Skip to main content

The Belarusian Genitive plural: a case for reanalysis

Abstract

The paper presents new data from ongoing morphological change in the Standard Belarusian nominal declension that potentially bear on the nature of phonology-morphology interactions. It is generally accepted that the allomorphs in the Genitive plural case are /-Ø/, /-ow/, and /-ej/, and that some version of the /-ow/ allomorph is now being extended from Declension Ia to other declension classes. The spread of this change in some classes is sensitive to a phonotactic condition that does not normally interact with morphology elsewhere. Thus Belarusian suppletive allomorphy shows some output optimization, or Phonology > Morphology effects. The allomorph being extended to feminine nouns is the unstressed pronunciation of /-ow/, the neutralized [-aw] (< /-ow/). I suggest that this phonologically predictable [-aw] has at some point been reanalyzed as an independent lexical allomorph /-aw/ which must be “unstressed”. In a model of the grammar where phonology and morphology are interleaved, I show that the /-aw/ is implemented by a constraint GenPl: /-aw/ which is ranked with respect to a phonological constraint (YerDep) and the other GenPl Decl constraints implementing /-Ø/, /-ow/, and /-ej/. The “unstressability” of /-aw/ is said to be due to Lexical Conservatism (Steriade 1999a, 1999b); there are no instances of Gen plural [-áw] in Belarusian. The nature of this innovation raises questions about the architecture of phonology-morphology interactions and the representation of lexical allomorphy in the grammar.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The standard language is based on the central transitional dialects and has features of both southwestern and northeastern Belarusian. There are two versions of the standard language in use, a reformed standard after 1933 and the earlier unreformed standard (Wexler 1977) which was used in communities abroad and which re-emerged in Belarus in the late 1980’s, especially among the younger generation (Dubina 2012). The latter uses different (older) Dat and Prep plural suffixes in Class I nouns, /-om/ and /-ox/ under stress, though Dubina (p.c.) reports that the usage in Belarus today is more fluid, with both /-am/ and /-om/, /-ax/ and /-ox/, and the suffixes with /a/ tend to prevail. In unstressed position, these suffixes are [-am], [-ax], as is to be expected. The reformed standard with stressed plurals in /-am/, /-ax/ is the one cited here. There is some residual allomorphy in the Instr plural with /-amji/, /-mji/, and /-ima/ as in /konj/ ‘horse’, /kon\(^{\mathrm{j}}\mathrm{m}^{\mathrm{j}}\)i/ which also has /konjamji/; /kosjʦj/ ‘bone’ with /kasjʦjamji/ and /kasjʦ\(^{\mathrm{j}}\mathrm{m}^{\mathrm{j}}\)i/, /vuxa/ ‘ear’ with /vuʃamji/ and /vuʃɨma/, plus two or three others (Biryla and Shuba 1985: 87, 93, 96, 99).

  2. 2.

    There is some discussion in the literature about the phonemic status of [i] vs. [ɨ] (Biryla and Shuba 1985: 15–17) as the former is found after palatalized consonants and the latter after non-palatalized ones plus shibilants as well as /r/. Belarusian grammars (Bazylenka et al., 1957; Hurski et al., 1968; Iankoŭski 1975; Biryla and Shuba 1985; Lukashanets 2007, among others) present nominal morphology with all spelling variants, which means that vowel neutralization reflexes as well as hard vs. soft series of vowel letters are all listed as separate suffixes, as they are in Belarusian spelling. Data here are cited in IPA transcription, Belarusian spelling in the ISO system with diacritics (where “ɯ” [ʃ] is š, etc.), and references are cited in Library of Congress transliteration for easier access.

  3. 3.

    There are additional restrictions after stems ending in a velar or shibilant consonant and a different allomorph distribution in other minor paradigms (see Bulyka et al., 1979; Biryla and Shuba 1985: 54–103; Iankoŭski 1989 for Belarusian; Bilodid 1969 for Ukrainian; Shvedova et al. 1980; Timberlake 2004 for Russian).

  4. 4.

    I use the [a] transcription given that there is vowel neutralization with /a/, per Iankoŭski (1976: 28), Biryla and Shuba (1985: 42–44), Vyhonnaia (1991: 133–139), Dubina (2012: 158–160); see also Padluzhny (1977, 1983, 1989); Czekman and Smułkowa (1988); Barnes (2006: 36–37) for phonetic detail. This process has also been referred to as “vowel reduction” in the linguistic literature (e.g., Hurski et al., 1968: 81–83), though the /a/ retains its vowel quality when unstressed in general and does not become reduced [ə] as in Russian.

  5. 5.

    There are almost no minimal pairs with /ʦ/, /ʣ/ and /ʦj/, /ʣj/; the palatalized affricates are derived from /tj/ and /dj/, respectively, so in that sense, /t/ and /d/ are also unpaired hard consonants (Mayo 1993: 890–891).

  6. 6.

    A reviewer raises the question of whether it is possible to describe the change in neuter nouns as “some nouns were reanalyzed as belonging to declension Ia (while keeping their gender)”. A reason why one might hesitate to see the change in these terms is that the direction of morphological change in SB, more so than in Russian or Ukrainian, was in favor of better gender and declension class correspondence, though mismatches remain. Another might be the fact that there are consistent differences in the Gen sg: Ia has /-u/ and /-a/, Ib only /-a/ (see (4) above), and these remain even when neuter nouns take on Gen pl /-ow/.

  7. 7.

    The various sources do not always agree: Lukashanets (2007: 141) also gives a special quantifier form for ‘horses’, [kanj-ów], all others have only [kónj-ej]; the 2008 dictionary lists only [saldát], [susjédzj-aw], [manɣól-aw].

  8. 8.

    Another 21 nouns with Gen pl /-Ø/ are derived by the suffixation of -k-. They have a vowel in the stem in the Gen plural, [jájk-a] ‘egg’, Gen pl [jáj(e)k], and constitute a special class. These nouns are discussed separately in Sect. 6. There are three neuter nouns with /-ej/ ([vók-a] ‘eye’, Gen pl [vaʧ-éj]; also [vúx-a] ‘ear’, [pljaʧ-ó] ‘shoulder’). The class of approximately 96 small of species nouns in -ja/jo with an extended /-at-/ stem in the oblique cases of the singular and throughout the plural, as in [aslanj-á]/[aslanj-ó] ‘donkey’, Gen pl [aslanj-át-Ø]; [ʦjalj-á]/[ʦjalj-ó] ‘calf’, Gen pl [ʦjalj-át-Ø], consistently take the /-Ø/ suffix, but they do not belong to Declension Ib and are not discussed here.

  9. 9.

    Biryla and Shuba (1985: 385) claim that 40 or so neuter nouns have Type B stress, but many of these do not have plural forms, e.g., šklo ‘glass’, tlo ‘background’, žytstsjo ‘life’. Because the stress counts and the allomorph counts come from different sources here, the given counts will not agree but this does not affect the overall conclusions which are based on trends in the lexicon. Lukashanets (2007: 146, 151) observes that /-aw/ spreads first to stems with final clusters, then to stems with singletons where stress is on the stem in the plural, and also to avoid final /l/ and /w/.

  10. 10.

    This group includes 3858 Declension II nouns derived by the suffixation of /-k-/ and a large class of derived /-iʦ-/ nouns (1314) plus other types of nouns for a total of 7645 nouns with the /-Ø/ allomorph.

  11. 11.

    Many thanks to native speaker informants, Andrei Dubina and Lena Borise, for this information.

  12. 12.

    The noun counts in Biryla and Shuba (1985) differ from those in the 2008 dictionary. The latter is more complete and includes loanwords and many derived nouns as well as compounds so the total noun counts will not agree.

  13. 13.

    For example, Loban (1957: 221–224) does not identify a fixed suffix stress pattern (B) in Declension II nouns because those that do have stress on the suffix in the singular generally do not have plural forms. Dubina (2012: 101–103) follows Loban (1957), contra Biryla and Shuba (1985: 379) who list approximately 140 Type B nouns.

  14. 14.

    Some Declension III nouns with etymological mobile stress in the plural have now become fixed root/stem stress types throughout because the fixed pattern characterizes the majority of nouns in this declension. The following were listed with mobile stress in Biryla and Shuba (1985) but are given with fixed root/stem stress in Hramatychny sloŭnik nazoŭnika (2008): kists′ ‘hand, brush’, reč ‘thing’, masts′ ‘animal coat color’, peč ‘oven, stove’, klets′ ‘storehouse, shed’. Three still retain their original [-ej] allomorph as a possible variant, but they also have [-aw]: [kjísjʦj-aw \(\sim \mathrm{k}^{\mathrm{j}}\)ísjʦj-ej], [kljéʦj-aw ∼ kljéʦj-ej], and [pjéʧ-aw \(\sim \mathrm{p}^{\mathrm{j}}\)aʧ-éj]. Yet several other Declension III nouns introduce stress retraction in the Gen plural (see Sect. 7.4 below.)

  15. 15.

    Consonant palatalization is spelled by vowel letters and /-ow/ may be spelled four different ways: when stressed after non-palatalized consonants as “oy̆”, when stressed after palatalized consonants and /j/ as “ëy̆”, when unstressed after non-palatalized consonants as “ay̆”, and when unstressed after palatalized consonants and /j/ as “y̆”.

  16. 16.

    In dissimilative akanne/jakanne, the vowel in the pretonic syllable is sensitive to vowel height in the following stressed syllable. If a pretonic mid vowel is before stressed low /a/, then the pretonic vowel is pronounced [ɨ] or [ʌ] after hard consonants and shibilants, and as [ɪ] after palatalized (soft) consonants; if the vowel under stress is a mid or high vowel, then the pretonic mid vowel is pronounced [a] (Vaitovich 1968).

  17. 17.

    Biryla and Shuba (1985: 91) observe that [-aw] is also common after liquid and glide stems: [réj-a] ‘marine yard’, [réj] ∼ [réj-aw]; [rólj-a] ‘role’, [rólj-aw]; [pálj-a] ‘pile’, [pálj-aw]; [ljéj-a] ‘lei’, [ljéj-aw]; [ʦalj-a] ‘inch’, [ʦalj-aw]; [pjáʣj-a] ‘span’, [pjáʣj-aw], [ʃálj-a] ‘scale of weight’, [ʃálj-aw], and these sometimes have variants with /-Ø/, [kaljaj-á] ‘rut, track’ [kaljéj] ∼ [kaljéj-aw], [ʃı̵́j-a] ‘neck’, [ʃı̵́j] ∼ [ʃı̵́j-aw]. Kryvitski et al. (1973: 85) tolerate more variation and also more receptivity to [-aw], listing variants for ‘school’ [ʃkól] ∼ [ʃkól-aw], ‘peasant house’ [xát] ∼ [xát-aw], ‘wave’ [xválj] ∼ [xválj-aw], among others. See also Eŭsievich et al. 2015: 59, 61–62, 65–66.

  18. 18.

    This will obviously need to be adjusted for the minor \(\mathrm{C}_{1}\) stress pattern, where the Nom pl retains stem stress but oblique forms in the plural have suffix stress. It may be the case that the Gen plural form serves as the base for this pattern as in (35), but otherwise stress in the plural subparadigm follows that of the plural base. For now I assume that the stress shifts between the singular and plural, as in a Type C noun such as /dub/ ‘oak’, with stem stress in the singular and suffix stress throughout the plural, are implemented by some mechanism in the grammar.

  19. 19.

    The 173 neuter nouns listed in the 2008 source with variation include a large group of nouns derived by /-išč-/ (122 nouns) and a smaller cohort of /-k-/ suffixed nouns and C-stems in addition to yer-stems. In a few neuter nouns, variation is found in the older 1985 source and [-aw] is given as the norm in later ones: [valakn-ó] ‘fiber’, [valók(a)n] ∼ [valókn-aw] (1985), [valókn-aw] (1987, 2008).

  20. 20.

    Many Declension III nouns are singularia tantum, thus no Gen pl form is available and these were not counted in noun totals. The group of nouns derived by suffixation of /-asʦj/ is said to keep the /-ej/ allomorph in the 2008 dictionary: [krépasjʦj-ej] ‘fortress’, [rádasjʦj-ej] ‘joy, happiness’. Some phrasal derivations such as [sjenaƷáʦj] ‘harvest field’, [sjenaƷáʦj-ej] (1985), [sjenaƷáʦjej ∼ \(\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{j}}\)enaƷáʦj-aw] (2008) show that the [-aw] is a productive Gen pl suffix.

  21. 21.

    This is part of a more general innovation found in both Belarusian and Ukrainian (Bilodid 1969: 128) whereby paradigmatic fixed stress becomes a mobile stress pattern in order to distinguish the singular from the plural (Loban 1957; Smułkowa 1978: 117–140, 99–100, 125–126; Stankiewicz 1993: 229–244, 265–272; Dubina 2012: 107–111).

  22. 22.

    Under the influence of the standard language, however, both stress patterns (Nom pl [xustkí] and [xústki]) are now found in much of Belarusian territory (Ramanovich 1972: 53; Avanesaŭ et al. 1963). Nouns derived by the suffixation of /-aʧk-a/, /-iʧk-a/, /-ink-a/ also shift the stress to the inflectional suffixes in the plural in SWBR. In the standard language they behave just like the other -k-stem nouns in taking the /-Ø/ Gen pl allomorph with a yer stem vowel and retaining stem stress: kártačka ‘small card’, kártač(a)k; drabínka ‘small bit’, drabín(a)k; častsínka ‘small part’, častsín(a)k.

  23. 23.

    Some of the nouns listed as pluralia tantum are so designated by usage, e.g., hrošy ‘money’ does have a related singular available hroš ‘coin’, but they have different Gen pl forms: [ɣróʃ-aj] vs. [ɣróʃ-aw]. Others are prefixed forms of a pluralia stem, such as motasani ‘motorized sleigh’. The two types of pluralia tantum (usage pluralia vs lexical pluralia) were not distinguished here, and pluralia tantum nouns with adjectival declension, thus Gen pl /-ix/, were not counted.

  24. 24.

    Approximately 93% of pluralia tantum nouns have Type A stress fixed on the stem (according to Biryla and Shuba 1985: 386–387), including many with etymological /-Ø/. Biryla (1986: 102–103) identifies about 200 nouns with fixed stress on the stem, 20 with stress fixed on the suffixes, a few with mobile \(\mathrm{C}_{1}\) stress. In Biryla and Shuba (1985: 387) we have about 190 nouns with Type A stress, about 15 nouns with Type B stress, and then hrudzi ‘breast’, droždžy ‘yeast’, plečy ‘back’ and sani ‘sledge, sled’ with Type C stress.

  25. 25.

    There are several other examples of group behavior in derived nouns but as they do not go against the general trend observed here for the adoption of /-aw/, they are not all that informative. For example, a large group of Declension II nouns derived by the suffix /-iʦ-/ consistently takes the /-Ø/ allomorph but they have a singleton as the stem-final consonant so they would not be expected to attract /-aw/ at this stage.

  26. 26.

    Because there is no systematic distinction between non-derived and derived nouns in terms of [-aw] acceptance, and because [-aw] spread is common in non-derived nouns, it does not appear to be a question of assigning the new allomorph /-aw/ to a strata of grammar which distinguishes inflection from derivation. In other words, although the spread of /-aw/ does depend on access to output forms and it critically involves morphology-phonology interactions, the data of Belarusian /-aw/ extension at this stage do not support a stratal model of phonology-morphology interaction along the lines of Kiparsky (2015) or Bermúdez-Otero (2012).

  27. 27.

    This does happen in Ukrainian where the Gen plural /-iw/ suffix is generalized to some Declension II nouns, and the /-iw/ can be either stressed or unstressed: [báb-a] ‘old woman’, [báb ∼ bab-íw], [húb-a] ‘lip’, [húb ∼ hub-íw], [tórb-a] ‘bag’, [torb-íw], [lehénj-a] ‘lung’, [lehénj ∼ lehénj-iw], [mát-y] ‘mother’, [máter-iw], also in some a-stem masculines, such as [stárost-a] ‘matchmaker’, [starost-íw] and [suddj-á] ‘judge’, [súddj-iw] (Bilodid 1969: 81–139; Holovashchuk and Rusanivs’kyi 1975).

References

  1. Albright, A. (2002). The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D thesis, UCLA.

  2. Albright, A. (2008). Inflectional paradigms have bases too: arguments from Yiddish. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 271–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alderete, J. (1999/2001). Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published by Routledge.

  4. Anderson, S. (2008). Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure, 1, 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arashonkava, H. U., Chabatar, N. A., Astapchuk, A. M., & Ulasevich, V. I. (2008). Hramatychny sloŭnik nazoŭnika. Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Avanesaŭ, R. I., Krapiva, K. K., & Matskevich, Ju. F. (Eds.) (1963). Dyialektalahichny atlas belaruskai movy. Minsk: Instytut movaznaŭstva AN BSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bailyn, J. F., & Nevins, A. (2008). Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 237–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barnes, J. (2006). Strength and weakness at the interface. Positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bazylenka, A. M., et al. (1957). Kurs suchasnai belaruskai literaturnai movy. Marfalohiia. Minsk: Dziarzhaŭnae vuchebna-pedahahichnae vyd. Ministerstva asvety BSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Becker, M. (2009). Phonological trends in the lexicon: the role of constraints. Ph.D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  11. Becker, M., & Gouskova, M. (2016). Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 47(3), 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence (pp. 8–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Bethin, C. Y. (2012). Effects of vowel reduction on Russian and Belarusian inflectional morphology. Lingua, 122, 1232–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilodid, I. K. (1969). Suchasna ukrajins’ka literaturna mova. Morfolohiia. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Biryla, M. V. (1986). Natsisk nazoŭnikaŭ u suchasnai belaruskai move. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Biryla, M. V. (Ed.) (1987). Sloŭnik belaruskai movy: arfahrafiia, arfaepiia, aktsentuatsyia, slovazmianenne. Minsk: Belaruskaia Savetskaia Entsyklapedyia.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Biryla, M. V., & Shuba, P. P. (1985). Fanalohiia. arfaepiia, marfalohiia, slovaŭtvarenne, natsisk: Vol. 1. Belaruskaia hramatyka u dzviukh chastkakh. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bonet, E., & Harbour, D. (2012). Contextual allomorphy. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence (pp. 195–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonet, E., Lloret-Romanyach, M-R., & Mascaró, J. (Eds.) (2015). Understanding allomorphy. Sheffield: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brown, D., & Hippisley, A. (1994). Conflict in Russian genitive plural assignment: a solution presented in DATR. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 2(1), 48–76.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brown, D., Corbett, G., Fraser, N., Hippisley, A., & Timberlake, A. (1996). Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics, 34(1), 53–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bukrinskaia, I. A. (1987). Forma imenitel’nogo chisla suschestvitel’nykh srednego roda v russkikh govorakh. In R. I. Avanesov, O. N. Morakhovskaia (Eds.), Russkie dialekty: lingvogeograficheskii aspekt (pp. 124–129). Moscow: Prosveshchenie.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bulyka, A. M., Zhuraŭski, A. I., & Kramko, I. I. (1979). Histarychnaia marfalohiia belaruskai movy. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Butska, L. (2002). Faithful stress in paradigms: nominal inflection in Ukrainian and Russian. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.

  25. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Bye, P. (2007). Allomorphy—selection, not optimization. In S. Blaho, P. Bye, & M. Krämer (Eds.), Freedom of analysis? (pp. 63–92). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Czekman, W., & Smułkowa, E. (1988). Fonetyka i fonologia języka białoruskiego z elementami fonetyki i fonologii ogółnej. Warsaw: PWN.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dubina, A. (2012). Towards a tonal analysis of free stress. PhD thesis, Radboud University, Utrecht: LOT.

  29. Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Eŭsievich, N. P., et al. (2015). Dynamika litaraturnai normy suchasnai belaruskai movy. Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gouskova, M. (2010). The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review, 27(4), 387–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gouskova, M. (2012). Unexceptional segments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(1), 79–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Halle, M. (1994). The Russian declension. In J. Cole & C. Kisseberth (Eds.), Perspectives in phonology (pp. 29–60). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 275–288.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Holovashchuk, S. I., & Rusanivs’kyi, V. M. (1975). Orfohrafichnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Horálek, K. (1992). An introduction to the study of the Slavonic languages. Nottingham: Astra. Trans. by P. Herrity.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hurski, M. I., Bulaxaŭ, M. H., Marchanka, M. Ts. (1968). Belaruskaia mova. Vol. 1. Leksikalohiia, fanetyka i marfalohiia. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Iankoŭski, F. M. (Ed.) (1975). Suchasnaia belaruskaia literaturnaia mova: marfalohiia. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Iankoŭski, F. M. (1976). Belaruskae litaraturnae vymaŭlenne (4th ed.). Minsk: Narodnaia asveta.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Iankoŭski, F. M. (1989). Histarychnaia hramatyka belaruskai movy. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jakobson, R. (1957). The relationship between genitive and plural in the declension of Russian nouns. Scando-Slavica, 3, 181–186. Rpt. (1971) Selected writings, Vol. II. Word and language (pp. 148–153). The Hague and Paris: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Karskii, E. F. (1911/1956). Belorusy. Iazyk belorusskogo naroda (Vyp. 2, 3). Moscow: AN SSSR.

  44. Kiparsky, P. (2015). Stratal OT: a synopsis and FAQs. In H. Yuchao & L-H. Wee (Eds.), Capturing phonological shades within and across languages (pp. 2–44). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kryvitski, A. A. (2003). Dyjalektalohiia belaruskai movy. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kryvitskii, A. A., Mikhnevich, A. E., & Podluzhnyi, A. I. (1973). Belorusskij iazyk dlia nebelorusov. Minsk: Vysheishaia shkola.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Loban, M. P. (1957). Natsisk u nazoŭnikakh z nevytvornai asnovai u suchasnij belaruskai literaturnai move. Pratsy Instytuta Movaznaŭstva AN BSSR, 3–4, 191–237.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lukashanets, A. A. (2007). Karotkaia hramatyka belaruskai movy v dzviukh chastkakh. Vol. I. Fanalohiia, marfanalohiia, marfalohiia. Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka.

    Google Scholar 

  49. MacBride, A. (2004). A constraint-based approach to morphology. Ph.D thesis, UCLA.

  50. Mahota, W. (1993). The genitive plural endings in the East Slavic languages. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 1(2), 325–342.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mascaró, J. (2007). External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(4), 715–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mayo, P. (1976). Grammar of Byelorussian. Sheffield: Anglo-Byelorussian Society and Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies, University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In B. Comrie & G. C. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 887–946). London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nevins, A. (2011). Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), Phonological interfaces: Vol. 4. The Blackwell companion to phonology. (pp. 2357–2382). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Padluzhny, A. I. (1977). Narys akustychnai fanetyki belaruskai movy. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Padluzhny, A. I. (Ed.) (1983). Fanetyka slova ŭ belaruskai move. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Padluzhny, A. I. (Ed.) (1989). Fanetyka belaruskai litaraturnai movy. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Paster, M. (2005). Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable counting allomorphy. In J. Alderete, H. Chung-hye, & A. Kochetov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 326–333). Somerville: Cascadilla.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Paster, M. (2006). Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D thesis, UC-Berkeley.

  61. Pertsova, K. (2004). Distribution of genitive plural allomorphs in the Russian lexicon and in the internal grammar of native speakers. PhD thesis, UCLA.

  62. Pertsova, K. (2015). Interaction of morphology and phonology in Russian genitive plural allomorphy. Morphology, 25, 229–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Phillips, B. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language, 60, 320–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Phillips, B. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Ramanovich, Ja. M. (1972). Asablivastsi natsisku ŭ nazoŭnikakh zhanochaha rodu na -k(a) u belaruskaj move. Belaruskaja linhvistyka (Vyp. 1, pp. 49–54). Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Scheer, T. (2011). Slavic yers. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), Phonology across languages: Vol. 5. The Blackwell companion to phonology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Shapiro, M. (1971). The genitive plural desinences of the Russian substantive. The Slavic and East European Journal, 15(2), 190–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Shvedova, N. Iu, et al. (Eds.) (1980). Russkaia grammatika. Vol. 1. Fonetika. Fonologiia. Udarenie. Intonatsiia. Slovoobrazovanie. Morfologiia. Moscow: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Smułkowa, E. (1978). Studia nad akcentem języka białoruskiego. Rzeczownik. Warsaw: Universytet Warszawski.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Stankiewicz, E. (1993). The accentual patterns of the Slavic languages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Steriade, D. (1999a). Lexical conservatism. In Linguistics in the morning calm (Vol. 4, pp. 157–181). Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea, Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Steriade, D. (1999b). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In B. Bullock, M. Authier, & L. Reed (Eds.), Proceedings of LSRL (Vol. 25, pp. 243–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Steriade, D. (2008). A pseudo-cyclic effect in Romanian morphophonology. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), InflectionalIdentity (pp. 313–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sudnik, M. R. & Kryŭko, M. N. (2002). Tlumachalny sloŭnik belaruskai literaturnai movy (3rd ed.). Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Timberlake, A. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Trommer, J. (2012). Ø-exponence. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence (pp. 326–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  77. Vaitovich, N. T. (1968). Nenatsiskny vakalism narodnykh havorak Belarusi. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Vorontseva, V. L. (1976). Varianty fleksii -ov i -Ø v roditel’nom padezhe mnozhestvennogo chisla sushchestvitel’nykh muzhskogo roda. In L. P. Krysin & D. N. Shmelev (Eds.), Sotsial’no-lingvisticheskie issledovaniia (pp. 129–144). Moscow: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Vyhonnaia, L. Ts. (1991). Intanatsyia. Natsisk. Arfaepiia. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wexler, P. (1977). A historical phonology of the Belorussian language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Zalizniak, A. (1967). Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Andrei Dubina for assistance with Belarusian data, corrections, comments and thoughtful discussion throughout the writing of this paper and for serving as a native speaker informant, also to Lena Borise for checking some of the data. Special thanks to Varvara Magomedova who wrote a computer program to sort nouns in the 2008 grammatical dictionary. An earlier version of this paper was presented at FASL 24; thanks to Lena Borise, Wayles Browne, Maria Gouskova, Ora Matushansky, Katya Pertsova, Draga Zec, and other members of the FASL 24 audience for stimulating questions and discussion, and to Frank Gladney for comments on a preliminary draft. Parts of section 4 appear as a more detailed study: “Surface phonotactics in morphology: Ongoing change in the Belarusian Noun Declension”, Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, ed. by Yohei Oseki, Masha Esipova and Stephanie Harves. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (in press). Finally, I am especially indebted to Adam Albright for his thoughtful questions and suggestions, and to two anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions greatly improved the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Y. Bethin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bethin, C.Y. The Belarusian Genitive plural: a case for reanalysis. Morphology 27, 311–357 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9302-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Lexical allomorphy
  • Analogical change
  • Phonology-morphology interactions
  • Inflectional morphology
  • Belarusian nouns