Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:24:02.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liquid Lowering in Kurpian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2018

JERZY RUBACH
JERZY RUBACH*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa & University of Warsaw
*
Author’s addresses: Instytut Anglistyki, Uniwersytet Warszawski, ul. Hoża 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland[email protected] & Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes the process that I call Liquid Lowering which turns high vowels $i$ and ɨ  into $e$ before liquids, schematically iɨ → e/ – rl. The process began to operate in Polish in the 16th century. I look at the modern reflexes of Liquid Lowering in Standard Polish and in Kurpian, a dialect of Polish that dates back to the 17th century, and argue that the rule is dead in Standard Polish but not in Kurpian, where it is productive in derived environments. The modeling of Liquid Lowering as a phonological process has implications for phonological theory. In particular, it calls for the recognition of derivational levels, as envisaged by Derivational Optimality Theory. It is argued that Standard Optimality Theory, with its principle of strict parallelism, cannot account for the data because it runs into insoluble ranking paradoxes. Furthermore, the analysis bears on the issue of abstractness by positing vowels that never occur phonetically. The abstract vowels are exchanged for the actually occurring vowels before reaching the surface representation. I term this type of shift change virement.

Keywords

abstractness of underlying representationsderivationalismKurpian phonologyOptimality Theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2018 , pp. 493 - 526
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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: Tadeusz Grec, Henryk Gadomski and Mirosław Grzyb. The research for this article was supported in part by a University of Warsaw grant from the National Center of Science number 2013/09/B/HS2/01095.

References

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: Quantity in English and Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. & Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 1–44.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
Fujimura, Osamu(ed.). 1973. Three dimensions in phonological theory. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968/1973a. How abstract is phonology?In Fujimura (ed.), 5–56.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973b. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura(ed.), 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol. I, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. LP and OT handout. Cornell Linguistic Institute, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 351–365.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112, 243–280.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.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 from Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA–537.]Google Scholar
Rospond, Stanisław. 1973. Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego[A historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1982. Analysis of phonological structures. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000a. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 271–317.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000b. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17, 39–64.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2003a. Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 601–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2003b. Polish palatalization in Derivational Optimality Theory. Lingua 113, 197–237.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2009. Zasady pisowni kurpiowskiego dialektu literackiego[Orthographic principles of the literary dialect of Kurpian]. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2014a. Soft labial conspiracy in Kurpian. Journal of Linguistics 50, 185–230.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2014b. Final Tensing in Kurpian. Studies in Polish Linguistics 9, 45–65.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2016. Polish yers: Representation and analysis. Journal of Linguistics 52, 421–466.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy & Booij, Geert E.. 1990. Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 427–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy & Booij, Geert E.. 2001. Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish iotation. Language 77, 26–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stieber, Zdzisław. 1952. Rozwój fonologiczny języka polskiego[Phonological development of the Polish language]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Wood, Sidney A. J. 1975. Tense and lax vowels: Degree of constriction or pharyngeal volume? Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 109–134. [Lund University]Google Scholar
Zduńska, Helena. 1965. Studia nad fonetyką gwar mazowieckich: Konsonantyzm[Phonetics of Mazovian dialects: Consonantal systems]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar