Markedness and Word Order Freezing:
An OT Account* 

Hanjung Lee
(hanjung@csli.stanford.edu) 

Stanford University

June 7, 1999 (Comments Welcome)

1 Introduction

One of the most challenging aspects of the analysis of ‘scrambling languages’ like Hindi, Korean and Russian lies in motivating various possible constituent orders. In many of the free word order languages, it is also not uncommon to find fixed word order phenomena. But to date no general theory has been proposed to explain both the freedom of word order and the loss of the word order freedom of constituents, referred to as freezing (Mohanan 1992, Mohanan and Mohanan 1994).
	In this paper I present an Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) account of word order in Korean and Hindi that can account for both the free ordering and fixed ordering of constituents. In section 2 two different types of word order freezing phenomena in Korean and Hindi are identified. Section 3 presents the OT analysis. I first argue that the OT approach making crucial use of harmonic alignment of prominence hierarchies and local conjunction of markedness constraints (Prince and Smolensky 1993, Smolensky 1995, Aissen 1998) provides a fundamental explanation for why freezing occurs and the pattern of universal markedness that ‘the worst of the worst’ type of freezing reflects. I then show that bidirectional optimization in OT (Smolensky 1998) gains us a general approach to freezing involving ambiguity in thematic role interpretations of two arguments of a single predicate.

2  Data

2.1  ‘The Worst of the Worst’ Type of Freezing

Korean: Subject Honorification and Freezing in the Dative Subject Construction

Korean is a right-headed language where the surface order of constituents is strictly head-final. An example with a ditransitive verb cwu- ‘give’ is illustrated in (1), which has all six possible orders of 
the three arguments. The various word orders primarily have a pragmatic effect in that they are associated with shifts in prominence and differences in presupposition, denoting a slightly different interpretation.   

(1)	Mary-ka	ai-eykey	senmwul-ul	cwu-ess-ta.			
	Mary-NOM	child-DAT	present-ACC	give-PAST-DECL1 
	‘Mary gave a present to the child.’

	Mary-ka	senmwul-ul	ai-eykey	cwu-ess-ta. 
	Ai-eykey	Mary-ka	senmwul-ul	cwu-ess-ta.
	Ai-eykey	senmwul-ul	Mary-ka	cwu-ess-ta.
	Senmwul-ul	Mary-ka	ai-eykey	cwu-ess-ta.
	Senmwul-ul	ai-eykey	Mary-ka	cwu-ess-ta.
	
With existential-possessive predicates and psych-predicates, subject is marked with the dative case marker. In the dative subject construction too, either order of  the two arguments is allowed as shown in examples in (2)-(3).   

(2)  Existential-possessive predicates
       a.	Mary-eykey	kay-ka		philyoha-ta.					(SOV)		Mary-DAT	dog-NOM	need-DECL			
	‘Mary needs a dog.’	
       b.	Kay-ka		Mary-eykey	philyoha-ta.					(OSV)
	dog-NOM	Mary-DAT	need-DECL	
	‘Mary needs a dog.’

(3)  Psych-predicates
       a.	John-eykey	kohyang-i		kulip-ta.				(SOV)
	John-DAT	hometown-NOM	be missable-DECL
	‘John misses his hometown.’
       b.	Kohyang-i	 John-eykey		kulip-ta.				(OSV)
	hometown-NOM  John-DAT		be missable-DECL
	‘John misses his hometown.’ 	

Despite the fact that the surface word order possibilities in Korean are extensive as described above, word order freezing happens in the dative subject constructions when the subject is honorified.2 This loss of word order freedom is illustrated in examples in (4)-(5). 

(4)  a.	Lee kyoswunim-kkey		kay-ka		philyoha-si-ta.			(SOV)	
	Prof. Lee-DAT.HON		dog-NOM	need-HON-DECL	
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) needs a dog.’
       b.	*Kay-ka	Lee kyoswunim-kkey		philyoha-si-ta.			(OSV)
	dog-NOM	Prof. Lee-DAT.HON		need-HON-DECL	
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) needs a dog.’ 
	
(5)  a.	Halmeni-kkey			kohyang-i		kuliwu-si-ta.		(SOV)
	grandmother-DAT.HON	hometown-NOM	be missable-HON-DECL
	‘Grandmother (honorified) misses her hometown.’
       b.	*Kohyang-i		halmeni-kkey			kuliwu-si-ta.		(OSV)		hometown-NOM	grandmother-DAT.HON	be missable-HON-DECL
	‘Grandmother (honorified) misses her hometown.’

Examples (4b) and (5b) are instances of ‘the worst of the worst’ (Prince and Smolensky 1993, Ch. 9): the subject referring to an honorified being is neither in unmarked case nor in an unmarked initial position. In sharp contrast with these dyadic unaccusative constructions with dative-marked subject, the usual (di-)transitive clauses with nominative marked subject do not show any word order freezing when the subject is honorified. This is illustrated in (6), which is an honorified version of the example in (1).

(6)	Lee kyoswunim-kkeyse	ai-eykey	senmwul-ul  	cwu-si-ess-ta.       	
      	Prof. Lee-NOM.HON         	child-DAT	present-ACC	give-HON-PAST-DECL
     	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) gave a present to the child.’ 
	(all six permutations are grammatical)

The theoretical point of this discussion that needs to be captured by any theory of word order is summarized in (7).

(7)	Generalization 1: Canonical word order becomes frozen when the subject triggering 	honorific agreement on the verb is not in nominative case.

Hindi: Freezing in Dative Inversion 

Hindi is a right-headed language with SOV its canonical order. Unlike in Korean, the surface order of elements is not strictly head-final; so, a sentence with a subject, an object and verb can have all six possible orders. I take the position that Hindi is discourse configurational in that discourse functions are encoded syntactically and thus affect word order (Kiss 1994). Yet there is another important dimension that constrains word order independently of discourse prominence, namely the relative markedness of subjects and objects.
	The Hindi dative-nominative construction and passives of ditransitives allow grammatical function alternation of their arguments. The association between the thematic role and the grammatical function in the Hindi dative-nominative construction is depicted as follows:

(8)  a.		SUBJ	OBJ	f-structure	No inversion 	(9)
	 	    |	  |
         		< exp	 th >	a-structure

        b.		SUBJ	OBJ	f-structure	Inversion	(10) freezing	

In a clause with an experiencer subject and a theme object, all word orders except theme < (read as ‘precedes’) experiencer < verb are possible (Mohanan and Mohanan 1994: 175). Examples in (9), taken from Mohanan and Mohanan (1994), show that the dative argument Anu is the grammatical subject: the reflexive takes it as its antecedent (9a,c);3 the pronoun cannot be coreferent with it (9b,d).

