Johanna,
There are, of course, genres, poetry being one, in which ambiguity is
both nurtured and exploited. From the perspective of discourse theory,
we also have to wonder if this is not what the formalists used to call
"intentional fallacy," reducing the menaing to what was intended. If the
one correct meaning is or is not what the writer/speaker intended, does
that make our understanding right or wrong, and on what basis? I know
you're not presenting this as an advocate of the approach, but isn't it
so decontextualized as to lose all practical application?

Craig

Johanna Rubba wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Last I looked, the gist of Optimality Theory was as follows: A language
>has a set of ranked constraints which tell which structures are optimal.
>For any given structure (in any module of language), there might be
>numerous possible surface forms. The one which violates the fewest
>constraints will 'win' and be the actual form. There are, of course,
>fancy details and formulae and notation, but this is the gist.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University
>One Grand Avenue  " San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
>Tel. (805)-756-2184  "  Fax: (805)-756-6374 " Dept. Phone.  756-2596
>" E-mail: [log in to unmask] "      Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/