Dissertation - Michael Becker

Adding the feature that causes an unfaithful mapping to the UR of the suffix will nowrescue [naÙ h -1l] from its predicament (175).(175)/nat^/ + /[+ant] 1l/ IDENT(anterior) MAX(float)a. nat h -1l ≻ naÙ h -1l W Lb. naÙ h -1l ≻ nat h -1l L WRunning the Cloning RCD on (175) can produce a consistent grammar by cloning eitherof the two available constraints. If IDENT(anterior) is cloned, the resulting grammar wouldbe the one in (176).(176) IDENT(anterior) 〈nat^ (piece),ACC,MAX(float)〉 ≫ MAX(float)≫ IDENT(anterior) 〈nat^ (face),ACC,MAX(float)〉The addition of a floating [anterior] feature to the accusative suffix resolved theharmonic bounding in (174) and allowed the speaker to reach the grammar in (176).So far, the learner was shown to be able to deal with cases of multiple allomorphs ofa suffix, as in the Dutch past tense, and with cases of a single surface form of the suffixthat required floating structure, as in Korean accusative. If the language presents bothallomorphy and the need for floating features in the context of a single sufffix, the learnerwill need to consider both of these aspects of the phonology in their search for the UR.The learner will have to balance two strategies: Trying out combinations of surfaceforms as competing allomorphs, and trying out adding floating features to (any of)the surface forms.Since combining surface forms makes the hypothesis space growexponentially with the number of forms involved, 8 while adding floating features only8 Two surface forms give rise to three combinations, three forms give rise to 7 combinations, and n formsgive rise to 2 n − 1 combinations.182