Optimizing Polish Gender: A Preliminary Analysis
Master’s Thesis
Name: Agnieszka Gimżewska Student number: 5627893 Programme: Linguistics (Research Master) Department: Department of Language and Literature Faculty: Faculty of Humanities University: University of Amsterdam Thesis supervisor: René Genis Second reader: Arjen Versloot Date: September 2019
Abstract This thesis is about the grounds on which singular nouns of Contemporary Polish may be considered to belong to a particular gender category with the perspective of an adult native speaker in mind. The variety of the language investigated is Standard Polish spoken in most of the Polish territory. The vantage point is a three-way gender division into masculine, feminine, and neuter reflected largely in an underlying three-way formal distinction instantiated by the nominative singular (of nouns) (even where currently Polish morphophonology-phonetics makes a four-way contrast). In Stefańczyk (2007) more or less loosely stated rules and tendencies which generate grammatical gender of nominative singular nouns (native and loaned) found in Słownik języka polskiego (Doroszewski, 1958-1969) and in Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego (Dubisz, 2003) amount to twenty nine pages and relate the grammatical gender of nouns to their semantics as well as to their phonological and morphological conditioning (involving derivation and compounding) in the nominative singular case form. In this thesis the rule set which generates pre-syntactic gender of nouns listed in Słownik języka polskiego PWN (Drabik et al. 2014) amounts to one page only. It was possible to show that nearly 99% of GA in my sample can be accounted for by a theory which recognizes (1) a markedness hierachy of masculine over feminine and neuter, and feminine over neuter and (2) a set on non-ranked (Steinmetz, 1986, 2006) morphophonological-phonetic and semantic gender assignment rules. A preliminary Optimality Theory analysis of gender assignment in Contemporary Standard Polish is presented using Steinmetz’ (1986) fundamental work and Rice’s continuation (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
Keywords: Grammatical gender; Gender assignment; Phonological gender assignment rules; Morphological gender assignment rules; Semantic gender assignment rules; Optimality Theory; Standard Polish
The following abbreviations, symbols and other conventions are used throughout: Acc.=Accusative, aff.=affectionate, ANIM=animate noun, [+ANIM]=the referent is marked for animacy, arch.=archaic, coll.=colloquial, CSP=Contemporary Standard Polish, dim.=diminutive, E.=English, f/F=feminine gender, [+FEMALE]=noun referring to a biological female, G.=German, GA=gender assignment, Gen.=Genitive, I.=Italian, L.=Latin, m/M= masculine gender, [+MALE]=noun referring to a biological male, [-MALE, -FEMALE]=the referent (human and non-human) has a sexless connotation, n/N = neuter gender, Nom.=Nominative, obs.=obsolete, pej.=pejorative, Pl.=Plural, Sg.=Singular. Throughout the thesis, the noun entries are in Nom.Sg. case, unless otherwise stated. Also note the use of bracket conventions when citing Polish nouns <>, {}, //, and []:
1. Main claims and plan This is a study into the grounds on which singular nouns of CSP may be considered to belong to a particular gender category with the perspective of an adult native speaker in mind.1 Research has established that nouns are not arbitrarily assigned to their grammatical gender categories (e.g. Corbett, 1991; Comrie, 1999). In Russian, traditionally recognized as having three grammatical genders, such nouns as for example дом “house” and Фрукt “fruit” have a fixed masculine gender in the lexicon. In German, which also has a three-gender system, both haus “house”, and obst “fruit” are neuter. These are just a few examples, but the explanation of what mechanism is responsible for GA to nouns in a given language had not yet been given, until the late 1980’s when Steinmetz, a prominent researcher in the area of GA, took a stand on this issue.
1 The GA of plural nouns in the nominative form in CSP is left out of consideration in the present study. See Rice (2005, p. 2) for a comment on Optimality Theory based plural GA. 2
Building on the foundations laid by Steinmetz (1986), Rice (2006) writes as follows:
‘[…] Languages frequently present nouns that show surface violation of their GA principles. This gives the superficial appearance of GA tendencies - rather than absolutes - and may cast doubt on the enterprise of gender category prediction. […] we demonstrate that mere tendencies on the surface do not indicate the absence of reliable GA principles. Instead, tendencies are simply the expected consequence of resolution among conflicts between violable constraints […].’ Rice (2006, p. 1395)
In other words, there is a system behind the assignment of nouns to their gender categories across languages. This system, proposed by Steinmetz and initially tested only on German in the 1980’s turned out to rely on a default hierarchy of gender categories which underlies the operations of language- specific phonological, morphological, and semantic rules (after Onysko 2007, p. 155). As far as the interaction of GA rules is concerned, the theory presupposes a non-ranking according to whether the rules are semantic, morphological, or phonological (Onysko, 2007, p. 155). If a rule applies, it always provokes its respective gender, regardless of the existence of other rules. If rules triggering different gender apply at the same time, they all “count” equally and they have the same associative strength (see further Section 7 for information on GA conflict resolution). This is how Rice recalls the initial stage of developing this theory of GA:
‘[…] We remember the period in which his [Steinmetz’] theory was being developed, including a day when he proudly announced that he had been through an entire German dictionary, and had identified only eight nouns that defied the predictions of his approach - and of course he had explanations for these, as well. We also note with interest that the theory presented there anticipated all of the key properties of Optimality Theory as developed in the 1990s: Violable constraints, hierarchical constraint ranking, competition among candidates […].’ (Rice et al. 2010)
Interesting results were also obtained for Russian (Rice, 2004, 2005, 2006). On the basis of gender information of the 53,892 nouns found in Obratnyj Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka [Reverse Dictionary of the Russian Language] (Lazova et al. 1974), Rice incorporates morphological rules related to the declinability and indeclinability of nouns, among others, to account for GA (for masculine-feminine- neuter division).2 Under the heading ‘Some Russian GA rules’, Rice (2004, 2005) proposes the following
2 As a preliminary remark, it should be pointed out that such an approach to GA (empirically testifiable by means of carefully designed experiments) stands in sharp contrast to the premises in this study (see further Section 3). For Rice (2004, 2005, 2006), the masculine-feminine-neuter division is evidenced in the grammar of Russian in 3 rule set fragment: morphological (inflectional class) rules: -a=f, -o=n, -e=n, indec.=n; semantic rules: +male=m, +female=f, +animate=mf and claims that this simple system of rules along with a default hierarchy m > f > n, suffices to account for the vast majority of GA in Russian.3 Rice (2004, 2005) claims that as much as 97% of nouns in Russian may be accounted for in this way.4 The variety of the language under analysis in this study is Contemporary Standard Polish (henceforth, CSP), known as the Cultural Variant, or the Polish Literary Language. CSP is taught in schools and used in the media, and is uniform throughout Poland. In the north, there is a small community speaking Kashubian, nowadays recognized as a separate (regional) language. In a few regions, there are groups of people who still speak dialects of Polish at home, for example the Tatra Mountains’ highlanders use the Podhalanian Dialect, and the Silesian Dialect is spoken in south- western Poland. However, most of these people can also speak the standard variety of Polish. Generally speaking, regional variations of spoken Polish involve minor phonetic and lexical differences.5 CSP is also an interesting language from the point of view of gender studies as the interplay of GA rules is intricate. Not only do rules interact, but they also compete. The conflict is usually resolved,
the Nom.Sg. case (i.e. gender is expressed on adjectives, possessives and demonstrative pronouns, as well as verbs in the past tense, and it is grammatically marked on the noun: its semantics and/or its (in)ability to decline) (compare with Corbett, 1991, assignment based on a single form in phonological criteria). Rice (2004, 2005, 2006) fails to consider the Russian noun itself as a place where pre-grammar classification takes effect, despite the fact that Russian has been frequently cited as a language which has developed (largely) overt gender marking on nouns (i.e. there is a strong correlation between the morphophonological properties of nouns in the nominative singular and their gender, e.g. Rodina and Westergaard, 2017, p. 199) (see however a special case учитель “teacher”, vs. учительница “female teacher”, etc., and further complexities involving кале́ка “cripple”-type nouns). Note also that dictionary grammatical GA made by lexicographers may be normative in nature and hence not reflect actual usage. 3 Rice’s formulation for Russian is that “nouns ending in a segmentable morpheme +a are feminine” and this formulation is “a notational variant of the claim that nouns of the 2nd declension are feminine” (Rice, 2006, p. 1401). Accordingly, the (segmentable) inflectional ending +o, and the (segmentable) inflectional ending +e in the nominative singular typically assign neuter gender. Indeclinable (inanimate) nouns are predominantly neuter. Nouns denoting an animate thing tend to be assigned non-neuter gender. For sex-differentiable nouns, those denoting biological males are masculine, and those denoting biological females are feminine (Rice, 2004, p. 3-5; Rice, 2005, p. 4-6). The posited default hierarchy m > f > n means that masculine is the grammatical default in Russian, followed by feminine, followed by neuter, and this hierarchy is meant to resolve instances of gender competition in Russian (Rice, 2004, p. 2; Rice, 2005, p. 3). 4 See also Corbett and Fraser (2000). Galbreath (2010) enumerates several deficiencies in Rice’s (2004, 2005, 2006) analysis of GA in Russian. For example, Galbreath (2010, p. 66) points out that Rice (2004, 2005, 2006) does not address the issue of derivational suffixes, or successfully animate neuters, but it is outside the scope of the present study to thoroughly discuss these deficiencies and their possible effects on the accountability score (for details see Galbreath (2010) and his complete account of grammatical GA in Contemporary Standard Russian in which he very much relies on phonology (not (in)declinability) as one of the the prime indicators of grammatical gender). 5 This information comes, in large part, from a booklet published by the Council for the Polish Language (Rada Języka Polskiego) in 2007 and designed to popularize knowledge about CSP. Link: http://www.rjp.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/broszury/jp_angielski.pdf. Other interesting facts about CSP have been found in Awramiuk, Krasowicz-Kupis and Smoczyńska (2017, p. 139).
4 or the noun vacillates in gender. To the best of my knowledge, there are several accounts of grammatical GA in CSP. Stefańczyk’s (2007) monograph is clearly the best attempt so far. The vantage point is a three-way gender division reflected largely in a three-way formal distinction instantiated by the nominative singular (of both adjectives, verbs in the past tense, and nouns). Related work in this field is Kilarski and Orzechowska’s (2007) contribution who claim that often it has been taken for granted that phonological/phonetic regularities are based on morphological regularities, although it seems that they altogether have never received as much attention as, for example, the question of the number of genders in CSP. Kilarski and Orzechowka’s (2007) work show that the major generalizations for CSP can be stated purely in terms of phonology/phonetics, but both Stefańczyk (2007) and Kilarski and Orzechowska (2007) do not take a stand on how rules interact in a systematic way, and no theoretical model is pursued. Proceeding from this observation and taking the successes of Steinmetz’ theory established for German and Russian, this study presents a preliminary analysis of GA in CSP using Steinmetz’ (1986) fundamental work and Rice’s (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) continuation within the framework of Optimality Theory (henceforth, OT). The repertoire of nouns is taken from Słownik języka polskiego PWN (henceforth, SJP PWN) (Drabik et al. 2014) (see further Section 8). In contradistinction to Rice’s (2004, 2005, 2006) papers, this study takes an experimental approach to its subject matter because the gender values: masculine, feminine, or neuter are based on my knowledge about the gender of particular nouns. I advance (relying on the principle of economy within generative linguistics) a set (though not complete) of morphophonological-phonetic and semantic GA constraints to account for GA in CSP, and this is irrespective of the behaviour of associated words (see further Section 3). I assume that this morphophonological-phonetic and semantic information is part of adult native Polish speakers’ linguistic competence, it is stored in their mental lexicon, and it helps them determine the gender of native and loaned nouns (Corbett, 1991).
2. A reiteration of the purpose of the thesis The purpose of this thesis is to explore Optimal Gender Assignment Theory (henceforth, OGAT) and, in particular, to pursue the claim (not directly, of course) that universally, gender is assigned based on a set of crucially non-ranked gender features constraints and markedness constraints.6 Under this condition, I address the following question: why are, for example, nouns like tato, żabka, jabłuszko (all Nom.Sg. case nouns, all nouns of CSP) masculine, feminine, and neuter, respectively? The extent to which the adult Polish native speakers know the gender of a noun remains to be substantiated by other researchers (see further Section 3), but I will attempt to present a general and preliminary theoretical
6 It is not my intention to argue for or against this claim but a word is due when it comes to the problem of falsifiability as it might be relevant in the case of the OGAT. For example Enger (2009, p. 1287) rightly argues that OGAT opens the door to the following possible scenario: “whenever linguist X thinks he/she has found a counter- example, linguist Y may come up with an additional rule that “solves” the problem and “saves” the model”. 5 outline of GA framed in OT based on a corpus of 18,488 nouns of CSP found in SJP PWN. The main focus is on gender rule interaction and gender conflict resolution. Such a preliminary study can give an impression of how the mental model of GA might be organized in native CSP.
3. Nouns of CSP and gender value assignment Hockett proposes the following definition of linguistic gender: “Genders are classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour of associated words” (Hockett, 1958, p. 231, cited in Corbett, 1991, p. 1), and “the relevant reflection in the associated words is agreement” (Corbett, 2013, p. 89). In other words, agreement can be safely used in order to define what gender actually is, it is the criterion for the presence/absence of grammatical gender in a given language, and it serves to establish the number of grammatical genders the given language has and which nouns belong to which gender. There may be some overt grammatical signs to indicate gender differentiation, however “no amount of marking on a noun can prove that the language has a gender system; the evidence that nouns have gender values in a given language lies in the agreement targets that show gender” (Corbett, 2013, p. 89).7 With a special reference to CSP, Swan (2015, p. 13) claims that given this definition, the actual number of genders distinguished “has ranged from the traditional three to four, five six, seven, eight, nine, or to an almost unlimited number”.8 Gender in CSP is an interesting feature for several reasons. On the one hand, it shows up in the morphology of its agreement targets, and in that respect it is a complex morphosyntactic phenomenon. On the other hand, gender in CSP largely shows up in the nominative singular form of the noun itself, irregardless of associated words. By way of example: in duż-yM stół-+ØM “large table”,
7 In terms of the analysis, agreement patterns give information about the gender value of a noun. In terms of the generation of a surface structure, however, causality goes the other way: the noun is marked grammatically for gender and the gender value of a noun is said to consistently 'control' the form of particular 'agreement targets' in a noun phrase. Agreement targets vary surprisingly across gender languages (see Corbett, 1991). Note that there exist languages (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese), for which the agreement method does not appear to be fail- safe (Carvalho, 2016, p. 14). 8 I quote below the observation made by Bogusławski (2009, p. 13) with respect to the number of grammatical genders present in the system of CSP:
‘No end seems to be in sight to the controversy over “grammatical genders” in Polish. Ever new lists of “gender” or “genderlike” labels with the concomitant classes of words (usually nouns) or their forms as well as examples thereof are produced, and ever new objections to what other authors propose are raised.’
To date the debate on the amount of grammatical genders still continues. These concerns do not bear any significance for the present analysis and the intricacies of the gender system of CSP defined on syntactic grounds lie far beyond the scope of the present study. For an overview, see for example Nowosad Bakalarczyk (2009, p. 12-18); Koziarski and Krysiak (2012, p. 23-25 ); Wierzbicka (2014, p. 157-163); Seretny and Stefańczyk (2017, p. 72-77). 6 the gender marked on the adjective duż-yM “large”, which indicates that stół-+ØM “table”, falls in the
9 set of masculine nouns, also turns up on stółM “table”, itself. Just from hearing a noun in isolation, adult native speakers of Polish are usually able to identify many thousands of singular nouns as unarguably masculine, feminine, or neuter in the singular.10 My sample noun stół “table”, is unarguably masculine, prośba “request”, is unarguably feminine, czytanie “reading”, is neuter, without hesitation. The adult native speakers of Polish know that (phonetically/phonologically speaking), in the majority of cases, consonantal endings (Ø) assign masculine gender, the final vocalic ending /+a/ assigns feminine gender and the final vocalic endings /+o/, and /+e/ assign neuter gender. Therefore, in my study I follow the assumption that the gender specification of nouns of CSP is lexical, as opposed to grammatical, which means that this information: masculine, feminine, or neuter comes from the lexicon and is encoded in the lexical items.11 More precisely, it will be argued that singular nouns in CSP (native and loaned) are largely assigned gender via a lexical (presyntactic) rule referring to word final sounds in the nominative singular.12 Formal criteria, as will be argued throughout the thesis, play a particularly important role in GA in CSP, but the gender value: masculine, feminine, or neuter is often determined by an interaction of GA rules (e.g. mężczyzna “man”, see also the special case profesor “professor”, sędzia “judge”, etc). Crucially, closer synchronic examination reveals a great deal of regularity in the gender system of CSP and it can be observed that adult native speakers also assign gender with ease to any loanword that happens to be inserted into the model. They do so by quite simply taking advantage of the (already existing) regularities in GA of native nouns, e.g. clubbing ( 9 In isolation (i.e. out of context) the nouns are in the Nom.Sg. case whose one of the syntactic functions is “naming”. Because of its naming function, the Nom.Sg. case is used as the form of Polish noun entries in dictionaries or on vocabulary lists. 10 What counts is the phonetics, not the orthography, which is a concept based on visual cues the Polish native speakers might rely on. Exploring the pottential effects of orthographic as opposed to morphophonological- phonetic information is left as topic for future research. The idea that orthographic information may play a role in GA in CSP can be downplayed if we consider a language acquiring child. Also, given the modest amount of data of Polish children acquiring Polish, no final claims can be made with respect to the validity of various GA hypotheses. 11 This assertion is in line with Swan’s (2015, p. 13) claim that Hockett’s (1958) definition ignores “considering lexical sub-categorization by itself, which probably any language has, without the accompanying behaviour of associated words, to be a kind of gender”. 12 See also Wierzbicka’s article (2014, p. 156-157) and her discussion on the partial workings of semantic GA rules within the lexicon of Polish. She concludes that in a group of all nouns only some show semantic motivation. For example, kalosz (originally a female French noun) could have been assigned to masculine gender as a result of association with the Polish hypernym but (m) and whisky The phenomenon of the expansion of a particular gender (at any given time) by taking in new noun formations has been well described in the literature on GA, and quite interestingly, it has been taking place in native CSP. Take for example some feminine nouns with stems in (Ø), which have ‘atypical’ gender markers and which seem to be in the process of gradual morphophonological reanalysis. Nowadays, in the lexicon of many adult native speakers of Standard Polish many or most of these nouns “go with the flowˮ and have been replaced by formations in /+a/ (e.g. cerkiew and cerkwia “Orthodox Church”, konew and konewka “jug”, marchew and marchewka “carrot”, rzodkiew and rzodkiewka “radish”) (Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 31). In this study I refer to the marking on the noun itself as an expression of gender. Nevertheless, the gender values: masculine, feminine, and neuter do not stand on their own, their effects transcend the lexicon. For example, when a Polish adult native speaker wants to use a singular noun in the nominative case in CSP, as previously stated, he/she can ‘work out’ its gender and he/she knows what to do with the noun. The gender values interact with agreement and the morphophonological gender of a noun as expressed by the nominative singular case in CSP serves as the basis for the classification of nouns into declensional patterns, according to which the inflectional endings throughout paradigms are formed (Janssen 2014, p. 109; Janssen, 2016, p. 30). Not knowing the gender of a noun in the nominative singular leads to problems for example with adjectival agreement, and subject-verb agreement in the past tense (Janssen, 2016, p. 38; Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 17; Seretny and Stefańczyk, 2017, p. 72). Two groups of nouns challenge this ideal picture of lexemes of CSP having a single gender value in the lexicon. From the point of view of the adult Polish native hearer/speaker, many what I call ‘profession nouns’ (i.e. an umbrella term for nouns denoting professions, names of honorary titles and academic titles, academic positions, names of offices in their generic, predicative, and titular meaning), nowadays, can be assigned either gender value: masculine and feminine at the lexical level depending on whether the reference is to a male individual, or a female individual. More to the point, morphophonologically, these nouns do not exhibit variation, but can be semantically ambiguous. Nowadays, many professions are open to both men and women. In the case of some ‘profession nouns’, the referent may culturally be assumed to be a male (e.g. proboszcz “parson”, górnik “miner”, hutnik “steel factory worker”, ślusarz “locksmith”), whereas the referent of niania “nanny” is highly to decide on the gender in the absence of any phrasal information that would help them to determine gender based on agreement. Also nonsense nouns can be created combined with different “endings” (e.g. hoszek, wepa, lęko) so that the role of the morphophonological-phonetic information encoded on the noun endings could be investigated independently of any semantic effects. Adult native speakers of Polish could be asked to use these nonsense nouns by providing an agreeing adjective, thus indicating the corresponding gender value. 8 likely to be thought of as woman.15 A different type of gender variation can be attested with kaleka “cripple”-type nouns, whose gender is underspecified in their strict nominal form (i.e. at the level of the noun) but determined contextually via identification with a human referent in discourse. These nouns can trigger either masculine or feminine agreement in controlled elements, usually in accordance with the referent’s gender (see further Section 9 and Section 10.3.). 4. Organization of the remainder of the study My discussion has so far concentrated on the gender system of CSP and I have pointed to its complexity. I have presented different theoretical approaches to the study of gender, the number and quality of genders present in the system of CSP. The main aim was to show where this study is situated as far as different GA mechanisms are concerned. The realities of pre-syntactic GA have been touched upon and its relevance in native CSP. In the part that follows (Section 5) I introduce the relevant characteristics of the phonemic inventory of CSP. In Section 5.1. I make assumptions about the usual native pronunciation patterns of nouns of CSP covering the most important issues such as the realisation of nasal <ą> and <ę> in CSP, among others. In Section 6 I discuss the phonological and morphological structure of nouns in CPS in the nominative singular. Section 7 is a presentation of Steinmetz’ theory of GA, most clearly stated in his (1986) paper ‘Two principles and some rules for gender in German: inanimate nouns’ and it contains a thorough discussion of two main principles GENDER TALLY and GENDER ECLIPSIS deemed important in GA. Section 8 is a presentation of the dictionary and corpora serving as sources of data for this study. In Section 9 I refer to groups of nouns which are problematic for the model of GA dealt with in the study, that is: (1) nouns vacillating in gender, (2) kaleka “cripple”-type nouns. In Section 10 I present the tenets of OGAT and in a follow-up discussion the markedness hierarchy of gender categories in CSP. I advance a rule set that generates gender for the nouns under investigation and I make occasional observations about other Indo-European languages. Each rule is formalized as a constraint, in anticipation of my OT GA a la Rice (2003, 2004, 15 Again, it would be interesting to examine the level of the difficulty adult native Polish speakers show with pre- syntactic assignment of a gender value to ‘profession nouns’ and/or the preference of adult Polish native speakers for one gender value over another. More than likely, adult native Polish speakers would spontaneously assign correct gender to all overtly gender marked nouns (e.g. kelnerka kelner{-k-}/+a/ “waitress”, nauczyciel{-k- }/+a/ “female teacher”, etc.), and they might be less proficient with non-overtly marked nouns (e.g. hutnik hut- nik+Ø “steel factory worker”, profesor profes{-or}+Ø “professor”, sędzia sędzi/+a/ “judge”). Of course, there exists an alternative account of GA in the case of ‘profession nouns’. Rather than claiming that ‘profession nouns’ exist in two (competing) versions, it can be argued that the gender value of a ‘profession noun’ can be either masculine or feminine based on the context and cannot be determined out of context. In other words, such nouns are underspecified with respect to gender and this underspecification persists until the noun has reached syntax. In consequence, it can be argued that the gender system of CSP cannot be straightforwardly explained within one assignment theory (i.e. while OGAT can deal with GA of such nouns as tato “dad”, contextually assigned gender of the nouns profesor, sędzia, for example, remains problematic for the mechanisms of the theory; see also Dahl (2000, p. 106) for the category of ‘referential gender’)). 9 2005, 2006). In Section 10.3. I present a preliminary OT analysis of GA in CSP, building on the data (the rule set). I discuss GA in morphologically simple and complex nouns (derived and compound, non- expressive and expressive derivatives). The special focus is on GA conflict resolution in CSP. In Section 11 I provide an accountability score for GA and I address apparent exceptions. The study is rounded off with a short summary and concluding remarks. 5. Phonemic inventory of CSP To begin with, I make some assumptions as far as the repertoire of phonemes (consonantal and vocalic) in present-day Standard Polish is concerned. Chart 1 shows the vowel inventory and Chart 2 shows the consonantal inventory categorized by place and manner. The phonemic status of the vowels and consonants in brackets is often debated (see further Section 5.1.). Chart 1. Vowel inventory i (ɨ) u ɛ ɔ (ɛ)̃ (ɔ)̃ a (summarized and adapted from Sussex and Cubberly, 2006, p. 153-162) Chart 2. Consonant inventory labial palatalized dental alveolar palatal velar palatalized labial velar Stops -v p (pʲ) t k (kʲ) +v b (bʲ) d g (gʲ) Affricates -v ʦ ʧ ʨ +v ʣ ʤ ʥ Fricatives -v f (fʲ) s ʃ ɕ x +v v (vʲ) z ʒ ʑ Nasals m (mʲ) n ɲ Approximants w l r j *+v=voiced, -v=voiceless (summarized and adapted from Sussex and Cubberly, 2006, p. 163-166, and Dukiewicz and Sawicka, 1995, p. 111) 5.1. Phonetic transcription of nouns in CSP and pronunciation issues As a general comment, it should be pointed out that the orthographic form of nouns in CSP corresponds to a great degree with the actual pronunciation (with a few exceptions). However, some comments are in order here. My sample nouns below come from SJP PWN. The question whether or not for example [p] and [pj] or [b] and [bj] are separate consonantal phonemes does nor bear any 10 significance to the problem and analysis presented in this study. Nevertheless, I follow Kilarski and Orzechowska (2007) in that pilśń “felt”, for example, is pronounced as [pʲilɕɲ], biel “white” as [bjɛl] in present-day Standard Polish. The vowels <ą> and <ę> do not appear in any other contemporary Slavic language and they are also rare in European languages. In Contemporary spoken Polish the nasality disappears in most positions (see my discussion below). Word-finally, the nominative singular ending <ę> is pronounced [ɛ] in colloquial speech (Feldstein, 2001, p. 17; Swan, 2003, p. 7-8) and [ɛ]̃ has been considered present in emphatic, or rather, artificial speech (e.g. Stankiewicz, 1986, p. 64). Throughout the study, the phonetic specification of noun entries in Nom.Sg. case reflect my pronunciation of these nouns that I adopt in daily use, which to a great extent mirrors the pronunciation patterns specified in SJP PWN. For example, the orthographic <é>, appearing in loanwords from French (e.g. attaché [ataʃέ] , , <ą> as [ɔŋ] with velar [ŋ] before , , C+vC-v becomes C-vC-v (e.g. ławka [wafka] “bench”, kłódka [kwutka] “padlock”) j C-vC+v (except for [v], [v ], and [ʒ]) becomes C+vC+v (e.g. prośba [prɔʑba] “request”, liczba [liʤba] “number”) j j C-v + [v], [v ], [ʒ] becomes C-v +[f], [f ], [ʃ] (e.g. twarz [tfaʃ] “face”, potwór [pɔtfur] “monster”) 16 The pronunciation of foreign sounds can, nevertheless, vary from one individual to the next. There might be a very slight difference in pronunciation, at the very edge of recognition available to humans. 11 Furthermore, CSP displays a systematic word-final devoicing of voiced consonants: Phonetically, final [b] sounds like [p], [d] like [t], [g] like [k], [w] like [f], [z] like [s], [ʑ] like [ɕ], [ʣ] like [ʦ], [ʥ] like [ʨ], [ʒ] like [ʃ], [ʤ] like [ʧ] (e.g. obraz is phonetically [ɔbras] “picture”).17 6. Morphological & phonological-phonetic make-up of nouns in CSP When considering the phonological-phonetic regularities in GA in a language one must start by characterising the (possible) phonological-phonetic forms of words. The important distinction in this respect, which is necessary for CSP and for the present study, is that between derived and non-derived singular forms of nouns. Nouns in CSP consist of a stem combined with endings. The stem itself can be either morphologically simple (e.g. walka wal{-k-}/+a/ [val-k+a] “fight”), or complex (e.g. rozbieralnia rozbier{-alni-}/+a/ [rɔzbjɛr-alɲ+a] “cloakroom”), and the number of post-stem endings (i.e. final elements in word formation) typically does not go beyond three in the Nom.Sg. form in CSP. Non- derived nouns are those which have not had a word-formational suffix appended while derived nouns do. By way of example, non-derived nouns include those like stół stół+Ø [stuw+Ø] “bread” which has a zero desinence (Ø) in the nominative singular (the stems of Ø-nouns end in a consonant), or woda wod/+a/ [vɔd+a] “water”, wino win/+o/ [vjin+ɔ] “wine” with a vowel ending (also called the desinence) /+a/ [+a] and /+o/ [+ɔ], respectively. Along with walka wal{-k-}/+a/ [val-k+a] “fight”and rozbieralnia rozbier{-alni-}/+a/ [rɔzbjɛr-alɲ+a] “cloakroom”, derived nouns include, for example, those like czytanie “reading”, from czytać “to read”, which (now discussed in more detail) breaks down into the derived stem czyt-ani, made up of the verbal root czyt- with the derivational suffix {-ani-} [-aɲ-], combined with the desinence /+e/ [+ɛ] that marks the nominative case for a neuter singular noun. The morphophonological-phonetic make-up of compounds of native (e.g. Wielkanoc Wielkanoc+Ø (lit. great+night) “Easter”), and foreign origin is discussed later (Section 10.3.) when I analyze GA of morphologically complex nouns. 7. A presentation of Steinmetz’ (1986) theory of GA using German language data As previously stated, Steinmetz’ model of GA crucially relies on the notion that there is no ranking of semantic, morphological and phonological rules. From a psycholinguistic perspective, the main idea behind the model is that GA rules (which, of course, are based on observed regularities) work on the background of a default hierarchy which functions as a last resort in case of rule based GA conflict. In consequence, the gender of all nouns of a given language can be accounted for. Interestingly, all language-specific rules count the same and they have the same associative strength. In what follows I 17 This section covers only the most important issues of orthography deviating somewhat from IPA- interpretation. There are a few more but they do not have any significance for the present analysis. 12 bring to the fore the main task for a linguist working within this theoretical framework. Importantly, Steinmetz (1986) relies heavily on a generative approach to GA. From a generative perspective, the best analysis is the one accounting for the data with the smallest number of rules (Trosterud, 2006, p. 1442, on Steinmetz’ (1986) system). The GA system under analysis in this section is that of German, which has three grammatical genders in the singular. The core strategy of Steinmetz’ theory is to assign nouns to the least marked category by default. Steinmetz (1986) does not provide any theoretical discussion of the criteria for establishing a markedness hierarchy of gender categories in any given language, that has grammatical gender. However, the major indicator that masculine is the least marked gender in German, is according to Steinmetz (1986), the fact that the number of rules required to cover the set of inanimate masculine nouns is far greater than the number of rules needed for feminine and neuter. In consequence, the nouns belonging to the masculine category are less homogenous than other, more marked categories. The set of rules that would be required to cover all inanimate masculine nouns can be replaced with a single rule, namely assignment to masculine by default (Hunt, 2018, p. 104). Another indicator appears to be type freqency. At least, Steinmetz (2006, p. 1419) presents statistical frequency of the genders for the purpose of identifying the marked and unmarked. The idea is simple enough: the gender with the highest type frequency, that is the gender with most members, is the least marked. In German, approximately two-thirds of the monosyllabic nouns have been found to be masculine in Köpcke (1982). This dominant gender in German eclipses the other genders and this principle is called Gender Eclipsis. Defined as m > f > n, the principle implies that masculine gender eclipses both feminine and neuter gender, while feminine gender eclipses neuter. Stated differently, the principle of Gender Eclipsis implies that a German noun will have masculine gender unless there is a rule that assigns feminine or neuter gender instead. If a rule applies, it always triggers its respective gender. Within the framework of masculine as the default gender for any given language, rules calling for masculine GA are largely redundant, unless they are needed to explain otherwise unaccountable exceptions. According to Steinmetz (1986, p. 191), there are three basic types of rules for assigning gender to a noun in any given language: (1) M-rules, which assign gender on the basis of morphological or phonetic shape, (2) S-rules, i.e. semantic rules, which, as the name implies, assign gender on the basis of meaning, and (3) SC-rules, i.e. subcategorization rules, which apply only within the domain of certain S-rules and assign gender either on the morphological/phonetic shape or on the basis of meaning, depending on the domain involved (see Section 10.2.1. for the proposal of the SC-rule operating in CSP). Furthermore, Steinmetz (1986) introduces an important restriction as far as the interaction of these rules in the German gender system is concerned. Namely, the theory employs the convention 13 that for each noun all applicable language-specific rules are listed to form a gender table, but the gender table of any given noun may contain no more than one S-rule. If two S-rules are possible, only the more general of them may be applied (Steinmetz, 1986, p. 192). It follows then that some semantic rules active in the German gender system are redundancy rules. The problem of gender rule competition, Steinmetz (1986, 2006) resolves by introducing the principle of Gender Tally. This principle can be expressed as an instruction to count the number of times each gender is assigned, and if one gender has a higher value, that gender is assigned to the noun. If two or more genders have the same value, the competition is resolved according to the principle of Gender Eclipsis. In German the postulated markedness hierachy is masculine before feminine before neuter (m > f > n). Whenever in German masculine and another gender have the same value, masculine gender is assigned; in cases feminine and neuter have the same value, feminine gender is assigned. Consider gender tables in (1)-(5) (adapted from Steinmetz, 2006, p. 1425) for selected German nouns and the operation of Gender Tally and Gender Eclipsis in the German GA system: Noun Gender rules Gender score (1) boom “boom (in business)”, klotz “block” [no rules apply] 0m 0f 0n=m (2) gespräch “conversation”, gefühl “feeling” [ge-=n] 0m 0f 1n=n (3) gemeinde “community”, gebärde [ge-=n, -e=f] 0m 1f 1n=f “gesture” (4) gebäude “building”, gemüse “vegetable” [ge-=n, -e=f, superordinate=n] 0m 1f 2n=n (5) gefängnis “prison” [ge-=n, -nis=fn] 0m 1f 2n=n When considering the gender tables, bear in mind that the GA rules are non-ranked. For example, the placement of the rule ge-=n to the left of -e=n is not to be interpreted as a hierarchical dominance. In the case of boom “boom (in business)” and klotz “block”, as no morphological nor phonological nor semantic rule applies to these nouns, as masculine is the default gender, and as masculine gender eclipses both the feminine gender and the neuter gender, the noun is masculine. In the case of gespräch “conversation” and gefühl “feeling”, a morphological-phonetic rule (i.e. nouns beginning with the morpheme ge- are neuter) applies to these nouns, and as no rule calling for masculine or for the feminine gender applies here, the Gender Tally results in neuter gender. In the case of gemeinde “community” and gebärde “gesture”, as one morphological-phonetic rule (nouns ending in the morpheme schwa are feminine) and one morphological-phonetic rule (nouns beginning with the morpheme ge- are neuter), apply, computationally we have a tie (0m 1f 1n) which is resolved by working with a left-to-right principle of Gender Eclipsis. Since feminine gender eclipses neuter gender in German, the noun is feminine. With gebäude “building” and gemüse “vegetable”, the tie is broken by a semantic rule superordinate noun=n (a superordinate noun refers to an object at a high 14 level of categorization, after Steinmetz, 1986, p. 190). In the case of gefängnis “prison”, two rules apply to this noun: nouns beginning with the morpheme ge- are neuter, and nouns ending with the morpheme -nis are not masculine. The Gender Tally results in neuter gender. In the discussion above, I have touched upon the issue that no more than one S-rule may apply to a specific noun. In what follows, I use an example from the semantic domain “fruit”, as exemplified in German by Steinmetz (1986, p. 193) on the basis of a noun like Obst “fruit”. German has a semantic rule which assigns neuter gender to a superordinate noun (superordinate=n) (see above) and a semantic rule assigning a zero gender to a noun denoting a fruit (fruit=0), specifying that a noun denoting a fruit does not take any particular gender. Since the rule superordinate=n is the more general of the two, only this rule will appear in the gender table for this noun. As stated in the introductory part of this thesis, Steinmetz’ (1986, 2006) model of GA gets most of the German language data right. That is, the two principles Gender Tally and Gender Eclipsis operate in conjunction and resolve all instances of gender rule competition in favour of the correct GA (Steinmetz, 1986, p. 191).18 8. Data The following dictionary and corpora served as sources of data for this study: a hard copy version of the monolingual dictionary SJP PWN and the Korpus Języka Polskiego PWN (PWN Corpus of Polish) (henceforth, KJP PWN).19 SJP PWN provides a comprehensive grammatical description of Polish words. It covers over 40,000 most frequently used lexemes of Standard Polish along with their most frequent meanings. The 18 The question arises whether the human mind actually calculates the putative gender relevant rules and selects the gender with the highest value within the Gender Tally system, before it activates a default mechanism to decide on the gender of a noun (Onysko, 2007, p. 156 ). In Rice (2004, p. 11-12), a parallelism is drawn between Gender Tally and connectionist processing (e.g. McClelland and Eman, 1986): ‘When a target (in our case a noun) activates certain units in a network (assignment rules in our case), one of the factors facilitating the selection of a certain unit is the amount of conceptual overlap. The higher the degree of overlap, the greater are the chances that a certain unit is selected. This is analogous to Gender Tally. When a majority of rules competes with a minority, the majority represents the higher degree of conceptual overlap. In other words, Gender Tally assigns gender on the basis of conceptual overlap. While this does not indicate that one has to believe in connectionism in order to adopt Gender Tally, the parallelism is nevertheless interesting.’ The psychological reality of GA in CSP, or in any other language, and in particular further elaboration of Steinmetz’ model of GA with psycholinguistic experiments is left as topic for future research. As far as German is concerned, Schwichtenberg and Schiller (2004) find out on the basis of a series of experiments on gender congruency effects, that semantic rules such as predatory animals=m and musical instruments=f play a role in grammatical GA of native German speakers. 19 Here is the link to the on-line version of this dictionary: https://sjp.pwn.pl/. The KJP PWN corpus is searchable at https://sjp.pwn.pl/. 15 core of the SJP PWN vocabulary consists of words found in the above mentioned KJP PWN corpus which contains 100 million words. The dictionary includes nouns which have entered the lexicon of Standard Polish relatively recently, e.g. clubbing ( 9. Scope of the Analysis In any language, nouns belong to the major part-of speech classes. Obviously, SJP PWN does not contain all Polish nouns. The selection of nouns is, however, quite representative as it contains nouns with high frequency scores. Some lexemes have various meanings. SJP PWN indicates each separate meaning by means of a digit. A decision had to be made which meaning of the nouns to include in the analysis and it is the first one of the possible meanings listed which was analyzed. Analyzed were then oko in the meaning “eye”, and not “an oily circle in soup”; babka in the meaning “grandma”, and not 20 There are some notable exceptions, e.g. clubbing ( “a sweet cake”, or “coll. a young, attractive woman”. SJP PWN also includes metaphorical meanings based on similarity and analogy with the basic meaning. For example, the Polish noun głąb denotes ‘cabbage stalk’, but it also has a secondary meaning: “blockhead”; Polish Kozak means “Cossack”, and “a person showing off with bravado and courage”; hiena means “hyena”, but it also denotes “an unscrupulous person who takes advantage of others, preying on someone’s misfortune”; miś denotes a “bear”, but it also refers to “a person, who has some features of a bear, especially considerable weight”; papuga means “parrot”, but it also denotes “a person who repeats another person’s words without reflection”. Again, it is the first one of the two meanings which was analyzed. Included in the analysis will be adjective-shaped nouns (e.g. wygrana “win”, czesne “tuition”). The generalizations stated in terms of morphophonology and semantics also apply to them so they nicely enter the picture of (near) complete non-arbitrariness of GA in CSP, though it is unclear whether some adjective-like words are full-fledged nouns (McShane, 2003, p. 83).22 SJP PWN includes 60 cases of such adjectival nouns and Appendix I contains more examples. Some ‘profession nouns’ are in this set and some of them are overtly gender marked (e.g. królowa “queen”, krawcowa “dressmaker”). Some Polish nouns may appear (in some theoretical accounts) problematic for the proposed model of GA, in particular, where it is claimed that both semantic and morphophonological-phonetic factors (i.e. derivation) are relevant in the process of attributing singular nouns of CSP to a gender category. The first specific factor that underscores the difficulty here is gender instability (vacillation). It has already been pointed out that GA in CSP is usually made without hesitation, though the vacillating gender of such nouns as bonsai “bonsai tree” (m/n), fatamorgana “mirage” (f/n), gnu “gnu” (f/n), karibu “caribou” (m/n), pekari “peccary” (m/n), richelieu “richelieu embroidery” (m/n), taxi “taxi” (f/n), toffi “toffee” (m/n), shows that it is not always the case with loanwords.23 The native nouns chłopaczysko/chłopczysko “big fellow” (m/n), chłopisko “big fellow” (m/n), and ladaco “rascal” (m/n) also constitute cases of indecision as far as their gender values are concerned. In the context of Steinmetz’ model of GA, the vacillating gender of the above mentioned nouns is understood as resulting from competition between assignment rules (i.e. between morphophonological-phonetic and semantic regularities), or it might be instead relegated to arbitrariness and idiosyncracy. By way of example, the loanword taxi “taxi” vacillates between feminine and neuter gender as a result of the competition between an available Polish lexical-conceptual equivalent taksówka “taxi”, which is of 22 Note that once GA of singular nouns in the nominative singular has been approached strictly from the morphological level (i.e. GA is sensitive to the (in)declinability of nouns), adjectival nouns would in consequence be problematic for the model and would have to be removed from the analysis as the value of gender would necessarily have to be associated with inflectional endings from nominal declension. 23 The vacillating gender of a loanword can occasionally by explained by recency of the loanword. 17 feminine gender, and the strategy that inanimate nouns ending in a vocalic phoneme other than /+a/ [+a] are statistically likely to be neuter. Every effort has been made to address as many different sets of the lexicon as need be addressed. Included in the analysis will be ‘profession nouns’. Appendix II contains some examples. Some ‘profession nouns’ (especially those that hold low prestige) are are overtly marked for feminine gender. These happen to be professions traditionally practiced by females only and no men seem to enter these professions nowadays (e.g. gorseciarka “corset maker”, hafciarka “embroiderer”, kosmetyczka “beautician”, manikiurzystka/manicurzystka “manicurist”, pokojówka “maid”, przedszkolanka “female kindergarden teacher”, sprzątaczka “cleaning lady”), and few feminine derivatives (e.g. alpinistka “female mountain climber”, konduktorka “female conductor/female ticket collector”, lekarka “female doctor”, narciarka “female skier”, nauczycielka “female teacher”, fryzjerka “female hairdresser”). Not included will be animate nouns (denoting human beings) ending in /+a/ [+a] in Nom.Sg. whose gender is masculine or feminine, depending on the sex of the denotatum in a situational context, and of which kaleka “cripple” kalek/+a/ [kalɛk+a] is a representative. Unlike kaleka, however, most of these nouns are derivatives, or compounds, and they are expressives, connoting deteriorative meaning (Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 35). Reference grammars of Polish point out that they are a marginal group within the nominal lexicon of CSP. SJP PWN lists 54 such nouns. A full list is given in Appendix III. In Section 10.3. I explain, in detail, how kaleka “cripple”-type nouns are different from ‘profession nouns’ and why they pose a problem for the mechanisms of Steinmetz’ (1986, 2006) GA theory. Finally, removed from the analysis will be two nouns: państwo in the meaning “Mr. and Mrs.”, and wujostwo in the meaning “uncle and aunt”. Semantically and syntactially, these two nouns are close to other plural nouns, such as for example małżonkowie “married people” (Nom.Pl.) or narzeczeni “an engaged couple” (Nom.Pl.). That is to say, the nouns państwo “Mr. and Mrs.”, and wujostwo “uncle and aunt” cannot be put into the following context for the nominative singular: dobr-eN ____ . In short, I distinguish in the study between państwo “Mr. and Mrs.” and państwo “state”, where the second of these homonymous nouns takes neuter singular agreement. 10. Applying the mechanisms of OGAT to CSP - A Provisional Analysis The regular behaviour of GA in CSP provides evidence for statistical data alive in the mind of a Polish adult native speaker. In this study it is modelled via OT GA a la Rice (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). Building on Steinmetz (1986), Rice (2003) proposes formalizing GA within a theory designed specifically to mediate conflicts between violable constraints and he presents OGAT. Namely, he joins together Steinmetz’ Gender Tally and Gender Eclipsis with Prince and Smolensky’s (1993) OT. Rice (2004, 2005, 2006) states that OGAT is an example of crucial equal ranking, a formal option allowed by 18 Prince and Smolensky, for which they did not find evidence back in the 1990s. The tenets of OGAT can be summarized as follows: (1) OGAT: across languages, gender features constraints and language-specific gender features constraints are crucially non-ranked with respect to each other; only the genders are ranked in a markedness hierarchy in each language; the language-specific gender features constraints are all non- ranked with respect to each other but form a block that, as a whole, is ranked above the language’s gender markedness hierarchy. The cumulative violations of the gender features constraints determine the gender category of a noun in the case of an imbalanced conflict. When an equal number of gender features constraints militate for assignment to different gender categories (Rice dubs it a balanced conflict throughout his papers), the noun is assigned to the least marked of the conflicting gender categories (Rice, 2004, 2005, 2006). 10.1. Markedness relations in CSP based on SJP PWN and Index a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary Since gender markedness hierarchy is such an important issue in Steinmetz’ (1986) theory and to OGAT, it is important to decide if the three genders in CSP occur in marked and unmarked oppositions and, if so, what their status is relative to each other. Steinmetz (2006, p. 1422) argues that the default hierarchy m > f > n, posited for German, also holds for all Slavic languages. A survey of both SJP PWN and Index a tergo compiled from Doroszewski’s (1958-1969) general dictionary Słownik języka polskiego (henceforth, SJPD) (featuring approximately 125,000 entries) was made and a careful examination of the correlations between the morphophonological-phonetic regularities on the one hand, and the gender value on the other hand, provides enough support for the proposed rules in my study. In the process of extracting the regularities, the effect of final- devoicing, a phonological process described in Section 5.1. was obviously taken into account. My basis for designating masculine as a pre-syntactic default gender value in CSP, is the observation that masculine nouns, the largest set of nouns (see my discussion below), are not significantly gender marked in their Nom.Sg. form in SJP PWN.24 By contrast, feminine and neuter gender exhibit a higher degree of markedness, especially in terms of formal (morphophonological-phonetic) characteristics. In other words, the number of morphophonological-phonetic rules required to cover all masculine nouns in CSP is far greater than the number of rules needed for feminine and neuter. In consequence nouns belonging to the masculine gender in CSP are less homogenous than other, more marked categories. 24 The present analysis is inspired by Steinmetz’ (2006) structure of the argument (see for example a gender table for a noun мужчи́на “man”, Steinmetz, 2006, p. 1427), with the difference being that the grammatical default value (for Russian) is the least marked morphosyntactically. In this study, the default is the least marked morphophonologically. 19 The number of productive rules needed to account for all masculine nouns in CSP Polish can be replaced with a single default rule. As previously claimed in Steinmetz’ default-based theory of GA the justification for and determination of markedness relations is also established based on statistical frequency of the genders (Steinmetz, 2006). Based on a repertoire of nouns listed in SJP PWN, I find the following distribution of the three genders: masculine 47% (8811/18,488), feminine 40% (7524/18,488), neuter 12% (2142/18,488), and vacillating 0,06% (11/18,488). Masculine and feminine gender are significantly distinguished by these statistics. Also, masculine gender can be considered to be the least marked gender in CSP, not least of all because of the ease of assigning nouns to the feminine gender through reference to /+a/ [+a] (see Section).25 Neuter nouns are clearly in the minority in comparison to masculine and feminine nouns.26 Interestingly, the largest group of lexemes (amounting to in SJP PWN) are morphophonologically determined de-verbal nouns such as czytanie “reading”, spanie “sleeping”, mówienie “speaking”, mycie “washing, cleaning” (cf. Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 35-36). Using Rice’s (2004, 2005, 2005) optimality theoretic approach to markedness, I propose three markedness constraints, each of which constraints each gender: (2) *MASCULINE: A noun is not masculine. *FEMININE: A noun is not feminine. *NEUTER: A noun is not neuter. Since it has been postulated that masculine is the least marked category in CSP followed by feminine and then neuter, Gender Eclipsis for the whole gender system of CSP is m > f > n (i.e. masculine gender outranks both feminine and neuter gender and feminine gender outranks neuter gender). This can be formalized as in (3): (3) *NEUTER >> *FEMININE >> *MASCULINE In this ranking, the prohibition against assigning a noun to the neuter category in CSP, is the highest ranked. Given the ranking in (3), the Polish noun, stół “table”, for example, is the focus for the issue of markedness as it is in the domain of no gender features constraints. It is assigned to the masculine 25 See Rice (2004, p. 2) and his formulation of this argument for the grammatical GA system of Russian. 26 Enough support for the weakness of the neuter gender can be found in Stefańczyk (2007, pp. 35-38), where in the general dictionary of CSP Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego (USJP) (Dubisz, 2003) only around 4,000 or 10% of the 44,000 nouns are assigned neuter gender. The dictionary records around 1,960 neuter nouns with their typical and characteristic (only of them) productive nominative singular ending /+e/ [+ɛ]. The remaining 90% are masculine and feminine (Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 157). 20 category, as presented in Tableau 1. Tableau 1 shows the manner in which constraints compete with one another to ultimately select the optimal candidate. In any Tableau, input is placed into the upper left-hand corner of the Tableau and possible output candidates (gender categories) are listed below the input form in the candidate column. Any time an output candidate violates a constraint, an asterisk (*) is placed in the corresponding cell. Some violations are fatal violations, that is, they constitute violations serious enough to prevent a given output candidate from being chosen as optimal. An asterisk followed by an exclamation point (*!) indicates fatal violations. The last candidate not to receive an exclamation point is selected as optimal (marked with the manual indicator ). Throughout the data analysis section, a “-” separates the root from suffix and a “+” separates the stem from the ending (desinence). Tableau 1. stół “table” [stuw+Ø] *N *F *M a. [stuw+Ø], m. * b. [stuw+Ø], f. *! c. [stuw+Ø], n. *! Candidates (a-c) in Tableau 1 represent the possibility of assigning the noun stół “table” to any of the three gender categories. It is the job of constraint hierarchy (which, in this study, is conditioned by formal properties, that is by final sounds that are characteristic of a noun as a lexeme operating on a pre-syntactic level) to identify which of the three candidates is optimal. Candidate (c) is promptly eliminated (indicated by !) since it violates the most highly ranked constraint of the markedness hierarchy *N, followed by candidate (b) (indicated by !) for violating the next most highly-ranked constraint of the markedness hierarchy *F. Candidate (a) also incurs a violation from the constraint *M, but nevertheless is selected as optimal, since its violation is considered the least severe among the three. In sum, the constraints in Tableau 1 moved from most marked to least marked in a left-to- right fashion (‒>). Recall that the gender value is a basic condition for gender agreement to take place in language production. Since not all nouns in CSP are masculine, there must be ways to override the markedness hierarchy (see Section below). 10.2. Gender features constraints in CSP based on SJP PWN and Index a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary In Section 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 I present a set of assignment rules in CSP (with a certain extent of rule overlap) that generates gender for the nouns found in SJP PWN and in Index a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary. Each rule will be formalized as constraint, in anticipation of my OT analysis. At this stage of the analysis, cases of vacillating gender, kaleka “cripple”-type nouns, have already been ignored. The rule set rests upon the assumption that CSP has masculine as its pre-syntactic default gender among 21 inanimate nouns which means that all nouns are masculine in CSP unless they have a reason to go into one of the more marked categories. Proposing masculine as the default gender for CSP has one important advantage: rules calling for pre-syntactic masculine GA are largely redundant, unless they are needed to explain otherwise unaccountable exceptions (Steinmetz, 1986). 10.2.1. Morphophonological-phonetic gender features constraints based on SJP PWN and Index a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary In CSP, there is a correspondence between morphophonological conditioning of a noun and the gender value the noun is assigned. More precisely, two of the three gender categories have their own typical and perceptually different nominative singular morphophonological endings. They are also marked phonetically in terms of the manner of articulation of their constituent consonants and vowels, as well as morphologically (i.e. derivationally) and etymologically, as I am discussing in more detail below. My exemplary noun stół stół+Ø [stuw+Ø] “table” is of direct relevance in my study as it does not have any ending in the nominative singular. The Ø symbol represents the absence of an ending (a zero ending). The stem (simply) ends in a consonant. In contrast, this holds true, i.e. many feminine nouns and neuter nouns consist of a stem and a final vowel, which is their phonological ending: /+a/ [+a] for feminine nouns (e.g. książka książk/+a/ [kɕɔʃ̃ k+a] “book”, woda wod/+a/ [vɔd+a] “water”), and /+o/ [+ɔ], /+e/ [+ɛ], /+i/ [+i], and /+u/ [+u] for neuter nouns (e.g. wino [vin+ɔ] “wine”, okno [ɔkn+ɔ] “window”) (see also my discussion below). Some nouns with a zero ending (they end in -(C)C in the nominative singular) are predominantly feminine. They end in /ść/ [ɕʨ], and less often (diachronically speaking) they end in /oń/ [ɔɲ], /ań/ [aɲ], /śl/ [ɕl], /śń/ [ɕɲ], /źń/ [ʑɲ], /ńć/ [ɲʨ], /ać/ [aʨ], /ić/ [iʨ], /oć/ [ɔʨ], /rć/ [rʨ] (cf. Zaron, 2004, p. 69-71; Kilarski and Orzechowska, 2007, for the dictionary GA pattern). These stem form phonological-phonetic rules assigning (in the overwhelming majority of cases) feminine gender are exemplified in such nouns from SJP PWN as for example garść gar/ść/+Ø [garɕʨ+Ø] “handful”, kość ko/ść/+Ø [kɔɕʨ+Ø] “bone”, maść ma/ść/+Ø [maɕʨ+Ø] “ointment”; woń w/oń/+Ø [vɔɲ+Ø] “aroma”, dłoń dł/oń/+Ø [dwɔɲ+Ø] “palm”, krtań krt/ań/+Ø [krtaɲ+Ø] “larynx”, otchłań otchł/ań/+Ø [ɔtxwaɲ+Ø] “abyss”; myśl my/śl/+Ø [mɨɕl+Ø] “thought”, rzęśl rzę/śl/+Ø [ʒɛɕ̃ l+Ø] “water starwort”; baśń ba/śń/+Ø [baɕɲ+Ø] “fairy tale”, pilśń pil/śń/+Ø [pʲilɕɲ+Ø] “felt”, pleśń ple/śń/+Ø [plɛɕɲ+Ø] “mildew”; kaźń ka/źń/+Ø [kaʑɲ+Ø] “torment”, jaźń ja/źń/+Ø [jaʑɲ+Ø] “self”; pamięć pami/ęć/+Ø [pamjɛɲtɕ+Ø] “memory”, chęć ch/ęć/+Ø [xɛɲtɕ+Ø] “desire”; brać br/ać/+Ø [braʨ+Ø] “fraternity”, nać n/ać/+Ø [naʨ+Ø] “leaf stalks”, połać poł/ać/+Ø [powaʨ+Ø] “extent”, postać post/ać/+Ø [pɔstaʨ+Ø] “form”, czeladź czel/adź/+Ø [tʂɛlaʨ+Ø], szadź/sadź szadź/s/adź/+Ø [ʂaʨ+Ø/saʨ+Ø] “hoar frost”; kibić kib/ić/+Ø [kibiʨ+Ø] “waist, (obs.)”, nić n/ić/+Ø [ɲiʨ+Ø] “thread”, wić w/ić/+Ø [vjiʨ+Ø] “twig”; paproć papr/oć/+Ø [paprɔʨ+Ø] “fern”, nawłoć nawł/oć/+Ø [navwɔʨ+Ø] “golden rod”; ćwierć ćwie/rć/+Ø [tɕfjɛrʨ+Ø] “quarter”, śmierć śmie/rć/+Ø [ɕmjɛrʨ+Ø] “death”, żerdź 22 że/rdź/+Ø [ʒɛrʨ+Ø] “bird perch”.27 Then there are nouns marked etymologically, that is they have been loaned from Latin and Greek and they end in a single (hard/non-soft) consonant. These are the nouns in {-um} [-um] (e.g. imperium imperi{-um}+Ø [impɛrj-um+Ø] “empire”, liceum lice{-um}+Ø [liʦɛ- um+Ø] “high school”), which are distinct derivationally ({-um} is not a true suffix) and they are neuter which matches the Latin GA.28 Last but not least, and as already pointed out, many semantically inanimate nouns of foreign origin end with the final sound /+i/ [+i] and /+u/ [+u] in the nominative singular. What is more, next to the sound system of present-day Standard Polish described in Section 5, there is concrete evidence of another sound patterns in noun final position, that (from my perspective), seems to account for neuter gender of many semantically inanimate loanwords. That is, nouns with final /+í/ [+í], /+é/ [+έ], and /+á/ [+á], which are atypical markers of semantically inanimate nouns in CSP, are marked for neuter gender (with some exceptions, which I presume can be explained on semantic grounds, as I am going to discuss below; see also Appendix IV for the semantic influences). I believe that these rules will not raise any eyebrows, even if based on a relativelly small group of loanwords (see Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 44-45 for the dictionary GA pattern). As already pointed out in Section 5.1., there may be quite a lot of variation in whether adult native speakers of Standard Polish keep the foreign sounds in loanwords when speaking, or adapt them to sounds that exist in the native Standard Polish. Examples of inanimate /+é/ [+έ]-final nouns (loanwords) in my sample being neuter include: atelier atelj/+é/ [atɛlj+έ] “atelier”, dossier dosj/+é/ [dɔsj+έ], exposé expos/+é/ [ɛkspɔz+έ], foyer foy/+é/ [fwaj+έ], tournée tourn/+é/ [turn+έ]. Some /+i/ [+i]-final, and /+í/ [+í]-final inanimate loanwords in SJP PWN giving neuter in my study: konfetti/confetti konfett/+i///confett/+i/ [kɔnfɛt+i] “confetti”, jacuzzi jacuzz/+i/ [ʤakuz+i] “jacuzzi”, lobby lobb/+i/ [lɔbj+i] “lobby”, safari safar/+i/ [safar+i] “safari”, salami salam/+i/ [salamj+i] “salami”, spaghetti spaghett/+i/ [spagɛt+i] “spaghetti”, jury jur/+í/ [ʒɨr+í] “jury”. Some inanimate /+u/ [+u]-final and /+á/ [+á]-final nouns of foreign origin in SJP PWN giving neuter in my study: clou kl/+u/ [kl+u], kung-fu kung-f/+u/ [kuŋf+u], menu menj/+u/ [mɛnj+u] “menu”, seppuku seppuk/+u/ [sɛpuk+u] “seppuku”, tabu tab/+u/ [tab+u] “taboo”, emploi áplu/+á/ [áplu+á] “emploi”. Furthermore, any of the agentive derivational suffixes {-ak-} [-ak-], {-ast-} [-ast-], {-c-} [-ʦ-], {- ist-} [-ist-], {-yst-} [-ɨst-], {-it-} [-it-], {-yt-} [-ɨt-] attached to a noun assigns masculine gender and this 27 I argue that the data set in SJP PWN and Index a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary leave further little room for any additional morphophonological-phonetic generalizations to be drawn as far as feminine GA is concerned. Many historical and synchronic softs are assigned either masculine or feminine gender (see further Appendix IV). 28 One exception in SJP PWN is album alb{-um}+Ø [alb-um+Ø] “album”, which was once neuter, but along with such nouns as tłum tłum+Ø [twum+Ø] “crowd” has a masculine gender value in CSP (Safarewicz, 1972). 23 rule admits virtually no exceptions. I propose the following SC-morphological rules operating in a semantic field of agentive animate nouns: {-ak-}/{-ast-}/{-c-}/{-ist-}/{-yst-}/{-it-}/{-yt-}=m.29 On the basis of the above discussion, in (4)-(22) I propose the following more or less complex phonological-phonetic GA patterns associated with the stems of nouns of the nominative singular. Each rule is formalized as constraint, in anticipation of my OT analysis below. For the purposes of the analysis, I consulted the lists of available masculine, feminine, and neuter suffixes (productive and non- productive patterns) of CSP recognized by the respective academy grammar: Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina (1984), as well as research articles on non-expressive and expressive derivation (e.g. diminutive formation) in CSP (see references). (4) /+a/ [+a]=f OT constraint: *[+a] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+a/ [+a] not to be masculine or neuter. (5) /STEMść+Ø/ [STEMɕʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɕʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /ść/ [ɕʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (6) /STEMoń+Ø/ [STEMɔɲ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɔɲ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /oń/ [ɔɲ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (7) /STEMań+Ø/ [STEMaɲ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMaɲ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /aɲ/ followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (8) /STEMśl+Ø/ [STEMɕl+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɕl+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /śl/ [ɕl] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. 29 The adoption of another solution, that is, recognition as a distinctive feature of masculine nouns the recurring clusters -st-, -t- to account for the masculine gender of such nouns as medalista medal{-ist-}/+a/ [mɛdal-ist+a] “medalist”, maturzysta maturz{-yst-}/+a/ [matuʒ-ɨst+a] “high school graduate”, izraelita izrael{-it-}/+a/ [izraɛl- it+a] “Israelite”, hipokryta hipokr{-yt-}/+a/ [hipɔkr-ɨt+a] “hypocrite”, etc. would have required positing restrictions on feminine nouns (e.g. zemsta zems{-t-}/+a/ [zɛms-t+a] “revenge”, kita kit/+a/ [kjit+a] “tuft of feathers”, płyta płyt/+a/ [pwɨt+a] “slab”, etc.) (see also Stefańczyk, 2007, footnote 9, p. 34). Note that such nouns as medalista, maturzysta, izraelita, hipokryta, etc. can be considered to be assigned masculine gender by a strong morphological rule: -ista/-ysta=m, -ita/-yta=m, etc. (see Steinmetz 1986, p. 194; see also footnote 39 in this thesis). However, in a GA system with rule interaction and given the fundamental claim about non-ranking, they have to be taken into consideration, though. 24 (9) /STEMśń+Ø/ [STEMɕɲ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɕɲ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /śń/ [ɕɲ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (10) /STEMźń+Ø/ [STEMʑɲ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMʑɲ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /źń/ [ʑɲ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (11) /STEMńć+Ø/ [STEMɲʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɲʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /ńć/ [ɲʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (12) /STEMać+Ø/ [STEMaʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMaʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /ać/ [aʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (13) /STEMić+Ø/ [STEMiʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMiʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /ić/ [iʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (14) /STEMoć+Ø/ [STEMɔʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMɔʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /oć/ [ɔʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (15) /STEMrć+Ø/ [STEMrʨ+Ø]=f OT constraint: *[STEMrʨ+Ø] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /rć/ [rʨ] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or neuter. (16) /+o/ [+ɔ]=n OT constraint: *[+ɔ] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+o/ [+ɔ] not to be masculine or feminine. (17) /+e/ [+ɛ] or more rarely /+é/ [+έ] (ɛ accent acute)=n (cf. Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 44-45 for the status of the rule /+é/ [+έ]=n) OT constraint: *[+ɛ] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+e/ [+ɛ] not to be masculine or feminine. OT constraint: *[+έ] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+έ/ [+έ] not to be masculine or feminine. (18) /+i/ [+i] or more rarely /+í/ [+í] =n (cf. Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 45 for the dictionary GA pattern) OT constraint: *[+i] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+i/ [+i] not to be masculine or feminine. OT constraint: *[+í] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+í/ [+í] not to be masculine or feminine. 25 (19) /+u/ [+u]=n (cf. Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 45 for the dictionary GA pattern) OT constraint: *[+u] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+u/ [+u] not to be masculine or feminine. (20) /+á/ [+á]=n OT constraint: *[+á] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun ending in a phoneme /+á/ [+á] not to be masculine or feminine. (21) /STEMum+Ø/ [STEMum+Ø]=n OT constraint: *[STEMum+Ø] => MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun whose stem ends in /um/ [um] followed by no desinence not to be masculine or feminine. (22) {-ak-} [-ak-], {-ast-} [-ast-], {-c-} [-ʦ-], {-ist-} [-ist-], {-yst-} [-ɨst-], {-it-} [-it-], {-yt-} [-ɨt-]=m OT constraint: *[[-ak-], [-ast-], [-ʦ-], [-ist-], [-ɨst-], [-it-], [-ɨt-]] => FEMININE, NEUTER: a noun to which any of the agentive derivational suffixes {-ak-} [-ak-], {-ast-} [-ast-], {-c-} [-ʦ-], {-ist-} [-ist- ], {-yst-} [-ɨst-], {-it-} [-it-], {-yt-} [-ɨt-] is attached is not feminine and is not neuter. 10.2.2. Semantic gender features constraints in CSP based on SJP PWN The semantic base of the GA system of CSP is clearly visible (see Corbett, 1991, p. 8): (23) +male=m OT constraint: *[+MALE] => FEMININE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun denoting a biological male not to be feminine or neuter. (24) +female=f OT constraint: *[+FEMALE] => MASCULINE, NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun denoting a biological female not to be masculine or neuter. In what follows, I argue that another semantic rule/constraint is of general importance in GA in CSP, that is, a constraint on animacy.30 Whereas the meaning of ojciec “father” can be defined as “male parent” and the meaning of matka “mother” as “female parent”, where sex is specified in the lexical entry, the majority of animate nouns are not lexically specified as carrying the semantic property [+male] or [+female]. Below I explain what constitutes an animate noun in this study. 30 See Corbett (1991) and Dahl (2000) and their discussion of animacy being an important semantic rule in the gender systems of many languages. With a special reference to CSP, I claim that a rule based on animacy cannot be ruled out a priori as a plausible candidate for a GA rule in this study as it seems unlikely that CSP having a syntactic rule linked to (in)animacy in the nominative singular (at least in theory) does not mark the nominative singular nouns in question for (in)animacy (e.g. anioł+Ø “angel”, anioł+a (Gen.Sg.), anioł+a (Acc.Sg.); Bóg+Ø “God”, Bog+a (Gen.Sg.), Bog+a (Acc.Sg.); duch+Ø “ghost”, duch+a (Gen.Sg.), duch+a (Acc.Sg.)) (see Enger, 2009, p. 1292 and his discussion of the criteria for evaluating GA rules). 26 In general it is not easy to find a clear answer to the question: what are the criteria which distinguish animate nouns from inanimate nouns? Of course, living things who/which both breathe and move: from human beings down to insects, are animate. In standard grammar books the effects of animacy are restricted to a small part of paradigm, namely the Acc.Sg. form of masculine nouns. In short, masculine animate nouns have the Acc.Sg. like the Gen.Sg. form (they take the inflectional ending +a), whereas inanimate masculine nouns have the Acc.Sg. form like the Nom.Sg. form (they take a zero ending). Increasingly, however, masculine inanimate nouns take +a in the Gen.Sg. and this form is sometimes used in the Acc.Sg. (e.g. Mausch, 2003; Stefańczyk, 2015). Some examples from SJP PWN include: muchomor+a (Gen.Sg.), forint+a (Gen.Sg.), bratk+a (Gen.Sg.), oberk+a (Gen.Sg=Acc.Sg.), berk+a (Gen.Sg.), papieros+a (Gen.Sg., Acc.Sg. usually +a). In other words, syntactically marked animacy and the semantic animacy of a noun does not necessarily correspond with each other. Relevant in this part of the discussion is the remark that, other than using intuition, the animacy and inanimacy of a noun is established more scientifically, thus Polish adult native speakers think of the referents of Bóg “God”, duch “ghost”, anioł “angel”, bakteria “bacteria”, as well as of mythological characters (e.g. Atlas “Greek Titan God”, Herkules “Hercules”, centaur “Centaur”, Gracja “Grace”), fairy tales and literary characters (e.g. krasnoludek “dwarf”, smok “dragon”, troll “troll”, elf “elf”, wiedźma “witch”), as animate beings.31 There are some clear borderline cases between animacy and inanimacy, as argued by Yamamoto (1999, p. 18): ‘[…] Computers sometimes look as if they are thinking – this point sometimes leads us to cherish the illusion that they are sentient, although we know that this is not really the case. […] Cars are another example of typically animate-looking machines. They take us where we want to go. It might be argued that they were originally substitutes of horses, and it is quite likely that owners sometimes regard them as members of their families. Cars have headlights as eyes, numberplates as mouths and tyres as for legs […].’ Nouns such as as komputer “computer”, samochód “car”, robot “robot”, marionetka “marionette” are inanimate in this study. To clarify matters further, nouns denoting a group of people (e.g. armia “the armed forces”, delegacja “delegation”, kadra “staff”, naród “nation”), or a group of animals (e.g. stado “herd”) are treated as inanimate in this study. Plants are always inanimate. Most animate nouns in CSP are masculine, however I propose the same generalization, as has been proposed for Russian. Following Steinmetz (2000) and Rice (2004, 2005), I argue that advancing 31 Again, this is the perspective of an adult native speaker. It is unclear when young Polish learners have access to that complex semantic information such as ‘human’, ‘animate’, and to what extent. 27 a rule animate=m would rest on an imprecise generalization about animates, i.e. there is an obvious semantic connection between animacy and masculine and feminine gender: (25) +animate=mf OT constraint: *[+ANIM] => NEUTER: it is optimal for a noun denoting an animate being not to be neuter. In order to account for the neuter gender of such nouns as kocię koci/+ę/ [kɔʨ+ɛ] “kitten”, dzieciątko dzieci{-ątk-}/+o/ [ʥɛʨ-ɔntk+ɔ] “baby, (aff.)”, dziecko dzie{-ck-}/+o/ [ʥɛ-ʦk+ɔ] ‘child’, etc. I added an additional plausible rule/constraint to the semantic family of rules/constraints that aid in the assignment of such nouns to the neuter gender in this study. Exceptions aside (e.g. dziewczę “girl, lass”, dziewczynisko “girl”, matczysko “mother”, pacholę “lad”, etc., neuter gender in CSP signals a lack of sex reference.32 In Swan’s words (2015, p. 85), neuter is the the ‘least referentially encumbered’, ‘least embodied’, or the ‘least sexually empowered’ of the three genders, while masculine gender is the most, as set out in Table 2. Table 1. The three genders and the relative strength of their sexual embodiment (adapted from Swan, 2015, p. 85) +male -male +female -female masculine gender feminine gender neuter gender I have found it fruitful to incorporate the following semantic rule/constraint to apply to animates with a neuter gender value: (26) -male, -female=n OT constraint: *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>MASCULINE, FEMININE: it is optimal for a noun signalling a lack of sex reference (i.e. with a sexless connotation) not to be masculine or feminine.33 It has been widely acknowledged and a quick scan of the available Polish corpora shows that many loanwords are easily pre-syntactically assigned their gender value because the original forms of loanwords fit into the native morphophonological-phonetic type in the nominative singular, or in some cases, CSP has used/uses productive nominal suffixes to make them fit the native morphophonological- phonetic patterns. As for the former, the noun esperanto esperant/+o/ [ɛspɛrant+ɔ] “Esperanto”, for example, ends in /+o/ [+ɔ], and it is identical in the ears of an adult native speaker of Polish to such 32 This observation is also relevant in the Russian GA system, as argued by Galbreath (2010, p. 95). 33 The use of neuter gender to refer to small children (as if they were not quite human) is in fact a very common fact in various Indo-European languages. 