Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 643–680 | Cite as

Assimilation, antigemination, and contingent optionality: the phonology of monoconsonantal proclitics in Polish

Open Access


Baković (2005) analyzes the avoidance of ‘sufficiently similar’ adjacent consonants as the interaction of independent antigemination and assimilation processes. We present evidence from the phonology of monoconsonantal proclitics in Polish in support of the primary consequence of this analysis, that any conditions on antigemination or assimilation will also be conditions on ‘sufficient similarity’ avoidance. These conditions concern the segmental contexts in which geminates are disallowed in Polish and the variability of one of the assimilation processes involved. The analysis is further corroborated by the coincidence of two changes in progress: as the rate of variable assimilation has gone down, so has the rate of ‘sufficient similarity’ avoidance.


Antigemination Epenthesis Assimilation Variation Change Polish 


  1. ROA = Rutgers Optimality Archive.
  2. Baković, Eric. 2005. Antigemination assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22: 279–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baković, Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology 24: 217–259 [ROA-850]. Google Scholar
  4. Becker, Michael. 2009. Phonological trends in the lexicon: the role of constraints. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  5. Becker, Michael, and Lena Fainleib. 2009. Surface-based generalizations over lexical exceptions. Paper presented at the 83rd LSA annual meeting, in San Francisco. Google Scholar
  6. Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  7. Bethin, Christina Y. 1992. Polish syllables. The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus: Slavica. Google Scholar
  8. Blust, Robert. 1995. Austronesian comparative dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa. Google Scholar
  9. Blust, Robert. 2001. Language, dialect, and riotous sound change: the case of Sa’ban. In Papers from the 9th annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 1999, ed. G. Thurgood, 249–359. Tempe: Arizona State University Monograph Series Press. Google Scholar
  10. Blust, Robert. 2007. Disyllabic attractors and anti-antigemination in Austronesian sound change. Phonology 24: 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  12. Boersma, Paul, and Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86 [ROA-348]. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2008. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.22). [Computer program]. Google Scholar
  14. Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: which vowel goes? Language 73: 493–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ćavar, Małgorzata E. 2004. Palatalization in Polish. An interaction of articulatory and perceptual factors. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam. Google Scholar
  16. Coetzee, Andries W. 2009a. Learning lexical indexation. Phonology 26: 109–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coetzee, Andries W. 2009b. Phonological variation and lexical frequency. In Vol. 1 of Proceedings of NELS 38, eds. Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman, 189–202. Amherst: GLSA [ROA-952]. Google Scholar
  18. Coetzee, Andries W., and Joe Pater. 2008a. Weighted constraints and gradient Restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 289–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coetzee, Andries W., and Joe Pater. 2008b. The place of variation in phonological theory. Manuscript, University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts [ROA 946]. Google Scholar
  20. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1988. Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  21. Dmitrieva, Olga. 2009. Geminate typology and perception of consonant length. Experimental evidence from Russian. Paper presented at the 83rd LSA annual meeting, in San Francisco. Google Scholar
  22. Dunaj, Boguslaw. 1985. Grupy spółgłoskowe współczesnej polszczyzny mówionej (w języku mieszkańców Krakowa). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Prace Językoznawcze 83. Google Scholar
  23. Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge/London: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Hamann, Silke. 2004. Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages. Journal of the IPA 34: 53–67. Google Scholar
  26. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Tsujimura Natsuko, 62–100. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  27. Jassem, Wiktor. 1995. The acoustic parameters of Polish voiceless fricatives: an analysis of variance. Phonetica 52: 251–258. Google Scholar
  28. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2005. Voicing and geminacy in Japanese: an acoustic and perceptual study. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 31: 87–120. Google Scholar
  29. Keating, Patricia A. 1991. Coronal places of articulation. In Phonetics and phonology. The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence, eds. Carole Paradis and Jean-François Prunet, 29–48. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  30. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of Korean loanword adaptation. In Proceedings of the first European conference on Korean linguistics, ed. Sang-Jik Rhee, 17–32. Seoul: Hankook. Google Scholar
  31. Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional motivation of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306. Google Scholar
  32. Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  33. Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  34. Laskowski, Roman. 1975. Studia nad morfonologią współczesnego języka polskiego. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Google Scholar
  35. Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 267–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malone, Joseph L. 1967. A morphologic grammar of the classical mandaic verb. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  37. Malone, Joseph L. 1973. A case of optional-obligatory rule ordering. Foundations of Language 10: 579–580. Google Scholar
  38. Markowski, Andrzej (ed.). 1999. Nowy słownik poprawnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: PWN. Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: papers in optimality theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk, and Laura Walsh Dickey, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA [ROA-60]. Google Scholar
  40. McCrary, Kristie. 2004. Reassessing the role of the syllable in Italian phonology: an experimental study of consonant cluster syllabification, definite article allomorphy and segment duration. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  41. Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optionality in optimality-theoretic syntax. Glot International 4(5): 3–8. Google Scholar
  42. Muller, Jennifer. 1999. A unified mora account of Chuukese. Proceedings of WCCFL 18: 393–405. Google Scholar
  43. Muller, Jennifer. 2001. The phonology and phonetics of word-initial geminates. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  44. Osowicka-Kondratowicz, Magdalena. 2004. Asymilacje spółgłosek zębowych i dziąsłowych do palatalnych w pozycji przed palatalnymi. Prace Językoznawcze 4: 1–17. Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie. Google Scholar
  45. Osowicka-Kondratowicz, Magdalena. 2005. Assimilative palatalization within consonantal clusters in Polish. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia 7: 5–22. Google Scholar
  46. Pająk, Bożena. 2009a. Context-dependent perception of geminates. Poster presented at the 83rd LSA annual meeting, in San Francisco. Google Scholar
  47. Pająk, Bożena. 2009b. Contextual constraints on geminates: the case of Polish. Paper presented at the 35th BLS annual meeting, in Berkeley (to appear in proceedings). Google Scholar
  48. Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The prosody morphology interface, eds. René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pater, Joe. 2006. The locus of exceptionality: Morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In UMOP: papers in optimality theory III, eds. Leah Bateman and Adam Werle, 1–36. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  51. Pater, Joe. 2008. Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation, ed. S. Parker, 1–33. London: Equinox. Google Scholar
  52. Pater, Joe, and Andries W. Coetzee. 2005. Lexically specific constraints: gradience, learnability, and perception. In Proceedings of the Korea international conference on phonology, 85–119. Seoul: The Phonology-Morphology Circle of Korea. Google Scholar
  53. Podesva, Robert J. 2002. Segmental constraints on geminates and their implications for typology. Paper presented at the 76th LSA annual meeting, in San Francisco. Google Scholar
  54. Prince, Alan. 1998. Two lectures on optimality theory, lecture 2: current directions in optimality theory. Talk given at the 1998 Phonology Forum, Kobe (
  55. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell [ROA-537]. Google Scholar
  56. Rochoń, Marzena. 2000. Prosodic constituents in the representation of consonantal sequences in Polish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 19: 177–205. Google Scholar
  57. Rose, Sharon. 2000. Rethinking geminates, long-distance geminates, and the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 85–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rowicka, Grażyna. 1994. Polish palatal assimilation in prefixed words. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Reineke Bok-Bennema and Crit Cremers, 211–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  59. Rubach, Jerzy. 1977. Changes of consonants in English and Polish. A generative account. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Google Scholar
  60. Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology. The structure of Polish. Dordrecht, Cinnaminson: Foris. Google Scholar
  61. Rubach, Jerzy. 1985. Lexical phonology: lexical and postlexical derivations. Phonology Yearbook 2: 157–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Does the obligatory contour principle operate in Polish? Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 16: 133–147. Google Scholar
  63. Rubach, Jerzy. 1994. Affricates as strident stops in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 25(1): 119–143. Google Scholar
  64. Rubach, Jerzy. 2008. Prevocalic faithfulness. Phonology 25(3): 433–468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rubach, Jerzy, and Geert E. Booij. 1990. Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 427–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rubach, Jerzy, and Geert E. Booij. 2001. Allomorphy in optimality theory: Polish iotation. Language 77: 26–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sawicka, Irena. 1995. Fonologia. In Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Fonetyka i fonologia, ed. Henryka Wróbel, 105–195. Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Google Scholar
  68. Steele, Richard. 1973. The segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Polish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Google Scholar
  69. Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. The phonology of Polish prefixation. In Phonological investigations, eds. Jacek Fisiak and Stanisław Puppel, 185–218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  70. Thurgood, Ela. 2002. The recognition of geminates in ambiguous contexts in Polish. Speech Prosody 2002: 659–662. Google Scholar
  71. Thurgood, Graham. 1993. Geminates: a cross-linguistic examination. In Papers in honor of Frederick H. Brengelman on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Department of Linguistics, CSU Fresno, eds. Joel Ashmore Nevis, Gerald McMenamin and Graham Thurgood, 129–139. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University. Google Scholar
  72. Van den Berg, René. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  73. Zajda, Aleksander. 1977. Some problems of Polish pronunciation in the dictionary of Polish pronunciation. In Słownik wymowy polskiej/the dictionary of Polish pronunciation, eds. Mieczysław Karaś and Maria Madejowa, L–LXII. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations