OT

[LFG List]

Hi,
> ...
> 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?

OT  provides a possible way for ranking/filtering competing
alternatives in a  more restricted way than its predecessor, Harmony
grammar. 

I think one issue that we should consider for OT, is that whether it
is that chameleon-like theory and can be applied easily on top of different
theories and grammatical formalisms.  Is the nature of grammar and
interaction of syntax, semantics and discourse, the same as the nature
of phonological constraints where OT is more powerful and can we find
a hierarchy of constraints to represent these aspects? Or Isn't OT more
suitable for theories with modular interacting principles like GB? A 
more general question is: do  we need to incorporate competition
and ranking (and even probabilities) into the architecture of our
model or we can add competition on top of it.

- Siamak

   __o -  Siamak Rezaei Durroei, Centre for Cognitive Science - __o
 _`\<,_ - 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland, UK - _ \<,_
(*)/ (*) -  Tel: +44 131 650 4421  FAX: +44 131 650 6626   -  (*)/ (*)