This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
WP:MOSCAP doesn't seem to cover cases like this, but the Chicago Manual of Style does: "Names of laws, theories, and the like are lowercased, except for proper names attached to them: Avogadro's hypothesis, the big bang theory, Boyle's law, (Einstein's) general theory of relativity, Newton's first law." — An gr 10:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
on a different note.
Why are comparative tableaux "fringey"? They arent the most popular format to be sure, but some people use them. (I personally like them, esp. if you're looking at lots of constraints and I-O mappings at once.) – ishwar (speak) 11:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Comparative tableaux are only a little recent. I think they were officially introduced in Prince (2002a), 'Arguing Optimality' (which was deleted a while ago as one of the 'unused' references after the comparative tableau was removed). Comparatives have made it into OT textbooks (McCarthy's 2001 Thematic Guide, at least); I'm not sure about more general textbooks - my impression is that most of them don't go into OT in enough detail for comparatives to be very relevant. McCarthy & Prince don't seem like the fringe of the OT-using linguistics community, so my feeling is that the comparative example should probably go back in the article. Does anyone else have strong thoughts about this? - WmGB ( talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
input | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
☞ | A | * | ** | *** |
B | * | ***! | ||
C | **! | ** |
input | C1 | C2 | C3 |
---|---|---|---|
A ~ B | W | L | |
A ~ C | W | L |
input | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
☞ | A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
~ B | 1 | 3 W | L | |
~ C | 2 W | 2 | L |
Why did you turn back my contributions on Optimality Theory?
There 's nothing wrong with this approach, it's just another version of classic order ranking. Greets, Solejheyen ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have changed nothing in the text this time, just added a new link. Greets, Solejheyen ( talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Referring to the section on criticisms, within which we read -
Another objection to optimality theory is the claim that it is not technically a theory, in that it does not make falsifiable predictions. The source of this issue is terminology: the term 'theory' is used differently here than in physics, chemistry, and other sciences.
Citations are very much lacking here, and are certainly needed. Nevertheless this is, to my mind, a point worth exploring. Would the original author agree if I compared this with a made-up example assertion about physical science suggestion : "Fourier Analysis is a theory of sound." (It is not. Fourier Analysis is a mathematical framework used in writing a description of a sound but makes no predictions about the nature of sound, or about possible and impossible sounds, nor could ever possibly do so.) Would that be a fair comparison? CecilWard ( talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
From the current version: "Language acquisition can be described as the process of adjusting the ranking of these constraints."
This makes it sound like language acquisition is ONLY learning the ranking of these constraints, never word learning or other language learning processes. This sentence might be better thus: "Adjusting the ranking of these constraints is one part of language acquisition". Or something. framed0000 03:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As a very interested layman, I find this article frustratingly abstruse. Apparently OT is about processes for converting inputs to outputs. But it is never explained when "inputs" or "outputs" are. I assume an "output" is a spoken utterance. I have no idea what an "input" might be in this context. Tesspub ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that this page has been removed from the Category of Linguistics, and I think this is perhaps a misleading designation. OT is in fact used for things other than phonology: morphology and syntax in particular, and I think for semantics & pragmatics too (albeit less widely), and the ROA even had at least one paper applying OT to Catalan translation studies. That's not mentioned in the article as it is now. I'm starting a section on use of OT outside of phonology; can anyone add more on other such applications? WmGB ( talk) 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is the title Optimality Theory of Linguistics? Couldn't it just be Optimality Theory, or maybe Optimality Theory (linguistics)? -- N-k ( talk) 08:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the name was changed to Optimality Theory hoax first. I assume this is in response to a satirical piece in Speculative Grammarian. I do not think this is significant enough to deserve mention in the article, and certainly doesn't warrant dramatically adjusting the page as if it were true. I have therefore reverted the changes made by 'Ari1891adler'/ Dmno accordingly. - WmGB ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Please note that the current title need not be read "Optimality theory"; the first letter of article titles is always capitalized, so in running text the implication is that this would currently be written "optimality theory." Dekimasu よ! 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Optimality theory → Optimality Theory – To reflect standard usage, this page should be located at Optimality Theory (with both words capitalized) rather than Optimality theory. A brief discussion took place in 2011 ( #Capitalization above), with unclear consensus. As some editors pointed out in that discussion, Optimality Theory is typically written with both words capitalized in the linguistics literature, and our article title should reflect this. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This page should be moved back from a title that there was officially no consensus to move it to. An RM should not be necessary to uphold a previous RM decision. Primergrey ( talk) 01:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
WP:MOSCAP doesn't seem to cover cases like this, but the Chicago Manual of Style does: "Names of laws, theories, and the like are lowercased, except for proper names attached to them: Avogadro's hypothesis, the big bang theory, Boyle's law, (Einstein's) general theory of relativity, Newton's first law." — An gr 10:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
on a different note.
Why are comparative tableaux "fringey"? They arent the most popular format to be sure, but some people use them. (I personally like them, esp. if you're looking at lots of constraints and I-O mappings at once.) – ishwar (speak) 11:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Comparative tableaux are only a little recent. I think they were officially introduced in Prince (2002a), 'Arguing Optimality' (which was deleted a while ago as one of the 'unused' references after the comparative tableau was removed). Comparatives have made it into OT textbooks (McCarthy's 2001 Thematic Guide, at least); I'm not sure about more general textbooks - my impression is that most of them don't go into OT in enough detail for comparatives to be very relevant. McCarthy & Prince don't seem like the fringe of the OT-using linguistics community, so my feeling is that the comparative example should probably go back in the article. Does anyone else have strong thoughts about this? - WmGB ( talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
input | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
☞ | A | * | ** | *** |
B | * | ***! | ||
C | **! | ** |
input | C1 | C2 | C3 |
---|---|---|---|
A ~ B | W | L | |
A ~ C | W | L |
input | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
☞ | A | 1 | 2 | 3 |
~ B | 1 | 3 W | L | |
~ C | 2 W | 2 | L |
Why did you turn back my contributions on Optimality Theory?
There 's nothing wrong with this approach, it's just another version of classic order ranking. Greets, Solejheyen ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have changed nothing in the text this time, just added a new link. Greets, Solejheyen ( talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Referring to the section on criticisms, within which we read -
Another objection to optimality theory is the claim that it is not technically a theory, in that it does not make falsifiable predictions. The source of this issue is terminology: the term 'theory' is used differently here than in physics, chemistry, and other sciences.
Citations are very much lacking here, and are certainly needed. Nevertheless this is, to my mind, a point worth exploring. Would the original author agree if I compared this with a made-up example assertion about physical science suggestion : "Fourier Analysis is a theory of sound." (It is not. Fourier Analysis is a mathematical framework used in writing a description of a sound but makes no predictions about the nature of sound, or about possible and impossible sounds, nor could ever possibly do so.) Would that be a fair comparison? CecilWard ( talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
From the current version: "Language acquisition can be described as the process of adjusting the ranking of these constraints."
This makes it sound like language acquisition is ONLY learning the ranking of these constraints, never word learning or other language learning processes. This sentence might be better thus: "Adjusting the ranking of these constraints is one part of language acquisition". Or something. framed0000 03:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As a very interested layman, I find this article frustratingly abstruse. Apparently OT is about processes for converting inputs to outputs. But it is never explained when "inputs" or "outputs" are. I assume an "output" is a spoken utterance. I have no idea what an "input" might be in this context. Tesspub ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that this page has been removed from the Category of Linguistics, and I think this is perhaps a misleading designation. OT is in fact used for things other than phonology: morphology and syntax in particular, and I think for semantics & pragmatics too (albeit less widely), and the ROA even had at least one paper applying OT to Catalan translation studies. That's not mentioned in the article as it is now. I'm starting a section on use of OT outside of phonology; can anyone add more on other such applications? WmGB ( talk) 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is the title Optimality Theory of Linguistics? Couldn't it just be Optimality Theory, or maybe Optimality Theory (linguistics)? -- N-k ( talk) 08:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the name was changed to Optimality Theory hoax first. I assume this is in response to a satirical piece in Speculative Grammarian. I do not think this is significant enough to deserve mention in the article, and certainly doesn't warrant dramatically adjusting the page as if it were true. I have therefore reverted the changes made by 'Ari1891adler'/ Dmno accordingly. - WmGB ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Please note that the current title need not be read "Optimality theory"; the first letter of article titles is always capitalized, so in running text the implication is that this would currently be written "optimality theory." Dekimasu よ! 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Optimality theory → Optimality Theory – To reflect standard usage, this page should be located at Optimality Theory (with both words capitalized) rather than Optimality theory. A brief discussion took place in 2011 ( #Capitalization above), with unclear consensus. As some editors pointed out in that discussion, Optimality Theory is typically written with both words capitalized in the linguistics literature, and our article title should reflect this. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Granger ( talk · contribs) 18:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This page should be moved back from a title that there was officially no consensus to move it to. An RM should not be necessary to uphold a previous RM decision. Primergrey ( talk) 01:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)