(9)  a.	annu-ko	niinaa		apnii		bastii-me		dikhii.	(SOV)
	Anu-DAT	Nina-NOM	self-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in self’si/*j neighbourhood.’
       b.	anuu-ko	niinaa		uskii		bastii-me		dikhii.	(SOV)
	Anu-DAT	Nina-NOM	PRON-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in herj/*i neighbourhood.’
       c.	niinaa		apnii		bastii-me		dikhii		anuu-ko. (OVS)	Nina-NOM	self-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF	Anu-DAT
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in self’si/?*j neighbourhood.’
       d.	niinaa		uskii		bastii-me		dikhii		anuu-ko. (OVS)
	Nina-NOM	PRON-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF	Anu-DAT	
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in herj/*i neibourhood.’

Examples in (10) show how the order of the subject and the object becomes frozen in Hindi when the subject is a theme and the object is an experiencer. 

(10) a.	niinaa		anuu-ko	apnii		bastii-me		dikhii.	(SOV)	
	Nina-NOM	Anu-DAT	self-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in self’si/j neighbourhood.’	
        b.	niinaa		anuu-ko	uskii		bastii-me		dikhii.	(SOV)
	Nina-NOM	Anu-DAT	PRON-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in heri/*j neighbourhood.’
        c.	*anuu-ko	niinaa		uskii		bastii-me		dikhii.	(OSV)	
	Anu-DAT	Nina-NOM	PRON-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in heri/*j neighbourhood.’

(10c) is another instance of ‘the worst of the worst’: the subject is canonically aligned neither with a Proto-Agent role (i.e., agent and experiencer) nor with an unmarked initial position. The word order patterns in Hindi described above reveal the following generalization, which is due to Mohanan and Mohanan (1994):

(11)	Generalization 2: Canonical word order becomes frozen in a predicate with a theme subject 	and experiencer object. That is, freezing happens when the prominence relations of theta-	roles and grammatical functions are reversed as theme-SUBJ and experiencer-OBJ.

This generalization is not captured by a movement analysis in which free word order results from optional free adjunction and head movement (e.g. Gurtu 1985, Mahajan 1990, Speas 1990, Miyagawa 1994, among others). As Mohanan and Mohanan (1994) pointed out, in order to account for the freezing effects illustrated in (10) in an analysis involving movement and derivation, it will be necessary to prohibit the free adjunction that yields the surface order in (10c) and both free adjunction and verb movement if the theme is the Spec of Agr-Subject and the experiencer is the Spec of Agr-Object. Nor is it obvious why the freedom of word order has to be lost only in this special configuration. In addition, it would be necessary to use unnatural extra devices or constraints to extend these analyses to Korean cases involving subject honorification. In 3.2 I will suggest that a nonderivational analysis of syntactic markedness like the one offered by OT captures both of the generalizations about Korean and Hindi in (7) and (11) in a natural and explanatory way.  

2.2  Freezing Involving Ambiguity 

Korean

Freezing in the Double Nominative Construction

The Korean dyadic stative predicates exemplified in (2)-(5) above allow a different case realization on the experiencer (Gerdts and Youn 1988, Kim 1990, Hong 1991, Yoon 1996). It may be associated with nominative case as in (12)-(13) as well as dative case as in (2)-(5).  

(12)  	Existential-possessive predicates
        	Mary-ka	kay-ka		philyoha-ta.
	Mary-NOM	dog-NOM	need-DECL
	‘Mary needs a dog.’
	
(13)	Psych-predicates
	John-i		kohyang-i		kulip-ta.
	John-NOM	hometown-NOM	be missable-DECL
	‘John misses his hometown.’

In a sentence where the case markings on both the subject and object NP constituents are identical, their word order is fixed as SOV. For instance, two examples in (14) are only grammatical as translated in an SO order, and reversing the order of the nominal constituents of (14a) yields a new sentence (14b) in SOV order.4 

(14) a.	Mary-ka	ku kay-ka	coh-ta.		
	Mary-NOM	that dog-NOM	like-DECL			
	‘Mary likes that dog.’
        b.	Ku kay-ka	Mary-ka	coh-ta.
	that dog-NOM	Mary-NOM	like-DECL
	(i) ‘The dog likes Mary.’ 
	(ii) *‘Mary likes that dog.’	

Case-Marker Drop and Freezing

Nominative and accusative case markers in Korean are generally droppable in informal colloquial speech. Examples in (15) show that sentences are usually interpreted as SOV when case markers are dropped.

(15) a.	Mary		ku kay		ccoch-nun-ta.
	Mary		that dog	chase-PRES-DECL
	‘Mary is chasing that dog.’
        b.	Ku kay		Mary		ccoch-nun-ta.
	that dog	Mary		chase-PRES-DECL
	(i) ‘That dog is chasing Mary.’
	(ii) *‘Mary is chasing that dog.’

This fact has been simply regarded as a surface linguistic phenomenon that falls outside of the domain of competence grammar.

Hindi

The Double Nominative Construction (data from Mohanan 1992)

Mohanan (1992) discusses a similar phenomenon in Hindi in which the order of nominal constituents is “frozen” in SOV. The examples of the double nominative construction in Hindi are illustrated in (16), which involve the ambiguity of case markings on nominals associated with arguments of a single predicate. In (16b), reversing the order of the two arguments in (16a) yields a new sentence in canonical SOV order rather than maintaining meaning in an OSV order. 

(16) a.	patthar		botal		todegaa.
	stone-NOM	bottle-NOM	break-FU
	(i) ‘The stone will break the bottle.’
	(ii) * ‘The bottle will break the stone.’
        b.	botal		patthar		todegaa.
	bottle-NOM	stone-NOM	break-FU
	(i) ‘The bottle will break the stone.’
	(ii) * ‘The stone will break the bottle.’

Thus the Korean and Hindi examples in (14)-(16) reveal the following generalization:

(17)	Generalization 3:  Canonical word order determined by the grammatical function hierarchy 	becomes fixed if the case markings on two nominals associated with arguments of a single 	predicate are identical under two alternative thematic role interpretations of the nominals or 	when the morphology does not distinguish subject from object.

The theoretical point here is that ambiguity in thematic role interpretations provides another source of word order freezing. Can we have a general theory of word order freezing that can account for the freezing effects with two different sources, namely ‘the worst of the worst’ and ambiguity? In this paper, I will show that this question can be answered within the OT theory of markedness, and specifically within OT-LFG framework (Bresnan 1997, 1998) which embeds LFG’s surface-oriented theory of syntactic structure within the OT theory of constraint interaction. In particular, I will suggest that harmonic alignment of prominence hierarchies and the recent extension of optimization to comprehension as well as production directions in OT (Smolensky 1996, 1998) provide a promising account of the two different types of freezing effects found in Korean and Hindi.

Multiple Nominals with -ko and -se (data from Mohanan 1992)

The multiple functions of some of the case markers in Hindi provide the further source of ambiguity in thematic role interpretations of the nominals. For instance, the case marker -ko indicates goal object and subject as well as definite (animate) object as in (18); -se is used to indicate locative oblique and an agent of passive as in (19b).
(18)	raam-ko	ilaa-ke	bacce-ko	gaanaa		sikhaanaa	hai.
	Ram-DAT	Ila’s	child-ACC	music-NOM	teach-NF	be-PRES
	(i) ‘Ram has to teach music to Ila’s child.’
	(ii) * ‘Ila’s child has to teach music to Ram.’

(19) a.	coor-ne	kal		ravii-se		paise		curaae.
	thief-ERG	yesterday	Ravi-from	money-NOM	steal-PERF
	‘The/a thief stole money from Ravi yesterday.’
        b.	coor-se		kal		ravii-se		paise		curaae		gae.
	thief-INST	yesterday	Ravi-from	money-NOM	steal-PERF	go-PERF
	(i) ‘Money was stolen from Ravi yesterday by the/a thief.’
	(ii) * ‘Money was stolen from the/a thief yesterday by Ravi.’
        c.	ravii-se		kal		coor-se		paise		curaae		gae.
	Ravi-INST	yesterday	thief-from	money-NOM	steal-PERF	go-PERF
	(i) ‘Money was stolen from the/a thief yesterday by Ravi.’
	(ii) * ‘Money was stolen from Ravi yesterday by the/a thief.’

Note that the thematic hierarchy as well as the grammatical function hierarchy plays a crucial role in determining the canonical order in a clause with multiple nominals with -ko and -se: in (18) the dative SUBJ Ram canonically precedes the two non-subject arguments, the dative goal object and the nominative theme object; it is usually not interpreted as goal object scrambled to the clause initial position. In contrast, in (19b) and (19c), the passive counterparts of (19a), the thematic role of the arguments do not match their grammatical functions in terms of hierarchy: in spite of the fact that the initial NP marked with -se is an ADJ function, which is lower on the grammatical function hierarchy than the nominative SUBJ, it canonically precedes the SUBJ. Here again, the initial se-marked NP is not interpreted as fronted OBL.
	The generalization that needs to be captured in the Hindi case is as follows:

(20)	Generalization 4:  Canonical word order determined by the thematic role hierarchy 	becomes fixed 	if the case marking on two nominals associated with arguments of a single 	predicate are identical under two alternative thematic role interpretations of the nominals.

3  The OT Analysis of Freezing Effects

3.1	Representational Basis

Verb forms and subject NP forms in Korean vary depending on the relative social relationship among the speaker, the addressee and the referent of the subject. Let us first consider how the system of honorification in Korean can be represented. Following Bresnan (1997, 1998), I take GEN in OT to be the feature-logic based model of morphosyntax such as LFG. 
	(21) shows five possible contexts according to the relative relationship among the participants of subject honorification and which subject NP form and which verb form are used in each context. The relative relationship among the participants of subject honorification can be explicitly represented by using the feature LEVEL, which may have five possible numeric values from -1 to 3.  

(21)	Subject Honorification in Korean	
      	
	Social relationship 		Subject NP form		Verb form	LEVEL
       a.	subject > speaker, addressee	N-CASE.HON			V-si-		3
       b.	addressee > subject > speaker	N-CASE.HON/N-CASE		V-si-		2	
       c.	speaker > subject > addressee	N-CASE				V-si-/V-Ø	1
       d.	speaker, addressee = subject	N-CASE				V-Ø		0
       e.	speaker, addressee > subject	N-CASE				V-Ø	           -1	

LEVEL 3 in (21a) corresponds to the context in which the subject referent is socially superior to both the speaker and the addressee. This is the only situation in which the honorific case marker and the honorific verbal suffix -si are both used, as shown in (21a). In the context (21b), corresponding to LEVEL 2, the honorific case marker is optionally used as in (22b), and in the context (22c) the use of the honorific verbal suffix is optional as in (22c). Freezing happens only when the honorific affix is present on the verb in the contexts (21a,b,c) above.

(22) a.	Lee sensayngnim-kkeyse	hakkyo-ey	ka-si-ess-ta.	(LEVEL 3)
	Prof. Lee-NOM.HON		school-to	go-HON-PAST-DECL
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) went to school.’
        b.	Lee sensayngnim-i/-kkeyse	hakkyo-ey	ka-si-ess-ta.	(LEVEL 2)
	Prof. Lee-NOM/NOM.HON	school-to	go-HON-PAST-DECL
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) went to school.’
        c.	Lee sensayngnim-i		hakkyo-ey	ka-si/Ø-ess-ta.	(LEVEL 1)
	Prof. Lee-NOM			school-to	go-HON/Ø-PAST-DECL
	‘Prof. Lee (optionally honorified) went to school.’ 

An example like (23) is infelicitous for two reasons: (i) the subject NP form and the verb form used do not correspond to any LEVEL given in (21). (ii) the subject NP has honorific morphology but the verb form does not, resulting in a ‘disagreeing’ sentence. I treat such sentences as a violation of two constraints, MAXLEVELand AGR that will be explained in 3.2.

(23)	#*Lee sensayngnim-kkeyse	hakkyo-ey	ka-ss-ta.	
	Prof. Lee-NOM.HON		school-to	go-PAST-DECL
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) went to school’ 

There are three sources of [HON +] information that need to be represented in the input: honorific verbal affix -si (24a),5 the honorific form of case markers (25a), the nominal affix (26a). The verbal honorific morphology -si in Korean carries honorific information about the subject of the clause, which is a natural idea in LFG, where morphemes can carry the same type of functional information that is also associated with syntactic phrases. Thus this can be captured by the following lexical entry for the verbal honorific affix -si given in (24a). The honorific subject verb form then has the feature structure in (24b), which is the unification of the feature structures associated with the affix -si (24a) and the non-honorific verb form (24c).

(24) a.	-si:	affV:	(  SUBJ) = 
			        ( HON) = +

        b.	-si-marked verb form (honorific subject verb form) (unification of a and c)
		
		V		TNS	PAST
				SUBJ    [HON	+  ]
	    ka-si-ess-ta		PRED	‘go (x,y)’		

        c.	-si-less verb form (non-honorific subject verb form)

		V		TNS	PAST
				PRED	‘go (x,y)’
	        ka-ss-ta

Following recent work in LFG, I assume that the association of morphological case with grammatical functions is determined by the case markers themselves and hypothesize the respective representations in (25b) and (26b) for the subject NP form with the honorific case marker and the one with the non-honorific case marker. [HON +] information is contributed morphologically by the honorific case marker -kkeyse (25a) and the nominal affix -nim (26a).

