Oldal 72 [72]
CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
in this example, Solidarity seems to outrank Power as the successful candidate
complies with it, but not with Power. However, according to OT for the analysis
of bilingual grammar, a higher ranked constraint overwrites the conflict of the
lower ranked. In the interrelation of Power and Solidarity, we have seen that
Power outranks Solidarity, so the ranking of a third constraint (in this case,
Faith) becomes relevant only to the constraint ranked higher in relation of the
other two (in this case Power).
In sum, we have seen that Power outranks Solidarity, and Faith outranks
Power, so the relation of the three constraints can be computed as follows:
FAITH >> POWER >> SOLIDARITY
Further examples are necessary to complement the ranking by positioning the
two other constraints: Perspective and Face.
Now, let’s consider the interaction of Perspective and Power. In Example
[16], the speaker switches to Hindi from English to “animate the local politi¬
cians’ response to the Kashmiri migrant problem” (Bhatt and Bolonyai)'™.
Example [16] — The interaction of PERSPECTIVE and POWER
1 A “What are the politicians doing about the migrant problem I would
like to know”
2 B “They do nothing, they say kashmiriyon ko pahle khud organize hona
paRhegaa”
(“.. Kashmiris themselves have to first get organized’)
(cited by Bhatt and Bolonyai and Bhatt)!*°
The switch to Hindi (line 2) optimally serves the function of perspective taking
by giving voice to the local politicians and by enabling the speaker to shift
from his role of a narrator to that of the local politicians. The switch to Hindi,
therefore, complies more optimally with the constraint of Perspective than the
monolingual candidate. The switch to Hindi, however, violates the constraint
of Power as it moves away from the language of power to the language of Hindi,
indicating shared ethnicity and a distance from English.
184 Bhatt — Bolonyai, Ibid., 539
185 Bhatt — Bolonyai, Ibid., 539
+ 70 +