Cover not available
Part of
All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 349–376

Chapter 19
Realization Optimality Theory

A constraint-based theory of morphology

 | Shanghai Jiao Tong University
This chapter discusses the framework of Realization Optimality Theory, a constraint-based theory of morphology. I provide an overview of its theoretical assumptions and components such as realization constraints, markedness constraints, morphotactic constraints, inputs, outputs, and the function Gen. Previous accounts of several morphological phenomena based on Realization Optimality Theory are introduced. I also present some new thoughts on this framework with regard to affix ordering, stem formation and stem selection in inflectional morphology as well as Realization Optimality Theory approaches to derivational morphology, compounding, and clitics.
Keywords: Optimality Theory, blocking, extended exponence, affix ordering, syncretism, inflectional morphology, interaction of morphology and phonology, derivational morphology, compounding, clitics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Several morphological phenomena
    • 2.1Blocking and extended exponence
    • 2.2Affix ordering
    • 2.3Syncretism
  • 3.Stem formation and stem selection in inflectional morphology
    • 3.1Stem formation
    • 3.2Stem selection
  • 4.The interaction of morphology and phonology
  • 5.Realization Optimality Theory approaches to derivational morphology, compounding, and clitics
    • 5.1Competition in derivational morphology
    • 5.2Competition in compounding
    • 5.3The positioning of special clitics
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • This chapter uses the abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.19xu
References (41)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Zheng Xu. 2010. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20(2). 381–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenzle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudya, Ichchha Purna Rai, Rai Manoj, Novel Kishore Rai & Sabine Stoll. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83. 43–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriella. 2010. Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20. 165–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988, 67–94. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Wolfgang. U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 17–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Olivier Bonami. 2016. Variable morphotactics in information-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden. 2006. Die Grammatik (Band 4). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginnekan & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor. 1970. Hupa grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3). 373–422.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. Hua: A Papuan language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 2011. The interaction between morphology and phonology. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 68–102. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasak, Ryan. 2019. Affix ordering and templatic morphology in Mandan. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1997. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 2001. Stem selection and OT. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1999, 263–297. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20. 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Inflection in Murrinh-Patha. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 491–519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2005. Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 155–199. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, Matthew. 1997. Czech clitics: 2P or not 2P, that is the question. In Lizanne Kaiser (ed.), Yale a-morphous linguistics essays, 131–150. New Haven: Department of Linguistics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86.758–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís. 2012. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vago, Robert M. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2011. Optimality Theory and morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(7). 466–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The role of morphology in Optimality Theory. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory T. Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 550–587. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The word status of Chinese adjective-noun combinations. Linguistics 56(1). 207–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Chinese adjective-noun combinations. In Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Competition in inflection and word-formation (Studies in Morphology 5), 307–334. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Zheng & Mark Aronoff. 2011a. A Realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 673–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology, 257–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar