OT

[Daniel L. Everett]

Nigel Vincent questions whether OT is monostratal or in fact whether terms
like monostratal or monolevel ought to apply to it, since it is a way of
interpreting other theories. 

But it seems to me that it is misleading to think that OT is so
chameleon-like that it takes on the architecture of whatever theory it is
interpreting. No matter what theory it is interpreting, OT will require
that the theory have an input, an output, and some statement on the GEN
function's range (i.e. the inviolable constraints of that theory). 

This is the minimum. That part is invariant. So I do not think that I can
agree if what Nigel is claiming is that one cannot characterize OT as
having X-levels. It has two, plus GEN, and this doesn't vary. Other strata
(e.g. if one were rendering an RG analysis in OT terms) would have to be
stated in terms of constraint-defining properties of the output, not as
separate strata. This is the cost of doing business in OT. 
 
Or have I missed something?

-- Dan

******************************
******************************

Daniel L. Everett
Department of Linguistics
University of Pittsburgh
2816 CL
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-624-8101; Fax: 412-624-6130
http://verb.linguist.pitt.edu/~dever


"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is
in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot
stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is
well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."
-- Mark Twain