It is based on the concept of application of optimality theory in linguistics especially in phonetics and phonology.

1. The Optimality Theory
By
Amjad Hussain Nassir
MS English 10425

2. • What's grammar?
Rules regulations of language.
It's one approach to describe how language
works. Right?
• It tells us that If u break the rules, the
language is wrong.
Means rules are inviolable. Right?

3. • What is constraint?
something that limits/controls/checks
/restricts someone or something.
Right?

4. What then is the difference between rules and constraints?

5. Rules vs constraints
You talk to a friend.
Maybe you had a slip of the tongue and your
know-it-all friend didn't hesitate to point out
your mistake. .
Or maybe you were learning a new language and
your teacher told you how to pronounce a certain
letter in different contexts.

6. Chances are, these people gave you linguistic
rules that went something like this:
"plural /s/ sounds like [s] after voiceless
consonants but like [z] after voiced consonants".
Rules like this are supposed to tell you how the
language works.
What's more, they're not supposed to be broken.

7. Another approach towards describing how language
works is Optimality Theory (OT).
It differs with the approach of grammar.
Instead of applying unbreakable rules to language,
Optimality Theory contends that violable,
competing constraints do a better job of explaining
how language works. Instead of inviolable rules, OT
offers violable constraints.
Such constraints which compete one another.

8. How?
Imagine that you have a very principled friend who
lives life by a bunch of rules he strictly observed.
One of those rules is:
"don't stay up late".
Another friend of yours doesn't have a rule like this,
but does have a bunch of preferences and demands
on his time -things like:
"get enough sleep" and "play video games for fun".

9. The first friend expects his rule to be followed,
never broken, so it's inviolable.
His name is grammar.
The second friend has a list of constraints.
He ranks the constraints by priority:
sleep above games. His name is OT.
Both have rules. But one follows the rules
strictly while the other gives himself space to
observe the rules.

10. Situation
Both friends are invited to an all-night game party.
The first friend checks his rule, the plan doesn't
pass, so the outcome is: he doesn't go.
The second friend compares his constraints.
Since he can't sleep and play games, going to sleep
violates the low-ranked constraint, while playing
games violates the high-ranked constraint.
He chooses the best outcome: going to sleep.
Which is the optimal candidate.
Means the top most desired constraint.

11. Both friends ended up sleeping, so our
debate isn't over the outcome.
It's about the process.
Optimality Theory claims to be a better
model even for what the first friend is doing
in this situation.

12. It is a new approach to language given
in 1991 by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky.
By 1993, this new approach had a name —
Optimality Theory— and it became known
through their widely-circulated manuscript
OptimalityTheory: :
Constraint Interaction in Generative
Grammar.

13. The impact of this work on the field of phonology was
extensive and immediate; since 1993, it has also
stimulated important research in syntax, semantics,
sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, and other areas.
OT is on list of the top five developments in the history of
generative grammar, the other being Transformational
Generative Grammar and Universal Grammar, the ideas
enunciated by famous Noam Chomsky, and the ideas put
forth by Ferdinand de Saussure in his historical work
Course de linguistique generale.

14. The core ideas of OT can be summed up in the
following way:
o OT makes use of constraints
o Constraints can be violated;
o Constraints are ranked;
o The optimal form is grammatical (Grimshaw 1997).
o The relationship between input and output in an
OT-grammar is mediated by two formal mechanisms,
GEN and EVAL
(see Archangeli and Langendoen 1997).

15. GEN (for Generator) generate freely all
possible candidate structural descriptions for a
given input.
EVAL (for Evaluator) uses the language’s
constraint hierarchy to choose the optimal
candidate.
The output that has the least serious violations
(= 0, in the best case scenario) is optimal, i.e.
grammatical.

17. Are the constraints universal?
Who tells us what is a constraint and what is not
a constraint?
Do you think the native language plays a role in
development of constraints?

18. Let us consider the plural form of /bag/.
/bag/ + plural /s/. (The input in OT)
Imagine two constraints, with the constraint
"match voicing" ranked above "keep the
sounds identical".

19. We could end up choosing between the candidates
[bagz] and [bags].
What's the output going to be?
[bagz] of course. No?
Since the pronunciation [bagz] incurs the least
serious violations, it's our optimal candidate.

20. Other candidates might do even worse, like if we
added /bagv/ or /bagd/ or /bagx/ and so on.
Using a little evaluation table, called a tableau
in OT, we can decide on the optimal candidate.

21. Let us make tableau for a simple case.
A simple indirect sentence of English goes as:
H says to R, “Kill my friend”.
How can it be expressed in the form of OT
tableau?

24. Consider one more time that the constraints are
ranked and violable.
It's also proposed that there's a constant tension
between markedness constraints - ones that
shape words and sounds - and faithfulness
constraints - ones that keep words and sounds
the same.

25. The central idea of OT is that
‘surface forms of language (words & sentences)
reflect resolutions of conflicts between
competing constraints.’
Where do constraints come from?
You must know that in ‘algorithms’ a constraint is used to
restrict the values in a column to allow only if it meets the
condition based on this particular value.

26. What is algorithm?
In mathematics and computer science,
an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-
defined, computer-implementable instructions,
typically to solve a class of problems or to
perform a computation.
The concept of algorithm has existed since
antiquity.

27. Its algorithm thing, you won’t get it man…

28. Point to ponder…
The word algorithm comes from the name of the
9th century Persian and Muslim mathematician
Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Musa Al-
Khwarizmi, he was mathematician, astronomer
and geographer during the Abbasid Caliphate, a
scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. He
is considered the father of algebra.
‘Algebr’, ‘Algebra’, ‘Algorithm’…
Nor kho poya yai kana?

29. Back to Business…
Since the early 1970’s, it has been clear that
phonological and syntactic processes are
influenced by constraints on the output of the
grammar.
e. g. /S/ can’t be followed by /g/ in the initial
position in English. (phonological constraint)
Subject must be followed by Verb i.e. S+V+O &
not S+O+V (syntactic constraint)

30. If concepts of OT are somewhat clear, lets move
forward to World Englishes, yeah?

31. Chapter 3
Structural features of New Englishes:
-- cross-clausal syntax and syntactic theory
This chapter of the book discusses mainly the
constructions that go beyond the phrasal level. It
examines such constructions from the framework of
Optimality Theory.

32. FROM DESCRIPTION TO THEORY:
AN OPTIMALITY THEORY ACCOUNT OF NEW
ENGLISH SYNTACTIC VARIATION
This session will discuss the syntactic variation
of WEs within the framework of Optimality
Theory. Though it’s a new concept to apply on
varieties of English other than Standard English.

33. The Word Order
Although all New Englishes follow a basic SVO
order, some varieties do not follow this.
Remember SVO?
He (S) plays (V) cricket (O).
Ritchie (1986) shows how certain features of
Singapore English can follow topic-comment
principles rather than the relatively rigid SVO
syntax of Std Eng.

34. For instance…
Declarative clauses:
Mesthrie reports only a few ‘one-off’ examples
of genuine SOV sentences in IndSAf Eng:
She (S) her own house (O) got (V).
(= ‘She’s (S) got (V) a house (O)of her own’)
Forms like these are better considered a matter of
ad hoc ‘performance’, rather than reflecting a
regular rule.

35. Leap (1993:77) gives an example of a VS
structure in Yavapai English, though it is not
clear how widespread this is and whether it
is restricted to wh-questions:
Where (WH adverb) going (V) you (S)?

