Dental Obstruent Palatalization in Polish from the Perspective of Modern American Phonological Theories

Uniwersytet Warszawski

Wydział Neofilologii

Marek Krzemiński

Nr albumu 282 742

Dental Obstruent Palatalization in Polish from the Perspective of Modern American Phonological Theories

Praca magisterska na kierunku filologia

w zakresie filologia angielska

Praca wykonana pod kierunkiem prof. zw. dr. hab. Jerzego Rubacha

Instytut Anglistyki Wydział Neofilologii UW

Warszawa, czerwiec 2015

2

Oświadczenie kierującego pracą

Oświadczam, że niniejsza praca została przygotowana pod moim kierunkiem i stwierdzam, że

spełnia ona warunki do przedstawienia jej w postępowaniu o nadanie tytułu zawodowego.

Data Podpis kierującego pracą

Oświadczenie autora (autorów) pracy

Świadom odpowiedzialności prawnej oświadczam, że niniejsza praca dyplomowa została

napisana przez mnie samodzielnie i nie zawiera treści uzyskanych w sposób niezgodny z

obowiązującymi przepisami.

Oświadczam również, że przedstawiona praca nie była wcześniej przedmiotem procedur

związanych z uzyskaniem tytułu zawodowego w wyższej uczelni.

Oświadczam ponadto, że niniejsza wersja pracy jest identyczna z załączoną wersją

elektroniczną.

Data Podpis autora (autorów) pracy

3

Streszczenie

„Palatalizacja zębowych obstruentów w języku polskim

w ujęciu współczesnych amerykańskich teorii fonologicznych”

Niniejsza praca magisterska ma na celu przedstawienie palatalizacji obstruentów zębowych w

języku polskim z perspektywy wybranych teorii fonologicznych. Rozdział pierwszy przybliża

podstawowe założenia teoretyczne teorii SPE (Chomsky i Halle 1968), teorii Geometrii Cech

(Sagey 1986, Halle 1992, 1995), Leksykalnej Fonologii (Kiparsky 1982, Booij i Rubach

1987) oraz Teorii Optymalności (Prince i Smolensky 1993, 2004 oraz McCarthy & Prince

1995), a także omawia budowę zgłosek istotnych dla analiz w kolejnych rozdziałach.

Rozdział drugi skupia się na analizie palatalizacji zębowych obstruentów w teoriach

bazujących na regułach fonologicznych. Rozdział trzeci przedstawia analizę palatalizacji z

perspektywy teorii operujących uniwersalnymi wymogami (Universal Constraints), Teorii

Optymalności oraz jej siostry, Derywacyjnej Teorii Optymalności (Kiparsky 1997, 2000,

Rubach 1997, 2000a,b, 2005, 2007). Rozdział czwarty przedstawia wnioski.

Słowa kluczowe

Palatalizacjia, Teoria SPE, Leksykalna Fonologia, Teoria Optymalności, Derywacyjna Teoria

Optymalności,

Dziedzina pracy (kody wg programu Socrates-Erasmus)

09000 – Filologia angielska

4

Table of Contents

Symbols and abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 6

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 7

Preface ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10

1.1. Theoretical background ................................................................................................. 10

1.1.1 SPE .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.1.2. Feature Geometry ................................................................................................... 13

1.1.3. Lexical Phonology .................................................................................................. 14

1.1.4. Optimality Theory .................................................................................................. 15

1.2. Descriptive background ................................................................................................. 17

1.2.1. Polish dental and prepalatal obstruents .................................................................. 17

Chapter 2. Rule-based phonology ............................................................................................ 19

2.1. Coronal Palatalization ................................................................................................... 19

2.1.1. The SPE framework ............................................................................................... 20

2.2. Surface Palatalization .................................................................................................... 26

2.2.1. The SPE framework ............................................................................................... 27

2.3. Lexical Phonology ......................................................................................................... 30

2.3.1. Feature Geometry ................................................................................................... 32

2.4. Partial conclusions ......................................................................................................... 35

Chapter 3. Consraint-based approach ....................................................................................... 37

3.1. Palatalization in Optimality Theory .............................................................................. 37

5

3.1.1. Driving force behind palatalization ........................................................................ 38

3.1.2. Strategies to satisfy the PAL constraint ................................................................. 39

3.2. Derivational Optimality Theory .................................................................................... 47

3.2.1. Evaluation at Level 1 .............................................................................................. 47

3.2.2. Evaluation at Level 2 .............................................................................................. 51

3.2.3. Evaluation at Level 3 .............................................................................................. 55

3.3. Partial conclusions ......................................................................................................... 57

Chapter 4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 58

References ................................................................................................................................ 58

6

Symbols and abbreviations

// // – underlying representation

/ / – intermediate representation

[ ] – surface representation

C – consonant

V – vowel

+ – morpheme boundary

# – word boundary

UR – underlying representation

SR – surface representation

SPE – The Sound Pattern of English by N. Chomsky and M. Halle (1968)

FG – Feature Geometry

OT – Optimality Theory

DOT – Derivational Optimality Theory

SL – supralaryngeal node

PL – place node

COR – coronal node

DOR – dorsal node

LAB – labial node

* – ungrammatical form, in a tableau „*‟ represents violation of a constraint

! – fatal violation

>> – ranked higher than

☞ – correct winning candidate

adv. – adverb

7

fem. –feminine

gen. – genitive

loc. – locative

masc. – masculine

nom. – nominative

pl. – plural

sg. – singular

Non-IPA symbols used in transcription:

’ – symbol denoting palatalization of a consonant, IPA [ ʲ]

8

Acknowledgements

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Professor Jerzy Rubach,

without whom, the completion of the thesis would not have been possible. I will remain

eternally indebted to Professor for kindling my interest in phonology, teaching me critical

thinking and problem solving skills.

I would also like to thank Dr Paweł Rydzewski for the support, time and invaluable

guidance he offered me during the course of writing this thesis. His professional teaching and

clear advice has added considerably to my graduate experience.

9

Preface

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a formal analysis of palatalization of dental

obstruents in Polish from the perspective of selected phonological theories. The thesis is

organised in the following way. Chapter 1 provides theoretical and descriptive background for

the subsequent analysis. It outlines the main tenets of SPE phonology, Lexical Phonology,

Feature Geometry, Optimality Theory and Derivation Optimality, in the fragments that are

relevant for the discussion in later chapters. Chapter 2 presents analyses of Coronal

Palatalization and Surface Palatalization in SPE, Lexical Phonology framework and Feature

Geometry. It shows that Coronal Palatalization and Surface Palatalization need to be analysed

as separate rules and cannot be collapsed into one general palatalization rule. In Chapter 3 the

analysis is recast in the framework of Optimality Theory, which is shown to be incapable of

accounting for the facts of Polish in a fully parallel manner, without admitting level

distinction. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the conclusions presented in the preceding

chapters.

10

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter discusses theoretical and descriptive background for this thesis. Section 1.1.

presents theoretical background for the discussion in the following chapters. Section 1.1.1.

opens with a short discussion of the basic principles of SPE phonology (Chomsky and Halle

1968). It outlines the architecture of SPE theory of representation and rule formulation.

Section 1.1.2. provides an overview of Feature Geometry (Sagey 1986, Halle 1992, 1995) and

briefly demonstrates the form of application of rules. Section 1.1.3 outlines the internal

mechanism of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, Booij and Rubach 1987). Section 1.1.4.

offers a description of key assumptions of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993,

2004 and McCarthy & Prince 1995) and its derivational version, Derivational Optimality

Theory (Kiparsky 1997, 2000, Rubach 1997, 2000a,b, 2005, 2007). Section (1.2.) ends the

chapter by providing a description of Polish dental obstruents and vowels.

1.1. Theoretical background

This section provides an overview of the frameworks relevant for the analyses in the

subsequent chapters. It outlines key assumptions of SPE, Feature Geometry, Lexical

Phonology, Optimality Theory and, finally, Derivation Optimality Theory.

11

1.1.1 SPE

In modern phonological theories, distinctive features are the smallest, indivisible units of

phonological analysis. SPE Distinctive Feature Theory proposed by Chomsky and Halle

(1968) assumes that all features are universal for all languages. The assumption is that every

distinctive feature is binary. Namely, any feature can have a negative or a positive value. It is

by manipulating the +/- value of the features that different phones are distinguished. Thus, the

phonetic symbols are simply abbreviations for a set of features organised in a

two-dimensional matrix. This is illustrated by the example in (1).

(1) tak ‘yes’ [tak] (adv.)

t a k

−syllabic+consonantal−  approximant−  sonorant−voice

−continuant+coronal+anterior−high−back+low−tense

+syllabic−consonantal+  approximant+sonorant+voice

+continuant−coronal−anterior−high+back−low−tense

−  syllabic+consonantal−  approximant−sonorant−voice

−continuant−coronal−anterior−high−back−low−tense

In (1), each column represents a feature complex and specifies the articulatory properties of

every phone of the word tak ‘yes’. It is important to note that the columns of features have no

internal structure. There is no hierarchy of features and features do not have a set order. Also,

every segment is composed of all the existing features. Different phones are the results of

setting the value on the features to either positive or negative.

12

In SPE, for example, rules of grammar are designed to affect features rather than

separate units of speech sounds. Polish has a rule of Final Devoicing, which affects all voiced

obstruents by changing them into voiceless ones in a word-final position. Consider a

schematic formulation of Final Devoicing in (2).

(2) Final Devoicing

b v d z dz dʒ ʒ dʑ ʑ g → p f t s ts tʃ ʃ tɕ ɕ k / __ #

The rewrite rule in (2) makes reference to particular speech sounds of Polish by listing the

segments in the input, the output and the context of the rule. Although rule (2) is accurate

from a descriptive point of view, it can be replaced by a much simpler rule by referring to

distinctive features rather than phonemes. This is illustrated in (3).

(3) Final Devoicing

[+obstr] → [–voice] / __ #

The formulation of Final Devoicing in (3) is not only more economical than the rule in (2),

but also has a greater predictive power than its schematic counterpart. Namely, the rule in (2)

is limited to the Polish set of voiced obstruents and fails to predict devoicing of non-native

segments. Polish learners of English devoice voiced dental fricatives //ð// in words such as

bathe [beɪð], even though the segment does not belong to their native repertoire of sounds.

The formulation of Final Devoicing in (3), however, rightly predicts devoicing of any voiced

obstruent by a native speaker of Polish.

13

1.1.2. Feature Geometry

Feature Geometry (Clements 1985, McCarthy 1988, and others) is a theory of representations

where distinctive features are hierarchically organised. The hierarchy is represented in the

form of a tree diagram. The tree is composed of constituents of three kinds: nodes, which are

monovalent and distinctive features, which are binary or privative. The relationship between

constituents is represented by lines linking the elements. Consider the Halle-Sagey model of

Feature Geometry (Sagey 1986, Halle 1992, 1995) presented in (4).

(4)

ROOT

LAR [±cons][±sonor][±nas][±later] SL

[±voice] [s.g] [c.g.] PL [±cont]

[±strid]

LAB COR DOR

[±rd] [±ant] [±distr] [±high] [±back] [±low]

In FG, phonological processes are limited to delinking and/or spreading operations. Thus, the

rule of Voice Assimilation involves an operation of delinking of the [+voice] feature and

subsequent spreading of the feature from another, neighbouring segment. This is presented

schematically in (5).

14

(5) Voice Assimilation:1

ROOT ROOT ROOT ROOT

[–son] [–son] [–son] [–son]

LAR LAR LAR LAR

[–v] [–v] [+v]

1.1.3. Lexical Phonology

Lexical Phonology is a theory of rule organisation. It differentiates between three classes of

rules: cyclic, postcyclic and postlexical. Cyclic and postcyclic rules operate inside the lexical

component. The scope of application of lexical rules is limited to the domain of words.

Postlexical rules apply after the rules of syntax have formed the sentence. If follows from the

model in (6) that rules that apply to words take precedence over the rules that apply across

word boundaries. Inside the Lexical Component, cyclic rules apply in tandem with word

formation rules and postcyclic rules apply to morphologically complete words.

(6) Lexical Phonology mechanism

1 Alternatively, Voice Assimilation could be represented as a process of laryngeal node delinking and laryngeal node spreading. Both operations have the same effect for Polish.

WFRs cyclic rules

Lexical roots

postcyclic rules

syntax

postlexical rules

[s] [s] [z] [d]

a) b) c)

15

1.1.4. Optimality Theory

The backbone of Optimality Theory is the assumption that all languages share the same

underlying principles. These universal principles are believed to determine possible structures

and patterns in any language. In Optimality Theory, phonological processes in a language

result from the interaction between sets of constantly conflicting markedness and faithfulness

constraints. Markedness constraints mandate to impose changes on the output forms while

faithfulness constraints strive to preserve the correspondence between the input and the output

forms. It is assumed that all languages share the same set of constraints. Cross-linguistic

diversity stems from language-specific constraint ranking. The candidates which incur

violations of the high-ranked constraints are penalized by exclusion from the evaluation.

Because it is impossible for a candidate to satisfy all constraints, it is the candidate that

violates the least number of constraints, or the candidate with lower-ranked violations, that

emerges as the optimal output.

The process of selecting the optimal output begins in the LEXICON from where the

underlying forms of words are taken and submitted as the inputs to evaluation. Next,

GENERATOR generates a list of possible outputs called Candidates, which are subsequently

submitted for evaluation by EVALUATOR, which finally appoints the optimal output form.

This is illustrated by the diagram adapted from Kager (1999) in (7).

(7) OT mechanism

LEXICON Input GEN

CandidateA

CandidateB

Candidate…

EVAL Optimal

Output

16

The evaluation of candidates is presented in the form of a tableau shown in (8) below.

(8) Schematic evaluation

//input// C1 C2 C3 C4

a. ☞ candidate a

candidate a

* * b. candidate b * *! * c. candidate c **! d. candidate d *!

In tableau (8), Candidate (8d) violates the highest-ranked C1 and is excluded from the further

evaluation. The ranking is marked by a solid line separating C1 from other constraints,

violation is marked by ‘*’ and exclusion by ‘!’. Candidates (8c), (8b) and (8a) all violate C2.

Only Candidate (8c) is excluded because it violates C2 twice. The remaining Candidates, (8b)

and (8a), are passed on for further evaluation because each has an equal number of violations.

The broken line between C3 and C4 denotes the lack of internal ranking between the two

constraints. This means that the ranking could be either C3 >> C4 or C4 >> C3 as both rankings

reject Candidate (8b). Candidate (8a) violates C4, but the violation is of minimal importance

hence (8a) emerges as the optimal output. The winning candidate is marked by ‘☞’.

It is important to note that evaluation is strictly parallel in OT and does not have

intermediate stages. This assumption of standard OT (strict parallelism) is rejected by

Derivational Optimality Theory, which admits separate phonological levels. The levels in

DOT resemble levels proposed in Lexical Phonology. Namely, DOT distinguishes between

the stem level, the word level and the sentence level, which correspond to the cyclic, the

postcyclic and the postlexical components in Lexical Phonology. Each level may introduce

changes to the ranking of constraints, but the changes must be minimal. It must be noted,

however, that the evaluation within each of the levels remains strictly parallel.

17

1.2. Descriptive background

This section offers a descriptive background for the following chapters. It discusses Polish

soft and hard dental obstruents, prepalatal obstruents and the surface inventory of Polish

vowels.

1.2.1. Polish dental and prepalatal obstruents

Polish consonants can be either soft or hard. Namely, a consonant can be articulated with an

additional gesture of the body of the tongue. If the tongue moves towards the hard palate, we

obtain softening, that is, a palatalizing effect. The hardening, or velarization, is the movement

of the back of the tongue towards the soft palate (Wierzchowska 1963, 1971). In feature

terms, palatalization is expressed by the feature [–back] and velarization by [+back]. Table (9)

presents hard and soft obstruents relevant for the subsequent analyses.2

(9) Polish dental obstruents and prepalatals.

s t s’ t’ ɕ tɕ

contin + – + + + –

anter + + + + – –

strid + – + – + +

back + + – – – –

2 For reasons of space, I show voiceless obstruents only.

18

In (9), it is important to note that the soft segments [s’ t’] differ from [ɕ tɕ] not only in the

manner of articulation (this is expressed by the feature [+strid]), but also in the place of

articulation. This is indicated by the feature [–anter] for the prepalatals and [+anter] for the

dentals.

The Polish inventory of vowels and their featural representation is provided in the form of a

feature matrix below.3

(10) Polish vowels

Vowels: a ɛ ɔ u i ɨ

high – – – + + +

back + – + + – +

low + – – – – –

round – – + + – –

The table in (10) shows that Polish has two front vowels: [ɛ] and [i]. The frontness of the

vowels is encoded by the feature [–back]. All remaining vowels are phonologically [+back].

3 The inventory of Polish vowels can be further extended by two yers. For more information, see Rubach (1984).

19

Chapter 2

Rule-based phonology

This chapter considers palatalization effects on dental obstruents in Polish from the

perspective of rule-based phonological frameworks. The analysis and the reasoning are based

on the observations made by Rubach (1984) and Gussmann (1978). Section 2.1 begins with a

schematic and articulatory description of Coronal Palatalization. Next, the section discusses

the SPE account of Coronal Palatalization presented in Gussmann (1978). Section 2.2.

investigates low phonetic effects of Surface Palatalization in Polish. A phonetic description of

this process is followed by an analysis in the framework of SPE phonology. Section 2.3.

analyses the same facts from the point of view of Lexical Phonology. In addition, the section

considers description of the relevant processes in the Feature Geometry Theory. Section 2.4.

offers partial conclusions.

2.1. Coronal Palatalization

This section provides a schematic description of Coronal Palatalization from the articulatory

point of view. Selected data are used to illustrate the process. Section 2.1.1. discusses

formalisation of Coronal Palatalization in the SPE framework. It examines selected cases

from Gussmann (1978) and Rubach (1984).

Polish has a productive palatalization rule which transforms dental obstruents

//s z t d// into prepalatals [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] in the context of a front vowel.4 The alternations

generated by the process are demonstrated in (1).

4 The rule of Coronal Palatalization affects all coronal segments of Polish //s z t d n r ɫ//, but this dissertation deals only with obstruents. For a more competent discussion of the topic, see Rubach (1984).

20

(1) nom. sg. loc. sg. verb

głos [gwɔs] ‘voice’ głos+ie [gwɔɕɛ] 5 głos+i+ć [gwɔɕitɕ]

mróz [mrus] ‘frost’6 mroz+ie [mrɔʑɛ] mroz+i+ć [mrɔʑitɕ]

knot [knɔt] ‘botch’ knoc+ie [knɔtɕɛ] knoc+i+ć [knɔtɕitɕ]

trud [trut] ‘hardship’ trudz+ie [trudʑɛ] trudz+i+ć [trudʑitɕ]

The changes illustrated in (1) involve three kinds of operations. First, the affected segments

exhibit the change of the place of articulation. Specifically, the sounds in the input are

retracted to a prepalatal position. Second, all sounds receive secondary place of articulation

expressed by the movement of the blade of the tongue towards the hard palate. Third, dental

stops exhibit a change in the manner of articulation and become prepalatal affricates. The

alternations are accounted for by a rule of Coronal Palatalization, which is stated

schematically in (2).

(2) Coronal Palatalization: s z t d →ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ / __ i, ɛ

The question is how rule (2) should be stated in the SPE framework. This question is

addressed in the next section.

2.1.1. The SPE framework

Gussmann’s (1978:86) generalization, quoted in (3), predicts palatalization of all [+anterior]

segments in the context of a front vowel. In keeping with the assumptions of the model

5 The letter <i> serves here as a way of denoting palatalization of the consonant. It does not represent a high front vowel. Cf. Rubach (1984). 6 In Polish voiced obstruents are devoiced in a word-final position by a rule of Final Devoicing. Thus, the final //z// of mróz ‘frost’ becomes [s] and the //d// of trud ‘hardship’ changes into [t].

21

developed by Chomsky and Halle (1968), the feature [+anterior] encompasses both dentals

and labials.7

(3) Anterior Palatalization: +  anterior → +  high−  back

 / __ −conson−  back

The above formulation of the rule predicts a structure-adding rather than structure-changing

process that transforms dentals //s z t d// into their palatalized counterparts [s’ z’ t’ d’] by

adding the features [+high] and [–back]. Under Gussmann’s analysis, the outputs of the rule

in (2) are achieved by later rules that add [+strid], [+distrib] and [–anterior] to the structure of

the affected segments.

