Phonological Conditions on Affixation

the very beginning of the OT literature, this ranking schema is not a central tenet of the
theory. It assumes that phonological and morphological well-formedness are assessed
simultaneously, which is separate from the more basic principle of OT phonology that
phonological well-formedness in all dimensions is evaluated in parallel by ranked,
violable constraints. Therefore, the arguments that I will make against the P >> M
approach do not constitute arguments against the independent use of OT in phonology or
morphology.
Over the last decade, the P >> M approach has become the dominant model for
phonological conditions on affixation, but there does not appear to have been any explicit
comparison of P >> M with subcategorization until relatively recently. Thus, the
widespread acceptance of P >> M has proceeded without much consideration for the
consequences of the decision to use this model as opposed to subcategorization. One
exception is Booij 1998. Booij argues in favor of the use of phonological constraints to
account for some types of gaps and allomorph selection, while pointing out that
phonological output constraints are not sufficient to account for allomorphy. Thus, in
Booij’s approach, either P >> M or subcategorization can be used depending on the
properties of the example to be analyzed. Booij's primary argument in favor of using
phonological constraints to select allomorphs is that the use of subcategorization frames
makes the selection arbitrary and cannot relate the shape of the allomorph to the
condition under which it occurs. For example, Booij argues that a simple statement of the
distribution of Dutch suffixes (‘-s after an unstressed syllable, -en after a stressed
syllable’) ‘...does not explain why this particular selection principle holds. In terms of
complexity of the grammar, it would make no difference if Dutch were just the other way
5