Yers in Polish: a representational voice in the debate

Yers in Polish: a representational voice in the debate
Magdalena Sztencel
Newcastle University
Abstract
Traditionally, yers, or alternating vowels, are considered to form part of the
underlying structure of contemporary Slavic. The major problem posed by yers for phonology
is that they may or may not be present in the same phonetic environment. Generative analyses
of yers must therefore posit ad hoc rules and/or invoke contradictions.
For instance, a 3-D rule of Lower (Rubach 1993) vocalises a yer if it is followed by a
yer in the next syllable. The problem is that yers are posited randomly. On a strict CV
approach (Cyran 2005), the vocalisation of an alternating vowel is interpreted in terms of a
nucleus becoming “unlocked” and subject to a *Ø-Ø constraint. The problem here is that
unlocked nuclei are posited ad hoc and they are melodically filled and empty at the same time
(a. to disallow government between two onsets and b. so that *Ø-Ø operates). Within an OT
analysis (Jarosz in press), which relies on absolute neutralisation (and thus violates *I and
INDENT[HIGH]), two types of OT – standard OT and morphologically grounded Contextual
Correspondence – have to be used to account for overapplication of *COMPLEXCODA in
derived paradigms.
On generative approaches, exceptions and optionality are excluded from what Cyran
(2005) calls „phonology proper‟. This is unsurprising, since phonology, traditionally
conceived as part of Universal Grammar (UG), cannot admit of any kind of „anomaly‟. Such
anomalies would undermine the generative claims about the nature of UG. Hence the need to
distinguish between „phonology proper‟ (part of UG) and some other kind of phonology
(where diversity, i.e. exceptions and optionality, lies).
I argue that Burton-Roberts‟ (e.g. 2000) Representational Hypothesis (RH) offers a
conception of phonology that admits of diversity („anomaly‟ on generative view) without
weakening universalist claims about UG. On the RH, languages are phonologically
constituted Conventional Systems for the Phonetic Representation (CSPRs) of UG 1 , not
instantiations of UG. Therefore, phonology is not part of UG – it is an internalised (not
internally innate) conventional system, which is acquired by exposure to a given CSPR. Thus
1 Where UG „is wholly innate, biologically determined and invariant across individuals of the species and across
stages in their maturation” (B-R & Poole 2004: 578).
1

defined, phonologies of CSPRs can be expected to produce forms that on standard approaches
would have to be considered ungrammatical. On the RH, diversity is assigned its rightful
place within phonology.
Bibliography
Burton-Roberts, N. and Carr, P. (1999) “On speech and natural language”. Language Sciences
21, p.371-406.
Burton-Roberts, N. (2000) “Where and what is phonology”, in Burton-Roberts, N. et al. (eds.)
Phonological knowledge: conceptual and empirical issues. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, p.38-66.
Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. (2004) “Syntax vs. phonology: a representational approach
to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic”. Lingua 116, p.562-600.
Carr, P. (2000) “Scientific realism, sociophonetic variation, and innate endowments in
phonology”, in Burton-Roberts, N. et al. (eds.) Phonological knowledge: conceptual and
empirical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.67-104.
Cyran, E. (2005) “Sound patterns of Polish: phonotactic paradoxes at the right edge of
words”. Studies in Polish Linguistics 2: p.61-89.
Hale, M., Kissock, M. and Reiss, C. (1997) “On the empirical basis of Output-Output
Correspondence”. University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16 (1), p.61-75.
Available from http://r1.chass.utoronto.ca/twpl/pdfs/twpl16-1/TWPL16-1_HaKiRe.pdf
[Accessed 7 January 2008].
Harris, J. and Gussmann, E. (1998) “Final codas: why the West was wrong”, in Cyran, E. (ed)
Structure and Interpretation. Studies in Phonology. Lublin: Folium, p.139-162.
Jarosz, G. (in press). “Polish yers and the finer structure of output-output correspondence”, in
Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Available from
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~gjs42/files/BLS.pdf [Accessed 26 October 2007].
Rochoń, M. (2000). Optimality in complexity: the case of Polish consonant clusters. (Studia
grammatica 48). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Rubach, J. (1993) ”Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: the yers”. The Linguistic
Review 5, p.247-280.
Rubach, J. and Booij, G. (1990) “Syllable structure assignment in Polish”. Phonology 7,
p.121-158.
Spencer, A. (1986) “A non-linear analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Polish”. Journal of
Linguistics 22, p.249-280.
2