(25) a.	-kkeyse:	(SUBJ ) 
			      ( CASE) = NOM
			      ( HON) = +

        b.	NP marked with the honorific form of the nominative case marker -kkeyse
		
		NP			SUBJ	CASE	NOM
		 				HON	+
	Lee sensayngnim-kkeyse		PRED	‘Prof. Lee’

(26) a.	-nim:	affN:	(  HON) = +  

        b.	Honorific noun marked with the plain form of the nominative case marker -i 
	
		NP			SUBJ	CASE	NOM
		 				HON	+
	Lee sensayngnim-i			PRED	‘Prof. Lee’

        c.	Non-honorific noun marked with the plain form of the nominative marker -i

		NP			SUBJ	CASE	NOM
		 				PRED	‘Prof. Lee’
   	 Lee sensayng-i			

3.2	Markedness, Harmonic Alignment and Word Order Freezing

This section presents an OT account of ‘the worst of the worst’ type of freezing in Korean and Hindi and shows that harmonic alignment (Prince and Smolensky 1993, Aissen 1998, Artstein 1998) offers exactly the formal device needed to derive the constraint hierarchies which underlie the puzzling interactions of case-marking, grammatical function, thematic role and linear orders of nominals in word order freezing phenomena.

Korean

Let us start from the assumption about the scrambled structure adopted in this paper. Following the analysis of scrambling proposed by Lee (1993), Choi (1996) and many others, I assume that scrambling is an adjunction to a maximal projection of a phrase which bears an argument function since it is not limited to a single Spec position and multiple scrambling is also possible. Compare the canonical structure given in (27) with the scrambled one given in (28) in which the object is adjoined to S, yielding the OSV order.	
		S						S

(27)	(SUBJ)=	=			(28)	(OBJ)=	=				      NP		VP				     NP		  S

		(OBJ)=	=				(SUBJ)=	=
		     NP		VP				      NP		 VP
				 					              						=						=
				 V						  V				
Note that what distinguishes the canonical structure (27) from the scrambled one (28) is whether the subject is in clause-initial position or not (and also whether the object is in canonical position or not). In both (27) and (28) above, the subject is in the canonical position, namely in the leftmost position within the minimal clause but is in clause-initial position only in the non-scrambled structure (27). 
	OT constraints needed to capture the relative markedness of subjects and objects are derived from the prominence scales through the process of alignment. The formal definition of alignment is given in (29) (Prince and Smolensky 1993: 136).

(29)	Suppose a binary dimension D1 with a scale X > Y on its element {X, Y}, and another 	dimension D2 with a scale a > b > ... > z on its elements. The harmonic alignment of D1 	and D2 is the pair of Harmony scales:

	HX:	X/a > X/b > ... > X/z
	HY:	Y/z > ... > Y/b > Y/a	
	The constraint alignment is the pair of constraint hierarchies:
	
	CX:	*X/z » ... » *X/b » *X/a
	CY:	*Y/a » *Y/b » ... » *Y/z
	
We can apply the definition above to the four prominence scales  the grammatical function scale, the argument role scale, the case scale and the structural position scale. I will adopt the scale Subject > Nonsubject (Aissen 1998), where “>” means “more prominent than”. Instead of the traditional thematic role hierarchy, I will adopt the relational notion of argument hierarchy proposed by Kiparsky (1998), and make use of the two features [+HR] (highest role) and [HR] (non-highest role) to indicate the elements in argument structure. In the predicates I discuss here, the [+HR] argument corresponds to a Proto-Agent, and the [HR] argument to a Proto-Patient (Dowty 1991). I also propose the two new scales Nominative case > Oblique case (NOM > OBL) and Initial position (in phrase structure) > Non-initial position (Initial > Non-Initial). 
	The generation of constraint hierarchies through harmonic alignment of case, structural position, grammatical function and thematic role is illustrated in (30). The left-hand column shows the universal scales involved. The middle column shows the harmonic scales, which are derived through harmonic alignment. These express the relative markedness of particular associations, for example, the fact that a nominative-marked subject is more harmonic (less marked) than an oblique-marked subject. The constraints in the right-hand column are derived by inverting the rankings in the middle box and prefixing the Avoid operator “*”. For instance, the ranking of *SUBJ/~Initial over *SUBJ/Initial in H(ierarchy)2 means that in the absence of any relevant higher ranking constraint, a clause with a subject in a non-initial position will lose out in direct competition 
to a clause with a subject in the unmarked initial position. 

(30)
Universal Scales	Harmonic Alignment	Constraint Hierarchies	
Case         NOM > OBL
Position   Initial >Non-initial   
Function  SUBJ > Non-SUBJ
Role        [+HR] > [HR]	SUBJ/NOM > SUBJ/OBL
SUBJ/Initial > SUBJ/Non-Initial
SUBJ/[+HR] > SUBJ/[HR]
	H1 *SUBJ/OBL » *SUBJ/NOM
H2 *SUBJ/~Initial » *SUBJ/Initial
H3 *SUBJ/[HR] » *SUBJ/[HR]	

	However, showing that an oblique-marked subject and a subject in a non-initial position are more marked than a nominative-marked subject and a subject in the initial position is not enough, because they are still allowed in Korean. In order to capture the idea that if the oblique subject triggering honorific marking on the verb occurs in a non-initial position, it is the worst of the worst, we can use the mechanism of local conjunction (Smolensky 1995). 

(31)	The Local Conjunction of C1 and C2 in domain D, C1 & C2, is violated when there is some 	domain of type D in which both C1 and C2 are violated. Universally, C1 & C2 » C1, C2.
	
	I propose the following constraint *HON, a family of constraints which impose marks against the realization of arguments and verbs as honorific forms. 

(32)	a. *HONN:	Avoid an honorific form of a noun.
      	b. *HONAFF:	Avoid an honorific form of a case marker.
      	c. *HONV:	Avoid an honorific form of a verb.

Since freezing in Korean happens only when the honorific affix is present on the verb, as noted previously, interactions of the constraint for expressions of a verb form in (32c) and the constraints derived through harmonic alignment in (30) play a crucial role in explaining the pattern of markedness reflected in the freezing phenomena, as we will see shortly.
	Conjoining *HONV with H1 in (30), we arrive at the following subhierarchy H4:

(33)	H4 *HONV&*SUBJ/OBL (C1) » *HONV&*SUBJ/NOM (C2)

Applying the same scheme to the conjunction of the subhierarchy H4 from (33) with the subhierarchy H2 from (30), illustrated in (34), we get the partial order in (35).

(34) a.	Conjoining C1 with H2: 
	H5 [*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]&*SUBJ/~Initial » [*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]&*SUBJ/Initial
        b.	Conjoining C2 with H2: 
	H6 [*HONV&*SUBJ/NOM]&*SUBJ/~Initial » [*HONV&*SUBJ/NOM]&*SUBJ/Initial

(35)	Partial Order of the Constraints	

	       a.	[*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]&*SUBJ/~Initial
	
        b.	[*HONV&*SUBJ/NOM]		        c.	[*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]
	&*SUBJ/~Initial				&*SUBJ/Initial

	       d.	[*HONV&*SUBJ/NOM]&*SUBJ/Initial

For the current discussion, what is needed to rule out the ungrammatical sentences in (4b) and (5b), repeated here as (36) and (37), is the topmost constraint (35a). This constraint expresses the idea that in case the verb is realized as an honorific form, the most marked configuration obtains when the subject is in oblique case and in the non-initial position of a clause. This is the only configuration in which word order is frozen, and less marked configurations that are excluded by the low-ranked constraints are tolerated in the dative subject construction in Korean. 

(36)	*Kay-ka	Lee kyoswunim-kkey		philyoha-si-ta.
	dog-NOM	Prof. Lee-DAT.HON		need-HON-DECL
	‘Prof. Lee (honorified) needs a dog.’	

(37)	*Kohyang-i		halmeni-kkey		kuliwu-si-ta.
	hometown-NOM	grandmother-DAT.HON	be missable-HON-DECL
	‘Grandmother (honorified) misses her hometown.’

	The constraints that will be relevant for the data presented here are given in (38). 

(38) Constraints relavant to Korean
        a.	PROM:	A [+ Prom] element must precede a [- Prom] element (Choi 1996).
        b.	CANONGF:  Grammatical functions align with their canonical argument positions in 			c(onstituent)-structure according to the function hierarchy (Choi 1996).
		(SUBJ > D.OBJ > I.OBJ > OBL > ADJUNCT)
        c.	[*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]&*SUBJ/~Initial: Avoid an honorific oblique subject in a non-initial 		position.	
        d.	AGR:  A subject argument must agree in agreement features (PERS, NUM, HON, etc.) with a 	     	verbal predicate.  
        e.	MAXHON:  Parse the HON feature (HON information in the input must be expressed by overt 		morphemes in the output form(s)).
        f.	MAXLEVEL:  Parse the LEVEL feature (LEVEL feature in the input must be expressed by 	
		appropriate nominal and verbal forms (those in (21)).  

The first is the condition on information structure, and the second is a family of constraints, which reflects the canonical order determined by the grammatical function hierarchy. The third, derived through harmonic alignment, prefers the honorific subject in unmarked case or in unmarked position. The fourth constraint requires that the honorific agreement requirement on a subject NP form and a verb form be respected. Finally, the faithfulness constraints in (38e) and (38f) require that the HON and LEVEL information in the input be matched in the output. 
	The ranking that emerges for Korean is given below. This predicts that in a clause with a highly marked honorific oblique subject in a non-initial position, scrambling of object over subject will not be possible as it results in violation of the top-ranked constraint [*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL] &*SUBJ/~Initial. Thus the canonical SOV order becomes optimal to avoid the worst of the worst.

(39)	Ranking for Korean: [*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]&*SUBJ/~Initial » AGR » MAXHon » PROM » 			MAXLevel » CANONGF  

In a discourse context in which the theme OBJ is a topic and the experiencer SUBJ is non-salient background information, the input is marked as (40), which results in the optimal output (41a) (=(4a)). 

(40)	Input:		GF1	PRED	‘Prof. Lee’
				HON	+	    x
			
			GF2	PRED	‘dog’				             
				PROM	+	    y
			
			TNS	PRES
			LEVEL	3
			PRED	‘need (x,y)’

	(41)
CANDIDATES:	[*HONV&*SUBJ/OBL]
&*SUBJ/~Initial	AGR	MAXHON	PROM	MAXLevel	CANONGF	
a.   SHON.Aff-DAT.HON ONOM VHON (=(4a))				*			
   b.  *SHON.Aff-DAT.HON ONOM V		!*	*	*			
   c.   SHON.Aff-DAT ONOM VHON			*	*	*		
   d.   SHON.Aff-DAT ONOM V		*	**	*	*		
   e.  *ONOM SHON.Aff-DAT.HON VHON (=(4b), (36))	!*					*	
   f.  *ONOM SHON.Aff-DAT.HON V		!*	*			*	
   g. *ONOM SHON.Aff-DAT VHON	!*		*		*	*	
   h.   ONOM SHON.Aff-DAT V		*	**		*	*	

Here the candidates (b), (d), (f) and (h) violate AGR because the honorific suffix is not present on the verb, resulting in disagreement ((d) and (h) are more acceptable than (b) and (f), which have  two honorific markers on the subject but none on the verb). The candidates (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) all lack one or two of the three elements that parse HON (the verbal affix, the honorific case marker and the nominal affix), failing to fully parse the HON information in the input. Hence, the candidate (a) is the best; it satisfies more higher-ranking constraints than any other candidates.

Hindi

In Hindi a theme subject occurring in a non-initial position is not allowed. To derive this result through harmonic alignment we have to consider the two subhierarchies from (30), repeated below:

(42)	H2	*SUBJ/~Initial » *SUBJ/Initial
	H3	*SUBJ/[HR] » *SUBJ/[+HR]

When these two subhierarchies are conjoined as in (43), they form the partial order given in (44).  

(43)	Conjoining *SUBJ/[HR] with H2: 
		H7 *SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial » *SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/Initial
	Conjoining *SUBJ/[+HR] with H2: 
		H8 *SUBJ/[+HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial » *SUBJ/[+HR]&*SUBJ/Initial

(44)	Partial Order of the Constraints
			        a.	*SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial

	        b.	*SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/Initial       c. *SUBJ/[+HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial

			        d.	*SUBJ/[+HR]&*SUBJ/Initial

The topmost constraint (44a) expresses the basic idea that if subject is a highly marked non-highest argument, it should not be in a marked non-initial position. This most marked configuration excluded by this constraint obtains in a sentence like (10c), repeated here as (45), and is indeed the only case that is not tolerated in dative inversion in Hindi.6 

(45)	*annu-ko	niina		uskii		bastii-me		dikhii.
	Anu-DAT	Nina-NOM	PRON-GEN	neighbourhood-LOC	appear-PERF
	‘Anui saw Ninaj in heri/*j neighbourhood.’

	Additional constraints needed to derive the Hindi freezing pattern are given in (46) and ranking of these with respect to PROM and CANONGF is shown in (47).	

