval)
• Constraint (Con):
Markedness( Well formedness) vs Faithfulness (Identity);
Violable but violation should be Minimal not Fatal;
Language Specific;
Ranking too is Language Specific

6
Some Important Key Terms

• Tableaux
No. Input Cons1 Cons2 Cons3
1 Cand1 *!

2 Cand2 *!

3 ☞ Cand3 *

Cons1>> Cons2>> Cons3.

7
 Architecture of OT
• Phonological Constraints have underlying representations
• These Constraints are Ranked and Violable
• A set of Candidates is available which decides the least violation as a winner
• OT Model: Archangeli, 1997, P14.
Candidate1

Candidate2
INPUT GEN EVAL Output

Candidate3
Cons:
Markedness
Faithfulness
8
An Example of OT Typology
• Pashto & English adults produce [st] cluster in word [sti:l].

• English babies delete cluster-initial [s] and produce it as [t:il].

• Spanish and Urdu learners of English insert a short vowel

word-initially and produce it as [ɨst:il]

• Saraiki, Sindhi and Punjabi insert a schwa between [s] and [t]
to break the cluster and produce it as [səti:l]
9
 Input-out relations
The input /sku:l/ emerges as the output
• [sku:l] (English Pashto)
• [ɨsku:l] (Urdu & Spanish)
• [səku:l] (Saraiki, Sindhi & Punjabi)
• [Ku:l] (English babies)

10
 References
• Archangeli & D. T. Langendoen (1997). Optimality Theory
An Overview. Malden, Massachusetes/Oxford: Blackwell
publishers.
• Kager, R. (2010). Optimality Theory (10th ed.): Cambridge
University Press.
• McCarthy, J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory Applying
Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory:
Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden,
MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

11
Constraints
Faithfulness constraints
 MAX-IO: Do not delete.
 DEP-IO: Do not insert.
 ANCHOR: Protect margins.
 IDENT-IO: Output should be identical to the input in features.
 FAITH-IO: Output must be faithful to the input.
Markedness constraints
 *COMPLEX-CC: Do not accept cluster of consonants.

12
English Children: *COMPLEX>>MAX

/sti:l/ *COMPLEX-CC MAX-IO

a. Sti:l *!

b. ☞ ti:l *

13
 Description
• The candidate a is defeated because of a fatal violation
of a higher ranked constraint *COMPLEX-CC. Therefore,
the candidate b which only violates a lower ranked
constraint i.e. MAX-IO emerges as an optimal output.
Thus, in the grammar of the English children the
constraint ranking is,
*COMPLEX-CC>>MAX-IO

14
Basics for OT Application
• Define constraints
• Candidates
• No ranking
• Violation marks
• Fatal violation
• Determine ranking
• Shading

15
Pashto and English adults:
MAX-IO>>*COMPLEX-CC

/sti:l/ MAX-IO *COMPLEX-CC

a. ☞ sti:l *

b. ti:l *!

16
Saraiki Sindhi :*COMPLEX>>DEP-IO

/sti:l/ *COMPLEX-CC DEP-IO

a. Sti:l *!

b. ☞ səti:l *

17
Comparison of Language Typology
• English and Pashto:
DEP-IO, MAX-IO>>*COMPLEX-CC
• Saraiki, Sindhi, Punjabi
*COMPLEX-CC, MAX-IO>> DEP-IO
• English Children
*COMPLEX-CC>>MAX-IO
• Urdu and Spanish
*COMPLEX-CC, MAX, CONTIG>>DEP, ANCHOR

18
Why OT?
• OT provides explanation for what happens. SPE type
of representation does not achieve this goal.
• It also provides justification for defeated candidates
which McCarthy calls ‘counterfactuals’ (McCarthy,
2008:3)

19
Constraints are violable
• OT constraints are violable.
• *V# is higher ranked in Yawelmani only until it does
not conflict with *COMPLEXSyllable or *Cunsyllabified
• Thus /xataka/ becomes [xatak] to satisfy *V# but in
/xatk/ becomes [xat.ka] because [xatk] and [xat.k]
violate *COMPLEXSyllable or *Cunsyllabified respectively.

