The contrastive hierarchy in phonology 2009 Dresher.pdf - CUNY ...

For example, consider again the rules in (5.1a), whereby /i/ becomes
[+back]. SPE would fully specify /i/ as in (5.16a). 7 Let us write the rule in
question as in (5.16b). Changing the specification of [back] leads to (5.16c), which,
if left undisturbed, would yield [ˆ], not [u]. However, there exists a markedness
convention that mentions the specification [+back] and whose other
specifications are also met by (5.16c), namely vowel convention XI, listed above
as (5.2gi) and repeated here as (5.16d). Linking this convention to the rule means
in effect that the value of the feature [round] in the segment produced by the
backing rule must revert to its unmarked value, which is [+round] in the context
of [+back, –low], yielding (5.16e), which is [u], not [ˆ].
(5.16) Linking in the change of /i/ to [+back]
a. Specification of /i/: [–low, +high, –back, –round]
b. Backing rule: V [+back]
c. Change by rule (b): [–low, +high, +back, –round]
d. Linked markedness convention € (5.2gi):
/ _____ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎣ –low ⎦
(XI) [u round] [αround]
e. Change by linking: [–low, +high, +back, +round]
7 Full specification is a relative matter, since there are further features that could apply here
([ATR], [tense], [nasal], etc.). Additional features will not affect the basic point.
€
/
⎡ _____ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢
α back
⎥
⎣ ⎢ –low ⎦ ⎥
181