36. Questions:
Questions show more variation in word
order than declaratives.
Many New Englishes show a greater
preference for forming yes/no questions by a
rising intonation pattern, rather than by
auxiliary inversion.
She’s coming tomorrow’?
(=‘Is she coming tomorrow?’ – IndSAf Eng)

37. The application of ‘do-support’ is optional in
questions for many New Englishes,
especially in informal speech:
She promised you? (Sgp Eng; Williams 1987:173)
(=Did she promise you? StE
Anthony learned this from you or you
learned this from Anthony? (Sgp Eng; Williams
1987:173)
(=Anthony learned from you or you did? StE)

38. Syntactic inversion
These same varieties favor non-inversion in wh-
main clauses:
What you would like to read? (Ind Eng; Kachru 1982:360)
What he’ll say? (IndSAf Eng)

39. Why these variations from the standard English?
Who can explain it?
Grammar? Or Optimality Theory?
May be both? May be just grammar?

40. It requires some knowledge of basic
syntactic concepts of modern Linguistics
(e.g. of phrase structure, indexing and
movement)
What is a ‘phrase’?
What is indexing?
What is movement?

42. Difference between phrase and clause

43. Index
• a guide, list or sign, or a number used to
measure change.
Example: an index is a list of employee names, addresses and phone numbers.
In linguistics indexing refers to the class of restricted languages,
which was first used by British Linguist J. R. Firth to identify those
varieties of language where the possibility of creative variation
are minimal or non-existent. For example if a language is fixed,
its rules are limited. If a language is in constant use, its rule keep
expanding.

44. What is indexed grammar?
Indexed grammars are a generalization of context-
free grammars in that nonterminals are equipped
with lists of flags, or index symbols. The language
produced by an indexed grammar is called
an indexed language.
In computer science, terminal and nonterminal
symbols are the lexical elements used in specifying
the production rules constituting a formal grammar.

45. Syntactic movement is the means by which
some theories of syntax address discontinuities.
Movement was first postulated by structuralist
linguists who expressed it in terms of
discontinuous constituents or displacement.

46. Back to Business…
Optimality theory will help us find the
differences between varieties (e.g. New Englishes and
standard British or US English) which involve different
rankings of certain constraints.
For the purposes of analysis we focus on two
varieties of Indian English -- standard and
colloquial/spoken.

47. The first is spoken by educated speakers
(Kachru 1983a:77) and accords to a large
extent with standard British English syntax.
The second is the more indigenous variety,
showing greater distance from British
English norms.

48. We will show that the differences between the
two varieties are accounted for in Optimality
Theory (OT)
Under this view, linguistic competence refers to
the knowledge of what constitutes an optimal
linguistic expression within a structured
range of plausible alternatives, to determine
which of any set of structural analyses of an
input is the most well formed.

49. Furthermore, knowledge of language under
this view consists of a universal set of
candidate structural descriptions,
a universal set of well-formedness
constraints of these structural descriptions,
and a language-particular ranking of these
constraints from strongest to weakest.

50. This optimality-theoretic conceptualization
(Prince and Smolensky 2004; Grimshaw 1997) captures the
following linguistically significant
generalisations of the syntactic behaviour of
the two varieties of Indian English:

51. (a) the spoken/colloquial variety is just as
systematic and logical as the standard variety;
(b) the grammars of both varieties are
constrained by the same set of grammatical
constraints; and
(c) the differences in the two varieties is a
function of how each grammar prioritizes
these constraints.

52. Direct and indirect questions
In Standard Indian English, direct (root)
Questions are formed by moving the wh-phrase
to the left-edge of the clause followed by the
auxiliary verb, in those questions where the wh-
phrase is not a subject. Some examples are
given below:

53. 1. What(i) has(j) he (tj) eaten (ti)?
2. Where(i) has(j) he (tj) gone(ti) now?
3. [How long ago](i) was(j) that (tj ti) ?
4. When(i) are(j) you(tj) coming home(ti)?
[Note: ‘t’ is the original position from which the
wh-phrase(ti) and the auxiliary verb (tj) move in
interrogative constructions. The subscripts show
the proper indexing.]

