Program Structure  OT Constructs formal grammars directly from markedness principles Strongly universalist: inherent typology  OT allows completely formal markedness-based explanation of highly complex data Acquisition  Initial state predictions explored through behavioral experiments with infants Neural Realization  Construction of a miniature, concrete LAD

Program Structure  OT Constructs formal grammars directly from markedness principles Strongly universalist: inherent typology  OT allows completely formal markedness-based explanation of highly complex data Acquisition  Initial state predictions explored through behavioral experiments with infants Neural Realization  Construction of a miniature, concrete LAD

 The Great Dialectic Phonological representations serve two masters Phonological Representation Lexico n Phonetic s Phonetic interface [surface form] Often: ‘minimize effort (motoric & cognitive) ’; ‘maximize discriminability’ Locked in conflict Lexical interface /underlying form/ Recoverability: ‘match this invariant form’ F AITHFULNESS M ARKEDNESS

OT from Markedness Theory M ARKEDNESS constraints: *α: No α But exactly when is α avoided? And exactly how? F AITHFULNESS constraints – F α demands that /input/  [output] leave α unchanged (McCarthy & Prince ’95) – F α controls when α is avoided (and how ) Interaction of violable constraints: Ranking –α is avoided when *α ≫ F α –α is tolerated when F α ≫ *α – M 1 ≫ M 2 : combines multiple markedness dimensions – F α ≫ F β : determines how α is avoided (when it is)

OT from Markedness Theory M ARKEDNESS constraints: *α F AITHFULNESS constraints: F α Interaction of violable constraints: Ranking –α is avoided when *α ≫ F α –α is tolerated when F α ≫ *α – M 1 ≫ M 2 : combines multiple markedness dimensions – F α ≫ F β : determines how α is avoided (when it is) Typology: All cross-linguistic variation results from differences in ranking – in how the dialectic is resolved (and in how multiple markedness dimensions are combined)

OT from Markedness Theory M ARKEDNESS constraints F AITHFULNESS constraints Interaction of violable constraints: Ranking Typology: All cross-linguistic variation results from differences in ranking – in resolution of the dialectic Harmony = M ARKEDNESS + F AITHFULNESS –A formally viable successor to Minimize Markedness is OT’s Maximize Harmony (among competitors)

 Markedness Theory from OT Explanatory goals achieved by OT Individual grammars are literally and formally constructed directly from universal markedness principles Inherent Typology : Within the analysis of phenomenon Φ in language L is inherent a typology of Φ across all languages

Program Structure  OT Constructs formal grammars directly from markedness principles Strongly universalist: inherent typology  OT allows completely formal markedness-based explanation of highly complex data Acquisition  Initial state predictions explored through behavioral experiments with infants Neural Realization  Construction of a miniature, concrete LAD