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

epresentation because it, too, violates MAX [low] (i.e., no underspecification
‘from below’ is permitted). Finally, candidate (g) retains the correct specifications
from the input but adds a redundant feature, [–back]. It thus incurs an extra
violation of *[F] and so loses to (c).
6.5. Constraint hierarchies not corresponding to a contrastive hierarchy
The procedure in (6.15) can convert any legal contrastive hierarchy into a
constraint hierarchy. The converse is not the case, however. We have seen that a
number of commentators have observed that OT is capable of simulating a wide
spectrum of grammars, ranging from those with highly underspecified
representations to those with full specification, as well as grammars intermediate
between these. If all of these grammars are indeed attested, then this degree of
expressive power is warranted. If, however, there are constraints on the degree
of specification allowed in grammars, then it is undesirable to allow constraint
hierarchies that produce impossible grammars.
The assumption here, following from the Contrastivist Hypothesis, is that
the contrastive hierarchy sets the limits on specification in phonology, at least to
a first approximation. If that is the correct position, then we wish to constrain OT
to be limited to hierarchies that simulate legal contrastive hierarchies. That is, we
could require that OT grammars contain only constraint hierarchies that adhere
to (6.15). In the absence of such a constraint, OT grammars can indeed mimic all
manners of specification and underspecification. This can be illustrated with the
same Classical Manchu vowel system we considered above.
236