DescriptionLocal Conjunction (LC: Smolensky 1993, 1995, 1997) been the subject of a great deal of theoretical discussion, but much less attention has been paid to the possibility that OT might include connectives other than LC for creating new constraints from pre-existing ones. Is there any reason to suspect that LC could be the only connective available to natural-language OT grammars? I argue that there is: of the fifteen possible two-place connectives besides LC, all are either analytically inert or can be ruled out by typologically-motivated criteria.
NoteThe definitive version of this paper is published in University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 36: Papers in theoretical and computational phonology (2007)and is available at http://glsa.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/list.cgi?ALL%UMOP36%1%Y
NoteWolf, Matthew (2007). "What constraint connectives should be permitted in OT?" In Michael Becker (Ed.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 36: Papers in Theoretical and Computational Phonology, pp. 151-179. Amherst, MA: GLSA
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsCopyright for scholarly resources published in RUcore is retained by the copyright holder. By virtue of its appearance in this open access medium, you are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Other uses, such as reproduction or republication, may require the permission of the copyright holder.