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

(7.6) OT grammar with a feature hierarchy: [low] > [back] > [ATR]
/–lo, –bk,
–ATR/ = E
a. [+lo, –bk,
+ATR] = Q
b. [–lo, –bk,
–ATR] = E
c. [–lo, +bk,
+ATR] = u
☞ d. [–lo, –bk,
+ATR] = i
IDENT
[lo]
*[–bk,
– ATR]
IDENT
[bk]
*[–lo,
–ATR]
IDENT
[ATR]
*! *
*! *
*! *
In this example, an input segment /–low, –back, –ATR/ (say, the vowel
/E/) surfaces as [i]. Because of the highly ranked constraint IDENT [low], an input
vowel must retain its feature [–low] (hence candidate (a) is excluded); the
‘faithful’ output [E] is excluded because there is a constraint against being [–back]
and [–ATR] at the same time; and candidate (c) does not preserve the underlying
[–back] feature, violating IDENT [back]; hence, all these candidates lose to (d). 11
The point is that any ranking of faithfulness constraints implies a feature
ordering. Thus, the question of whether and how features are ordered in a
grammar is independent of the Contrastivist Hypothesis.
11 For the sake of concision I have omitted reference to the feature [high] from this example, and
the constraints that rule out [e] in Nez Perce.
*
277