Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T18:41:48.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish Iotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Jerzy Rubach  and
Geert E. Booij
Jerzy Rubach*
Affiliation:
University of Warsaw University of Iowa
Geert E. Booij
Affiliation:
Free University, Amsterdam
*
Rubach, (fall semester), Dept. of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 [jerzy-rubach@uiowa.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses IOTATION, a process that has been analyzed in generative phonology as a palatalization rule. We argue that optimality theory predicts the treatment of this process in terms of allomorphy, which in fact is desirable for a synchronic analysis. The consequence is that, with regard to iotation effects, the task of phonology is to account for the distribution of allomorphs rather than to derive them from a single underlying representation. While, as a result of diachronic changes, the allomorphs are arbitrary, their distribution is not. It follows from the interaction of universal phonological and morphological constraints, and from the considerations of segment markedness.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 26 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1975. On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. Journal of Linguistics 11. 39–62.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura W.; and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) 1995. Papers in optimality theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1987. Syllable structure and the Polish imperative desinence. Slavic and East European Journal 31. 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1992. Polish syllables. The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1997. Non-derivational phonology meets lexical phonology. Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. by Roca, Iggy, 261–88. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1998. Phonological output constraints in morphology. Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages, ed. by Kehrein, Wolfgang and Wiese, Richard, 143–63. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E., and Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. Yearbook of Morphology 1988.67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73. 493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1997. Verbalizing suffixes and the structure of the Polish verb. Yearbook of Morphology 1997.25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doroszewski, Witold (ed.) 1980. Slownik poprawnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Drachman, Gaberell, Kager, René; and Malikouti-Drachman, A. 1996. Greek allomorphy: An optimality theory account. OTS Working Papers 10. 1–12. (Utrecht University).Google Scholar
Gladney, Frank Y. 1971. Towards the economy in the description of Polish morphology. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 22. 55–61.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian conjugation. Word 4. 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig unter Berlin: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. Interfaces in phonology, ed. by Kleinhenz, Ursula, 155–71. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63. 463–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laskowski, Roman. 1975. Studia nad morfonoloģ współczesnego języka polskiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. The organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1963. Preliminary remarks on the morphophonemic component of Polish. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 71. 220–35.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1965. Segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Loey, Adolphe van. 1964. Schönfelds historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G. 1955. Old Church Slavonic grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38. 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S. 1994a. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1994b. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 24. 333–79.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman et al. 1995, 249–384.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marina, Nespor., and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Patz, Elisabeth. 1991. Djabugay. The handbook of Australian languages 4, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Blake, B. J., 245–347. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado, MS.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology. The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1985. On the interaction of word formation rules and phonological rules. Phonomorphology. Studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology, ed. by Gussmann, Edmund, 131–55. Lublin: Wydawnictwa Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology. Linguistic Review 5. 247–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1993. The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. and Booij, Geert E. 1990. Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 427–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 107–36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1881. Grundzüge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A non-linear analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22. 249–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Arguments for morpholexical rules. Journal of Linguistics 24. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Szober, Stanisław. 1962. [1921] Gramatyka języka polskiego. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta. 1989. The phonology-morphology interface. Cycles, levels and words. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1865. On the relation of vowels and consonants. Journal of the American Oriental Society 8. 357–73. Reprinted in Whitney on language, ed. by Michael Silverstein, 198-214, 1971. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzchowska, Bozena. 1963. Budowa akustyczna a artykulacja dźwięków mowy. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 22. 3–23.Google Scholar
Yearley, Jennifer. 1995. Jer vowels in Russian. In Beckman et al. 1995, 533–71.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Berkeley, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar