Dissertation - Michael Becker

Equivalently, C2 could have been chosen for cloning, with the resulting grammar beingC2 winner2 ≫ C1 ≫ C2 winner1 . These two grammars are both fully consistent, and bothsuccessfully resolve the inconsistency by putting winner1 and winner2 in two different“bins”. Assuming that each of winner1 and winner2 represent a number of lexical items,successfully separating them and making their relative numbers accessible to the learnerwill make the lexical trend available, no matter which of C1 or C2 is chosen for cloning.4.2.2 Two independent conflictsMore complex situations arise when the language has two or more lexical trends in it,which leads to two or more conflicts that need to be resolved by cloning. I examine thesesituations below.Completely independent trends, as in (141), present no challenge to the learner. Theyare simply two instances of a minimal conflict, as in (139). Cloning any of the constraintswill solve one conflict, which in turn will only leave two constraints available for cloning,and cloning either of those will solve the other conflict. This is shown below.(141)C1 C2 C3 C4a. winner1 ≻ loser1 W Lb. winner2 ≻ loser2 L Wc. winner3 ≻ loser3 W Ld. winner4 ≻ loser4 L WIf C1 is chosen for cloning first, C1 winner1 will be installed, which will then allow C2to be installed. The first two winner-loser pairs will be removed from the Support, whichleaves C1 winner2 ready for installation. Now the situation with C3 and C4 is reduced to a149