Because the rule in (3) applies in an unrestricted manner, with no regard to

morphological information, it is beset by a number of problems. These difficult cases are

recognised and analysed by Rubach (1984) and Gussmann (1978). One of such problematic

instances is presented in (4), where non-palatals appear phonetically in the immediate context

of front vowels, a combination, which, in theory, should not be attested due to the rule in (3)

and later spell-outs.

(4) też ‘also’ [tɛʃ] (adv.)8

dech ‘breath’ [dɛx] (masc. nom.sg.)

sen ‘dream’ [sɛn] (masc. nom.sg.)

zez ‘squint’ [zɛs] (masc .nom.sg.)

7 In the Halle-Sagey model of Feature Geometry (Halle 1992, Sagey 1986), the feature [anterior] depends from the coronal node, thus it can only apply to coronals and not labials. In the following discussion only dental obstruents will be examined. 8 Due to Final Devoicing, //ʒ// is devoiced to //ʃ//. Simirarly, //z// is devoiced to //s// in the examples below.

22

To account for the conundrum, Gussmann (1978) proffers the following solution. In every

instance of [ɛ] preceded by a non-palatal consonant, the mid-front vowel must be derived

from a back yer, which, being a back vowel, lacks palatalizing properties. It is crucial that [ɛ]

is not derived before Anterior Palatalization applies. The change of [!̌] to [ɛ] is accomplished

by the rule in (5) taken from Rubach (1984).

(5) Lower: +syll+high−tense

→ [–high] / __ C! +syll+high−tense

To present the application of Lower, consider the derivation of zez ‘squint’ [zɛs]

(masc. nom.sg.) given in (6).

(6) UR //z!̌z// N/A Anterior Palatalization N/A Lower /z!̌s/ Final Devoicing SF *[z!̌s]

The above derivation failed to yield the correct surface form because the context for Lower

was not met. In order for Lower to apply, the underlying representation of zez ‘squint’ //z!̌z//

(nom.sg.) must be modified by postulating a word-final yer. Thus, the UR of zez ‘squint’ has

to be //z!̌z+!̌//. The final year is assumed to be the nom.sg. suffix. Now the final yer provides

the context for Lower and successfully derives [ɛ] from [!̌]. The word-final yer, which

remains unaffected by the rule in (5), is finally deleted by the rule in (7).

(7) Yer Deletion: +syll+high−tense

 → ∅

23

The derivation in (8) shows that the yer-blocking strategy requires the existence of two rules,

which are crucially ordered after Anterior Palatalization.

(8) UR //z!̌z+!̌// N/A Anterior Palatalization /zɛz+!̌/ Lower /zɛz/ Yer Deletion /zɛs/ Final Devoicing SF [zɛs]

To sum up, under Gussmann’s analysis words such as zez ‘squint’ [zɛs]

(masc .nom. sg.) would have to be derived from the underlying form //z!̌z+!̌// by Anterior

Palatalization applying vacuously due to the lack of palatalizing context, Lower lowering the

first yer to [ɛ] and finally Yer Deletion deleting the final yer of the nom.sg suffix.

This interpretation becomes problematic when we consider other cases, e.g. the

gen.sg. of zez ‘squint’, zeza [zɛz+a]. Because the UR of zeza //z!̌z+a// does not include a final

yer, the context for Lower is not met and consequently, zeza //z!̌z+a// surfaces as *[z!̌z+a].

What is more, Gussmann’s analysis fails to account for disyllabic and polysyllabic words that

do not have a penultimate yer in their underlying representation, as exemplified in (9)

(Rubach 1984).

(9) serwetka [sɛrvɛtka] ‘tablecloth’ (fem. nom.sg.)

detektyw [dɛtɛktɨf] ‘detective’ (masc. nom.sg.)

teren [tɛrɛn] ‘terrain’ (masc. nom.sg.)

dezerter [dɛzɛrtɛr] ‘deserter’ (masc. nom.sg.)

The data in (9) are borrowings. This suggests another possible solution to the problem

in hand. Words of foreign provenance are impervious to Polish palatalization. However, this

24

analysis is rejected by Rubach (1984), who points out that marking these expressions in the

lexicon as borrowings in order to exclude them from palatalization is tantamount to branding

them as exceptions.

The framework developed by Chomsky and Halle (1968) assumes the following

formal way of handling exceptions. If a morpheme is not sensitive to rule n despite meeting

the required environment, it has to be marked as [–n]. The system does not allow for marking

individual segments as exceptions to rules. Given that, the whole morpheme, and, by the same

token, each segment belonging to the particular morpheme, has to be marked as [–n]. Such an

analysis in the matter in hand seems to resolve the problem at first glance. All the words in (9)

retain hard consonants neighbouring with front vowels. In the light of the facts in (10),

however, it becomes apparent that such analysis is impossible to uphold.

(10) set [sɛt] ‘a part of game of tennis’ (mac. nom.sg.) – secie [sɛtɕɛ] (loc.)

teza [tɛza] ‘thesis’ (fem. nom.sg.) – tezie [tɛʑɛ] (loc.)

zelota [zɛlɔta] ‘zealot’ (masc. nom.sg.) – zelocie [zɛlɔtɕɛ] (loc.)

debet [dɛbɛt] ‘debit’(masc. nom.sg.) – debecie [dɛbɛtɕɛ] (loc.)

If the root morpheme of teza ‘thesis’ (fem. nom.sg.) was indeed marked as [– Cor. Pal.], then

tezie ‘thesis’ (fem.loc.sg.) would surface as *[tɛzɛ]. Marking //tɛz// with the [– Cor. Pal.]

feature would erroneously prevent the final segments of the root morpheme from palatalizing

to [ʑ] when followed by a front vowel of the loc.sg. suffix.

Another solution needs to be sought to account for the lack of palatalization in (4), (9)

and (10). Upon closer examination of the cases in (1), (4), (9), and (10) it becomes apparent

that the sets differ in a regular way. The difference lies in the morphological structure of the

25

words. That is, in głos+ie //gɫɔs+ɛ//9 ‘voice’ (masc. loc. sg.), where palatalization applies, the

segment that undergoes palatalization, //s//, and the trigger of palatalization, //ɛ//, are divided

by a morpheme boundary. This is not the case in teza //tɛz+a// ‘thesis’ (fem. nom.sg.), where

both segments in the sequence //tɛ// belong to the same morpheme. This regularity has to be

captured in the formulation of the rules so that they are able to correctly generate the

alternation in głos – głosie ‘voice’ (masc. loc.sg.) and preclude the change in teza ‘thesis’

(fem. masc.sg.). The two-staged operation proposed by Gussmann (1978) predicts a phonemic

palatalization inside morphemes and across morpheme boundaries. Nevertheless, only the

latter is true for Polish. The formulation of Anterior Palatalization and the later spell-out rules

must therefore include information about a morpheme boundary. A revised version of (3) is

stated formally in (11), where ‘+’ is an abbreviation for a feature bundle [–seg, +FB,–WB], as

claimed by the SPE (Chomsky and Halle 1968, SPE hereafter).

(11) Anterior Palatalization: +  anterior → +  high−  back

 / __ + −conson−  back

Now the formulation of (11) correctly predicts the surface forms of //tɛz+a// and //tɛz+ɛ// to

be [tɛza] and [tɛʑɛ], respectively. The jurisdiction of Anterior Palatalization is limited to

heteromorphemic contexts, and hence the tautmorphemic //tɛ// remains intact. Although this

generalization yields correct surface forms, it can be amended even further. The two-stage

process proposed by Gussmann (1978) can be replaced by a single rule changing //s z t d// to

[ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] in one fell swoop. There is no incentive to maintain the multiple rules. On the

contrary, such procedure is in keeping with the methodology of SPE: the fewer the rules, the

better. The final form of the rule accounting for the alternations in (1) is given in (12).

9 The //ɫ// is vocalised to [w] by a rule of Lateral Vocalisation. For further details, see Rubach (1984).

26

(12) Anterior Palatalization:

+coron+ant+obstr−del. rel

 →

−ant+strid+distr−back+  high

/ __ + [–cons, –back]

2.2. Surface Palatalization

This section provides a description of Surface Palatalization. It provides a set of illustrative

words and phrases from Polish and offers a schematic formulation of Surface Palatalization

based on the observed alternations. Section 2.2.1. provides an SPE account of Surface

Palatalization. It is shown that Gussmann’s original Anterior Palatalization cannot be

employed to account for the allophonic alternation of Surface Palatalization. Consequently,

another generalization, based on Rubach (1894), is proposed. The section ends in a parallel

evaluation of selected words and phrases to show the interaction of Anterior Palatalization

developed in Section 2.1.1. and Surface Palatalization.

Polish has another kind of palatalization, whose effects are demonstrated in (13).

The alternation is considerably simpler vis-à-vis Coronal Palatalization presented in (2).

The affected segments acquire a secondary articulation. Namely, the body of the tongue is

moved towards the hard palate. This is represented by [+high] and [–back] features added to

the output structure. The main place of articulation and the manner of articulation remain

intact. Additionally, the context for the rule is narrowed from all front vowels to the

high-front [i] (13b).10 The domain of the application of the rule is extended to operate across

word boundaries (13a) and inside word (13c).

10 I assume that [j] is identical to [i] on the melodic tier. For futher details see, for example, Steriade (1982).

27

(13) a. głos [gwɔs] ‘voice’ głos Idy [gwɔs’ idɨ] ‘Ida’s voice’

głos Jerzego [gwɔs’ jɛʒɛgɔ] ‘Jerzy’s voice’

uraz [uras] ‘injury’ uraz Idy [uras’ idɨ] ‘Ida’s injury’

uraz Jerzego [uras’ jɛʒɛgɔ] ‘Jerzy’s injury’

trud [trut] ‘hardship’ trud Idy [trut’ idɨ] ‘Ida’s hardship’

trud Jerzego [trut’ jɛʒɛgɔ] ‘Jerzy’s hardship’

but [but] ‘shoe’ but Idy [but’ idɨ] ‘Ida’s shoe’’

but Jerzego [but’ jɛʒɛgɔ] ‘Jerzy’s shoe’

b. głos Edwarda [gwɔs ɛdvarda] ‘Edward’s voice’, uraz Edwarda [uras ɛdvarda]

‘Edward’s injury’, trud Edwarda [trut ɛdvarda] ‘Edward’s hardship’, but

Edwarda [but ɛdvarda] ‘Edward’s shoe’

c. partia [part’ja] ‘political party’, diwa [d’iva] ‘Diva’, singiel [s’iŋg’ɛl] ’single’,

zjazd [z’jast] ‘rally’

The rule is stated schematically in (15).

(14) Surface Palatalization:11 C→C’ / __ i,j

2.2.1. The SPE framework

Gussmann in his research on consonantal changes disregarded “low phonetic

regularities.” (1978: 27). The alternations shown in (13a) and (13c) are not accounted for in

his analysis. Gussmann’s original Anterior Palatalization, which yields soft dental obstruents,

cannot be employed to explain the changes in (13). First, the rule of Anterior Palatalization is

excluded from applying across word boundaries and, therefore, cannot account for the

changes in (13a). Second, its application to the words in (13c) would result in ill-formed 11 Surface Palatalization affects all consonants, not just those presented in (13a) and (13c). See, for example, Rubach (1984).

28

surface forms. Anterior Palatalization and the later spell-out rules would incorrectly predict

*[ɕ] instead of [s’] in words such as singiel ‘single’ (masc.nom.sg.). Third, the rule operates

in the context of i and ɛ, and the data in (13) show that the rule must be confined to i and j, as

there is no palatalization of the words in (13b). Another generalization is warranted.

One possible solution to this problem is to postulate a separate palatalization rule. The

scope of the application of the rule must be restricted to stem-internal segments and to

neighbouring segments across word boundaries. In SPE terms, this is achieved by referring to

a word boundary, ‘#’, which stands for a feature bundle [–seg, –FB, +WB]. The rule

formulated in (15) applies across the board.

(15) Surface Palatalization: 12 [+cons] → +high−back

 / __ (##) −cons+high−back

A parallel derivation of głosić, teza, tezie, głos Idy and diwa is shown in (16), where I focus

on the relevant fragments of the words only.

(16)

‘głosić’ ‘teza’ ‘tezie’ ‘głos idy’ ‘diwa’

UR //-s+i+tɕ// //tɛz+a// //tɛz+ɛ// //-s # idɨ// //diva// /ɕ+i+tɕ/ ------ /tɛʑ+ɛ/ ------ ------ Anterior

Palatalization (12) VA ------ ------ /-s’# idɨ/ /d’iva/ Surface

Palatalization (15) SF [-ɕitɕ] [tɛz+a] [tɛʑ+ɛ] [-s’# idɨ] [d’iva]

12 Based on Rubach (1984: 246).

29

Because the application of Anterior Palatalization is restricted to segments not spanning word

boundaries, it affects only głosić ‘to preach’ [gwɔɕitɕ] (verb) and tezie ‘thesis’ [tɛʑ+ɛ]

(fem. loc.sg.) in derivation (17). The rule yields [ɕ] and [ʑ] from //s+i// and //z+ɛ//

respectively. The //t// in teza ‘thesis’ [tɛz+a] (fem. nom.sg.) and the //d// in diwa ‘diva’ [diva]

(fem. nom.sg.) remain unffected by Anterior Palatalization, because both segments in //tɛ//

and //di// are tautomorphemic, thus Anterior Palatalization cannot apply. In addition, the

application of Anterior Palatalization is stymied by the word boundary which separates the

//s// and the //i// in głos Idy ‘Ida’s voice’ [gwɔs#idɨ]. Next, Surface Palatalization applies to

głosić ‘to preach’ /gwɔɕitɕ/ (verb) by adding the features [–back,+high] to the structure of [ɕ].

Because the prepalatal fricative already is [–back,+high], the application of Surface

Palatalization is vacuous. Surface Palatalization has no influence on the words teza ‘thesis’

[tɛz+a] (fem. loc.sg.) and tezie ‘thesis’ [tɛʑ+ɛ] (fem. loc.sg.) because the rule has only i in its

context. Finally, the //s// in głos Idy ‘Ida’s voice’ [gwɔs#idɨ] and the //d// in diwa ‘diva’ [diva]

(fem. nom.sg.) change to [–back,+high] segments. Although the derivation in (16) places

Anterior Palatalization before Surface Palatalization, the ordering of the rules for this analysis

is of no relevance, as both arrangements yield the correct surface forms.13

To conclude, the analysis of Polish palatalization must make reference to

morphological structure of words. In SPE, this is accomplished by referring to word and

morpheme boundaries in the formulation of the rules. Such approach, albeit successful in this

investigation, fails to account for more complicated areas of Polish phonology.14

13 The ordering of Surface Palatalization before Coronal Palatalization would result in gło//s+i//ć going through an intermediate stage of [s’+i] before arriving at [ɕ]. 14 The discussion of this issue falls outside of the scope of this dissertation. For a detailed discussion, see Rubach (1984).

30

2.3. Lexical Phonology

This section investigates palatalization effects of dental obstruents within the framework of

Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, Booij and Rubach 1987). The main focus of the section is

the interaction of morphology and phonology in the derivation of palatalization rules. I

initially assume the SPE theory of representation and investigate the relevant cases based on

Rubach (1984). Section 2.3.1 considers the effects of Coronal Palatalization and Surface

Palatalization in the Halle-Sagey Feature Geometry model of representation (Sagey 1986;

Halle 1992) and summarises Rubach’s (2006) analysis, which shows the need for an

intermediate stage in the derivation of prepalatals.

To account for the two kinds of palatalization processes described in the previous

section, Rubach (1984) postulates two rules, stated schematically in (17) and (18).

(17) Coronal Palatalization: s z t d → ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ / __ i, ɛ

The rule in (18), in a similar vein to the one proposed in (12), changes //s z t d// directly to

[ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] without an intermediate stage of /s’ z’ t’ d’/.

(18) Surface Palatalization: C → C’ / __ i,j

The formulation of Surface Palatalization in (18) is almost identical to the one given in (15).

The rules in (17) and (18) differ from those in (12) and (15) in that the latter pair makes no

reference to morphological boundaries (a morpheme boundary and a word boundary,

respectively). The problem of rule convergence presented in the Section 2.1. is resolved here

by assigning each rule to either the lexical or the postlexical component. Coronal

31

Palatalization must be restricted to the lexical component for the following reasons.15 Frist, it

is excluded from applying across word boundaries as in głos Edwarda ‘Edward’s voice’

[gwɔs#ɛdvarda]. Its application must take place before the rules of syntax have formed the

phrase, thus the rule cannot be postlexical. What is more, Coronal Palatalization applies only

to strings spanning morpheme boundaries, as in tezie ‘thesis’ [tɛʑ+ɛ] (masc. loc.sg.), where

the stem-initial [tɛ] is tautomorphemic and the [t] remains unpalatalized. This shows that

Coronal Palatalization must be governed by the Derived Environment Constraint in its

morphological sense. The stem //tɛz// is taken from the lexicon hence it is not derived, with

the consequences being that the dental stop remains intact. In contrast, the word tezie ‘thesis’

[tɛʑ+ɛ] (masc. loc.sg.) is derived by a WFR adding the loc.sg. morpheme //ɛ// to the stem,

which allows for the application of Coronal Palatalization. A parallel derivation of głosić,

teza, tezie, głos Idy and diwa in the Lexical framework is given in (19).16

(19)

15 The rule is actually cyclic and, as shown later in the discussion, it must be restricted to derived environments. See, Rubach (1984). 16 For reasons of space, only the relevant parts of the words are included in the derivation.

‘głosić’ ‘teza’ ‘tezie’ ‘głos Idy’ ‘diwa’

UR //-s+i-// //tɛz+a// //tɛz+ɛ// //-s// //i-// //div+a//

/s+i-/ /tɛz+a/ /tɛz+ɛ/ /-s/ /i-/ /div+a/ WFR

/ ɕ+i / ------ /tɛʑ+ɛ/ ------ ------ Coronal Palatalization

/ɕ+i/ /tɛz+a/ /tɛʑ+ɛ/ /-s i/ /div+a/ Syntax

VA ------ ------ /s’ i/ /d’iv+a/ Surface Palatalization

SF [-ɕi-] [tɛza] [tɛʑɛ] [-s’ i] [d’iva]

32

2.3.1. Feature geometry

In Feature Geometry (Clements 1985, McCarthy 1986, Sage 1986, Halle 1992), the analysis

of Coronal Palatalization and Surface Palatalization is accounted for by a two-staged process

(Rubach 2006), as presented in (20).

(20) General Palatalization: C→ C[–bk] / __ i, ɛ

ROOT [+cons] ROOT [–cons] PLACE PLACE DORS DORS [+back] [–back]

As stated in Rubach (2006), the [+back] feature of the consonant 17 is delinked and,

subsequently, the [–back] feature of the vowel spreads onto the consonant. The process in

(20) consists in the delinking of the [+back] feature of the consonant and subsequent

spreading of the [–back] feature from the vowel onto the consonant. Consider the derivation

of knot ‘botch’ [knɔt] (nom.sg) – knoc+ie [knɔtɕɛ] (verb) in (21).

(21) UR //knɔt+ɛ//

/knɔt[–bk] +ɛ/ General Palatalization (20)

SF [knɔt[–bk]ɛ]

17 The feature [+back] reflects the fact that hard consonants in Polish are velarized.

33

The derivation in (21) shows that General Palatalization as stated in terms of Feature

Geometry does not produce the attested surface forms presented in (2). The feature [+high] is

not available for spreading operation as it is not included in the make-up of [ɛ]. Furthermore,

the features [–anter], [+distr] and [+strid], which mark the change of the place and manner of

articulation, respectively, cannot spread from i and ɛ because vowels by definition do not

contain these features. The full procedure of transforming //s z t d// into [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] is

accomplished with the aid of two context-free spell-out rules proposed by Rubach (2003 and

2006). These are stated below in (22).

(22) a. Height Spell-out: [+cons, –back] → [+high]

b. Posteriority/Stridency Spell-out: [CORON, –back] → −anter+strid+distr

The correct derivation of knocie ‘botch’ [knɔtɕɛ] (loc.sg.) and głosie ‘voice’ [gwɔɕɛ] (loc.sg.)

is presented in (23). Now the rules and their ordering correctly predict the change from //tɛ//

to [tɕɛ] and //sɛ// to [ɕɛ]. It is crucial that the tandem of the spell-out rules in (22) is ordered

after rule (20).

(23) UR //knɔt+ɛ// //gwɔs+ɛ//

/knɔt[–bk]+ɛ/ /gwɔs[–bk]+ɛ/ General Palatalization (20)

/knɔt’+ɛ/ /gwɔs’+ɛ/ High Spell-out (22a)

/knɔtɕ+ɛ/ /gwɔɕ+ɛ/ Posteriority/Stridency Spell-out (22b)

SF [knɔtɕɛ] [gwɔɕɛ]

The weakness of this analysis lies in the fact that it requires the admission of an

abstract transitional phase for which there is no supportive phonological evidence.

34

Namely, dental obstruents need to go through an intermediate stage of /s[–bk] z[–bk] t[–bk] d[–bk]/

before they surface as [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ].

Surface Palatalization is a much simpler process to formalize from the point of view

of Feature Geometry. This change is accomplished by a spreading-cum-delinking procedure

where the DORS node, along with its dependants [–back] and [+high], spreads onto the

consonant. The process is fully assimilatory and does not involve abstract spell-out rules as in

the case of Coronal Palatalization. A Feature Geometry account of Surface Palatalization is

given in (24).

(24) Surface Palatalization: C → C’ / __ i

ROOT [+cons] ROOT [–cons] PLACE PLACE DORS DORS [+back] [–back] [+high]

A point that begs discussion is the partial convergence of Surface Palatalization and

General Palatalization. The similarity between the two rules is striking. It might therefore be

tempting to minimize the number of rules by incorporating one into the other, and thus

simplifying the grammar. Rubach (2006) notices that this is not possible as the context and

the output of the two rules differ. General Palatalization operates in the context of i and ɛ,

whereas the application of Surface Palatalization is limited to the context of i. General

Palatalization spreads the feature [–back] because the feature [+high] is not included in the

make-up of ɛ. Surface Palatalization spreads the whole DORS node along with its dependants:

35

[+high] and [–back]. The conclusion is that General Palatalization and Surface Palatalization

must remain separate rules, despite their similarity (Rubach 2006).

As for the distribution of the rules presented above, General Palatalization and the

later spell-out rules tandem must be confined to the lexical component. The reasoning is fully

parallel to the one provided in Section 2.3. Namely, (20) and (22) have to be lexical to protect

phrases such as but Idy ‘Ida’s shoe’ [but’ # idɨ] from surfacing as *[butɕ#idɨ]. Surface

Palatalization must remain postlexical.

2.4. Partial conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to review the palatalization process of dental obstruents from the

point of view of selected rule-based frameworks. SPE phonology fails to capture the

assimilatory nature of palatalization. As discussed in Rubach (1984), Coronal Palatalization is

a rewrite rule which changes //s z t d// directly to [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ]. This process involves an

arbitrary addition of the features [+strid], [–anter] and [+distr]. What is more, an SPE strategy

of including morphological and lexical information unnecessarily complicates the rules. This

problem is readily resolved in the analysis carried out in Lexical Phonology, where

generalizations are allocated to different phonological components and no reference to word

or morphological boundaries is necessary in the structure of the rules.

In Feature Geometry, the processes of Coronal Palatalization and Surface

Palatalization are fully assimilatory. Both processes involve the spreading of the feature

[–back] onto the affected consonant. The surface forms of Coronal Palatalization are derived

with the aid of spell-out rules. This requires the admission of an intermediate stage of

/s[–bk] z[–bk] t[–bk] d[–bk]/ before they surface as [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ]. Moreover, General Palatalization and

Surface Palatalization cannot be amalgamated into one rule despite their conspicuous

alikeness. The rule-based models fail to capture the functional unity of the processes, as they

36

have no formal way of stating the ‘output goal’, which is the agreement in backness between

hard dental obstruents and front vowels. The issue of functional unity is resolved in the next

chapter, where I recast the abovementioned analyses in Optimality Theory.

37

Chapter 3

Constraint-based approach

In this chapter, I investigate how Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy &

Prince 1995) (henceforth, OT) accounts for the facts of Polish palatalization of dental

obstruents on the basis of selected examples. The analysis is based on observations made by

Rubach (2003, 2006). Section 3.1. looks at how the driving force behind palatalization can be

expressed in terms of OT constraints drawing on typological evidence from Slavic languages.

The section also shows that an OT analysis of Polish palatalization demands a broader view

of the matter. Namely, palatalization is only one of the possible strategies satisfying the

demands dictated by PAL constraints. Alongside palatalizations, fronting and retraction are

also discussed. Subsequently, it is shown that OT fails to provide an adequate analysis of the

relevant examples due to ranking paradoxes arising from its strict parallelism. In section 3.2.

the parallel one-level approach is contrasted with Derivational Optimality Theory (Kiparsky

1997, 2000, Rubach 1997, 2000a, b, 2005, 2007), which allows for level distinction much in

the same way as Lexical Phonology does. Section 3.3. provides a summary of Chapter 3 and

presents partial conclusions.

3.1. Palatalization in Optimality Theory

This section discusses Palatalization of dental obstruents in the framework of OT. It opens by

establishing the main propellers of the changes related to palatalization processes in Polish.

Further, the section investigates possible strategies of satisfying PAL constraints, and

38

develops constraint rankings for both types of palatalization, Coronal Palatalization and

Surface Palatalization, as well as retraction and fronting.

The problems arising from the limitations of rule-based models can be resolved by

adapting the framework of Optimality Theory. Let us consider once again the rules of Coronal

and Surface Palatalization. For the reader’s convenience, the schematic formulations of the

rules are repeated below in (1) and (2).

(1) Coronal Palatalization: s z t d → ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ / __ i, ɛ

(2) Surface Palatalization: s z t d → s’ z’ t’ d’ / __ i,j

In the past research, as shown in the previous chapter, rules (1) and (2) were treated as

separate, seemingly unrelated processes despite their noticeable alikeness. The rules converge

in two places. First, the environment in which they apply is partially shared by both rules, as

they both apply before //i//. Second, both processes yield [–back,+high] segments. In the

framework of OT these facts should be expressed by a single underlying driving force.

3.1.1. Driving force behind palatalization

Rubach (2003) proposes two markedness constraints as the main propellers of the alternations

stated in (3) and (4).

(3) PAL-i: 18 A consonant and a following high vowel must agree in backness.

(4) PAL-ɛ: A consonant and a following mid vowel must agree in backness.

18 I assume after Rubach (2006) that PAL-i covers both [i] and [j] in its jurisdiction.

39

The rationale behind postulating two separate constraints triggering palatalization is of

typological nature.19 One of the basic tenets of OT is that constraints must be universal for all

languages and that languages may differ only in the way the constraints are ranked. Rubach

(2003) shows that different languages allow different triggers of palatalization.20 For example,

Ukrainian palatalization is limited to the context of i but excluded from applying before ɛ,

whereas Russian and Polish palatalize before both i and ɛ. One general constraint, PAL,

mandating agreement in backness of a consonant neighbouring on any front vowel would fail

to account for the facts of Ukrainian. It must therefore be assumed that palatalization in Polish

is driven by two separate markedness constraints. It is also worth noting that, given the

universality of constraints in OT, reduction of the number of generalizations, constraints in

OT, in a bid to simplify the grammar does not hold water. All constraints are shared by every

language of the world, therefore the question of their number in phonological analysis is

irrelevant.

3.1.2. Strategies to satisfy the PAL constraint

The dictates of PAL-i and PAL-ɛ in the matter in hand may be satisfied by a number of

operations. The vowel may assimilate to the hard consonant by retraction, //Ci// → [Cɨ], or

the converse, the consonant may undergo palatalization, //Ci// → [C’i]. The question of which

of the strategies is preferred in a language is determined by faithfulness constraints, militating

against the changes in the output. Rubach (2003) proffers the following set of IDENT-IO

constraints:

19 See Chen (1973).

20 Rubach’s (2003) analysis is restricted to Slavic languages exclusively.

40

(5) a. IDENT-V([-back]): Input [–back] on a vowel must be preserved as output

[–back] on that vowel.

b. IDENT-C([+back]): Input [+back] on a consonant must be preserved output as

[+back] on that consonant.

The role of IDENT-V([–back]) is to preserve the frontness of the vowel. IDENT-C([+back])

fights to preserve the backness of the consonant. The ranking IDENT-V([–back]) >>

IDENT-C([+back]) predicts palatalization of a consonant when followed by a front vowel. In

such scenarios, the underlying cluster of //Ci// is rendered [C’i], as it is more important to

preserve the [–back] feature of the vowel than to protect the [+back] feature of the consonant.

The reverse ranking, IDENT-C([+back]) >> IDENT-V([–back]), brings about the change in the

backness of the vowel. Thus, //Ci// converts into [Cɨ], as the retention of the backness of the

consonant takes precedence over the retention of the [–back] feature on the vowel. The

schematic evaluation of palatalization and retraction is given in (6) and (7), respectively.

(6) Palatalization: //Ci// → [C’i]

PAL IDENT-V ([–back])

IDENT-C ([+back])

a. Ci *! ☞ b. C’i * c. Cɨ *!

In the above evaluation, Candidate (6a) is ruled out by the high-ranked PAL as it contains a

string of vowel and a consonant which do not agree in backness. Candidate (6c) incurs a fatal

violation of IDENT-V([–back]), which bans retraction. This leaves Candidate (6b), which

violates the lowest IDENT-C([+back]), but complies with the demands of PAL and IDENT-

V([–back]), as the optimal output.

41

(7) Retraction: //Ci// → [Cɨ]

PAL IDENT-C ([+back])

IDENT-V ([–back])

a. Ci *! b. C’i *! ☞ c. Cɨ *

In Tableau (7), similarly to the evaluation in (6), Candidate (7a) is excluded due to the

violation of the high-ranked PAL. Candidate (7b) is rendered inadmissible as a consequence

of the violation of IDENT-C([+back]). Finally, although Candidate (7c) violates the least

important constraint IDENT-V([+back]), it conforms with the requirements of the higher

ranked constraints and, thus, emerges as the winning candidate.

Both strategies of satisfying PAL-i, retraction and palatalization, are valid solutions in

Polish phonology. Rubach (1984) shows that borrowings containing strings of //s z t d//

followed by i may either undergo the allophonic palatalization presented in (2), or may be

subject to retraction, where the [–back] value of the vowel is changed to [+back].21 Rubach

(2003) demonstrates that in low class Polish retraction is the default strategy of choice. In

high class Polish, on the other hand, retraction is optional and Surface Palatalization usually

takes precedence. The data in (8) are representative examples.

21 Rubach (2003) points out that retraction is triggered by hard coronal segments and does not apply to labials or velars. Thus, French pilote → pilot [p’ilɔt] ‘pilot’ and English hippy → hipis [x’ip’is] ‘hippy’ show no retraction of the vowel.

42

(8) Low Class Polish High class Polish

English striptease [strɨptɨs] [str’ipt’is] ∼ [strɨptɨs]

Latin maximum [maksɨmum] [maks’imum] ∼ [maksɨmum]

Latin optimum [ɔptɨmum] [ɔpt’imum] ∼ [ɔptɨmum]

BUT: only [ɨ] in maksymal+n+y [maksɨmal+n+ɨ] ‘maximal’ and optymal+n+y

[ɔptɨmal+n+ɨ] ‘optimal’

Standard OT predicts that a language may employ either retraction or palatalization, but not

both, to satisfy PAL-i. The fact that Polish has both palatalization and retraction as possible

solutions to the demands of PAL-i is problematic from the point of view of a parallel analysis.

The problem of contradictory rankings in standard OT, which allows only a parallel

evaluation, is resolved by the admission of derivational levels. Each of the rankings in (6) and

(7) is assigned to one of the levels.22

Another set of constraints is required to account for the phonemic changes in (1). The

change of the place of articulation and affrication in the case of palatalized dental stops is

driven by Posterior and Stridency constraints proposed by Rubach (2006). Soft coronals are

retracted to a prepalatal position by POST and soft dental stops are turned into affricates by

STRID. Rubach (2006) remarks that STRID and POST are the OT equivalents of the spell-out

rules presented in (22) in Section 2.3.1. of Chapter 2.

(9) a. POST: Palatalized coronals must be [–anter].

b. STRID: Palatalized coronals must be [+strid].

22 The discussion of the organisation of the rankings is postponed until Section 3.2.

43

Typological evidence form Slavic languages shows that (9a) and (9b) cannot be unified under

one simple constraint. Rubach (2006) evokes data from Slovak and Vilnius Polish, a dialect

of Polish spoken in Lithuania, to back this claim. The palatalization strategy in Slovak

involves retraction of the main place of articulation to a prepalatal position. A string of

underlying //ti// is simultaneously palatalized and retracted to [t̠’] without affrication. In

Vilnius Polish the reverse is true: palatalization goes hand in hand with affrication but not

retraction, thus producing a soft coronal fricative [ts’] from the underlying string of //ti//. Had

there been one constraint mandating retraction of the place of articulation and affrication, the

alternations in Slovak and Vilnius Polish would have been impossible to derive. Given that,

POST and STRID must remain separate constraints.

In order to derive the correct surface forms of Slavic languages, POST and STRID

must interact with faithfulness constraints militating against the abovementioned changes.

This is resolved by the following IDENT-IO constraints (McCarthy and Prince 1995).

(10) a. IDENT([+anter]): [+anter] on the input consonant must be preserved in the

output correspondent of that consonant.

b. IDENT([-strid]): [–strid] on the input consonant must be preserved in the

output correspondent of that consonant.

IDENT([+anter]) blocks retraction of //t// to a prepalatal position mandated by POST, and

IDENT([–strid]) militates against the affrication which results from the dictates of STRID.

Now, the question of which form surfaces as the optimal output is a matter of constraint

ranking. To portray the interplay of the constraints in (9) and (10), consider Tableau (11),

where I present the effects of Coronal Palatalization.

44

(11) Polish: //t+i// → [tɕi]

PAL-i POST IDENT ([+anter]) STRID IDENT

([–strid]) a. ti *!

b. t’i *! * c. ts’i *! * d. t̠’i * *!

☞ e. tɕi * *

In Tableau (11), Candidate (11a) is eliminated as it incurs a fatal violation of the

highest-ranked PAL-i. Candidates (11b) and (11c) are discarded from further evaluation by

POST. Because all the remaining Candidates, (11d) and (11e), are in violation of

IDENT([+anter]), that is, there is a tie between them, they are moved on to the next constraint

in the hierarchy for further evaluation. STRID penalizes Candidate (11d) leaving Candidate

(11e), which violates only the lowest-ranked IDENT([strid]), as the optimal output.

To accommodate the effect of Surface Palatalization, the ranking must be reversed.

Namely, IDENT([+anter]) and IDENT([+strid]) must be undominated to block the change in

place of articulation and affrication, respectively. This is shown in (12).

(12) Polish: //ti// → [t’ i]

PAL-i IDENT ([+anter]) POST IDENT

([–strid]) STRID

a. ti *! ☞ b. t’i * * c. ts’i * *! d. t̠’i *! * e. tɕi *! *

Candidate (12a) incurs a fatal violation of the high-ranked PAL-i and is removed from further

evaluation. Next, Candidates (12d) and (12e) are killed due to the violation of

IDENT([+anter]). Candidates (12b) and (12c) tie on POST and the burden of evaluation is

45

passed on to IDENT([–strid]), which excludes Candidate (12c). Candidate (12b) commits a

violation of lower-ranked STRID and emerges as the winning candidate.

In Polish //ti// may palatalize lexically to [tɕi] and postlexically to [t’i]. Alternations as in

knot  ~   knocić ‘botch’, [ˈknɔt] → [ˈknɔtɕitɕ], are obtained by ranking POST above

IDENT([+anter]) and STRID above IDENT ([–strid]). The allophonic type of palatalization, as

in but Idy ‘Ida’s shoe’ [but’ # idɨ], is achieved by the reverse ranking, where IDENT ([+anter])

is ranked higher than POST, and IDENT ([strid]) must dominate STRID. Note that the

evaluation of //s// → [s’] and //s// → [ɕ] is fully parallel to that of //t// → [t’] and //t// → [tɕ].

STRID and IDENT([–strid]) play no part in the evaluation of //si//, as the underlying segment

is already [+strid]. The above analysis poses a rather nettlesome question. How the two

rankings in (11) and (12) can coexist within one phonological system since they are mutually

exclusive? Both rankings are necessary to account for Polish palatalization, yet they cannot

coexist in standard OT. Again, a strictly parallel evaluation is incapable of producing optimal

outputs of Polish palatalization.

Another possible scenario where PAL plays the lead part involves strings of

underlying soft segments followed by a back vowel. Under the influence of PAL, an

underlying sequence of //C’ɨ// might emerge as [C’i], thus satisfying PAL by fronting the

vowel. An alternative strategy is to derive [Cɨ] from //C’ɨ// by the hardening of the soft

consonant. Consider the data in (13) below. The underlying suffix //ɨ// of the fem. gen.sg.

retains its backness when it is preceded by a hard consonant (13a). The same suffix emerges

as [i] when preceded by a soft segment, as in (13b). It must be noted that the soft segments in

(13b) are underlying as they appear in contexts that do not trigger palatalization (Rubach

2003).

46

(13) a. wod+y [vɔd+ ɨ] ‘water’ (gen.sg.) , chat+y [xat+ ɨ] ‘house’ (gen.sg.), mas+y

[mas+ɨ] ‘mass’ (gen.sg.), bez+y [bɛz+ɨ] ‘mirangue’ (gen.sg.)

b. postać [pɔstatɕ] ‘figure’ (nom.sg.) – postac+i [pɔstatɕ+i] (gen.sg.)

kadź [kadʑ]23 ‘barrel’ (nom.sg.) – kadz+i [kadʑ+i] (gen.sg.)

pierś [p’jɛrɕ] ‘breast’ (nom.sg.) – piers+i [p’jɛrɕ+i] (gen.sg.)

maź [maʑ] ‘grease’ (nom.sg.) – maz+i [maʑ+i] (gen.sg.)

Both operations, the hardening of the consonant and the fronting of the vowel, provide

structures that equally satisfy the demands of PAL. In Polish, as shown by the data in (13),

only the latter is possible. Responsible for the correct surface forms in (13) are PAL

constraints countered by the following IDENT-IO constraints:

(14) a. IDENT-V([+back]): Input [+back] on a vowel must be preserved as

output [+back] on that vowel.

b. IDENT-C([–back]): Input [–back] on a consonant must be preserved as

output [–back] on that consonant.

In order to account for the process of vowel fronting shown in (13b), IDENT-C([–back]),

which preserves the feature [–back] on the consonant, must be ranked above

IDENT-V([+back]), which preserves the same feature on the vowel. The evaluation of //C’ɨ//

is provided in (15).

23 Similarly to the examples in (1) from Chapter 2, the surface form of kadź ‘barrel’ is actually [katɕ] due to the rule of Final Devoicing.

47

(15) Fronting: // C’ɨ// →[C’i]

The high-ranked constraints, PAL-i and IDENT-C([–back]), penalize the lack of agreement in

backness in (15c) and consonant hardening in (15a), respectively. Candidate (15a) violates

only the low-ranked IDENT-V([+back]) and therefore wins the evaluation.

3.2. Derivational Optimality Theory

This section seeks a solution to the issue of contradictory rankings presented in the previous

section. The ranking paradox is resolved by turning to Derivational Optimality Theory

(Kiparsky 1997, 2000, Rubach 1997, 2000a,b, 2005, 2007) (henceforth, DOT), which, by

analogy to Lexical Phonology, differentiates between phonological levels. The levels are of

three kinds: the stem level (root plus suffixes), the word level (stem plus prefixes) and the

postlexical level (sentences) (Kiparsky 2000). The following subsections investigate the

organisation of the rankings offered in the previous sections within the framework of DOT.

3.2.1. Evaluation at Level 1

Level 1 in DOT corresponds to the lexical level in Lexical Phonology in that its application is

limited to the domain of words. This means that phrases such as but Idy ‘Ida’s shoe’ [but#idɨ]

are not evaluated at this level. What is more, the changes introduced at Level 1 must be

restricted to derived environments. It is at this level that words such as trudz+ie [trudʑɛ]

‘hardship’ (loc.sg.) should be evaluated as they are derived in the morphological sense: a

PAL-i IDENT-C ([–back])

IDENT-V ([+back])

☞a.C’i * b.Cɨ *! c.C’ɨ *!

48

suffix is added, which creates a new derived structure. Words containing tautomorphemic

clusters of //tj//, such as in partia [part’ja] ‘political party’, remain unaffected due to the non-

derived environment blocking.