(46)	Constraints relevant to Hindi
       a.	*SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial:  Avoid a subject with a non-highest role in a non-initial 			position.
       b.	CANONTH:  Align elements according to the thematic role hierarchy (Choi 1996).
		(Agent > Beneficiary > Experiencer/Goal > Instrument > Patient/Theme > Locative)
       c.	HD-RT (Grimshaw 1997)

(47)	Ranking for Hindi: *SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial  » PROM » CANONTH » CANONGF » HD-RT

	*SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial is ranked above PROM (and other information structuring constraints ignored in this paper) because it is also satisfied by other inversion constructions: locative inversion, for example, involves the inversion of the theme argument ([+HR]) to the object position and the locative argument ([HR]) to the initial position, rendering SUBJ-OBJ-V order.7 The higher ranking CANONTH above CANONGF explains the fact that in a clause with multiple nominals with the same case marker (i.e., (19b) and (19c)) the arguments are ordered according to the thematic role hierarchy. 
	Now, let’s assume a discourse context in which the theme subject is more discourse prominent than the experiencer object. This particular context renders an input like (48) and this input results in the optimal output (49a), going through the constraint competition in (49). Here 
only the subject initial candidates (a) and (b) satisfy the top-ranked constraint *SUBJ/[HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial. Among (a) and (b), (a) is the optimal output which satisfies HD-RT on which it differs from (b). 

(48)	Input:		GF1    	PRED	‘Anu’  
				PROM	+         x
				
			GF2    [	PRED	‘Nina’ ]y

			ASP	PERF
			PRED	‘see (x,y)’

(49)

CANDIDATES:	*SUBJ/[-HR]&*SUBJ/~Initial	PROM	CANONTH	CANONGF	HD-RT	
a.  SNOM ODAT V    		*!	*			
    b.  *SNOM V ODAT 		*!	*		*	
    c.  *ODAT SNOM V (=(10c), (45))	*!			*		
    d.  *ODAT V SNOM	*!			*	*	
    e.  *V SNOM ODAT 	*!	*!	*		*	
    f.  *V ODAT SNOM	*!	*!		*	*	
	
Thus the OT grammar correctly predicts that the scrambling of the [+HR] object over the [HR] subject is not possible in Hindi even in a discourse context in which it is more prominent than the subject.	
	In summary, I have shown how an OT grammar depending crucially on harmonic alignment and local conjunction of markedness constraints can exclude the most marked word order in Korean and Hindi. I have also demonstrated that the generalizations about order and the pattern of universal markedness that the word order freezing phenomena in the two languages reflect follow naturally from interactions among the markedness constraints derived through harmonic alignment of prominence hierarchies and constraints on syntactic structure and information structure.

3.3  Bidirectional Optimization, Recoverability and Freezing

Returning to the freezing effects demonstrated in 2.2, what needs to be explained is why the unmarked order of constituents in frozen sentences is always the canonical word order determined by the grammatical function hierarchy or thematic role hierarchy. In this section I will show that bidirectional optimization in OT allows us to explain the fact that scrambling is not possible when it results in the exact reversal of thematic role interpretations of two nominals associated with arguments of a single predicate. 
	In recent work, Smolensky (1996a, 1998) extends optimization to comprehension as well as production directions.  The relation between production-directed optimization and comprehension-directed optimization proposed in Smolensky (1998) is summarized in (50).

(50)	Production/Comprehension Chain of /I/: 	

	/I/ Prod [S] overt part “O” Comp /I/

/I/ is recoverable from “O”, the overt part of [S], where /I/ Prod [S], if “O”Comp /I/

Production-directed optimization starts with an input /I/ and considers the optimal structural description [S] among the set of structures the input part of which is /I/. On the other hand, comprehension-directed optimization operates on an overt form “O” and considers only those structural descriptions the overt part of which is “O”. The crucial point that will be relevant for the freezing effects is that the same OT grammar is used for both comprehension and production. Now we apply this bidirectional approach to the Korean double nominative construction examples in (14), repeated here as (51).	

(51) a.	Mary-ka	ku kay-ka	coh-ta.
	Mary-NOM	that dog-NOM	like-DECL
	‘Mary likes that dog.’
        b.	Ku kay-ka	Mary-ka	coh-ta.
	that dog-NOM	Mary-NOM	like-DECL
	* ‘Mary likes that dog.’
	‘That dog likes Mary.’
	
	The ranking for Korean in (38) (PROM » CANONGF) freely generates an ungrammatical scrambling like (51b) as well as the grammatical scrambling in production-directed optimization. However, by bidirectional optimization, we predict precisely that ungrammatical scrambling like (51b) that involves reversal of thematic role associations of two arguments of a predicate will not occur. As illustrated in (52), the constraint ranking PROM » CANONGF, proposed by Choi (1996), yields the output O (=51b) from the input I by production-directed optimization. O then recovers the non-scrambled interpretation I´ by comprehension-directed optimization. However, I´ is not identical to I and hence I is not recoverable from O, resulting in ungrammaticality.

	(52)  Bidirectional optimization as a solution to freezing involving ambiguity
	
	I:	PRED	‘like (x,y)’	      O: Scrambling (OSV) 	 I´:	PRED	‘like (x,y)’
					Prod	     (51b)  	    Comp
		GF1     [	PRED “Mary”]x						GF1	PRED “dog”
	       							  			PROM	+       x
		GF2	PRED “dog”						
			PROM	+    y						GF2    [	PRED “Mary”]y	
			       							     
		TNS	PRES							TNS	PRES

The contrast between production and comprehension is shown in (53) and (54). In production, what competes are structures that share the particular underlying form or input. The difference between the candidates (b) and (b) and the others is in which argument gets mapped to which grammatical function. For the purposes of the present discussion, I assume that the candidates (b) and (b), where ku kay ‘that dog’ is subject, do not have the same input as do the other three candidates and thus not compete. Also, the candidates (b´) and (b´´´), where [PROM +] is parsed by Mary not by ku kay ‘that dog’, do not have the same input as do (a), (b) and (b´´) and thus are not competitors. Among (a) and (b), (a) is the optimal output which satisfies the higher-ranked constraint PROM.
 	
	(53)	Production-directed optimization

	Input = I in (52)

CANDIDATES:	  PROM	 CANONGF	
     a.     Mary-kaS ku kay-kaO[PROM+] coh-taV	     *		
     b.     ku kay-kaS[PROM+] Mary-kaO coh-taV			
     b.    ku kay-kaS Mary-kaO[PROM+] coh-taV	     *		
 b.   ku kay-kaO[PROM+] Mary-kaS coh-taV		      *	
     b.  ku kay-kaO Mary-kaS[PROM+]  coh-taV	     *	      *	

	In contrast, in comprehension of the scrambled output ku kay-ka Mary-ka coh-ta (OSV), only the candidates 	(b)-(b´´´), which share the given overt form, are competing structures. The candidate (b), the winner in 	comprehension, is more harmonic than the candidate 	(b´´), the winner in production, violating none of 	the constraints. What we have here is the emergence of the unmarked (McCarthy and Prince 1994): the 	lower-ranked constraint CANONGF emerges as decisive in comprehension. 
(54)	Comprehension-directed optimization

Input = ‘ku kay-ka Mary-ka coh-ta’ (=(51b)) 

CANDIDATES:	PROM	CANONGF	
     a.     Mary-kaS ku kay-kaO[PROM+] coh-taV 	*		
 b.     ku kay-kaS[PROM +] Mary-kaO coh-taV			
     b´.    ku kay-kaS Mary-kaO[PROM +] coh-taV	*		
     b´´.   ku kay-kaO[PROM +] Mary-kaS coh-taV		*	
     b´´´.  ku kay-kaO Mary-kaS[PROM +] coh-taV	*	*	

	(55)-(57) illustrate the same point for the double nominative construction and constructions containing multiple nominals with -ko and -se in Hindi: in all three cases below the output O recovers a different, less marked input I´ than the original input I that derived the output. Notice that the same constraint ranking is used in the two processes.
 
(55) a.	patthar		botal		todegaa.
	stone-NOM	bottle-NOM	break-FU
	‘The stone will break the bottle.’
        b.	botal		patthar		todegaa.
	bottle-NOM	stone-NOM	break-FU
	* ‘The stone will break the bottle.’
        c.	Bidirectional optimization in the Hindi double nominative construction

       	I:	GF1    [	PRED	‘stone’]x	      O: Scrambling    I:	GF1	PRED	‘bottle’
					      Prod    (55b)     Comp		PROM	+         x
		GF2	PRED	‘bottle’						
			PROM	+              y				GF2     [	PRED	‘stone’]y	
		
		TNS	FU						TNS	FU
		PRED	‘break (x,y)’					PRED	‘break (x,y)’

(56) a.	raam-ko	ilaa-ke	bacce-ko	gaanaa		sikhaanaa	hai.       
	Ram-DAT	Ila’s	child-ACC	music-NOM	teach-NF	be-PRES
	‘Ram has to teach music to Ila’s child.’
        b.	ilaa-ke 		bacce-ko  raam-ko	gaanaa		sikhaanaa	hai.
	*‘Ram has to teach music to Ila’s child.’
        c.	Bidirectional optimization in the sentence with multiple nominals with -ko	

	 I:	GF1     [	PRED	’Ila’s child’]x   O: Scrambling  I:	GF1	PRED  ‘Ram’	
			 	           	          Prod      (56b)    Comp		PROM	+              x		GF2     [	PRED	‘music’ ]y             			GF2    [	PRED	‘music’ ]y			      
		GF3	PRED	‘Ram’ 					GF3    [	PRED	‘Ila’s child’ ]z
			PROM	+ 	z		           								
		TNS	PRES						TNS	PRES
		PRED	‘teach (x,y,z)’					PRED	‘teach (x,y,z)’

(57) a.	coor-se		kal		ravii-se		paise		curaae		gae.	       
	thief-INST	yesterday	Ravi-from	money-NOM	steal-PERF	go-PERF
	‘Money was stolen from Ravi yesterday by the/a thief.’
        b.	ravii-se		kal		coor-se		paise		curaae		gae.
	*‘Money was stolen from Ravi yesterday by the/a thief.’
        c. Bidirectional optimization in the sentence with multiple nominals with -se	

	I:	GF1     [	PRED	‘thief’ ]x	       	O: Scrambling  I:	GF1	PRED	‘Ravi’
					       Prod       (57b)    Comp		PROM	+         x
		GF2     [	PRED	‘money’	]y	         			GF2    [	PRED	‘money’ ]y									GF3    [	PRED	‘thief’  ]z		GF3	PRED	‘Ravi’					
			PROM	+              z 				ASP	PERF
									PRED	‘stolen (x,y,z)’    
		ASP	PERF							
		PRED	‘stolen (x,y,z)’					

The differences in competitor sets in production and comprehension in the case of (57b) are shown in (58) and (59). Here again the emergence effect follows: CANONTH, the constraint ranked lower than PROM, emerges as decisive in comprehension-directed optimization, forcing the choice of the canonical order (Agent-Source-Theme-V) determined by the thematic role hierarchy in frozen sentences. 

(58)	Production-directed optimization

Input = I in (57c)

CANDIDATES:	PROM	CANONTh	CANONGF	
    a.   paiseS coor-seADJ ravii-seOBL[PROM +] V	*	*	*	
    b.   paiseS ravii-seOBL[PROM +] coor-seADJ V	*	**		
c.   ravii-seOBL[PROM +] coor-seADJ paiseS V		*	*	
    c.  ravii-seOBL coor-seADJ[PROM +] paiseS V	*	*	*	
    c. ravii-seOBL coor-seADJ paiseS[PROM +] V	*	*	*	
    d.   ravii-seOBL[PROM +] paiseS coor-seADJ V		**	*	
    d.  ravii-seOBL paiseS[PROM +] coor-seADJ V	*	**	*	
    d. ravii-seOBL paiseS coor-seADJ[PROM +] V	*	**	*	
    e.   ravii-seADJ coor-seOBL[PROM +] paiseS V  	*		**	
    e.  ravii-seADJ[PROM +] coor-seOBL paiseS V 			**	
    e. ravii-seADJ coor-seOBL paiseS[PROM +] V	*		**	
    f.   coor-seADJ paiseS ravii-seOBL[PROM +] V	*	*	*	
    f.  coor-seADJ[PROM +] paiseS ravii-seOBL V		*	*	
    f. coor-seADJ paiseS[PROM +] ravii-seOBL V	*	*	*	

(59)	Comprehension-directed optimization

Input = ravii-se coor-se paise curaae gae (=(57b))
	
CANDIDATES:	PROM	CANONTH	CANONGF	
    a.    paiseS coor-seADJ ravii-seOBL[PROM+] V	*	*	*	
    b.    paiseS ravii-seOBL[PROM+] coor-seADJ V 	*	**		
    c.    ravii-seOBL[PROM+] coor-seADJ paiseS V		*	*	
    c.   ravii-seOBL coor-seADJ[PROM+] paiseS V    	*	*	*	
    c.  ravii-seOBL coor-seADJ paiseS[PROM+] V	*	*	*	
    d.    ravii-seOBL[PROM+] paiseS coor-seADJ V		**	*	
    d.   ravii-seOBL paiseS[PROM+] coor-seADJ V	*	**	*	
    d.  ravii-seOBL paiseS coor-seADJ[PROM+] V	*	**	*	
    e.    ravii-seADJ coor-seOBL[PROM+] paiseS V	*		**	
e.   ravii-seADJ[PROM+] coor-seOBL paiseS V			**	
    e.  ravii-seADJ coor-seOBL paiseS[PROM+] V	*		**	
    f.    coor-seADJ paiseS ravii-seOBL[PROM+] V	*	*	*	
    f.   coor-seADJ[PROM+] paiseS ravii-seOBL V		*	*	
    f.  coor-seADJ paiseS[PROM+] ravii-seOBL V	*	*	*	