28 native neuter nouns as okno okn/+o/ [ɔkn+ɔ] “window”, oko ok/+o/ [ɔk+ɔ] “eye”, ucho uch/+o/ [ux+ɔ] “ear”. The adult native speaker of Standard Polish is immediately given a way to identify the gender of the noun as neuter. As for the latter, all asymilacja asymil{-acj-}/+a/-type nouns “assimilation”, for example are consequently feminine as a result of CSP treating the foreign suffix {-tion} as {-acj-}+/a/ [- aʦj+a] (more examples will be discussed only later in the analysis section). At the same time, linguists generally agree that gender can be assigned to some nouns (especially to loanwords) on the basis of more sophisticated criteria, as it were, that involve various semantic criteria, and that this assignment may vary from speaker to speaker. For example, the loanword whisky whisk/+i/ [wɨskj+i] “whisky” sounds like a noun belonging to a neuter gender category but it is assigned feminine gender (by me). To make the survey of the semantic rules complete, and since the purpose of the study is to capture in the model as much language data as possible, it is then appriopriate to additionally briefly clarify the behaviour of inanimate nouns ending in /+i/ [+i], etc. which are assigned non-neuter gender. I follow Onysko (2007, p. 160) in that the notion of lexical-conceptual equivalence (i.e. gender of loanword=gender of lexical-conceptual equivalent) should be treated with caution as there are restrictions which limit its relevance for GA across languages. In this study, as it pertains to nouns in CSP, it is claimed the following may have play a role: the degree of bilingualism of an adult native Polish speaker; associations to a variety of Polish terms bearing different genders which makes it difficult to justify the choice of one Polish equivalent that happens to share the same gender and ignore the others; loanwords may not have any lexical-conceptual equivalence in CSP at all. Certainly, research needs to be done in this area to understand better the extent of these semantic associations and to formalize it in OT conceptualization.34 10.3. A preliminary OT analysis of GA in CSP To sum up, the following gender features constraints: *[+a]=>M,N, *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕl+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMʑɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMiʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMrʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[+ɔ]=>M,F, *[+ɛ]=>M,F, *[+έ]=>M,F, *[+i]=>M,F, *[+í]=>M,F, *[+u]=>M,F, *[+á]=>M,F, *[STEMum+Ø]=>M,F, *[[-ak-], [-ast-], [-ʦ-], [-ist-], [-ɨst-], [-it-], [- ɨt-]]=>F,N, *[+MALE]=>F,N, *[+FEMALE]=>M,N, *[+ANIM]=>N, *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F, and three markedness constraints *NEUTER >> *FEMININE >> *MASCULINE have been advanced. Following Rice (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006), I assume that the semantic and morphophonological-phonetic constraints are crucially equally-ranked (and the relative weight of the constraints does not play a role either). For example, the placement of the constraint *[+ANIM]=>N to the left of *[+a]=>M,N is not to be 34 As previously stated in Section 3, a fairly common proposal is that for such nouns as, for example, whisky, brandy, in my sample, association can be assumed with the Polish hypernym wódka, which is feminine. 29 interpreted as hierarchical dominance. The constraints of the markedness hierarchy are (by definition) hierarchically ranked. When a noun has one of the relevant gender features constraints, it will have its gender determined by that constraint. Consider the following four Tableaux (2)-(6) (for the reasons of simplicity, I omitted irrelevant constraints). Tableaux (2)-(6) show how a single gender feature constraint dominating the markedness hierarchy leads to assignment to a marked category. In Tableau 2 below, both the masculine (a) and neuter (c) output candidates for the noun książka “book” are eliminated (they incur a fatal violation) by the constraint referring to a final overt morphophonological-phonetic marker /+a/ [+a], leaving only the feminine candidate (b) for selection. The markedness constraints are irrelevant because the highly ranked gender features constraints have already settled the GA of this noun. In most cases the lists of nouns from SJP PWN conforming to a particular constraint, or to a set of constraints (see further discussion) are too lengthy to include within the text. I provide some examples from SJP PWN in between the round brackets ( ). Tableau 2. książka “book” [kɕɔʃ̃ k+a] *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [kɕɔʃ̃ k+a], m. *! * b. [kɕɔʃ̃ k+a], f. * c. [kɕɔʃ̃ k+a], n. *! * The morphologically simple (non-derived) noun serce “heart”, which has a perceptually different final vowel than the noun książka, is assigned neuter gender in OGAT as in Tableau 3. Both the masculine (a) and feminine (b) output candidates incur a fatal violation by the constraint *[+ɛ]=>M,F. The fact that candidate (c) violates *N is irrelevant to the selection of the optimal candidate here (consider also czesne czesn/+e/ [ʧɛsn+ɛ] “tuition”, słońce słońc/+e/ [swɔɲʦ+ɛ] “sun”, powietrze powietrz/+e/ [pɔvjɛtʃ+ɛ] “air”, etc.). Tableau 3. serce “heart” [sɛrʦ+ɛ] *[+ɛ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [sɛrʦ+ɛ], m. *! * b. [sɛrʦ+ɛ], f. *! * c. [sɛrʦ+ɛ], n. * In my study nouns ending in orthographic <ę> are consistently transcribed as pronounced with an oral vowel [ɛ] and the nasal pronunciation is considered hypercorrect and hardly ever heard in conversational speech. Since this orthographic marker does not entail any audible difference in pronunciation, it was readily available for me (and it may be for other adult native speakers of Polish) as an indicator of neuter gender. Thus GA of semantically inanimate imię-type nouns (e.g. plemię 30 [plɛmj+ɛ] “tribe”, strzemię [stʃɛmj+ɛ] “stirrup”, widzimisię [vjiʥimjiɕ+ɛ] “whim, (coll.)”, znamię [znamj+ɛ] “mole”) is treated in my study as an instance of GA in the Tableau 3 above. Tableau 4. imię “name” [imj+ɛ] *[+ɛ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [imj+ɛ], m. *! * b. [imj+ɛ], f. *! * c. [imj+ɛ], n. * As already indicated in Section 8, many nouns of CSP, which have once been loaned from other languages, have obtained Polish spelling and pronunciation and have been assigned gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter, to function syntactically. Among them, for example zorbing zorbing+Ø [zɔrbjink+Ø] ( For the Polish neuter noun wino “wine” in Tableau 6, the gender feature constraint *[+ɔ]=>M,F eliminates the masculine and feminine candidates, (a) and (b), from further consideration. Given that candidate (c) is the only candidate to satisfy this constraint, the markedness hierarchy of gender categories is irrelevant here (this analysis extends also to such nouns as okno okn/+o/ [ɔkn+ɔ] “window”, dno dn/+o/ [dn+ɔ] “bottom”, radio radi/+o/ [radj+ɔ] “radio”, etc.). Tableau 6. wino “wine” [vjin+ɔ] *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [vjin+ɔ], m. *! * b. [vjin+ɔ], f. *! * c. [vjin+ɔ], n. * At this point it needs to be emphasized that simply allowing nouns in the domain of a gender relevant rule/constraint (morphophonological-phonetic or semantic) to be assigned the correct gender or alternatively, allowing assignment by default, is adequate to account for GA of many nouns in CSP. Most inanimate masculine nouns in CSP fail to fall into the domain of any gender features constraints and are assigned masculine by default. Most inanimate feminine nouns have a final /+a/ [+a], or less frequently their stem ends in /ść/ [ɕʨ], /oń/ [ɔɲ], /ań/ [aɲ], /śl/ [ɕl], /śń/ [ɕɲ], /źń/ [ʑɲ], /ńć/ [ɲʨ], /ać/ 31 [aʨ], /ić/ [iʨ], /oć/ [ɔʨ], /rć/ [rʨ], which leads to correct GA. Most inanimate neuter nouns are assigned neuter because of a final /+o/ [+ɔ], /+e/ [+ɛ], /+é/ [+έ], /+i/ [+i], /+í/ [+í], /+u/ [+u], /+á/ [+á] and /-um/ [-um]. In what follows I discuss nouns which are not assigned gender in this simple way. The special focus is on rule interaction and GA conflict resolution in CSP. As this is a preliminary analysis, for the ease of discussion, all rules/constraints affecting a noun apply, without restriction (see Section 7 on redundancy rules in German). For reasons of clarity and transparency, the analysis of GA has been organized in sections with the first section focusing on morphologically simple nouns. The remaining sections are devoted to derivatives. Nouns like mężczyzna “man” (i.e. nouns denoting a biological male and ending in /+a/ [+a]) are the most often cited example of nouns whose gender value cannot be explained on phonological- phonetic grounds and they are instances of GA conflict in CSP. In Tableau 7 I show how Polish nouns like mężczyzna “man” are assigned masculine gender in OGAT in this study. There are three well- established gender features constraints active for this noun: a semantic constraint *[+MALE]=>F,N, a semantic constraint *[+ANIM]=>N, and a phonological-phonetic constraint *[+a]=>M,N (the non- violations have been omitted for the sake of simplicity). These three constraints are crucially equally ranked and dominate the markedness hierarchy. The first constraint is violated by candidates (b) and (c), since the noun denotes a biological male. The second constraint is violated by candidate (c), since the noun denotes an animate being. The third constraint is violated by candidates (a) and (c) since the noun ends in /+a/ [+a]. Since candidate (c) violates all of the equally ranked constraints while candidates (a) and (b) each violate just two, candidate (c) is eliminated at this point, as indicated by the exclamation point. The gender features constraints (Gender Tally) fail to distinguish candidates (a) and (b) from one another. Each of these candidates violates one constraint, and since they are crucially equally ranked, neither of them is eliminated. The conflict is not resolved until we move down the markedness hierarchy (Rice dubs it a balanced conflict). Specifically, candidate (b) is ruled out by the relatively highly ranked constraint *F, leaving candidate (a) as optimal for the purpose of gender agreement. Tableau 7. mężczyzna “man” [mɛʃʧ̃ ɨzn+a] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [mɛʃʧ̃ ɨzn+a], m. * * b. [mɛʃʧ̃ ɨzn+a], f. * *! c. [mɛʃʧ̃ ɨzn+a], n. * * *! * In my preliminary inventory of GA conflicts, masculine nouns like tato “dad, (aff.)” in Tableau 8 fall into the domain of three gender features constraints: such nouns denote biological males, they are animates, and they end in /+o/ [+ɔ]. Because the noun denotes a biological male, the feminine 32 candidate (b) and the neuter candidate (c) are each awarded a violation mark under *[+MALE]=>F,N. Because it denotes an animate being, the candidate (c) is awarded violation under *[+ANIM]=>N. Because of its final /+o/ [+ɔ], the masculine candidate (a) and the the feminine candidate (b) are each awarded a violation under *[+ɔ]=>M,F. Because the masculine candidate (a) violates only one of the gender features constraints, any candidate which violates two is eliminated from further consideration. In this case, this applies to both candidates (b) and (c), as indicated by the exclamation mark after the second gender features violation which each incurs. The markedness hierarchy is irrelevant for selecting the optimal candidate here since the hierarchically dominant block of gender features constraints decided the matter in favour of the masculine candidate (a) (compare with GA of dziadunio, dziadzio “grandpa, (aff.)”, rębajło “swashbuckler, (obs.)”); also note that many diminutive (affectionate) forms of male names (e.g. Jó{-zi-}/+o/, Ka{-zi-}/+o/, Grze{-si-}/+o/, Sta{-si-}/+o/, Ta{-dzi- }/+o/) and well-known family names (e.g. Fredro, Jagiełło, Kościuszko) which do not surface in SJP PWN can be assigned gender as in Tableau 8 below. Tableau 8. tato “dad, (aff.)” 35 [tat+ɔ] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [tat+ɔ], m. * * b. [tat+ɔ], f. * *! * c. [tat+ɔ], n. * *! * The singular masculine nouns wuj wuj+Ø [wuj+Ø] “uncle”, syn syn+Ø [sɨn+Ø] “son”, knur knur+ Ø [knur+Ø] “knout”, Bóg Bóg+Ø [buk+Ø] “God”, Atlas Atlas+Ø [atlas+Ø] “Greek Titan God” serve as representatives of a large group of nouns in my sample which operate in two spheres of meaning. The associated constraints active for these nouns are *[+MALE]=>F,N and *[+ANIM]=>N. Consider Tableau 9 and the noun wuj to see how (correct) masculine gender is assigned to such nouns in OGAT in this study. Tableau 9. wuj “uncle” [wuj+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [wuj+Ø], m. * b. [wuj+Ø], f. *! * c. [wuj+Ø], n. * *! * The ‘profession nouns’ in this study form a group of less-fixed cases as far as their pre-syntactic GA is concerned, for reasons that are more social than linguistic. As previously explained, adult native speakers of Polish may in the case of some ‘profession nouns’, show a bias towards masculine GA where also socio-linguistic constraints are at work.36 Such socio-linguistic constraints are not at work 35 Nouns in SJP PWN are not regularly labelled as dim., aff., pej., etc. In such cases, the expressive semantics is, nevertheless, specified in the dictionary definition. 36 There is a long and extensive tradition of research on the contexts of usage for the two genders with the well known agreement facts and inflectional class issues that arise when such homonyms (with identical 33 for such nouns as osoba “person”, człowiek “man”, etc. (i.e. there is just one judgement regarding GA/gender value). Consider GA of the noun proboszcz “parson” in Tableau 10 which is masculine only in my study (the assignment that may be accepted by other native speakers) because the noun typically excludes a female referent (women are not ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church). Consider a few more Polish examples (non-derived and derived nouns): ksiądz ksiądz+Ø [kɕɔnʦ+Ø] “priest”, górnik górn-ik+Ø [gurɲ-ik+Ø] “miner”, hutnik hutn-ik+Ø [xutɲ-ik+Ø] “steel factory worker”, ślusarz ślus-arz+Ø [ɕlus-aʃ+Ø] “locksmith”.37 Tableau 10. proboszcz “parson” [prɔbɔʃʧ+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [prɔbɔʃʧ+Ø], m. * b. [prɔbɔʃʧ+Ø], f. *! * c. [prɔbɔʃʧ+Ø], n. * *! * The singular masculine noun zięć “son-in-law” in Tableau 11 is in the domain of three well- established gender features constraints active in assigning gender. One of the constraints assigns masculine gender to biological males, one assigns non-neuter gender to animate nouns, and one assigns feminine gender to nouns ending in soft sounding /ńć/ [ɲʨ] in the nominative singular. The neuter output candidate (c) incurs a violation from the semantic constraint *[+MALE]=>F,N, from the semantic constraint *[+ANIM]=>N, and from the phonological-phonetic constraint *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N. The two constraints *[+MALE]=>F,N and *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N, if unranked with respect to each other, yield a balanced conflict. The balanced conflict between the candidate (a) and pronunciation of the nominative singular, but different meanings) refer to a woman (e.g. znana profesor “well- known female professor”, znana sędzia/sędzina “well-known female judge”, but *znana poeta “well-known female poet”, etc.). However, this is all irrelevant at the moment. In such cases, agreement, it can be argued, is a problem of syntax, rather than of GA. What matters for present purposes is that such pairs of nouns yield (in most cases) a masculine gender and a feminine gender. Kaleka “cripple”-type nouns “misbehave” in the context of the present study. Among researchers there is no absolute agreement as to whether or not it is legitimate to propose homonymous noun entries for kaleka “cripple”-type nouns (after Wierzbicka, 2014, p. 163). Admittedly, Wierzbicka’s comment concerns grammatical homonyms, nevertheless, the possibility of making pre-syntactic distinctions between kaleka1, kaleka2, may deserve consideration. I follow the claim that kaleka “cripple”-type nouns are not overtly marked for their gender (Grzegorczykowa, Laskowski, Wróbel, 1999, p. 159; Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 35). In this case, their GA is referential and it is resolved in syntax (for example at the phrasal level, that is through agreement with an item marked for a particular gender value, e.g. an adjective); see also Dahl (2000, p. 106) for ‘referential gender value’. The analysis in this study is restricted to the cases which are uncontroversial (and which, as already argued, form the vast majority). 37 Obviously, social constraints and other extra linguistic constraints play an important role in the formation of a new lexis (e.g. Nowosad-Bakalarczyk, 2009, p. 22; Hołowiak, 2012, p. 240). As argued by Nowosad-Bakalarczyk (2009, p. 22), there are appropriate legal regulations prohibiting women from pursuing certain professions that are particularly harmful or burdensome to health (especially in heavy industry), so the feminine form counterparts of such masculine nouns as for example górnik “miner”, hutnik “steel factory worker”, ślusarz “locksmith”, may never be found in general use. On the other hand, when a form to denote a male person will be required for those professions that hold low prestige, and which only have feminine forms in SJP PWN (e.g. kosmetyczka “beautician”, przedszkolanka “female kindergarden teacher”), a completely new lexical item can be created. For example, a man who works as a przedszkolanka “female kindergarden teacher” can be found in a dictionary listed as wychowawca przedszkolny “male kindergarden teacher” (Hołowiak, 2012, p. 239). 34 (b) results in an assignment of correct masculine gender to this noun since it is the lesser ranked of the two candidates. Tableau 11. zięć “son-in-law” [ʑɛɲʨ+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [ʑɛɲʨ+Ø], m. * * b. [ʑɛɲʨ+Ø], f. * *! c. [ʑɛɲʨ+Ø], n. * * *! * The singular masculine noun teść “father-in-law” in Tableau 12, which phonologically ends in /ść/ [ɕʨ] conforms necessarily to the constraints: *[+MALE]=>F,N, and *[+ANIM]=>N. The balanced conflict that remains between the candidate (a) and (b) is resolved in favour of the candidate (a) since it is the lesser ranked of the two candidates. Tableau 12. teść “father-in-law” [tɛɕʨ+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [tɛɕʨ+Ø], m. * * b. [tɛɕʨ+Ø], f. * *! c. [tɛɕʨ+Ø], n. * * *! * The singular masculine noun drań “bounder” in Tableau 13 is, in my study, in the domain of the following gender features constraints active in assigning gender: *[+MALE]=>F,N, *[+ANIM]=>N, and *[STEMaɲ+Ø]=>M,N, which is a phonological-phonetic constraint, allowing for the feminine GA. The neuter candidate (c) violates all three constraints (no gender features constraints favour this gender in this case) and neuter gender is therefore immediately eliminated from further consideration. Gender Tally then does not facilitate the selection of either gender. A balanced conflict remains between the feminine candidate (b) and the masculine candidate (a), given that each candidate incurs one violation under gender features constraints. The markedness hierarchy states clearly that whenever there is a tie in CSP between the masculine gender and the feminine gender, masculine gender is assigned. This is confirmed by the data - the noun drań is indeed masculine in CSP. Tableau 13. drań “bounder” [draɲ+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[STEMaɲ]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [draɲ+Ø], m. * * b. [draɲ+Ø], f. * *! c. [draɲ+Ø], n. * * *! * The output candidates for the noun macho “macho” incur violations as in Tableau 14. The feminine candidate (b) incurs two violations of the gender features constraints and is out of the competition, so is the neuter candidate (c) which incurs exactly the same number of violations. The masculine candidate (a) which incurs only one violation, is selected as optimal. 35 Tableau 14. macho “macho” [maʧ+ɔ] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [maʧ+ɔ], m. * * b. [maʧ+ɔ], f. * *! * c. [maʧ+ɔ], n. * *! * For the feminine noun Psyche [psɨx+ɛ] “Psyche - Greek Goddess of the Soul”, I (provisionally) assume in this study that three gender features constraints are active as presented in Tableau 15. The masculine and the neuter candidates (a) and (c) incur both two violations of the gender features constraints and they are out of the competition. The feminine candidate (b) incurs only one violation and is selected as optimal. Tableau 15. Psyche “Psyche - Greek Goddess of the Soul” [psɨx+ɛ] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+ɛ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [psɨx+ɛ], m. * *! * b. [psɨx+ɛ], f. * * c. [psɨx+ɛ], n. * *! * Nouns like hiena hien/+a/ [xjɛn+a] “hyena”, ćma ćm/+a/ [ʨm+a] “moth”, ameba ameb/+a/ [am ɛb+a] “amoeba”, osa os/+a/ [ɔs+a] “wasp”, osoba osob/+a/ [ɔsɔb+a] “person”, owca owc/+a/ [ɔfʦ+a] “sheep”, żyrafa żyraf/+a/ [ʒɨraf+a] “giraffe”, zygota zygot/+a/ [zɨgɔt+a] “zygote”, etc.) in Tableau 16 are subject to the constraint *[+ANIM]=>N, and to the constraint *[+a]=>M,N, an ending which is very strongly associated with feminine GA. The neuter candidate (c) violates both the gender features constraints and is thereby out of the competition. The masculine candidate (a) only violates one of these constraints, but the feminine candidate (b) satisfies both gender features constraints, and the single violation incurred by the masculine candidate (a) is therefore enough to eliminate it. The markedness hierarchy plays no role here since the hierarchically dominant block of gender features constraints decides the matter in favour of the feminine candidate (b). Tableau 16 hiena “hyena” [xjɛn+a] *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [xjɛn+a], m. *! * b. [xjɛn+a], f. * c. [xjɛn+a], n. * *! * Miss “miss” and klacz “mare” in Tableau 17, have two gender features constraints in conflict. Because the nouns denote biological females, the masculine candidate (a) and the neuter candidate (c) are each awarded a violation mark under *[+FEMALE]=>M,N. Because the nouns denote an animate being, the neuter candidate (c) is awarded a violation under *[+ANIM]=>N. As a result of these two gender features constraints, candidate (c) has incurred two violations and candidate (b) has not incurred even one violation. Candidate (b) is selected as the most optimal output candidate in this configuration. 