The driving force behind palatalization at Level 1 must be the tandem of PAL-i and

PAL-ɛ, which collectively have j, i and ɛ as their environment. The words in (1), Chapter 2,

show that palatalization across morpheme boundaries is triggered by both i and ɛ. If only

PAL-i were responsible for palatalization at Level 1, the correct form of trudz+ie [trudʑɛ]

‘hardship’ (loc.sg.) would be impossible to achieve. Similarly, if PAL-ɛ were the sole driver

of palatalization at this level, words such as knoc+i+ć [knɔtɕitɕ] would fail to exhibit

palatalization. For the sake of compactness, in the remaining part of Section 3.2.1., PAL-ɛ and

PAL-i will be referred to collectively as PAL-i,ɛ.24 As for the strategy satisfying PAL-i,ɛ

palatalization, (6) has priority over retraction, (7). PAL-i,ɛ and IDENT-V([–back]), must be

ranked above IDENT-C([+back]) ensuring that the vowel remains front and the consonant is

palatalized, as in (6).

Rubach (2003) shows that the full effects of Coronal Palatalization (1), that is the

changes in the place and manner of articulation, must be postponed until Level 2. The

rationale behind this position is cursorily discussed below.25

Coronal Palatalization is shown to be inextricably intertwined with Velar

Palatalization. The latter rule changes velar obstruents //k g x// to [tʃ dʒ ʃ]26, respectively,

when followed by a front vowel in words such as in krocz+y+ć ‘to step’ //krɔk+i+tɕ// →

[krɔtʃɨtɕ]. The context for the rule is fully parallel to the one required by Coronal

Palatalization, where front vowels are the triggers. Rubach (2003) demonstrates that the

24 PAL-i and PAL-ɛ must remain separate constraints. The following sections provide more evidence to support this claim. 25 For a more detailed account see (Rubach 2003). 26 Phonetically these segments are retroflex.

49

derivation of kroczyć ‘to step’ in the framework of DOT requires an intermediate stage.

Namely, //k g x// are palatalised to / tʃ’ dʒ’ ʃ’ / at Level 1 and subsequently hardened to [tʃ dʒ

ʃ] at Level 2. This must be the case since clusters such as [tʃɨ] which originate from //k+i// are

impossible to obtain at Level 1 due to the high-ranked IDENT-V([–back]). The ranking of the

constraints responsible for obtaining /tʃ’ dʒ’ ʃ’/ at Level 1 rules out /ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ/ as a possible

output by ranking *[–distr] above *[+distr]. If both //t+i// and //k+i// were to palatalize to [tʃ’i]

at Level 1, there would be no way of distinguishing between //tʃ’i// that derives from a

coronal segment and that which comes from a dorsal segment at Level 2. Consequently, all

//tʃ’i// would eventually surface as [tʃɨ] at Level 2, resulting in unattested outputs such as knot

//knɔt// → knoc+ie *[knɔtʃɛ], instead of [knɔtɕɛ]. For this reason, the transformation of //s z t

d// → [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] cannot be carried out completely at Level 1. It is concluded that Coronal

Palatalization must yield /s’ z’ t’ d’/ at Level 1 to avoid collision with Velar Palatalization.

The correct evaluations of //t+i// and //t+ɛ// at Level 1 are given in (16) and (17).27

(16) Level 1 //t+i// → [t’i]

IDENT-V ([–back]) PAL-i,ɛ IDENT

([+anter]) POST IDENT ([–strid]) STRID

a. ti *! ☞b. t’i * * c. ts’i * *! d. t̠’i *! * e. tɕi *! *!

f. tɨ *!

27 The evaluation of //s z d// is fully analogous. As pointed out earlier in the discussion, STRID is mute on //s z// as the segments are already [+strid].

50

(17) Level 1 //t+ɛ// → [t’ɛ]

IDENT-V ([–back]) PAL-i,ɛ IDENT

([+anter]) POST IDENT ([–strid]) STRID

a.tɛ *! ☞b. t’ɛ * * c. ts’ɛ * *! d. t̠’ɛ *! * e. tɕɛ *! *! f.təә *!

The high-ranked PAL-i,ɛ enforces agreement in backness between the vowel and the

consonant. In both evaluations this demand is flouted by Candidates (16a) and (17a), which

are immediately ruled out from the evaluation. All the remaining candidates satisfy PAL-i,ɛ,

but violate other high ranked constraints in a bid to do so. Candidates (16f) and (17f) conform

to PAL-i,ɛ by retracting the vowel, a strategy penalized by the high-ranked IDENT-V

([–back]). Candidates (d) and (e) in (16) and (17) are excluded from the evaluation because

they shift from anterior to posterior position. This manoeuvre is blocked by IDENT([+anter]).

Finally, Candidates (16c) and (17c), which, additionally to palatalization, show affrication,

lose by violating IDENT([–strid]). Candidates (16b) and (17b) emerge as the optimal outputs

at Level 1, and are submitted as the inputs for evaluation at Level 2.

As presented in the previous section, Polish has a rule of fronting which transforms

underlying //t’+ɨ// into [t’+i], as shown by the data in (13b). The strategy of satisfying PAL-i,ɛ

at Level 1 is to keep the [–back] feature of the underlying soft consonant rather than [+back]

feature on the vowel. Thus, IDENT-C([–back]) must outrank IDENT-V([+back]) to allow for

this change to happen. The underlying form of postac+i //pɔstat’+ɨ// (gen.sg.) surfaces

eventually as [pɔstatɕ+i]28 and not *[pɔstatɨ]. IDENT-C([–back]) and IDENT-V([+back]),

responsible for fronting, do not interact with IDENT-V([–back]) and IDENT-C([+back]),

28 I assume after Rubach (2006) that morpheme internal soft segments [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] are derived from underlying //s’ z’ t’ d’//, respectively. All underlying //t’//, are spelt out to [tɕ] at Level 2.

51

which are in charge of palatalization. The former pair of the constraints is mute on underlying

strings of //Ci// and the latter is mute on //C’ɨ//. To sum up, fronting and palatalization can

coexist at the same level provided that IDENT-C([–back]) and IDENT-V([–back]) outrank

IDENT-V([+back]) and IDENT-C([+back]). The tableau showing the evaluation of //pɔstat’+ɨ//

→ [pɔstatɕ+i], where for the reason of space only the relevant part of the word is examined, is

given in (18) below.

(18) Tableau for postac+i //t’+ɨ// → [t’i]

PAL-i,ɛ IDENT-C ([–back])

IDENT-V ([–back])

IDENT-C ([+back])

IDENT-V ([+back])

☞a. t’i * b. tɨ *! c. t’ɨ *!

Candidate (18c) is rejected because it does not conform to the demands of the high-ranked

PAL-i,ɛ. Candidates (18a) and (18b) show agreement with respect to the feature [±back], thus

complying with PAL-i,ɛ. Candidate (18b) is rejected due to the violation of

IDENT-C([–back]). Candidate (18a) emerges as the optimal candidate, while violating

IDENT-V([+back]), which is the lowest-ranked constraint.

3.2.2. Evaluation at Level 2

Evaluation at Level 2, similarly to Level 1, remains limited to the domain of words. The

differences between Level 1 and Level 2 are three. First, the main difference consists in that

the derived environment condition is inactive at Level 2. This means that the effects of PAL

constraints are active morpheme internally. Second, PAL-ɛ is inactive at Level 2 and PAL-i

takes over the role of the driver for palatalization and related processes. This is formally

52

expressed by the following ranking: IDENT-C([+back]), IDENT-V([–back]) >> PAL-ɛ. The

above assumption is borne out by the fact that words such as teza [tɛza] ‘thesis’ (nom.sg)

contain a hard segment followed by a mid front vowel morpheme-internally and show no sign

of palatalization. Finally, the preferred strategy of satisfying PAL-i at Level 2 is vowel

retraction rather than consonant palatalization. The effects of palatalization at Level 2 are

limited to spell-out operations of Level 1 soft outputs: //s’ z’ t’ d’// to [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ].

The process of retraction was illustrated by the examples of borrowings in (8). Rubach

(2003) shows that words such as optymalny ‘optimal’ [ɔptɨmal+n+ɨ] and maksymalny

‘maximal’ [maksɨmal+n+ɨ] always surface with a mid back vowel [ɨ]. Recall from Section

3.1.2. that vowel retraction is limited to coronal segments. Labials and velars display

palatalization.

(19) IDENT-Coron([+back]): Input [+back] on a coronal must be preserved as

output [+back] on that coronal.

The relevant constraints governing vowel retraction must therefore be IDENT-V([–back]) and

IDENT-Coron([+back]) (Rubach 2003). It is important that IDENT-Coron([+back]) be ranked

above IDENT-V([–back]) as the observed change is in the quality of the vowel and not of the

consonant. The evaluation of optymalny is shown in Tableau (20), where only the relevant

fragment of the word is considered.

53

(20) Tableau for optymal+n+y: //ti// → [tɨ]

PAL-i IDENT-Coron ([+back])

IDENT-V ([–back])

a. t’i *! ☞b. tɨ * c. t’ɨ *!

Level 2 completes the effects of Coronal Palatalization from Level 1 by adding

affrication and shifting the place of articulation of the soft dentals. The ranking of the

constraints at Level 2 gives precedence to POST over IDENT([+anter]), ensuring that soft

/s’ z’ t’ d’/ receive a prepalatal place of articulation. The change in the manner of articulation

of /t’ d’/ is brought about by the reranking of STRID above IDENT([–strid]). Notice that

IDENT-Coron([+back]) from the previous section has no bearing on the evaluation of //t’//

since the segment is [–back] and not [+back]. Thus, the Level 1 output of knoc+i+ć

//knɔt+i+t’//, a verb from knot [ˈknɔt] ‘botch’, is /knɔt’+i+t’/. This form is admitted as an

input to Level 2 where it is further spelt out to [knɔtɕitɕ]. The evaluation of knoc+i+ć is

tabulated in (21).

(21) Level 2 evaluation of knoc+i+ć /knɔt’+i+t’/ → [knɔtɕitɕ].

PAL-i IDENT-V ([–back])

IDENT-C ([–back]) POST IDENT

([+anter]) STRID IDENT ([–strid])

a. ti *! * b. t’i *! *

c. ts’i *! * d. t̠’i * *! ☞ e. tɕi * *

f. tɨ *! *

54

Candidates (21a) and (21f) are rejected due to the violation of the high-ranked PAL-i and

IDENT-V([–back]), respectively. Their incursions of IDENT-C([–back]) are of no relevance as

the candidates are outside the evaluation due to the earlier incursions. Candidates (21b) and

(21c) lose by violating POST. Candidate (21d) is excluded by STRID as it fails to comply with

the demands of the constraint. The winning Candidate, (21e), violates the low-ranked

IDENT([–strid]) due to the change in the value of the feature [strident].

At Level 2, morpheme-internal clusters, such as //sj zj tj dj//, are no longer impervious

to the demands of PAL-i because operations at Level 2 are not governed by the derived

environment condition. It has been shown that words such as partia ‘party’ [part’ja] and

similar forms in (13c) eventually surface with a soft segment. However, this sound change

cannot be introduced at Level 2 due to the high-ranked IDENT-Coron([+back]), which blocks

palatalization of hard coronal segments. As presented in (20), the preferred strategy at Level 2

is vowel retraction rather than consonant palatalization. Given that, [tj] clusters should surface

with a retracted version of [j]. Because the representation of a palatal glide [j] on the melodic

tier is equal to that of a nucleusless front vowel [i], the logical candidate at Level 2 should

contain a nucleusless [ɨ], which eventually surfaces as a central unrounded back glide [ɨ̯].

Although a candidate such as [tɨ̯] obeys PAL-i, it is ultimately doomed, as the central

unrounded glide does not belong to the repertoire of Polish sounds. It can be therefore easily

eliminated by postulating an undominated segment inventory constraint, *ɨ̯, banning it from

surfacing. Another, more probable outcome of the constraint interaction at Level 2 is

retraction of [i̯] to [u̯], which eventually surfaces as [w]. The current ranking of the constraints

predicts partia //partja// to surface as *[partwa] instead of [part’ja]. To prevent the change of

//tj// to [tw] at Level 2, Rubach (2000) puts forward the following constraint:

(22) *ONSET ([u]): The melodic segment [u] cannot be in the onset.

55

Consider Tableau (23) showing the evaluation of ‘partia’.

(23) Level 2 evaluation of /partja/ → /part’ja/

IDENT-Coron ([+back]) *ONSET[u] PAL-i

☞ a. tj

* b. t’j *!

c. tw *!

It is crucial that *ONSET ([u]) outranks PAL-i. Since in the evaluation above, the violation

incurred by Candidate (23a) must be regarded as less serious than that committed by

Candidate (23c) and (23b). The optimal output /tj/, with the violation of the least important

PAL-i, is admitted as the optimal input to Level 3.

3.2.3. Evaluation at Level 3

Finally, Level 3 assumes a strategy similar to that of Level 1 in that it favours palatalization

over retraction. Again, it is more important to preserve the frontness of the vowel than to

preserve the backness of the consonant. Level 3 must, therefore, rank IDENT-V([–back])

above IDENT-C([+back]) and IDENT-Coron([+back]) to allow palatalization of the

consonant. This means that clusters such as //Ci// surface as [C’i], rather than [Cɨ]. The

difference between Level 1 and Level 3 consists in the fact that the latter employs PAL-i

instead of PAL-ɛ as the main propeller of palatalization. The latter constraint is inactive and

must be therefore ranked below faithfulness constraints. Thus, teraz ‘now’ and but Edwarda

‘Edward’s shoe’ are free from palatalizing at Level 3 since the environment of PAL-i is not

met. What is more, the scope of the application of Level 3, which is a postlexical level, is

56

unrestricted. That is, its jurisdiction is stretched from words to word phrases. It is at this level

that but Idy ‘Ida’s shoe’ //but#idɨ// and partja ‘party’ //partja// are finally palatalized.

The palatalization strategy at Level 3 differs immensely from the one employed at

Level 2 in one more aspect. Namely, the change of the manner and place of articulation

alongside palatalization is dispreferred at this level. That is, //s z t d// palatalize to [s’ z’ t’ d’]

rather than to [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ]. This is formally expressed by the reranking of IDENT([+anter]) and

IDENT([–strid]) above POST and STRID. The correct evaluations of but idy ‘Ida’s shoe’ and

partia ‘party’ are presented in tableaux (24) and (25), respectively.

(24) Level 3 evaluation of but idy ‘Ida’s shoe’. /ti/ → [t’i]

IDENT-V ([–back]) PAL-i IDENT

([+anter]) POST IDENT ([–strid]) STRID

a. ti *! ☞b. t’i * * c. ts’i * *! d. t̠’i *! * e. tɕi *! *

f. tɨ *!

(25) Level 3 evaluation of partia ‘party’. /tj/ → [t’j]

IDENT-V ([–back]) PAL-i IDENT

([+anter]) POST IDENT ([–strid]) STRID

a. tj *! ☞b. t’j * * c. ts’j * *! d. t̠’j *! * e. tɕj *! *

f. tw *!

In the above tableaux, Candidates (24f) and (25f), which retract the originally front vowel or

glide, fatally violate IDENT-V([–back]). Candidates (24a) and (25a) are penalized by PAL-i

57

for the lack of agreement in backness. Candidates (24d), (24e), (25d) and (25e), which show

retraction of the original consonant, are ruled out by IDENT([+anter]) and are excluded from

further evaluation. Candidates (24b), (24c), (25b) and (25c) tie on violating POST and are

moved for further evaluation to the lower-ranked constraint. IDENT([–strid]) penalizes

Candidates (24c) and (25c) for not preserving the original feature [–strid] on the consonant.

As a result, Candidates (24b) and (25b), with the minimal violation of STRID, emerge as the

optimal outputs.

3.3. Partial conclusions

This chapter has discussed the formalisation of the effects of Polish palatalization of dental

obstruents within two major constraint-based phonological theories: Optimality Theory and

Derivational Optimality Theory. Section 3.1. showed OT’s superiority over the rule-based

phonological theory which consists in uniting seemingly unrelated processes of palatalization,

retraction and fronting in a bid to comply with the general requirement of the PAL constraints.

Although OT makes immense advances in the way it formalises palatalization, the theory fails

in the way it organises its generalizations. Section 3.1.2. proved that a strictly parallel analysis

of Polish palatalization is impossible due to contradictory rankings.

Section 3.2. turned to Derivational Optimality Theory, which admits phonological

levels, thus allowing for a neat organisation of the rankings developed in Section 3.1. It has

been shown that DOT’s distinction between lexical and postlexical derivational levels is

effective, and correctly predicts the attested surface forms in a transparent manner.

58

Chapter 4

Conclusions

The aim of this thesis was to review the palatalization of dental obstruents from the point of

view of selected rule-based as well as constraint-based frameworks. In Chapter 2, it was

shown that each of the theories, SPE, Lexical Phonology and Feature Geometry, is able to

capture the facts of Polish palatalization correctly. However, these theories show different

degree of aptness in the ways they formalize the processes.

One of the crucial conclusions of this thesis is the fact that dental obstruents exhibit

two different kinds of palatalization. Allophonic Surface Palatalization, which changes

//s z t d// to [s’ z’ t’ d’] and phonemic Coronal Palatalization, which changes //s z t d// to

[ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ]. Both rules change hard consonants into their soft counterparts. Although the two

rules, to a degree, converge in their outputs and in the contexts in which they apply, they must

remain separate and cannot be amalgamated into one general palatalization rule. Surface

Palatalization is triggered by i and j, whereas Coronal Palatalization applies before ɛ and i.

What is more, Surface Palatalization applies across the board in contrast to Coronal

Palatalization, which is limited to applying to segments spanning morpheme boundaries.

Chapter 2 has also shown that the palatalization rules need to make reference to

morphological and lexical information in order to correctly predict the facts of Polish

palatalization. Thus, the rule of Coronal Palatalization needs to be excluded from applying to

the [t] in but Edwarda [but ɛdvarda] ‘Edward’s shoe’ as it is separated from the ɛ by a word

boundary. Similarly, the [t] in teraz [tɛraz] ‘now’ is free from palatalizing into [tɕ] because

the dental and the vowel do not span a morpheme boundary. Surface Palatalization must

apply across word boundaries as in głos Idy [gwɔs’ idɨ] ‘Ida’s voice’ and to tautomorphemic

59

segments, as in partia [part’ja] ‘political party’. SPE captures this relation by referring to

word boundaries, ‘#’, and morpheme boundaries, ‘+’, which are expressed by abstract

distinctive features, in the composition of the rules. Lexical Phonology provides a neater

solution to the same problem by allocating each rule to different phonological components.

The consequence is that reference to word or morphological boundaries is no longer

necessary.

Chapter 3 recasts the analyses in Optimality Theory, which proves most successful in

capturing the formal unity of palatalization in Polish. The demands of PAL, which enforce the

agreement in backness between hard dental obstruents and front vowels, unite the processes

of palatalization, retraction and fronting. However, OT fails in the way it organises its

generalisations. Namely, the ranking of the constraints producing Surface Palatalization and

the ranking producing Coronal Palatalization are contradictory. The principle of strict

parallelism of OT makes it impossible for the two processes to coexist in one language.

Level distinctions in DOT resolve the problem of contradictory rankings by assigning

each ranking to a different phonological level. It is concluded that OT must admit level

distinctions in order to be able to account for the processes of Coronal Palatalization and

Surface Palatalization.

60

References

Booij, Geert E., and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical

Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18:1–44.

Chomsky, Noam. and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper

and Row.

Clements, George N. 1985. The Geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2.

225–252.

Chen, Matthew.1973. Predictive power in phonological description. Lingua 32.173–191.

Gussman, Edmund. 1978. Contrastive Polish-English consonantal phonology. Warszawa:

Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 1–46.

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In Harry van der Hulst &

Neil Smith (eds.), The Structure of phonological representations, volume 1, 131–175.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. LP and OT. Handout. LSA Summer Linguistic Institute. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.

McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 45. 84–

108.

McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill N.

Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), University of

Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst: University of

Massachusetts, GLSA.

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction generative

grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and University of Colorado,

Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.

Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2000a. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17. 39–64.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2000b. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: A DOT analysis.

61

Linguistic Inquiry 31. 271–317.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2003. Polish palatalization in Derivational Optimality Theory. Lingua 113.

197–237.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2005. Mid vowel fronting in Ukrainian. Phonology 22. 1–36.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2006. Perspectives of Polish Palatalization. Poznań Studies in Contemporary

Linguistics 42. 239–268.

Rubach, Jerzy. 2007. Feature geometry from the perspective of Polish, Russian, and

Ukrainian. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 85–138.

Sagey, Elizbeth. 1986. The representations of features and relations in non-linear phonology.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral

dissertation. MIT. Cambridge, Mass.

Wierzchowska, Bożena. 1963. Budowa akustyczna a artykulacja dźwięków mowy. Biuletyn

Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 22. 3–23.

Wierzchowska, Bożena. 1971. Wymowa polska. Warszawa: Państwowe Zakłady

Wydawnictw Szkolnych.