Abstract
This study cross-compares three basic phonological approaches to syncope and vowel shortening in Cairene Arabic. The phenomena addressed have been examined within the rule-based, autosegmental and Optimality Theory frameworks with the aim of assessing the effectiveness and shortcomings of using inviolable rules vis-a-vis universal violable constraints. Findings show that the strict application of the general rules and principles within the rule-based and autosegmental approaches often results in some ill-formed output. This, therefore, rationalizes the frequent resort to language-specific rules to account for particular grammatical constructions. Optimality Theory, on the other hand, compels no language-specific restrictions on the input as the optimal form is not emanated by principles or parameters. Rather, it is derived by satisfying the maximum number or incurring the least violations of the relevant universal constraints. Accordingly, principles and generalizations are expressed more straightforwardly and economically with the constraint-based approach of Optimality Theory.