Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:21:01.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palatal nasal decomposition in Slovene, Upper Sorbian and Polish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2008

JERZY RUBACH
JERZY RUBACH*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa & University of Warsaw
*
Author's addresses: (Fall semester) Department of Linguistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, U.S.A. E-mail: jerzy-rubach@uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the types of palatal nasal decomposition from the perspective of three Slavic languages: Slovene, Upper Sorbian and Polish. The prepalatal nasal exhibits three different patterns of behaviour: retention, decomposition and depalatalization. Decomposition results in a cluster of the glide [j] and a nasal consonant. The details of this process are different in each of the three phonological systems considered, for instance, the process can yield either [jn] or [nj], and it can occur either in the onset or in the coda. Also the drivers for decomposition are different and include constraints defining permissible inventories as well as constraints governing assimilation. From the theoretical perspective, nasal decomposition raises the question of whether ident constraints should be bidirectional or unidirectional. It is concluded that the latter are indispensable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 169 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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 Journal of Linguistics reviewers and editors 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 am very grateful to my Slovene and Upper Sorbian consultants: Vida Zei, Lada Zei, Slavko Splichal, Fabian Kaulfürst, Timo Meškank, Hync Rychtaŕ, Franc Šěn, Heinz Schuster-Šewc, Leńka Šołćic, and Bianka Šwejdžic. I also gratefully acknowledge the help and support that I received from Serbski Institut in Bautzen and the Alexander van Humboldt Foundation.

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bajec, Anton, Kolarič, Rudolf & Rupel, Mirko. 1956. Slovenska slovnica. Ljubljana: Državna Založba Slovenije.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benni, Tytus. 1915/1964. Fonetyka opisowa języka polskiego, 4th edn. (1st edn. 1915). Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1992. Polish syllables: The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Biedrzycki, Leszek. 1963. Fonologiczna interpretacja polskich głosek nosowych. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 22, 25–45.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1996. Resolving hiatus. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. [Published by Garland Publishing, New York, 1998.]Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73, 493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
de Bray, Reginald George Arthur. 1980. Guide to the Slavonic languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Fasske, Helmut. 1990. Sorbischer Sprachatlas 13: Synchronische Phonologie. Bautzen: Domowina Verlag.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 4). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1992. Phonological features. In William, Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 207–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Tserdanelis, Georgios. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Syllabification in Chukchee: A constraint-based analysis. In Davison, Alice, Maier, Nicol, Silva, Glaucia & Yan, Wan Su (eds.), The Formal Linguistics Society of the Midwest 4, 160–181. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63, 463–497.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laskowski, R. 1975. Studia nad morfonologią współczesnego języka polskiego. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1963. Preliminary remarks on the morphophonemic component of Polish. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 71, 220–235.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1965. Segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Why place and voice are different: Constraint-specific alternations and Optimality Theory. In Linda, Lombardi (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle 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, Dickey, Laura & Suzanne, (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1944. Yokuts language of California. New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In Kager, René, Hulst, Harry van der & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The prosody–morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993. Slovene. In Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 388–451. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado. [Published by Blackwell, Oxford, 2004.]Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: The yers. The LinguisticReview 5, 247–280.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1993. The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000b. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2003. Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 601–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schuster-Šewc, Heinz. 1996. Grammar of the Upper Sorbian language: Phonology and morphology. Translated by Gary H. Toops. Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Steele, Richard D. 1973. The segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Polish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Struijke, Caro. 2000. Existential faithfulness: A study of reduplicative TETU, feature movement, and dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Toporišič, Jože. 1978. Glasovna in naglasna podoba slovenskega jezika. Maribor: Založba Obzorja.Google Scholar
Toporišič, Jože. 1991. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Založba Obzorja.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939/1969. Grundzüge der Phonologie. English translation (1969) Principles of phonology, translated by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1999. Esimbi vowel height shift: Implications for faith and markedness. Ms, University of Southern California. [Available from Rutgers Optimality Archive. ROA #336.]Google Scholar
Wowčerk, Pawoł. 1955. Kurzgefasste obersorbische Grammatik: Phonetik und Morphologie, 3rd edn. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar