Dissertation - Michael Becker

RCD. Pater (2006, 2008b) proposes a mechanism for resolving such inconsistencies bycloning. In cloning, the speaker replaces a universal constraint of general applicabilitywith two copies, or clones, of the universal constraint that are lexically-specific, with eachclone listing the lexical items it applies to 8 .Given the situation in (40), the speaker can clone IDENT(voice), making one clonespecific to the root anaÙ (and any other lexical items that IDENT(voice) assigns a W to),and the other clone specific to the root amaÙ (and any other lexical items that IDENT(voice)assigns an L to). The resulting grammar is no longer inconsistent:(41)IDENT(voice) anaÙIDENT(voice) amaÙ*VÙVa. anaÙ-1 ≻ anaÃ-1 W Lb. amaÃ-1 ≻ amaÙ-1 L WNow RCD can be successfully applied to (41): First, IDENT(voice) anaÙ is installed, andthe first winner-loser pair is removed. This leaves the column of *VÙV with no L’s in it, so*VÙV is installed below IDENT(voice) anaÙ , and the second winner-loser pair is removed.The remaining constraint, IDENT(voice) amaÙis added to the ranking below *VÙV. Theresulting grammar is IDENT(voice) anaÙ≫ *VÙV ≫ IDENT(voice) amaÙ , which correctlyblocks the voicing alternation in anaÙ-1 but allows it in amaÃ-1. In the case of (40),choosing to clone IDENT(voice) solved the inconsistency, but cloning *VÙV would havebeen equally useful. The question of which constraint to clone is addressed systematicallyin §4.2.8 Pater (2006, 2008b) suggests a slightly different mechanism, where one clone is lexically specific andthe other clone stays general. I argue in §2.4.2 below that both clones must be lexically specific to accountfor the behavior of Turkish speakers.46