36 Tableau 17. miss “miss”, klacz “mare” [mjis+Ø] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M [klaʧ+Ø] a. [mjis+Ø], m. *! * a. [kla+Ø], m. b. [mjis+Ø], f. * b. [klaʧ+Ø], f. c. [mjis+Ø], n. * *! * c. [klaʧ+Ø], n. In Tableau 18 I present the resolution of a conflict for the nominative singular nouns płoć “roach” and troć “trout”. There are two well-established gender features constraints active for this noun: a semantic constraint *[+ANIM]=>N, and the phonological-phonetic constraint *[STEMɔʨ+Ø]=>M,N. The first constraint is violated by candidate (c), since the noun denotes an animate being. The second constraint is violated by candidates (a) and (c), because the noun ends in /oć/ [ɔʨ]. The neuter candidate (c) violates both of the equally ranked constraints and is thereby eliminated. The masculine candidate (a) only violates one of these constraints, but the feminine candidate (b) is flawless, and the single violation incurred by the masculine candidate (a) is therefore enough to eliminate it. In this Tableau, the markedness hierarchy is irrelevant for selecting the optimal candidate since the hierarchically dominant block of gender features constraints decides the matter in favour of the feminine candidate (b). Tableau 18. płoć “roach”, troć “trout” [pwɔʨ+Ø] *[+ANIM]=>N *[STEMɔʨ+Ø]=>M,N *N *F *M [trɔʨ+Ø] a. [pwɔʨ+Ø], m. *! * a. [trɔʨ+Ø], m. b. [pwɔʨ+Ø], f. * b. [trɔʨ+Ø], f. c. [pwɔʨ+Ø], n. * *! * c. [trɔʨ+Ø], n. The loanwords dingo “dingo”, gringo “gringo” in Tableau 19 refer to animate beings and they have a stem ending in a vowel /+o/ [+ɔ] in the nominative singular. Since the constraints are crucially equally ranked, none of the candidates are ruled out at this point. The markedness hierarchy performs as expected, yielding the masculine candidate (a) as optimal. Tableau 19. dingo “dingo”, gringo “gringo” [ding+ɔ] *[+ANIM]=>N *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M [gring+ɔ] a. [ding+ɔ], m. * * a. [gring+ɔ], m. b. [ding+ɔ], f. * *! b. [gring+ɔ], f. c. [djing+ɔ], n. * *! c. [grjing+ɔ], n. 37 The nouns milusiński milusińsk/+i/ [mjiluɕiɲskj+i] “cuddly”, bliźni bliźn/+i/ [bliʑɲ+i] “fellow man”, but also husky husk/+i/ [xaskj+i] “husky”, grizzly grizzl/+i/ [grɨzl+i] “grizzly” of English origin along with yeti yet/+i/ [jɛt+i] “Yeti”, which most probably is a Tibetan loanword, refer to animate beings and they end in /+i/ [+i] in the nominative singular, which is a marker of neuter gender in inanimate nouns. All candidates in Tableau 20 incur one violation of the gender features constraints, leaving the conflict in a balanced state. The gender of these nouns is decided by the markedness hierarchy, which defaults to masculine. Tableau 20. husky “husky”, grizzly “grizzly”38 [xaskj+i] *[+ANIM]=>N *[+i]=>M,F *N *F *M [grɨzl+i] a. [xaskj+i], m. * * a. [grɨzl+i], m. b. [xaskj+i], f. * *! b. [grɨzl+i], f. c. [xaskj+i], n. * *! c. [grɨz+i], n. Another loanword emu in Tableau 21 conforms to the constraints: *[+ANIM]=>N, and [+u]=>M,F. As elsewhere, in situations of tie between the candidates (a), (b) and (c), the markedness hierarchy assigns in the direction of the least marked category. Tableau 21. emu “emu” [ɛm+u] *[+ANIM]=>N *[+u]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [ɛm+u], m. * * b. [ɛm+u], f. * *! c. [ɛm+u], n. * *! Non-expressive derivatives Masculine A survey of the nouns found in SJP PWN shows that the majority of the stems (here, root plus derivational suffix) of masculine non-expressive derived nouns end in a hard consonant followed by no desinence (henceforth, C+Ø). These are nouns formed with the use of deverbative, denominative, deadjectival suffixes with different amounts of productivity (e.g. budzik budz{-ik}+Ø [buʥ-ik+Ø] “alarm 38 The alternative (simplier) account explaining masculine gender of husky and grizzly (see also Tableau 19 en Tableau 21) in OGAT would be to propose a possible semantic GA rule stating that these nouns have the gender of the name of species such as pies “dog” and niedźwiedź “bear”, respectively. Exactly on what semantic rule the pre-syntactic GA is grounded in such cases (but also in many other similar cases cited earlier: sushi, whisky, etc.) remains to be formalized in OT. Due to the fact that many loanwords have some sort of subordinate status, it makes sense to have a GA constraint that links the gender of the loanword (through lexical-conceptual equivalence, hyperonymy, superordinacy, etc.) to the native noun. This type of analysis is difficult (especially in a study framed in OT) and in the presence of relatively scant amount of data it is not possible to say how robust these correlations are. With Tableaux (19)-(21) I feel on safer ground and it is my personal escape gate to account for the gender of such nouns. 38 clock”←budzić “to wake”, ciągnik ciągn{-ik}+Ø [ʨɔŋn-ik+Ø] “tractor”←ciągać “to drag”, grzmot grzm{- ot}+Ø [gʒm-ɔt+Ø] “rumble”←grzmieć “to rumble”, upadek upad{-ek}+Ø [upad-ɛk+Ø]←upaść “to fall”, (przy)siad (przy)si{-ad}+Ø [pʃɨɕ-at+Ø] “crouch, sitting position”← (przy)siadać “to perch, to sit down”, udźwig udźw-ig+Ø [uʥvj-ik+Ø] “maximum load”←udźwignąć “to manage to lift”, zwis zw{-is}+Ø [zvj- is+Ø] “sag”←zwisać “to dangle”, ratunek rat{-unek}+Ø [rat-unɛk+Ø]←ratować “to rescue”, bieg bi{- eg}+Ø [bj-ɛk+Ø] “run”← biegać “to run”, lizak liz{-ak}+Ø [liz-ak+Ø] “lollipop”← lizać “to lick”, deptak dept{-ak}+Ø [dɛpt-ak+Ø] “boardwalk”← deptać “to trample”, gołębnik gołębn{-ik}+Ø [gɔwɛmbn-ik+Ø] “dovecot”←gołąb “pigeon”, regulator regula{-tor}+Ø [rɛgula-tɔr+Ø] “regulator”←regulacja “regulation”, segregator segrega{-tor}+Ø [sɛgrɛga-tɔr+Ø] “file cabinet”←segregacja “filing”, wentylator wentyla{-tor}+Ø [vɛntɨla-tɔr+Ø] “fan”←wentylacja “ventilation”, banał ban{-ał}+Ø [ban- aw+Ø] “cliché”←banalny “banal”, socjalizm socjal{-izm}+Ø [sɔʦjal-izm+Ø] “socialism”←socjalistyczny “socialist”, to name a few). In this case, the system defaults to the stół+Ø-type of GA.39 Tableau 22 below serves to show how such non-compounded nominal lexemes are assigned their gender for the purpose of gender agreement. Tableau 22. budzik “alarm clock” [buʥ-ik+Ø] *N *F *M a. [buʥ-ik+Ø], m. * b. [buʥ-ik+Ø], f. *! c. [buʥ-ik+Ø], n. *! 39 Next to the phonological statements about the effects of the constraint on phonological shape of the stem, some nouns in CSP can be considered to have been assigned gender through another morphological process known as compounding. Omitted are nouns such as gwiazdozbiór gwiazd-o-zbiór+Ø [gvjazd-ɔ-zbjur+Ø] (lit. star+interfix+set) “constellation”, oczodół ocz-o-dół+Ø [ɔʧ-ɔ-duw+Ø] “eye socket”, nocleg noc-leg+Ø [nɔʦlɛk+Ø] “lodging”, siarkowodór siark-o-wodór+Ø [ɕark-ɔ-vɔdur+Ø] “hydrogen”, trójskok trój-skok+Ø [truj-skɔk+Ø] “triple jump”, biznesplan/business plan biznesplan/business-plan+Ø [bjiznɛs-plan+Ø] “business plan”, talk-show talk- show+Ø [tɔk-ʃɔw+Ø] “talk show”, etc.) whose gender value is exclusively determined by the last member rule. That is, the nouns are masculine because zbiór zbiór+Ø [zbjur+Ø] and dół dół+Ø [duw+Ø] are masculine, etc. and not because of the encountered (hard consonant) in the compound (see analogous argument in Steinmetz, 1986, p. 194 and p. 196 and his treatment of the German nominal compounds das Kleidungsstück “piece of clothing” and der Kontrabaß “contrabass”). Compounds in CSP do not always have the same gender as their last member (see for example czarnoziem czarn-o-ziem+Ø [ʧarn-ɔ-ʑɛm+Ø] “black earth”, płaskostopie płask-o-stopi/+e/ [pwask-ɔ-stɔpj+ɛ] “flat foot”, wod-o-głowi/+e/ [vɔd-ɔ-gwɔvj+ɛ] “hydrocephalus”). Rice (2006, footnote 13, p. 1409) points out that compounds are in fact quite a complicated aspect of the formalism of OT and suggests this is an area of future research. The criteria of nominal compoundhood or a definition for compounds are not discussed in this study. A set of nominal compounds of CSP (in the broad sense of the term, so including solid compounds, compounds proper, neoclassical compounds etc.) has been compiled from Stefańczyk (2007) and from a variety of research articles (e.g. Grzegorczykowa, Laskowski and Wróbel, 1984; Cetnarowska, 2015, 2016, 2019; Nagórko, 2016; Szymanek, 2017; Hwaszcz, Klimek-Jankowska, 2017; see further sections for more examples). Note that some compounds additionally contain an overt nominalizing suffix, added to the second stem (e.g. the suffix {-ek} [-ɛk] as in gryzipiórek gryz-i-piór-ek+Ø [grɨʑipjurɛk+Ø] “paper pusher” and bawidamek baw-i-dam-ek+Ø [bavjidamɛk+Ø]“‘ladies’ man”). 39 In this study the deadjectival nouns like głupiec “fool”←głupi “foolish” in Tableau 23 fall in the domain of the constraint on animacy which rules out the neuter candidate (c), leaving the markedness hierarchy to assign masculine gender to avoid violating *F. Tableau 23. głupiec “fool” [gwupj-ɛʦ+Ø] *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [gwupj-ɛʦ+Ø], m. * b. [gwupj-ɛʦ+Ø], f. *! c. [gwupj-ɛʦ+Ø], n. *! * Consider now gender conflict resolution, occurring outside grammar, for the input profesor “professor” when the noun is associated (at least in the native speaker’s mind) with a male referent. Tableau 24. profesor “male professor” [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], m. * b. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], f. *! * c. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], n. * *! * Although profesor “profesor” refers to a male in the example in Tableau 24, this masculine GA goes hand in hand (it co-occurs) with the version profesor (f) in Tableau 25 (also in the absence of profesorka)40 (and we, for example, do not ask why profesor (f) does not decline in the singular). The analysis in Tableaux (24) and (25) extends also to such nouns as senator (m) and senator (f), inżynier (m) and inżynier (f), premier (m) and premier (f) , just to name a few, which sound the same, but have different meanings. Consider also how an imbalanced conflict arises in CSP for the morphologically unmotivated nouns: attaché “attaché” in the shape of [ataʃ+έ], maestro “maestro” in the shape of [maɛstr+ɔ], poeta “poet” in the shape of [pɔɛt+a], sędzia “judge” in the shape of [sɛnʥ+a] which form oppositions (homonyms) in the Nom.Sg. form reflecting the social changes in society (i.e. a growing 40 Corresponding to more general tendencies in the domain of human personal nouns (e.g. student “student”, studentka “female student”), some ‘profession nouns’ have a feminine form created in the process of derivation due to the productivity of some derivational suffixes. As previously mentioned, with few exceptions (e.g. alpinistka “female mountain climber”, konduktorka “female conductor”, lekarka “female doctor”, narciarka “female skier”, nauczycielka “female teacher”, fryzjerka “female hairdresser”), many feminine derivatives are missing in SJP PWN. SJP PWN is a simple lexicographical tool, besides lexicographers wait until a word has had wide and enduring uptake before including it. The dictionary includes, as previously mentioned, the most commonly used lexemes and it uses the KJP PWN corpus of lexemes. In the KJP PWN corpus I find numerous feminine derivatives, e.g. architektka “female architect” (2 occurrences), ekolożka “female ecologist” (1 occurrence), mecenaska (4 occurrences) “female lawyer”, muzyczka “female musician” (1 occurrence), pediatrka “female pediatrician” (0 occurrences), prezeska “female chairman” (32 occurrences) [accessed 19 April 2019], and many more not yet included in many dictionaries of CSP. Wroclaw linguists have recently decided to cut this dispute of what is right and what is wrong as far as feminine derivatives are concerned and have published Słownik nazw żeńskich polszczyzny (Małocha-Krupa et. al. 2015), the first dictionary in the Polish lexicography which lists feminine forms only. Among the entries are such feminine nouns as for example brafitterka “female brafitter”, sekserka “female sexer”, tutorka “female tutor”. 40 female presence on the labour market and entering by women professional domains previously reserved for men).41 Tableau 25. profesor “female professor” [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], m. *! * b. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], f. * c. [prɔfɛs-ɔr+Ø], n. * *! * The meaning of the lexeme medalista “medalist” is in the domain ‘person’ (that information is also available in the dictionary). The noun medalista (in the shape of [mɛdal-ist+a]) and other agentive nouns that end in {-ista} [-ista] are assigned masculine gender in OGAT as in Tableau 26 (compare with the masculine GA of hermafrodyta hermafrod{-yt-}/+a/ [xɛrmafrɔd-ɨt+a] “hermaphrodite”, hipokryta hipokr{-yt-}/+a/ [xipɔkr-ɨt+a] “hypocrite”, dawca daw{-c-}/+a/ [daf-ʦ+a] “donor”, kłamca kłam{-c-}/+a/ [kwam-ʦ+a] “liar”, konserwatysta konserwat{-yst-}/+a/ [kɔnsɛrvat-ɨst+a] “conservative”, izraelita izrael{-it-}/+a/ [izraɛl-it+a] “Israelite”, etc.). Consider also gender conflict resolution for such pairs of deverbal derivatives in {-ca} [-ʦa] as dozorca dozor{-c-}/+a/ [dɔzɔr-ʦ+a] and kierowca kierow{-c-}/+a/ [kjɛrɔf-ʦ+a] “driver”, to name a few, which are quite consistently masculine and feminine in CSP at the same time (think also of tenisista tenis{-ist-}/+a/ [tɛɲiɕ-ist+a] “tennis player”, among others). Tableau 26. medalista “medalist” [mɛdal-ist+a] *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *[-ist-]=>F,N *N *F *M a. [mɛdal-ist+a], m. * * b. [mɛdal-ist+a], f. * *! c. [mɛdal-ist+a], n. * * *! * The output candidates for the masculine noun bigamista “bigamist” incur violations as in Tableau 27. The neuter output candidate (c) violates all four non-ranked constraints. The feminine candidate (b) violates the two constraints militating for masculine. The masculine candidate (a) violates only the constraint *[+a]=>M,N. Because the masculine output candidate (a) violates only one of the gender features constraints, any candidate which violates two is eliminated from further consideration. This applies to both candidates (b) and (c), as indicated by the exclamation mark after the second gender features violation which each incurs. No two candidates violate the same number of gender features constraints, and the conflict is therefore imbalanced. In Tableau 27, the markedness hierarchy is irrelevant for selecting the optimal candidate since the hierarchically dominant block of gender features constraints decides the matter in favor of the masculine candidate (a) (other representative nouns in this group are pederasta peder{-ast-}/+a/ [pɛdɛr-ast+a] “pederast”, Stwórca 41 Again, as in Steinmetz’ (1986) analysis, all compounds in the field of ‘profession nouns’ are omitted altogether (consider, for example, compounds in -pisarz like bajkopisarz bajk-o-pis-arz+Ø [bajk-ɔ-pjis-aʃ+Ø] “fabulist, writer of fables”, or combinations like zegarmistrz zegar-mistrz+Ø [zɛgar-mjistʃ+Ø] “clock maker, watch maker” involving the noun -mistrz as their head). 41 stwór{-c-}/+a/ [stfur-ʦ+a] “Creator’, tranwestyta transwest{-yt-}/+a/ [transvɛst-ɨt+a] “transvestite”, since they all denote biological males, they are animates, and they end in a derivational suffix). Tableau 27. bigamista “bigamist” [bjigam-ist+a] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *[-ist-]=>F,N *N *F *M a. [bjigam-ist+a], m. * * b. [bjigam-ist+a], f. * *! * c. [bjigam-ist+a], n. * *! * * * Feminine The majority of the feminine suffixes of non-expressive derivatives end in /+a/ [+a] in the Nom.Sg. Here again I focus on a set of regular and less productive deverbative, denominative and deadjectival suffixes (e.g. walka wal{-k-}/+a/ [val-k+a] “fight”←walczyć ‘to fight’, prośba proś{-b-}/+a/ [prɔʑ-b+a] “request”←prosić “to request”, rozbieralnia rozbier{-alni-}/+a/ [rɔzbjɛr-alɲ+a] “cloakroom”←rozbierać (się) “to undress”, wiązanka wiąz{-ank-}/+a/ [vjɔz̃ -ank+a] “bunch”←wiązać “to tie”, jadalnia jad{-alni- }/+a/ [jad-alɲ+a] “dining room”←jadać “to eat”, zdrada zdra{-d-}/+a/ [zdra-d+a] “betrayal”←zdradzać “to betray”, głowica głow{-ic-}/+a/ [gwɔvj-iʦ+a] “capital”←głowa “head”, równina równ{-in-}/+a/ [ruvɲ-in+a]←równy “plain”, tajemnica tajemn{-ic-}/+a/ [tajɛmɲ-iʦ+a] “secret”←tajemny “secret”). The most economical explanation is to assume that these nouns represent the książka type: masculine and neuter are eliminated by the constraint referring to final /+a/ [+a]: *[+a]=>M,N: it is optimal for a noun that ends in a phoneme /+a/ [+a] not to be masculine or neuter, as shown in Tableau 28. Tableau 28. prośba “request” [prɔʑ-b+a] *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [prɔʑ-b+a], m. *! * b. [prɔʑ-b+a], f. * c. [prɔʑ-b+a], n. *! * Derived singular feminine nouns which do not end in /+a/ [+a], but whose stems end in -(C)C followed by no desinence (e.g. ilość ilo{-ość}+Ø [il-ɔɕʨ+Ø] “amount”←ile “how much”, miłość mił{- ość}+Ø [mjiw-ɔɕʨ+Ø] “love”, narośl nar{-ośl}+Ø [nar-ɔɕl+Ø] “growth”, bojaźń boj{-aźń}+Ø [bɔj-aʑɲ+Ø] “fear”, przyjaźń przyj{-aźń}+Ø [pʃɨj-aʑɲ+Ø] “friendship” ←przyjazny “friendly”, dobroć dobr{-oć}+Ø [dɔbr-ɔʨ+Ø] “goodness”←dobry “good”, wilgoć wilg{-oć}+Ø [vjilg-ɔʨ+Ø] “moisture”←wilgotny “moist”, marzłoć marzł{-oć}+Ø [marzw-ɔʨ+Ø] “perpetual ice”←zmarzły “frozen, icy”) require further discussion. In this group of nouns, the suffix {-ość} [-ɔɕʨ] has derived quite a large number of abstract nouns from adjectives and other parts of speech, in a fashion similar to English {-ness} in happiness. Most of them are names of qualities (Nomina Essendi) (e.g. impulsywność impulsywn{-ość}+Ø [impulsɨvn-ɔɕʨ+Ø] “impulsiveness”←impulsywny “impulsive”, ekscentryczność ekscentryczn{-ość}+Ø [ɛksʦɛntrɨʧn-ɔɕʨ+Ø] “eccentricity”←ekscentryczny “eccentric”, koleżeńskość koleżeńsk{-ość}+Ø [kɔlɛʒɛɲsk-ɔɕʨ+Ø] “friendliness”←koleżeński “amicable”, just to name a few). The list in SJP PWN is by 42 no means exhaustive, that is, many newly coined derivatives of this type are present in other present- day dictionaries of CSP.42 Such nouns are all feminine. Since neither of these nouns have desinence, the constraint on the phonological shape of the stem assigns gender alone in OGAT. As an example, consider the noun bojaźń in Tableau 29. Tableau 29. bojaźń “fear” [bɔj-aʑɲ+Ø] *[STEMʑɲ+Ø]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [bɔj-aʑɲ+Ø], m. *! * b. [bɔj-aʑɲ+Ø], f. * c. [bɔj-aʑɲ+Ø], n. *! * The feminine non-expressive derivatives with human and animate referents in the denotation which end in the suffixes {-ica} [-iʦa], {-owa} [-ɔva], {-ka} [-ka] (to name a few) of different degrees of productivity in the function of deriving the names of animals and names of professions are all feminine in my sample (e.g. lwica lw{-ic}/+a/ [lvj-iʦ+a] “lioness”←lew “lion”, lisica lis{-ic-}/+a/ [liɕi-iʦ+a] “vixen” ←lis “vox”, tygrysica tygrys{-ic-}/+a/ [tɨgrɨɕ-iʦ+a] “tigress”←tygrys “tiger”, krawcowa krawc{-ow-}/+a/ [krafʦ-ɔv+a] “dressmaker”←krawiec “tailor”, kelnerka kelner{-k-}/+a/ [kɛlnɛr-k+a] “waitress”←kelner “waiter”, nauczycielka nauczyciel{-k-}/+a/ [nauʧɨʨɛl-k+a] “female teacher”←nauczyciel “male teacher”). Their GA to the feminine category in OGAT is presented in Tableau 30 (compare with the GA of a morphologically simple, non-derived loanword miss miss+Ø [mjis+Ø] “miss”). Tableau 30. lisica “vixen” [liɕ-iʦ+a] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [liɕ-iʦ+a], m. * *! * b. [liɕ-iʦ+a], f. * c. [liɕ-iʦ+a], n. * *! * * The singular non-expressive derivatives in {-ini}/{-yni} [-iɲi]/[-ɨɲi] (of which bogini bog{-in-}/+i/ [bɔgj-iɲ-+i]←Bóg “God”, gospodyni gospod{-yn-}/+i/ [gɔspɔd-ɨɲ+i] “hostess”←gospodarz ‘host”, morderczyni mordercz{-yn-}/+i/ [mɔrderʧ-ɨɲ+i]←morderca “murderer” are just a small sample) are in the domain of the constraints: *[+FEMALE]=>M,N, *[+ANIM]=>N, *[+i]=>M,F. They are all assigned feminine gender in my study as in Tableau 31 (compare with the GA of unmotivated noun lady lad/+i/ [lɛjd+i] “lady”, or pani pan/+i/ [paɲ+i]) “Mrs., lady”). 42 In contrast, the /STEMśl+Ø/ [STEMɕl+Ø]-rule can be used for analyzig existing nouns, but the language data shows that the rule is no longer productive in the lexicon of CSP. That is, some of the /STEMɕl+Ø/-type derivatives listed in Indeks a tergo for Doroszewski’s dictionary have been replaced with formations in /+e/ [+ɛ] in CSP (e.g. porośle, wyrośle, zarośle, see Stefańczyk, 2007, p. 25). Suchorośl sucho-rośl+Ø [suxɔ-rɔɕl+Ø] “xerophyte”, winorośl wino-rośl+Ø [vinɔ-rɔɕl+Ø] “grapevine”, latorośl lato-rośl+Ø [latɔ-rɔɕl+Ø] “sprout” are all instances of compounding with -rośl as the head (the right-hand constituent) and have been omitted from consideration in this section. 