Variation and stability of Polish Retraction in Optimality Theory

Jakub Dunin-Borkowski

doi:10.31648/pj.11294

Variation and stability of Polish Retraction in Optimality Theory

Jakub Dunin-Borkowski

Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie UWM
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6676-8862

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.11294

Abstract

In classic Optimality Theory (OT), constraints are ranked categorically. Such an approach predicts that outputs of a given grammar do not exhibit phonological variation. Variation is, however, present in natural languages. In order to address this issue in OT, it has been proposed that categorical ranking should be abandoned in favor of probabilistic ranking. Probabilistic ranking, however, encounters problems when a process applies variably to some forms, but categorically to other forms. In such cases, lexically indexed constraints are invoked in order to account for the observed exceptionality. While lexical indexing is a successful formal device, it does not predict the behavior of novel forms. This paper reanalyzes the process of Retraction found in Polish. Retraction applies categorically across morphological boundaries, but it may apply categorically or variably inside morphemes. A solution to this issue is found in the interaction of phonology with morphology and the lexicon. In this view, abstract Underlying Representations coexist with listed words. The proposed model employs probabilistic constraint ranking and whole-word storage, retaining the formal convention of lexical and morphological indexing. The model is compatible with the framework of Derivational OT, which is necessary to account for the opaque interaction of Retraction and palatalization.

Keywords:

Derivational Optimality Theory, probabilistic ranking, variation, exceptions, whole-word storage, Polish Retraction

References

Boersma P. & B. Hayes (2001): Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. „Linguistic Inquiry” 32, pp. 45–86.
Crossref Google Scholar

Boersma P. (1997): How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. „Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam” 21, pp. 41–58. Google Scholar

Booij G. (2002): The balance between storage and computation in phonology. [In:] Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman & F. Wijnen (eds). Dordrecht, pp. 133–156.
Crossref Google Scholar

Booij G. E. & J. Rubach (1987): Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. „Linguistic Inquiry” 18, pp. 1–44. Google Scholar

Bybee J. (2001): Phonology and language use. Cambridge.
Crossref Google Scholar

Chomsky N. & M. Halle (1968): The sound pattern of English. New York. Google Scholar

Czaplicki B. (2014): Lexicon Based Phonology: Arbitrariness in Grammar. Munich. Google Scholar

Fukuzawa H. (1999): Theoretical implications of OCP effects on features in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar

Gussmann E. (1987): Contrastive Polish-English consonantal phonology. Warsaw. Google Scholar

Hay J. (2003): Causes and consequences of word structure. London.
Crossref Google Scholar

Itô J. & A. Mester (1999): The phonological lexicon. [In:] Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. N. Tsujimura (ed). Oxford, pp. 62–100.
Crossref Google Scholar

Jakubíček M., A. Kilgarriff, V. Kovář, P. Rychlý & V. Suchomel (2013): The TenTen corpus family. „7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL”, pp. 125–127.
Crossref Google Scholar

Kager R. (1996): On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. [In:] Interfaces in phonology. Studia Grammatica 41. U. Kleinhenz (ed). Berlin, pp. 155–171. Google Scholar

Kager R. (2000): Surface opacity of metrical structure in Optimality Theory. [In:] The derivational residue in phonology. B. Hermans & M. van Oostendorp (eds). Amsterdam, pp. 207-247.
Crossref Google Scholar

Kenstowicz M. (1994): Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar

Kiparsky P. (1982): From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology. [In:] The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol. I. H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds). Dordrecht, pp. 131–75. Google Scholar

Langacker R. (1987): Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA. Google Scholar

Lombardi L. (1999): Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. „Natural Language & Linguistic Theory” 17, pp. 267–302.
Crossref Google Scholar

Łubowicz A. (2007): Paradigmatic contrast in Polish. „Journal of Slavic Linguistics” 15, pp. 229–262. Google Scholar

McCarthy J. & A. Prince (1995): Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. [In:] University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds). Amherst, MA, pp. 249–384. Google Scholar

McQueen J. & A. Cutler (1998): Morphology in word recognition. [In:] The handbook of morphology. A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (eds). Oxford, pp. 406–427.
Crossref Google Scholar

Mester A. (1994): The quantitative trochee in Latin. „Natural Language & Linguistic Theory„ 12, pp. 1–61.
Crossref Google Scholar

Pater J. (2000): Nonuniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. „Phonology” 17, pp. 237–274.
Crossref Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert J. (2001): Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. [In:] Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. J. L. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds). Amsterdam, pp. 137–158.
Crossref Google Scholar

Prince A. & P. Smolensky (2004): Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford. [Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Sciences. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.]
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. & G. Booij (2001): Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish Iotation. „Language” 77, pp. 26–60.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (1984a): Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Berlin, New York.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (1984b): Segmental rules of English and Cyclic Phonology. „Language” 60, pp. 21–54.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (1997): Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational Optimality Theory. [In:] Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. I. Roca (ed). Oxford, pp. 551–581.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (2000): Backness switch in Russian. „Phonology” 17, pp. 39–64.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (2003a): Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. „Linguistic Inquiry” 34, pp. 601–629.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (2003b): Polish palatalization in derivational optimality theory. „Lingua” 113, pp. 197–237.
Crossref Google Scholar

Rubach J. (2017): Derivational meanders of High Vowel Palatalization in Polish. „Lingua” 199, pp. 1–26.
Crossref Google Scholar

Sanders R. (2003): Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz. Google Scholar

Steele R. D. (1973): The segmental phonology of contemporary Standard Polish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Google Scholar

Zuraw K. (2000): Patterned exceptions in Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California. Google Scholar

Zuraw K. (2010): A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution. „Nat Lang Linguist Theory” 28, pp. 417–472.
Crossref Google Scholar

„Sketch Engine”, www.sketchengine.eu, accessed: 15.03.2025. Google Scholar

Download

Published

2026-03-31

Cited by

Dunin-Borkowski, J. (2026). Variation and stability of Polish Retraction in Optimality Theory. Papers in Linguistics, 28(1), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.11294