Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:07:39.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soft labial conspiracy in Kurpian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2014

JERZY RUBACH
JERZY RUBACH*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa/University of Warsaw
*
Author's address: Instytut Anglistyki, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Nowy Świat 4, 00-497 Warszawa, Poland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates soft labial conspiracy in Kurpian, a dialect of Polish that has not been discussed in the generative literature to date. The conspiracy involves four processes: decomposition, simplification, depalatalization, and vowel retraction. These processes are united by the goal to eliminate palatalized labials from the surface representation. The article argues against bidirectional IDENT constraints and for the tenet of Derivational/Stratal OT that analysis must proceed in steps. The evidence comes from the nature of decomposition and from the fact that depalatalization constitutes a Duke-of-York derivation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 185 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I would like to thank the three Journal of Linguistics referees for discussion and criticism, which led to considerable improvement of both the content and the presentation of my analysis. However, let me add that the responsibility for this article is solely mine. I would also like to thank my Kurpian consultants, especially Tadeusz Grec, Stanisław Sieruta and Henryk Gadomski as well as Apolonia Cis, Leszek Czyż, Michalina Dębowska, Irena Górska, Stefania Górska, Mirosław Grzyb, Czesława Kaczyńska, Alina Kulesza, Henryk Kulesza, Celina Kopeć, Danuta Kostewicz, Krystyna Koziatek, Grażyna Magdzińska, Hanna Małż, Krystyna Mróz, Marianna Piórkowska, Stefania Prusaczyk, Marianna Staśkiewicz, and Lucyna Ścibek.

References

REFERENCES

Baković, Eric. 2007. Local assimilation and constraint interaction. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 335–351. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, Nicoleta. 2010. The change from labial to palatal as glide hardening. Linguistic Typology 14, 167–211.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1992. Polish syllables: The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: Quantity in English and Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1978. A general study of palatalization. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 2: Phonology, 47–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bilodid, I. K. 1969. Suchasna ukraïns'ka literaturna mova. Fonetyka [Contemporary Ukrainian literary language: Phonetics]. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev A. 2006. Constraints on phonological interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 219–252.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1988. Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dejna, Karol. 1973. Dialekty polskie [Polish dialects]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Henryk. 1955. Fonetyka i fonologia gwary kurpiowskiej [Phonetics and phonology of the Kurpian dialect]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63, 463–497.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three dimensions in phonological theory, 5–56. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. LP and OT. Handout. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Institute.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 351–365.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 1998. Labial palatalization: A gestural account of phonetic implementation. The Candian Linguistic Association Annual Proceedings 1998, 38–50.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1947. Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 8, 80–113.Google Scholar
Laskowski, Roman. 1975. Studia nad morfonologią współczesnego języka polskiego [Studies in morphophonology of contemporary Polish]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1963. Preliminary remarks on the morphophonemic component of Polish. Quarterly Progress Report 71, 220–235. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112, 243–280.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43, 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29, 1–51.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 24, 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura W. & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Willem (eds.), The prosody–morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowski, Marek, Roca, Iggy & Spencer, Andrew. 1992. Polish yers and lexical syllabicity. The Linguistic Review 9, 27–67.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Sciences. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1976. The Duke-of-York gambit. Journal of Linguistics 12, 83–102.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: The yers. The Linguistic Review 5, 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1997. Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational Optimality Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 551–581. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000a. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17, 39–64.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000b. Glide and glottal stop insertion: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 271–317.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2003a. Polish palatalization in Derivational Optimality Theory. Lingua 113, 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2003b. Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 601–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2008a. Palatal nasal decomposition in Slovene, Upper Sorbian and Polish. Journal of Linguistics 44, 169–204.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2008b. Prevocalic faithfulness. Phonology 25, 433–468.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2009. Zasady pisowni kurpiowskiego dialektu literackiego [Orthographic principles of literary Kurpian dialect]. Ostrołęka: Związek Kurpiów.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2011a. The vocalic system of Kurpian. Studies in Polish Linguistics 6, 81–98.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2011b. Syllabic repairs in Macedonian. Lingua 121, 237–268.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.), Language sound structure, 107–136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A non-linear analysis of vowel – zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22, 249–280.Google Scholar
Steele, Richard D. 1973. The segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Polish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 219–250. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Struijke, C. 2000. Existential faithfulness: A study of reduplicative TETU, feature movement, and dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. Ghost segments in non-linear phonology: Polish yers. Language 68, 277–312.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939/1969. Grundzüge der Phonologie. English translation (1969) Principles of phonology, translated by Baltaxe, C. A. M.. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zduńska, Helena. 1965. Studia nad fonetyką gwar mazowieckich. Konsonantyzm [Studies in the phonetics of Mazovian dialects: The consonantal system]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar