@article{HeinBarnickel2018,
  author    = {Hein, Johannes and Barnickel, Katja},
  title     = {Replication of R-pronouns in German dialects},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Sprachwissenschaft : ZS},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Sprachwissenschaft : ZS},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Mouton},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0721-9067},
  doi       = {10.1515/zfs-2018-0009},
  pages     = {171 -- 204},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {A considerable number of German dialects exhibit doubled R-pronouns with pronominal adverbs (dadamit, dadafur, dadagegen). At first sight, this type of in situ replication seems to be completely redundant since its occurrence is independent of R-pronoun extraction/movement. The main purpose of this paper is to account for (i) the difference between dialects with regard to replication of R-pronouns and (ii) why an (apparently redundant) process of replication occurs. Following Muller (2000a), who considers R-pronouns to be a repair phenomenon, we present an analysis in the framework of Optimality Theory. We argue that replication of R-pronouns is a consequence of different rankings of universal requirements like e.g. the Inclusiveness Condition, the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and Antilocality and that the interaction of these constraints results in the occurrence of replication.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Broekhuis2006,
  author    = {Broekhuis, Hans},
  title     = {Derivations (MP) and evaluations (OT)},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  number    = {25},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32347},
  pages     = {137 -- 193},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {The main claim of this paper is that the minimalist framework and optimality theory adopt more or less the same architecture of grammar: both assume that a generator defines a set S of potentially well-formed expressions that can be generated on the basis of a given input, and that there is an evaluator that selects the expressions from S that are actually grammatical in a given language L. The paper therefore proposes a model of grammar in which the strengths of the two frameworks are combined: more specifically, it is argued that the computational system of human language CHL from MP creates a set S of potentially well-formed expressions, and that these are subsequently evaluated in an optimality theoretic fashion.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Hacken2006,
  author    = {Hacken, Pius ten},
  title     = {The nature, use and origin of explanatory adequacy},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  number    = {25},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32297},
  pages     = {9 -- 32},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {If we want to compare the explanatory and descriptive adequacy of the MP and OT, the original definitions by Chomsky (1964) are or little direct use. However, a relativized version of both notions can be defined, which can be used to express a number of parallels between the study of individual I-languages and the language faculty. In any version of explanatory and descriptive adequacy, the two notions derive from the research programme and can only be achieved together. They can therefore not be used to characterize the difference in orientation between OT and the MP. Even if 'OT' is restricted to a particular theory in Chomskyan linguistics (to the exclusion of, for instance, its use in LFG), it cannot be said to be stronger in descriptive adequacy than in explanatory adequacy in the technical sense of these terms.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Grimshwa2006,
  author    = {Grimshwa, Jane},
  title     = {Last resorts and grammaticality},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  number    = {25},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32302},
  pages     = {33 -- 41},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {A "last resort" is argued to be nothing more than a winning, i.e. grammatical form, once it is understood in terms of competition between alternative candidates. It is a theorem of OT that we find last resort effects, since it follows from the nature of competition and constraint interaction.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Trommer2001,
  author    = {Trommer, Jochen},
  title     = {Distributed optimality},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-0001377},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2001},
  abstract  = {In dieser Dissertation schlage ich eine Synthese (Distributed Optimality, DO) von Optimalit{\"a}tstheorie und einem derivationellen, morphologischem Asatz, Distributed Morphology (DM; Halle \& Marantz, 1993) vor. Durch die Integration von OT in DM wird es m{\"o}glich, Ph{\"a}nomene, die in DM durch sprachspezifische Regeln oder Merkmale von lexikalischen Eintr{\"a}ge erfasst werden, auf die Interaktion von verletzbaren, universellen Constraints zur{\"u}ckzuf{\"u}hren. Andererseits leistet auch DM zwei substantielle Beitr{\"a}ge zu DO, Lokalit{\"a}t und Impoverishment. Lokalit{\"a}t erlaubt eine formal einfache Interpretation von DO, w{\"a}hrend sich Impoverishment als unverzichtbar erweist, um Kongruenz-Morphologie ad{\"a}quat zu beschreiben. Die empirische Grundlage der Arbeit sind die komplexen Kongruenzsysteme von genetisch unterschiedlichen Sprachen. Der theoretische Schwerpunkt liegt in zwei Bereichen: Erstens, sogenannte Direkt/Invers-Markierung, f{\"u}r die gezeigt wird, dass eine Behandlung durch Constraints {\"u}ber Merkmalsrealisierung am angemessensten ist. Zweitens, die Effekte von Abfolge-Constraints, die den Satus von Affixen als Pr{\"a}fixe und Suffixe sowie ihre relative Reihenfolge regeln. Eine konkrete Typologie f{\"u}r die Abfolge von Kongruenz-Affixen auf der Basis von OT-Constraints wird vorgeschlagen.},
  language  = {en}
}