43 Tableau 31. bogini “vixen” [bɔgj-iɲ+i] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+i]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [bɔgj-iɲ+i], m. * *! * b. [bɔgj-iɲ+i], f. * * c. [bɔgj-iɲ+i], n. * *! * The feminine derivative znakomitość “oner” in Tableau 32 is in the domain of the constraint *[+ANIM]=>N, and the phonological constraint *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N, referring to the nature of the final consonant which subsumes all derivatives in {-ość} [-ɔɕʨ]. The feminine candidate (b) is selected as optimal, since it does not incur even one violation, while the other candidates (a) and (c) incur one and two violations, respectively. Tableau 32. znakomitość “oner” [znakɔmit-ɔɕʨ+Ø] *[+ANIM]=>N *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [znakɔmit-ɔɕʨ+Ø], m. *! * b. [znakɔmit-ɔɕʨ+Ø], f. * c. [znakɔmit-ɔɕʨ+Ø], n. * *! * Neuter Consider next the manner in which some singular neuter non-expressive derived nouns are assigned gender in OGAT. As argued in Section 10.2.1., and elsewhere in this thesis, if the noun ends in /+o/ [+ɔ] (e.g. pismo pis{-m-}/+o/ [pʲis-m+ɔ] “writing”, światło świat{-ł-}/+o/ [ɕfʲat-w+ɔ] “light”←świecić “to light”, pastwisko pastw{-isk-}/+o/ [pastfj-isk+ɔ] “pasture”←paść (się) “to feed”, wójtostwo wójt{-ostw- }/+o/ [vujt-ɔstf+ɔ] “voytship”←wójt “mayor”), it is neuter. This is also true if the noun ends in /+e/ [+ɛ] (e.g. życie ży{-ci-}/+e/ [ʒɨ-ʨ+ɛ] “life”←żyć “to live”, czytanie czyt{-ani-}/+e/ [ʧɨt-aɲ+ɛ] “reading”←czytać “to read”, karmienie [karmji-ɛɲ+ɛ] “feeding”←karmić “to feed”). Of these the suffixes {-anie} [-aɲɛ]/{-enie} [-ɛɲɛ] modulated by the phonological properties of the verb stem have yielded a huge number of Polish nouns (similarly to the English gerund {-ing} in swimming). These two observations are ensured by the constraints: *[+ɔ]=>M,F: it is optimal for a noun that ends in a phoneme /+o/ [+ɔ] not to be masculine or feminine, and *[+ɛ]=>M,F: it is optimal for a noun that ends in a phoneme /+e/ [+ɛ] not to be masculine or feminine, as shown in Tableau 33 and Tableau 34 below. Tableau 33. pismo “writing” [pis-m+ɔ] *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [pis-m+ɔ], m. *! * b. [pis-m+ɔ], f. *! * c. [pis-m+ɔ], n. * Tableau 34. życie “life” [ʐɨ-ʨ+ɛ] *[+ɛ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [ʐɨ-ʨ+ɛ], m. *! * b. [ʐɨ-ʨ+ɛ], f. *! * c. [ʐɨ-ʨ+ɛ], n. * 44 The neuter noun kocię “kitten” in Tableau 35 derived from the noun kot “cat” belongs to a set of animate beings (which suggests non-neuter gender), whose sex is often non-obvious (which implicates neuter gender as discussed above) and they terminate in an overt morphophonological- phonetic marker /+e/ [+ɛ] in the nominative singular (which implicates neuter gender). The recognition of the constraint *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F necessarily acknowledges the presence of two incompatible semantic characteristics. This contradiction ends in a tie which ultimately leads to (correct) neuter GA to koci+ę-type nouns in my study (compare with the masculine GA of kociak-type nouns koci{-ak}+Ø [kɔʨ-ak+Ø] “kitten”, etc.). Tableau 35. kocię “kitten” [kɔʨ+ɛ] *[+ANIM]=>N *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F *[+ɛ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [kɔtɕ+ɛ], m. * *! * b. [kɔʨ+ɛ], f. * *! * c. [kɔʨ+ɛ], n. * * Expressive derivatives Masculine The basic indicator of Polish singular masculine diminutive noun forms are suffixes in the shape of either {-ek} [-ɛk] or {-ik}/{-yk} [-ik]/[-ɨk] (e.g. nosek nos{-ek}+Ø [nɔs-ɛk+Ø] “nose, (dim.)”, kwiatek kwiat{-ek}+Ø [kfjat-ɛk+Ø] “flower, (dim.)”), but occasionally other suffixes can attach to the non- diminutive nouns to form masculine diminutives (e.g. paluszek pal{-uszek}+Ø [pal-uʃɛk+Ø] “finger, (dim.)”, brzuszek brz{-uszek}+Ø [bʒ-uʃɛk+Ø] “belly, (dim.)”). The assignment of masculine gender to these nouns coincides with the default GA. It is worth noticing that the same assignment would occur with the proposal of the correspondence constraint: the gender of the diminutive inanimate noun usually equals that of the base noun, i.e. non-diminutive inanimate noun. In this case, it would be nos nos+Ø [nɔs+Ø] is masculine, so is its diminutive form nosek nos{-ek}+Ø [nɔs-ɛk+Ø] (see Tableau 36). In my study, nothing extra needs to be said to assign correct masculine gender to stem{-ek} [-ɛk]+Ø/ or {-ik}/{-yk} [-ik]/[-ɨk]+Ø-type nouns.43 Tableau 36. nosek “nose, (dim.)” [nɔs-ɛk+Ø] *N *F *M a. [nɔs-ɛk+Ø], m. * b. [nɔs-ɛk+Ø], f. *! c. [nɔs-ɛk+Ø], n. *! For the noun flejtuch “scruff, (pej.)” in Tableau 37, the associated constraint *[+ANIM]=>N rules out the neuter candidate (c), leaving the markedness hierarchy to assign masculine gender (the other nouns which receive masculine gender in this study as in Tableau 37 are for example smok 43 Perhaps in a different approach than mine, a claim can be pursued that expressive derivatives in CSP model themselves after their non-expressive counterparts, that is the base noun bears on the GA of the derived noun. 45 smok+Ø [smɔk+Ø] “dragon”, jastrząb jastrząb+Ø [jastʃɔmp+Ø] “goshawk”, mikrob mikrob+Ø [mjikrɔp+Ø] “microbe”). Tableau 37. flejtuch “scruff, (pej.)” [flɛjt-ux+Ø] *[+ANIM]=>N *N *F *M a. [flɛjt-ux+Ø], m. * b. [flɛjt-ux+Ø], f. *! c. [flɛjt-ux+Ø], n. *! * Nouns like dziadunio, dziadzio “grandpa” (both of which carry an affectionate meaning specified in the dictionary definition) share the same overt morphophonological-phonetic marker /+o/ [+ɔ] and are masculine. Tableau 38 shows how the proposed gender features constraints interact and how the masculine candidate (a) is selected as optimal. Tableau 38. dziadunio, dziadzio “grandpa, (aff.)” [ʥad-uɲ+ɔ] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM] =>N *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M [ʥa-ʥ+ɔ] a. [ʥad-uɲ+ɔ], m. * * a. [ʥa-ʥ+ɔ], m. b. [ʥad-uɲ+ɔ], f. * *! * b. [ʥa-ʥ+ɔ], f. c. [ʥad-uɲ+ɔ], n. * *! * c. [ʥa-ʥ+ɔ], n. The evaluation of three gender candidates for the somewhat outdated noun rębajło “swashbuckler, (obs.)” is shown in Tableau 39. Tableau 39. rębajło “swashbuckler, (obs.)” [rɛmb-ajw+ɔ] *[+MALE]=>F,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [rɛmb-ajw+ɔ], m. * * b. [rɛmb-ajw+ɔ], f. * *! * c. [rɛmb-ajw+ɔ], n. * *! * Feminine All diminutive nouns in my sample which end in /+a/ [+a] (e.g. firanka firan{-k-}/+a/ [fjiran-k+a] “curtain, (dim.)”, cebulka cebul{-k-}/+a/ [ʦɛbul-k+a] “onion, (dim.)”, herbatka herbat{-k-}/+a/ [hɛrbat- k+a] “tea, (dim.)”, and others like it) are feminine. The constraint *[+a]=>M,N: it is optimal for a noun that ends in a phoneme /+a/ [+a] not to be masculine or neuter, aids in assigning feminine gender to these nouns. As an example, consider the noun firanka in Tableau 40. Tableau 40. firanka “curtain, (dim.)” [fjiran-k+a] *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [fjiran-k+a], m. *! * b. [fjiran-k+a], f. * c. [fjiran-k+a], n. *! * 46 All diminutive nouns like żabka żab{-k-}/+a/ [ʐap-k+a] “frog, (dim.)”, which additionally are in the domain of two other constraints: *[+FEMALE]=>M,N, and *[+ANIM]=>N are assigned gender as in Tableau 41. Tableau 41. żabka “frog, (dim.)” [ʐap-k+a] *[+FEMALE]=>M,N *[+ANIM]=>N *[+a]=>M,N *N *F *M a. [ʐap-k+a], m. * *! * b. [ʐap-k+a], f. * c. [ʐap-k+a], n. * * *! * Neuter Nouns like piórko piór{-k-}/+o/ [pjur-k+ɔ] “feather, (dim.)”, jabłuszko jabł{-uszk-}/+o/ [jabw-uʃk+ɔ] “apple, (dim.)”, and many others like it are associated in CSP with diminutive semantics and in SJP PWN are labelled as diminutives. The all end in /+o/ [+ɔ]. The suffix {-ko} [-kɔ] is the basic indicator of singular neuter diminutive noun forms in CSP (there are occasional stem alternations during this modification as in krzesło-krzesełko). Less frequently other suffixes are applied to form a diminutive as in jabłuszko jabł{-uszk-}/+o/ [jabw-uʃk+ɔ]. The assignment of neuter gender to these nouns coincides with the analysis presented in Tableau 6: masculine and feminine candidates are eliminated by the constraint *[+ɔ]=>M,F, leaving the candidate (c) as the optimal output form. The nouns piórko and jabłuszko in Tableau 42 serve as examples. Tableau 42. piórko “feather, (dim.)”, jabłuszko “apple, (dim.)” [pjur-k+ɔ] *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M [jabw-uʃk+ɔ] a. [pjur-k+ɔ], m. *! * a. [jabw-uʃk+ɔ], m. b. [pjur-k+ɔ], f. *! * b. [jabw-uʃk+ɔ], f. c. [pjur-k+ɔ], n. * c. [jabw-uʃk+ɔ], n. The singular neuter noun dzieciątko “baby”, which according to SJP PWN, has affectionate semantics, has three gender features in conflict. The noun is in the group of animate and human beings yet too young to be considered sexually mature. Two constraints are then active: *[+ANIM]=>N, and *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F. Formally, the noun terminates in an overt morphophonological-phonetic marker /+o/ [+ɔ] which is part of the nominalizing suffix {-ątko} [-ɔntkɔ]. As is evident from Tableau 43, masculine and feminine candidates (a) and (b) are not an option in this configuration. The hierarchically dominat block of gender features constraints yields correct neuter GA for this expressive derivative (compare for example with neuter GA of żyjątko żyj{-ątk-}/+o/ [ʒɨj-ɔntk+ɔ] “micro-organism”, which lacks expressive semantics, or the neuter gender of bobo bob/+o/ [bɔb+ɔ] “kiddy”, which refers to a generic/non-gender-specific child, which is morphologically, a non-derived noun). 47 Tableau 43. dzieciątko “baby, (aff.)” [ʥɛʨ-ɔntk+ɔ] *[+ANIM]=>N *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F *[+ɔ]=>M,F *N *F *M a. [ʥɛʨ-ɔntk+ɔ], m. * *! * b. [ʥɛʨ-ɔntk+ɔ], f. * *! * c. [ʥɛʨ-ɔntk+ɔ], n. * * 11. Accountability - Provisional conclusion Filtering out the compounds has reduced the number relevant for gender analysis to 16,886 nouns. The set of non-ranked gender features constraints: *[+a]=>M,N, *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕl+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMʑɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMiʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMrʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[+ɔ]=>M,F, *[+ɛ]=>M,F, *[+έ]=>M,F, *[+i]=>M,F, *[+í]=>M,F, *[+u]=>M,F, *[+á]=>M,F, *[STEMum+Ø]=>M,F, *[[-ak-], [-ast-], [-ʦ-], [-ist-], [-ɨst-], [-it-], [-ɨt-]]=>F,N, *[+MALE]=>F,N, *[+FEMALE]=>M,N, *[+ANIM]=>N, *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F, and three markedness constraints *NEUTER >> *FEMININE >> *MASCULINE have yielded an accountability of GA of nearly 99% in my sample (i.e. the rule set covers 16,696 of the 16,886 nouns in my sample), leaving the nouns below and in Appendix IV not yet accounted for. In (27) I only provide the gender tables of these not yet accountable exceptions. (27) analfabeta “illiterate” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) apologeta “apologist’’ [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) apostata “apostate” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) asceta “ascetic” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) babsztyl “hag, (pej.)” [+female=f, +animate=mf] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) biedactwo “poor thing” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) boa “boa constrictor” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) bonza “poo-bah” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) bożyszcze “deity” [+animate=mf, /+e/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) bóstwo “deity” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) bydlę “horned animal” [+animate=mf, /+e/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) chuchro “frail bodied person” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) czupiradło “fright” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) despota “despot” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) dziewczę “girl, lass” [+female=f, +animate=mf, /+e/=n] 1m 2f 1n=f (wrong gender) dziewczynisko “girl” [+female=f, +animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 2f 1n=f (wrong gender) 48 dziwadło “oddity, (coll.)” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) gamoń “clod” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) esteta “aesthete” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) filareta “filaret” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) filomata “philomath” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) gęś “goose” [+animate=mf] 1m 1f 0n=m (wrong gender) gość “guest” [+animate=mf, /STEMść+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) gryzoń “rodent” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) idiota “idiot” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) koń “horse” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) indywiduum “individual” [+animate=mf, /STEMum+Ø/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) inwalida “disabled person” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) jaź “ide” [+animate=mf] 1m 1f 0n=f (wrong gender) nicpoń “scallywag” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) licho “evil spirit” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) łabędź “swan” [+animate=mf, /STEMńć+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) matczysko “mother” [+female=f, +animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 2f 1n=f (wrong gender) medium “medium” [+animate=mf, /STEMum+Ø/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) monstrum “monster” [+animate=mf, /STEMum+Ø/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) mysz “mouse” [+animate=mf] 1m 1f 0n=m (wrong gender) niebożę “poor thing” [+animate=mf, /+e/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) niewiniątko “innocent” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) nomada “nomad” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) okoń “bass” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) pacholę “lad” [+male=m, +animate=mf, /+e/=n] 2m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) patriota “patriot” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) podlotek “teenage girl” [+female=f, +animate=mf] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) poliglota “polyglot” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) słoń “elephant” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) satrapa “despot” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) skąpiradło “miser, (coll.)” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) straszydło “scarecrow” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) 49 wagabunda “vagrant” [+animate=mf, /+a/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) turoń “turon” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) wamp “vamp” [+female=f, +animate=mf] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender)44 wesz “louse” [+animate=mf] 1m 1f 0n=m (wrong gender) widmo “apparition” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) wałkoń “shirker, (pej.)” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) widziadło “apparition” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) złotko “dear person, (aff.)” [+animate=mf, /+o/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) wigoń “vicuna” [+animate=mf, /STEMoń+Ø/=f] 1m 2f 0n=f (wrong gender) kakadu “kakadu” [+animate=mf, /+u/=n] 1m 1f 1n=m (wrong gender) Although it is now possible to account for the gender for the majority of nouns in my sample, a future goal is to increase this percentage as much as possible. In order to handle the not yet accountable exceptions within the framework of the present theory of GA, it would be necessary to append an additional rule to the gender table such that the modified gender table assigns correct gender. I will not attempt to explicate additional rules/constraints. The gender features constraints proposed thus far are plausible generalizations, that is, they come up over and over in the literature dealing with GA system of CSP. The claim is that only by looking at the entire lexicon (at every possible morphohonological-phonetic structural form of every Polish noun), with a total set of rules, claims can be made about non-ranking of gender features constraints. Only then we might find an individual noun or nouns whose gender is not systematically assigned, and which might represent true exception(s) within the GA system of CSP. Take for instance the noun babsztyl babsztyl+Ø [bapʃtɨl+Ø] “hag, (pej.)”, which is unarguably masculine. The rules/constraints proposed thus far assign feminine gender to this noun, as indicated in (27), making *okropn-aF babsztyl+ØF “this hag, (pej.)” ungrammatical in CSP. The masculine noun babsztyl and the feminine noun zołza zołz/+a/ [zɔwz+a] “shrew, (coll.)”, for example (see Section 10.3. for a preliminary GA of the noun zołza) are both a kind of [+female]. The noun babsztyl is defined in SJP PWN as “an unfriendly or ugly woman” and it is listed as connotating a pejorative/derogatory meaning, whereas the noun zołza is defined in SJP PWN as “a quarrelsome, nagging woman”. Future research looking at these nouns has to establish the semantic field the nouns belong to, next to the unquestionable membership of these nouns in the semantic field [+female]. SJP PWN is a simple lexicographical tool. Depending on which dictionary one looks in, definitions are supplemented with 44 See Onysko, 2007, p. 158 for what may be considered to count in masculine gender determination of the loanword wamp wamp+Ø [wamp+Ø] “vamp”. 50 semantic usage labels ‘pejorative’, ‘derogatory’, ‘diminutive’, ‘affectionate’, ‘ironic’, ‘offensive’, ‘jocular’, ‘derisory’, ‘vulgar’, etc. which indicate the features of different words.45 In general, it has been frequently argued in the literature dealing with GA that semantic rules, with some significant exceptions, are based on more hypothetical assumptions about a noun belonging to a certain semantic field (very much dependent upon individual interpretation), and that morphological and phonological rules constitute a stronger foundation of certainty than semantic rules/constraints (e.g. Nelson, 1998, p. 206). For example, for the sake of analysis, the gender of expressive derivatives (diminutives, augmentatives, affectionates, pejoratives) from (27) (e.g. dziewczynisko dziewczyn{-isk-}/+o/ [ʥɛfʧɨɲ-isk+ɔ] “with contempt or anger about a girl”, matczysko matcz{-ysk-}/+o/ [matʧ-ɨsk+ɔ] “with compassion about a mother”) may be explained by incorporating a rule/constraint which take the noun’s morphological structure further into account. Summary and Conclusion The main goal of this thesis was to present a preliminary analysis of GA in CSP using Steinmetz (1986, 2006) default-based model of GA. The vantage point was the set of three genders (one also has in Russian, etc.) and their traditional and existing labels: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The analysis of GA presented in this thesis is appealing in its simplicity: what I have dealt with are lexemes in the nominative singular which are, so to speak, severed from true contexts of use (where the Polish linguistic literature proves that they are assigned a gender value in a different way with much idiosyncratic variation, for example). I have followed the claim that for the majority of nouns in CSP there is no objective necessity of looking upon the nominative singular of the noun itself as compelling one to make a choice between three possibilities: masculine, feminine, or neuter. Following Steinmetz (1986, 2006), the underlying assumption was that there is an explanation why, for example, tato is masculine, żabka is feminine, and jabłuszko is neuter in CSP. I have made an attempt to determine the mechanism by which adult native speakers of Polish produce only the correct variants, in other words, how they know the gender of nouns. The SJP PWN served as a source of nouns only, and not of the gender values, despite the fact that it provides the gender values: masculine, feminine, or neuter assigned by the general Polish population. What makes this study particularly interesting is the fact that it took an experimental approach to its subject matter which involved a single adult native speaker of Standard Polish to decide between the three genders. It was believed that the context of a spontaneous GA judgement results in a clear indication of the adult native speaker’s everyday choice of gender of the nouns in the nominative singular compared to the refined and edited GA appearing in dictionaries, or other reference sources. With this study I hope to have provided an initial 45 See also Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina, 1984. p. 369 for the recognition of the {-sztyl} [ʃtɨl] nominalizing expressive suffix. 