20
 Global application of OT
(McCarthy, 2008:13)
1: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through
inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
*HARMhumans
2: A robot must obey orders given to it by human
beings except where such orders conflict with the First
Law. OBEYhumans
3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as
such protection does not conflict with the First or
Second Law. PROTECTself

*HARMhumans >> OBEYhumans >> PROTECTself

21
Tableau
• Build a Tableau like the following based on the
constraints discussed in the previous slides

22
Constraints
• ‘Constraints are universal. Universal grammar (UG)
includes a constraint component CON that contains
the entire repertoire of constraints’ (McCarthy,
2008:15).
• ‘All constraints are present in the grammars of all
languages’ (ibid).

23
GENerator
• GEN may create unlimited number of constraints
operating on an input but normally we discuss those
constraint which knock out the candidates which are
minimally different from the most optimal candidate.

24
EVALuator
• EVAL evaluates candidates on existing constraints. It
starts evaluation from highest ranked constraints and
moves to the lowest ones till it reaches the most
optimal candidate.

25
 Faithfulness

• Most quoted faithfulness constraints:

• DEP: Don’t Epenthesize.

• MAX: Input is maximally like output. Don’t delete.

• IDENT-F: Features in input may be maximally identical to output.

26
Ranking (McCarthy, 2008:41)
• Priority relationship are determined by ranking in a
language. Higher ranked constraints have priority
over lower-ranked ones.
• *s+p/t/k >>DEP[V] shows that in the grammar of a
particular group of learners, do not produce or
accept ‘sp/t/k’ cluster. They map these clusters into
CVC by epenthesis.

27
Conflict
• A specific ranking in a language can only be
determined when a conflict between two constraint
occurs. In case of conflict, the constraint which
favours the winner candidate, is considered higher
ranked than the one which favours the loser
candidate.
• In the previous example, *sp/t/k is ranked higher
than DEP[V].

28
Strict domination hierarchy
• The constraints working in a language are in a strict
domination hierarchy (Prince & Smolensky, 2004,
p.3), which means a dominating constraint has
absolute superiority over the lower ranked
constraints. Thus a single violation of a higher ranked
constraint is avoided at the const of unlimited
number of constraints of lower ranked constraints.

29
 Re-ranking of constraints
• L1 and L2 learners re-rank their constraint hierarchy.
When a learner realizes his/her mistake at advance
stage of learning, s/he tries to produce the actual
input. In that situation the learner re-ranks the
constraints. Continuing with the previous examples,
when the learners realize about their epenthesis, they
avoid it. Which means they re-rank their constraint
from *sp/t/k >>DEP[V] to DEP [V] >>*sp/t/k.

30
Candidates
• There may unlimited number of candidates but
normally we discuss those candidates which compete
with the final optimal candidate. For example, the
candidates competing with ‘steal’ may be ‘esteal,
teal, seal, seteal’ etc. although anything else may also
be assumed keeping in the violability of constraints.

31
Winner and loser candidates
• There is one candidate which is winner. All others are
loser. If there are two winners, it means either there
is some problem with ranking argument or there is a
free-variation between two phenomenon. Still in case
of free variation we have two sets of ranking for each
of the phenomenon.
• Ranking can be determined through winner
candidate only.

32
Shading rows
When a candidate incurs a fatal violation of a highly
ranked candidate, an exclamation sign is put in front of
it and the remaining cells of the rows are shaded.
Shading means, now for the remaining constraints, the
candidate does not compete with the winner. Or in
other words, the candidate is considered out of the
contest.

33
 References
• Archangeli & D. T. Langendoen (1997). Optimality Theory
An Overview. Malden, Massachusetes/Oxford: Blackwell
publishers.
• Kager, R. (2010). Optimality Theory (10th ed.): Cambridge
University Press.
• McCarthy, J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory Applying
Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory:
Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden,
MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

34