Dissertation - Michael Becker

In other cases, more work is needed: In the Dutch past tense, for example, the pasttense suffix can show up as either [-t@] or [-d@] (169). The underlying form of the suffixlies in a fairly large space of plausible hypotheses: It could be identical to just one of thesurface forms, i.e. /-t@/ or /-d@/, or it could be both forms (where they are allowed tocompete as allomorphs), or it could be some non-surface-true form, such as /[+voice] -d@/with a floating [+voice] feature, or it could be a combination of surface-true form(s) withnon-surface-true form(s).(169) Imperative Past tensestOp stOp-t@ ‘stop’tOp tOb-d@ ‘worry’Given the assumption that the UR’s of [stOp] and [tOp] are /stOp/ and /tOp/, the learnercan start their search for the UR of the past tense suffix by testing each of its surface formsas a hypothesis. This is a good place to start, since with n surface forms of the suffix,there are exactly n hypotheses to test. In (170), for example, both roots are tested withthe hypothesis that the UR of the suffix is /t@/. This hypothesis must be rejected, since itgenerates a harmonically bounded winner, as seen in the winner-loser pair that has no W’sin its row (170b).(170)/... p/ + /t@/ IDENT(voice) ROOT IDENT(voice) ONSETa. stOp-t@ ≻ stOb-d@ W Wb. tOb-d@ ≻ tOp-t@ L LThe hypothesis that the UR of the affix is /d@/ is tested in (171). This hypothesisgenerates an inconsistent grammar, but it is a grammar that can be rendered consistent by179