	It should be emphasized that the canonical word order in Korean and Hindi occurs in isolated sentences and is also the order used in cases of nondistinctiveness of the two arguments of the verb (identity of case forms; equal animacy). A consequence of the bidirectional approach to word order freezing taken here is that it gives room for the contextual disambiguation (Joan Bresnan p.c.). That is, if use of intonation, stress, discourse markers distinct from case markers, etc. disambiguates the grammatical functions or thematic roles of nominals, the recoverability problem is predicted not to arise, and the relevant OT constraints will come into play in picking the best candidate.

	4  Conclusion

In sum, harmonic alignment of prominence hierarchies and local conjunction of constraints offer exactly the formal devices needed to derive the constraint hierarchies which underlie the interactions of grammatical function, thematic roles, case marking and linear orders of nominals in ‘the worst of the worst’ type freezing in Korean and Hindi.  I have also shown that by bidirectional optimization in OT it is possible to predict the type of scrambling resulting in reversal of thematic role interpretations of nominals not to occur in sentences in which the morphology does not distinguish subject from object or agent from other arguments. These preliminary results suggest that freezing effects in the two languages examined here can be subsumed under the universal theory of markedness. Whether the approach taken here extends to freezing effects in other languages remains to be seen.

References

Aissen, Judith. 1998. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. MS., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Artstein, Ron. 1998. Hierarchies. MS., On-line, Rutgers University: http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~artstein.
Asudeh, Ash. 1999. Linking and Optionality in Marathi: An Optimality Analysis. MS., Stanford University. 
Bloom, Douglas B. 1999. They’re Freezing in Russia: A Typology of Word Order “Freezing” in the Russian Language. MS., 	Stanford University.
Bresnan, Joan. Forthcoming. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Optimal Syntax. To appear in Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), 	Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresnan, Joan. 1997. The Emergence of the Unmarked Pronoun II. Paper presented at the Hopkins Optimality Theory 	Workshop, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, May 9-12, 1997. 
Choi, Hye-Won. 1996. Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, 	Stanford University. 
Dik, Simon, et al. 1981. On the Typology of Focus Phenomena. In Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst and Michael 	Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar, 41-74. 	Dordrecht: Holland, Foris.
Donohue, Cathryn. 1999. Optimizing Fore Case and Word Order. MS., Stanford University.  
Gerdts, Donna and Cheong Youn. 1988. Korean Psych Constructions: Advancement or Retreat? In Papers from the 25th 	Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1: 155-175. 
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, Heads, and Optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373-422.
Gurtu, Madhu. 1985. Anaphoric Relations in Hindi and English. Doctoral Dissertation, Central Institute of English and 	Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India. 
Han, Eunjoo. 1991. Honorification in Korean. MS., Stanford University.
Hong, Ki-Sun. 1991. Argument Selection and Case Marking in Korean. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Implications of Language Universals for Linguistics. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of 	Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kager, René. 1998. Optimality Theory. A Textbook. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS MS., June 1998 version. 	To be published by Cambridge University Press.  
Kim, Young-joo. 1990. The Syntax and Semantics of Korean Case: The Interaction between Lexical and Syntactic Levels of 	Representation. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Structural Case. MS., Stanford University.
Kiss, Katalin É (Ed.). 1994. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Hanjung. 1999. Discourse Competing with Syntax: “Misplaced” que in Child French. Paper presented at the 1999 	Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles, January 7-10, 1999. Longer version on-line, 	Stanford University: http://www-lfg.stanford.edu/lfg/archive/archive.html.
Lee, Young-Suk. 1993. Scrambling as Case-Driven Obligatory Movement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of 	Pennsylvania. 
Legendre, Géraldine, Paul Raymond and Paul Smolensky. 1993. An Optimality-Theoretic Typology of Case and 	Grammatical Voice Systems. In BLS, Vol. 19, 464-478.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1994. The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. In NELS 	24, 333-379. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1994. Nonconfigurationality within a Configurational Structure. MS., MIT.
Mohanan, K.P. and Tara Mohanan. 1994. Issues in Word Order. In M. Butt, T.H. King and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical 	Perspectives on Word Order Issues in South Asian Languages, 153-184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Arguments in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mohanan, Tara. 1992. Word Order in Hindi. Paper presented at the Syntax Workshop, Stanford University.
Morimoto, Yukiko. 1999. Information Packaging and Argument Reversal: An Optimality-Theoretic Account of 	English 	Locative Inversion. Paper to be presented at the LFG 99 Conference, University of Manchester, Britain, July 19-21, 	1999. 
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality Theory and Syntax: Movement and Pronunciation. In Diana Archangeli and D. 	Terence Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory: An Overview, 134-170. Oxford: Blackwell.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. RuCCS Technical 	Report #2. Piscateway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. 
Sells, Peter. 1998. Syntactic Positioning as Alignment: Object Shift in Swedish. Paper presented at the Stanford/CSLI OT 	Workshop. Stanford University, December 12, 1998.
Sells, Peter. 1997. The Typology of Grammatical Voice Systems Revisited. Paper presented at the Hopkins Optimality 	Theory Workshop, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, May 9-12, 1997.
Sells, Peter. 1994. Sub-Phrasal Syntax in Korean. Language Research 30, 351-386.
Sharma, Devyani. 1999. Sentential Negation and Focus in Hindi. MS., Stanford University.
Smolensky, Paul. 1998. Why Syntax is Different (But Not Really): Ineffability, Violability and Recoverability in Syntax 	and Phonology. Handout of the talk given at the Stanford/CSLI OT Workshop. Stanford University, December 12, 	1998.
Smolensky, Paul. 1996a. On the Comprehension/Production Dilemma in Child Language. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 720-731.
Smolensky, Paul. 1996b. The Initial State and “Richness of the Base” in Optimality Theory. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-	96-4, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University. 
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component Con of UG. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 	ROA-86-0000, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Verma, Manindra K. and K.P. Mohanan (eds.). 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI 	Publications.
Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1996. Ambiguity of Government and the Chain Condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 	14: 105-162.

Dept. of Linguistics
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-2150
hanjung@csli.stanford.edu