51 contribution to the series of papers by Rice (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) in which he has relied on Optimal Gender Assignment Theory and the notion that universally, gender is assigned based on a set of crucially non-ranked gender features constraints and markedness constraints. I have advanced the following gender features constraints bearing on the pre-syntactic assignment of gender to nouns in CSP: *[+a]=>M,N, *[STEMɕʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕl+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɕɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMʑɲ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɲʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMaʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMiʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMɔʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[STEMrʨ+Ø]=>M,N, *[+ɔ]=>M,F, *[+ɛ]=>M,F, *[+έ]=>M,F, *[+i]=>M,F, *[+í]=>M,F, *[+u]=>M,F, *[+á]=>M,F, *[STEMum+Ø]=>M,F, *[[- ak-], [-ast-], [-ʦ-], [-ist-], [-ɨst-], [-it-], [-ɨt-]]=>F,N, *[+MALE]=>F,N, *[+FEMALE]=>M,N, *[+ANIM]=>N, *[-MALE -FEMALE]=>M,F, and three markedness constraints *NEUTER >> *FEMININE >> *MASCULINE. Assuming the non-ranked character of the gender features constraints, the rule set suffices to account for nearly 99% of GA in my sample of non-compounded nominal lexemes. The number involved is actually larger because there are, for example, many diminutive (affectionate) forms of male names (e.g. Józio, Grzesio, Kazio, Stasio, Tadzio) and well-known family names (e.g. Fredro, Jagiełło, Kościuszko) which do not surface in SJP PWN. The gender features constraints proposed thus far are plausible generalizations, that is, they come up over and over in the literature dealing with GA system of CSP. Whereas the accountability score seems encouraging enough, the most pressing issue (in terms of this study) left for future research is to increase this percentage as much as possible. More precisely, future research may find it interesting to look at the whole Polish nominal lexicon in search for additional rules, in order to account for the gender of nouns the model does not currently account for. Admittedly, one can then propose other less ramified picture of a default-based GA related to the complete empirical material. In my study, certain nouns had to be eliminated from the analysis. These included nouns vacillating in gender (e.g. chłopisko “big fellow”), kaleka-type nouns, among others. All the facts about kaleka-type nouns (and ‘profession nouns’, but to a lesser extent) lead us to recognize that in the actual language use there is no one category of gender. An attempt has been made to capture ‘profession nouns’ in the system. Incorporating them in the picture and appying the set of constraints advanced thus far, has significantly increased accountability for GA in CSP. Future research should take a look at the patterns for the inanimate nouns set aside as counterexamples (see Appendix IV) to the proposed GA rules, which could often be due to diachronic factors (i.e. historical development of the Polish GA system) (see also Steinmetz, 1986, p. 210 for German). In this study, where possible, I have tried to account for GA of as many loanwords as possible on the basis of the regularities in GA of nouns belonging to the native vocabulary. I have followed the claim that in the case of recent loanwords, adult native speakers of Standard Polish may considerably differ in their gender choice. I think that these nouns (along with other new lexemes constantly entering the nominal lexicon of CSP) deserve a separate study in connection with GA (perhaps involving explanation on the 52 part of the speaker why she/he assigns a particular gender value). Appendix IV is also useful to anyone studying or teaching Polish. Assuming the non-ranked character of GA rules, it would be particularly interesting to see how Optimal Gender Assignment Theory would handle expressive derivatives (augmentatives, diminutives, affectionates, pejoratives), which as I have outlined, involve complexities with regard to GA in CSP. 53 References Awramiuk, E., Krasowicz-Kupis, G. and Smoczyńska, M. (2017). “Early literacy policy and practice in Poland”. In Kucirkova, N. et al. (eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Early Literacy Education: A Contemporary Guide to Literacy Teaching and Interventions in a Global Context. New York: Routledge. Bogusławski A. (2009). On Case, Gender and Related Phenomena in Polish (for the umpteenth time), Linguistica Copernicana, 1 (1), 13-75. Carvalho, D. S. (2016). Remarks on the complexity of gender. Cadernos de Squibs 2, n. 1, p. 10-19, 2016. Cetnarowska, B. (2015). The lexical/phrasal status of Polish Noun+Adjective or Noun+Noun combinations and the relevance of coordination as a diagnostic test. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 12 (3), 142-170. Cetnarowska, B. (2016). “Identifying (heads of) copulative appositional compounds in Polish and English”. In Štekauer, P., Körtvelyessy, L. and Valera, S. (eds.) Word-Formation Across Languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 51-71. Cetnarowska, B. (2019). “Compounds and multi-word expressions in Polish”. In Schlücker, B. (eds.) Complex Lexical Units: Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions (Series: Konvergenz und Divergenz), 279-306. Berlin: de Gruyter. Comrie, B. (1999). Grammatical gender systems: a linguist's assessment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(5), 457- 466. Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. and Fraser, N. (2000). “Default genders”. In Unterbeck, B, et al. (eds.) Gender in grammar and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 55-97. Corbett, G. (2013). The Expression of Gender. The Expression of Cognitive Categories. Ed. Corbett. Berlin. Dahl, Ö. (2000). “Animacy and the notion of semantic gender”. In Unterbeck, B. and Rissanen, M. (eds.) Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 99-115. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Doroszewski, W. (eds.). (1958-1969). Słownik języka polskiego. T. I-XI. Warszawa, PWN. Drabik, L. (et al). (2014). Słownik języka polskiego PWN [The Dictionary of the Polish Language], 3rd edition. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. http://sjp.pwn.pl. Dubisz, S. (2003). Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego [The Universal Dictionary of Polish]. Vol. 1-6. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Dukiewicz, L. and Sawicka, I. (1995). “Fonetyka i fonologia”. In: Wróbel, H., Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. 54 Enger, H. O. (2009). The role of core and non-core semantic rules in gender assignment. Lingua, (119), 1281-1299. Feldstein, R. (2001). A Concise Polish Grammar. Durham and Chapel Hill: Slavic and East European Language Resource Center. Online access: http://seelrc.org:8080/grammar/pdf/compgrammar_polish.pdf Galbreath, B. L. E. (2010). Gender Assignment in Contemporary Standard Russian: A Comprehensive Analysis in Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, University of Virginia. Grzegorczykowa, R. and Puzynina, J. (1984). “Słowotwórstwo rzeczowników” [Derivation of nouns] In Grzegorczykowa, R. (et al.) (eds.), 332-404. Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R. and Wróbel, H. (eds.) (1984). Gramatyka Współczesnego Języka Polskiego: Morfologia [A grammar of present-day Polish. Morphology]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R. and Wróbel, H. (eds.) (1999). Gramatyka Współczesnego Języka Polskiego: Morfologia [A grammar of present-day Polish. Morphology]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Hockett, Ch. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hołowiak, D. (2012). “The Impact of the Feminist Movement on the Lexicon of Contemporary Polish”. In Chowaniec, U. and Phillips, U., Women’s Voices and Feminism in Polish Cultural Memory. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Hunt, J. W. (2018). The gender of anglicisms in spoken German. Word, 64 (2), 103-125. Hwaszcz, K. and Klimek-Jankowska, D. (2017). The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing of Compound Words in Polish: Evidence from a Masked Priming Experiment, Studies in Polish Linguistics, 11 (3), pp. 145–145. Janssen, B. E. (2014). “Frequency effects on the acquisition of Polish and Russian gender morphology”. In Fortuin, E., Houtzagers, P., Kalsbeek, J. and Dekker, S. (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the Fifteenth International Congress of Slavists, Minsk, August 20-27, 2013 (Studies in General and Slavic Linguistics, 40). Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi, 109-126. Janssen, B. E. (2016). The acquisition of gender and case in Polish and Russian: A study of monolingual and bilingual children. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Pegasus. Kilarski, M. And Orzechowska, P. (2007). The role of phonotactics in gender assignment in Polish. Paper presented at the 38th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, Gniezno, 13-16, September 2007. Abstract: http://wa.amu.edu.pl/plm_old/2007/files/Abstracts/PLM2007_Abstract_Kilarski_Orzechowska .pdf (Abstract) http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/plm_old/2007/files/Presentations/PLM2007_Presentation_Kilarski_Orze chowska.pdf (Power Point presentation) 55 Koziarski, M. and Krysiak, A.P. (2012). Rodzaj gramatyczny rzeczownika jako nośnik informacji pozagramatycznej I. Przegląd literatury dotyczącej rodzaju gramatycznego, Investigationes Linguisticae XXVI, p. 20–38. Köpcke, K. M. (1982). Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Lazova, M. V. et al. (eds.) (1974). Obratnyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Reverse Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Moscow: Sovetskaja Enciklopedija. Małocha-Krupa, A. (eds.). (2015). Słownik nazw żeńskich polszczyzny [The Dictionary of Polish Feminine Forms]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Mausch, H. (2003). Current alternations in inflection of Polish masculine inanimate nouns in the singular: A pilot study. Investigationes Linguisticae, 9:1-21. McClelland, J. L., and Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86. McShane, M. J. (2003). An innovative methodology for learning Polish inflection. Munich: LINCOM. Europa. Nagórko, A. (2016). “Polish”. In Müller, P. O. et al. (eds.). Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, p. 2831–2852 . Nelson, D. (1998). Prolegomena to a German gender dictionary, Word 49 (2), 205-224. Nowosad-Balakarczyk, M. (2009). Płeć a rodzaj gramatyczny we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. Onysko, A. (2007). Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, Lexical Productivity, and Written Codeswitching. Berlin: De Gruyter. Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder. Rice, C. (2003). Optimizing gender. Ms. University of Tromsø. Under journal review. Rice, C. (2004). Optimizing Russian Gender. Handout for a talk presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL13), University of South Carolina. Rice, C. (2005). Optimizing Russian Gender: A Preliminary Analysis, in Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting, ed. by Franks, S., Gladney F.Y. and Tasseva- Kurktchieva, M., Ann Arbor MI, Michigan Slavic Publications, 265-275. Online access: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/389c/e0aa4cb053e06535bd46931264d739cc72ce.pdf [retrieved 16 March 2019] Rice, C. (2006). Optimizing gender, Lingua, 116, 1394-1417. Rice, C. et al. (2010). Obituary: Donald Steinmetz, 1938-2009. https://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21- 2.html [retrieved 16 March 2019]. 56 Rodina, Y. and Westergaard, M. (2017). Grammatical gender in bilingual Norwegian-Russian Acquisition: The role of input and transparency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, vol. 20 (1). Safarewicz, J. (1972). Wpływ łaciński na system gramatyczny polszczyzny. In Symbolae Polonicae in honorem Stanislai Jodłowski. Wrocław, 1972, p. 145-150. Schwichtenberg, B. and Schiller, N.O. (2004). Semantic gender assignment regularities in German. Brain and Language, 90, 326-337. SJP PWN = Drabik, L. (et al) (2014). Słownik języka polskiego PWN [The Dictionary of the Polish Language], 3rd edition. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Stankiewicz, E. (1986). The Slavic languages: Unity in Diversity. Mouton de Gruyter. Stefańczyk, W. (2007). Kategoria rodzaju i przypadka polskiego rzeczownika. Próba synchronicznej analizy morfologicznej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Stefańczyk, W. (2015). Zmiany we współczesnym polskim systemie fleksyjnym (na materiale rzeczownikowym i przymiotnikowym), LingVaria, 20, 97-106. Seretny, A. and Stefańczyk, W. (2017). Współczesne ujęcia kategorii rodzaju gramatycznego w polszczyźnie a praktyka (glotto)dydaktyczna-wprowadzenie. Postscriptum Polonistyczne, 1 (19), p. 71-85. Steinmetz, D. (1986). Two principles and some rules for gender in German: Inanimate nouns. Word, 37, 189-217. Steinmetz, D. (2000). Lectures on gender. Tromsø. Steinmetz, D. (2006). Gender shifts in Germanic and Slavic: semantic motivation for neuter? Lingua, 116, 1418-1440. Sussex, R. and Cubberly, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swan, O. E. (2003). Polish Grammar in a Nutshell. Online access: https://www.pdfdrive.com/polish- grammar-in-a-nutshell-polish-language-website-d192260.html Swan, O. E. (2015). Polish Gender, Subgender, and Quasi-Gender, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, vol. 23 (1), 83-122. Szymanek, B. (2017). Compounding in Polish and the absence of phrasal compounding. In C. Trips and J. Kornfilt (eds.), Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding, 49-79. Berlin: Language Science Press. Trosterud, T. (2006). Gender assignment in Old Norse. Lingua, 116, 1441–1463. USJP = Dubisz, S. (2003). Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego [The Universal Dictionary of the Polish Language]. T. I-VI. Warszawa. Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Rodzaj gramatyczny w języku polskim - przegląd koncepcji, Polonica, XXXIV, 155- 166. 57 Wtorkowska, M. (2011). Problemy fonetyczne Słoweńców uczących się języka polskiego, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców 18, 243-252. Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Zagórska-Brooks, M. (1975). Polish Reference Grammar. Mounton, The Hague. Zaron Z. (2004). Aspekty funkcjonalne polskiej kategorii rodzaju. Charakterystyka fleksyjna, Warszawa- Puńsk. 58 APPENDIX I: Some adjective-shaped nouns in SJP PWN included in the analysis. becikowe “sure start maternity grant”, bliźni “fellow man”, bratowa “sister-in-law”, dzielna “dividend”, frycowe “joining fee”, komorne “rent”, krawcowa “dressmaker”, królowa “queen”, księżna “princess”, milusiński “cuddly”, mnożna “multiplicand”, narzeczona “fiancée”, narzeczony “fiancé”, odjemna “minuend”, odstępne “compensation”, okostna “periosteum”, opłucna “pleura”, otrzewna “peritoneum”, ozębna “periodontium”, pieczyste “roast meat”, położna “midwife”, przegrana “defeat”, przekątna “diagonal”, radna “female councilor”, radny “male councilor”, salowa “hospital porter”, symetralna “bisector”, synowa “daughter-in-law”, teściowa “mother-in-law”, wychodne “day off”, wygrana “win”, wytyczna “guideline”, zastępowy “patrol leader”, znaleźne “finder’s reward”. 59 APPENDIX II: Examples of ‘profession nouns’ in Nom.Sg. in their generic, predicative, and titular meaning in SJP PWN. aktorzyna “actor, (pej.)”, alergolog “allergologist”, ambasador “ambassador”, anglista “Anglicist”, antropolog “anthropologist”, aptekarz “chemist”, archeolog “archaeologist”, archimandryta “archimandrite”, architekt “architect”, attaché “attaché”, bibliotekarz “librarian”, bileter “attendant”, biolog “biologist”, biskup “bishop”, blacharz “whitesmith”, chemik “chemist”, chirurg “surgeon”, cukiernik “confectioner”, cześnik “cup-bearer”, dentysta “dentist”, dermatolog “dermatologist”, doktor “doctor”, dyrygent “conductor”, ekonomista “economist”, ekspedient “shop assistant”, europeista “Europeanist”, funkcjonariusz “officer”, germanista “Germanist”, gliniarz “cop”, górnik “miner”, grafolog “graphologist”, hebraista “Hebraist”, hematolog “hematologist”, historyk “historian”, hotelarz “hotelkeeper”, hutnik “steel factory worker”, impresario “impresario”, introligator “bookbinder”, inżynier “engineer”, jubiler “jeweler”, kapitan “captain”, kapłan “priest”, kapral “corporal”, kardiolog “cardiologist”, kardynał “cardinal”, kasjer “cashier”, klecha “priest, (pej.)”, kryminolog “criminologist”, lektor “lector”, leśnik “forester”, librecista “librettist”, łapiduch “medico, (pej.)”, ławnik “alderman”, maestro “maestro”, magnificencja “magnificence”, maharadża “maharajah”, marszałek “marshal”, mecenas “lawyer”, mnich “monk”, notariusz “notary”, numizmatyk “numismatist”, nuncjusz “nuncio”, okulista “oculist”, onkolog “oncologist”, ordynator “senior registrar”, paparazzo “paparazzo”, papież “Pope”, pilot “pilot”, pismak “hack, (pej.)”, poeta “poet”, prałat “prelate”, premier “Prime Minister”, prezes “president”, profesor “professor”, prymas “primate”, radiolog “radiologist”, redaktor “editor”, rektor “rector”, restaurator “restaurateur”, scenarzysta “screenwriter”, sędzia “judge”, sierżant “sergeant”, starosta “prefect (of a district)”, stolarz “carpenter”, szef “boss”, ślusarz “locksmith”, tokarz “lathe-operator”, tramwajarz “tram driver”, ufolog “ufologist”, wikariusz “vicar”, wójt “village mayor”, zakonnik “monk”, żołnierz “soldier”, żongler “juggler”. 60 APPENDIX III: A list of 54 animate nouns in SJP PWN ending in /+a/ [+a] in Nom.Sg. which can be assigned two gender values: masculine or feminine. beksa “crybaby”, chwalipięta “boaster”, ciamajda “slouch”, ciapa “slouch”, ciemięga “dullard”, fajtłapa “butterfingers”, gaduła “chatterbox”, gapa “clumsy oaf”, ględa “blather”, guzdrała “dawdler”, jąkała “stutterer”, kaleka “cripple”, kanalia “scoundrel”, kuternoga “cripple”, kutwa “skinflint”, liczykrupa “skinflint”, łachmyta “scoundrel”, łachudra “scoundrel”, łazęga “tramp”, maruda “grumbler”, mądrala “wiseacre”, nieboga “poor dear”, niedojda “duffer”, niedołęga “lout”, niedorajda “bungler”, niemota “slouch”, niemowa “dummy”, niezdara “oaf”, niezgraba “butterfingers”, oferma “wimp”, papla “babbler”, paskuda “harm”, pleciuga “prattler”, płaksa “crybaby”, poczciwina “softie”, półsierota “half-orphan”, przybłęda “stray”, safanduła “dud”, samochwała “braggart”, sierota “orphan”, skarżypyta “sneak”, sknera “miser”, starowina “crone”, szelma “rogue”, szuja “scoundrel”, ślamazara “slowcoach”, trusia “bunny”, wiercipięta “fidget”, wyga “old hand”, wywłoka “rogue”, zadziora “brawler”, zakała “black sheep”, znajda “foundling”, zrzęda “grumbler”. 61 APPENDIX IV: Counterexamples in SJP PWN (inanimate nouns) being historical relic in CSP Nouns with stem-final synchronic soft ending /ść/ [ɕʨ] in Nom.Sg. being masculine: m: liść “leaf”, gwóźdź “nail” Nouns with stem-final synchronic soft ending /oń/ [ɔɲ] in Nom.Sg. being masculine: m: mahoń “mahogany”, tytoń “tobacco” Noun with stem-final hard consonant in Nom.Sg. being feminine: f: głąb “depths” Nouns ending in a hard consonant in Nom.Sg. being neuter: n: rekwiem/requiem “requiem”, jot “the letter J” Nouns ending in a historically soft consonant (which have since hardened in CSP) being feminine: f: kolej “rail”, biel “white”, gardziel “throat”, kądziel “distaff”, zgorzel “gangrene”, kąpiel “bath”, kipiel “billows”, piszczel “shin”, pościel “bedding”, topiel “deep water”, torbiel “cyst”, stal “steel”, dal “distance”, sól “salt”, kradzież “theft”, młodzież “youth”, odzież “clothing”, rubież “borderline”, grabież “plunder”, podróż “journey”, brew “eyebrow”, brukiew “Swedish turnip”, cerkiew “Orthodox church”, chorągiew “banner”, konew “water-jug”, kotew “anchor”, krew “blood”, krokiew “roofspar”, marchew “carrot”, rzodkiew “radish”, warząchew “ladle”, żagiew “torch”, naręcz “armful”, obręcz “rim”, poręcz “handrail”, przełęcz “mountain pass”, noc “night”,46 moc “strength”, rozpacz “despair”, rzecz “thing”, odwilż “thaw”, odprzedaż “resale”, sprzedaż “sale”, wyprzedaż “sell-off”, podaż “supply”, straż “watch”, uprząż “harness”, gorycz “bitterness”, zdobycz “prize”, słodycz “sweetness”, rozpacz “despair”, odsiecz “relief”, ciecz “liquid”, dzicz “wilderness”, gicz “shank”, potwarz “defamation”, twarz “face”, rozkosz “joy” Nouns ending in /+a/ [+a] in Nom.Sg. being neuter: n: pas “dance step” Nouns with stem-final synchronic soft ending in Nom.Sg. being feminine: f: gałąź “branch”, więź “connexion”, uwięź “tether”, maź “slime”, rzeź “slaughter”, czerń “black”, darń “turf”, czerwień “red”, goleń “crus”, jesień “autumn”, kieszeń “pocket”, pieczeń “roast”, przestrzeń “space”, sień “hall”, szreń “covering of ice”, zieleń “green”, wieś “village”, żółć “bile”, chuć “desire”, śnieć “blight”, płeć “sex”, sieć “net”, zamieć “blizzard”, spowiedź “confession”, śniedź “patina”, wypowiedź “statement”, zapowiedź “announcement”, gawiedź “idle spectators”, gołoledź “black ice”, 46 The nouns północ pół+noc+Ø [puw-nɔʦ+Ø] (lit. half+night) “midnight, north”, równonoc równ-o-noc+Ø [ruvn- ɔ-nɔʦ+Ø] (lit. equal+interfix+night) “equinox”, Wielkanoc Wielka+Noc+Ø [vjɛlka-nɔʦ+Ø] (lit. great+night) “Easter” are, of course, normally regarded as compounds in CSP with -noc as the right-hand constituent, and they are not mentioned in the Appendix (along with other compounds). 62 miedź “copper”, odpowiedź “answer”, powódź “flood”, łódź “boat”, oś “axis”, ruń “browse”, pierś “breast” Semantically inanimate nouns ending in [+i], [+í], [+ɔ], [+ɛ], [+u], in Nom.Sg. not being neuter (effect of the lexical-conceptual equivalent in CSP). The lexical-conceptual equivalent follows in the second column: vox populi “vox populi” (m) głos (m) społeczeństwa CD (f) płyta (f) DVD (f) płyta (f) grand prix (f) nagroda (f) bon mot (m) dowcip (m) brie “brie” (m) ser (m) interview/interwiew (m) wywiad (m) papamobile “popemobile” (m) samochód/pojazd (m) pepsi (f) cola (f) suahili “Swahili” (m) język (m) yale “Yale lock” (m) zamek (m) do drzwi publicity (f) popularność (f) kamikadze/kamikaze (m) samolot (m) whisky (f) wódka (f) empire (m) styl (m) Some effects of the lexical-conceptual equivalent in other native nouns and loanwords: boa “feather or fur scarf” (n) futro (n) klituś bajduś “baloney” (n) kłamstwo (n) katharsis “catharsis” (n) rozładowanie/oczyszczenie (n) body “body suit” (n) ubranie (n) hura/hurra “hooray” (n) wykrzyknienie (n) luty “February” (m) miesiąc (m) bon ton (m) sposób (m) bycia Szoah/Shoah (n) zniszczenie (n) Żydów 63 ,