The INPUT and faithfulness in OT syntax
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
I consider some of the claims that have been made for and against the nature of the INPUT in OT syntax as developed within the assumptions of the Minimalist Program, leading to suggestions for further specification of the architecture of this approach. Comparing with the role of faithfulness in the OT approach developed from Lexical-Functional Grammar, I argue that specific linguistic analyses crucially involve reference to faithfulness constraints (MAX and DEP in correspondence-based OT) which apply across different parts of the output structures, but do not need to refer to the INPUT. I conclude that while OT syntax does not need INPUTs per se, it does need faithfulness constraints.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Cedric Boeckx (2008). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons From Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Blackwell Pub..
Željko Bošković & Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2007). Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Blackwell Pub..
Geoffrey Turner (2013). The Christian Life as Slavery: Paul's Subversive Metaphor. Heythrop Journal 54 (1):1-12.
David Makinson & Leendert van der Torre (2001). Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2):155-185.
Jiji Zhang & Peter Spirtes (2008). Detection of Unfaithfulness and Robust Causal Inference. Minds and Machines 18 (2):239-271.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #272,677 of 1,140,293 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?