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
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