Dissertation - Michael Becker

(47)ID(voice) *VtV *VÙVa. amaÃ-1 ≻ amaÙ-1 L Wb. anaÙ-1 ≻ anaÃ-1 W Lc. kanad-1 ≻ kanat-1 L Wd. sepet-i ≻ seped-i W LGiven (47), cloning *VÙV will not suffice to make the grammar consistent. If *VÙVis cloned first, the learner will install *VÙV amaÙ and remove the first winner-loser pair, butthen they will still have a tableau with no columns that have no L’s in them. Cloning *VtVas well will solve the inconsistency, and the resulting grammar would be as in (48).(48) *VÙV amaÙ , *VtV kanat ≫ IDENT(voice) ≫ *VtV sepet , *VÙV anaÙThe resulting grammar in (48) successfully partitions the lexicon: t-final nouns arelisted with clones of *VtV, and Ù -final nouns are listed with clones of *VÙV. Thesepartitions are defined by the constraints that distinguish winners from losers. The languagelearner’s ability to treat each place separately is a consequence of the availability ofuniversal constraints that relate voicing and place of articulation. These constraints letthe speaker detect inconsistency in each place separately, and create lists of lexical items ineach place.2.4.3 The size effectBoth the lexicon (§2.2) and the experimental results (§2.3) show a higher preference foralternations in poly-syllabic nouns relative to mono-syllabic, in every place of articulation.The size effect is not equal across the different places, however. Mono-syllabic nouns51