54. This indexation needs your focused reading and
practice in the study of syntactic movement…
Please enhance your reading skills…

55. Embedded indirect questions in Standard Indian
English (Std Ind Eng) also involve movement of
the wh-phrase to the left side of the embedded
clause, without, however, any auxiliary verb
following it. Some examples are given as follows:

56. 1. They know who(i) Vijay has invited (ti) tonight.
2. I wonder where(i) he works (ti).
3. I asked him what(i) he ate (ti) for breakfast.
4. Do you know where(i) he is going (ti)?
The rule of subject--auxiliary inversion is restricted
to matrix sentences; it does not apply in embedded
contexts.
This rule is in fact common in other New Englishes
too.

57. So far we have been dealing with formal and
standard Indian English.
The case of colloquial/informally spoken Indian
English is different.

58. Here direct questions are also formed by moving
the wh-phrase to the left periphery but there is
no auxiliary following the left-moved wh-phrase.
Some illustrative examples are given below:
1. What(i) he has eaten (ti)?
2. Where(i) he has gone (ti) now?
3. [How long ago](i) that was (ti) ?
4. When(i) you are coming home (ti)?

59. Embedded questions in colloquial Indian
English involve wh-movement to the left-
periphery of the embedded clause.
The wh-phrase, surprisingly, is followed by
the auxiliary verb, i.e., wh-movement in
embedded contexts is accompanied by
auxiliary verb movement (inversion).
examples are given below:

60. 1. They know who(i) has(j) Vijay (tj) invited (ti) tonight.
2. I wonder where(i) does he work t(i).
3. I asked Ramesh what(i) did he eat (ti) for breakfast.
4. Do you know where(i) is(i) he (tj) going (ti)?

61. Answers to yes/no questions
Many varieties in South Asia and Africa share a response
to yes/no questions couched in the negative that is the
opposite of Std Eng.
Examples;
Q: Didn’t you see anyone at the compound?
A: Yes, I didn’t see anyone at the compound. (EAf Eng and WAf Eng;
Bokamba 1992:132)
Q: Didn’t I see you yesterday in college?
A: Yes, you didn’t see me yesterday in college. (Ind Eng; Kachru
1982:374)
Q: Isn’t he arriving tomorrow?
A: No. (= ‘Yes, he is’ – BlSAf Eng; Mesthrie 1994:189)

62. The Universal Grammar…

64. Let’s look at an illustration of how OT accounts
for language variation (cf. also Anttila 1995):
Consider two grammars, Grammar A and
Grammar B , both of which have three
constraints {x, y, z}.
Assume further, that in Grammar A these
constraints are ranked in such a way that
{x} dominates {y} which in turn dominates {z} [=
x >> y, y >> z, x >> z ].
In other words, Grammar A imposes a total
order on the constraints: x >> y >> z.

65. Now, assume that for a certain input we get two
competing output candidates: cand 1 and cand
2. The notation [∗] in a tableau simply indicates
that a candidate has violated a constraint
whereas [∗!] indicates that the particular
violation is serious enough to disqualify that
candidate from being considered optimal.

66. Tableau 1 shows the competition between the
two candidates.
Cand 1 violates the highest-ranking constraint
{x}, which is lethal, indicated by ‘∗!’.
Grammar A, therefore, chooses cand 2
straightforwardly as the optimal, grammatical,
option, indicated by ‘⇒’.

68. Using this theoretical conceptualization, we
present the set of potentially conflicting
linguistic constraints and show how their
interactions yield well-formed utterances in the
two varieties of Indian English.

69. OT-analysis of syntactic variation
The constraints that are needed to present the
difference between the two varieties of Indian
English are given below in (111) (following Bhatt 2000).
It is worth mentioning here that these
constraints are not designed to account only for
the analyses of Indian English but have been
independently motivated in several studies in
syntactic analyses within the framework of
Optimality Theory.

70. OT-analysis of syntactic variation

71. For further discussion, I would like to open the
book of World Englishes so that I can read from
the pages, since the description is so closely and
narrowly made that no single line could be
skipped, which does not fall within the scope of
this presentation…
Let’s open the book at page 104 and continue
reading it. Yeah?