||I am a third year English major (and, of course, a first year Linguistics major) which is the particular department where the classical generative way is most pursued (as opposed to the other departments' more conservative-ish approach to linguistics and language in general). This is the prime origin of my interest, which mainly lies in phonology. About which the most I know, apart from everybody's SPE, is Kaye Lowenstam & Vergnaud's (among others) Government Phonology, so right now my mind is framed to favour privative elements against binary features, minimalist approaches to great unwinding derivations and p-licensing to trsyllabic laxing (which I cannot spell anyway.) The problem is, I have serious doubts about the actual efficiency of element theory and GP, so I am quite keen to be either persuaded that it can work (which doesn't mean it can actually map the human mindframe, I'm much of an instrumentalist) or be allowed to look for different theories which would more elaborately render phonological processes. OT, having read the 1993 article (Constraint Interactions etc), seems particularly sexy, as it elegantly grabs broad across-language generalisations in simple four capital letter-constraints, though I am quite aware that this system can be very fastly turned into its own ridicule (let us have constr. *AFTERN which would devoice all coda obstruents in the afternoon - why not?). I hope my participation in your fabulous summer rally will allow me to broaden my horizon, due to the excellent linguists who will lecture there (I heard great things from fellow students, really) and I didn't even apply for a travel grant.