Page 72 [72]
OCR
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 politicians’ 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 +
