Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 39–87 | Cite as

Contrast and Post-Velar Fronting in Russian

  • Jaye Padgett
Article

Abstract

There is a well-known rule of Russianwhereby /i/ is said to be realized as [į] after non-palatalized consonants. Somewhat less well known is another allophonic rule of Russian whereby only [i], and not [į], can follow velars within a morphological word. This latter rule came about due to a sound change in East Slavic called post-velar fronting here: kį > kji(and similarlyfor the other velars). This paper examines this sound change in depth, and argues that it can be adequately explained only by appeal to the functional notions of perceptual distinctiveness of contrast and neutralization avoidance. Further, these notions crucially require a systemic approach to phonology, in which the wellformedness of any form must be evaluated with reference to the larger system of contrasts it enters into. These notions are formalized in a modified version of Dispersion Theory (Flemming 1995a), a systemic theory that incorporates these functional notions into Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993).

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Systemic Theory Systemic Approach Optimality Theory Large System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovich. 1947. ‘Iz istorii russkogo vokalizma’, Vestnik MGU 1, 41–57.Google Scholar
  3. Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovich, and Vladimir Nikolaevich Sidorov. 1945. Ocherk grammatiki russkogo literaturnogo iazyka, chast' 1: fonetika i morfologia, Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe Izdatel'stvo, Moscow.Google Scholar
  4. Bhat, D. N. S. 1978. ‘A General Study of Palatalization’, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 2: Phonology, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 47–92.Google Scholar
  5. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interactions between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.Google Scholar
  6. Borkovskii, Viktor Ivanovich and Petr Savvich Kuznetsov. 1963. Istoricheskaia grammatika russkogo iazyka, Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Moscow.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, Lyle. 1999. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, R., B. Granström and Gunnar Fant. 1970. ‘Some Studies Concerning Perception of Isolated Vowels’, Speech Transmission Laboratory - Quarterly Progress and Status Report 2-3, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp. 19–35.Google Scholar
  9. Carlton, Terence R. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages, Slavica, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  10. Chernykh, P. Ja. 1962. Istoricheskaia grammatika russkogo iazyka, Gosudarstvennoe Uchebno-Pedagogicheskoe Izdatel'stvo Ministerstva Prosveshcheniia RSFSR, Moscow.Google Scholar
  11. Evans-Romaine, Dorothy Kathleen. 1998. Palatalization and Coarticulation in Russian, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  12. Fant, Gunnar. 1960. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  13. Farina, Donna Marie. 1991. Palatalization and jers in Modern Russian Phonology: An Underspecification Approach, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  14. Filin, Fedot Petrovich. 1972. Proiskhozhdenie russkogo, ukrainskogo i belorusskogo iazykov, Nauka, Leningrad.Google Scholar
  15. Flemming, Edward. 1995a. Auditory Representations in Phonology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  16. Flemming, Edward. 1995b. ‘Phonetic Detail in Phonology: Evidence from Assimilation and Coarticulation’, in K. Suzuki and D. Elzinga (eds.), Proceedings of the Arizona Conference: Workshop on Features in Optimality Theory: Coyote Working Papers, University of Arizona, Tuscon, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  17. Flemming, Edward. 1999. ‘How to Formalize Constraints on Perceptual Distinctiveness’, handout of paper presented at ‘The Role of Speech Perception Phenomena in Phonology’, a satellite workshop to International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  18. Flemming, Edward. 2001. ‘Scalar and Categorical Phenomena in a Unified Model of Phonetics and Phonology’, Phonology 18, 7–44.Google Scholar
  19. Flier, Michael S. 1982. ‘Morphophonemic Change as Evidence of Phonemic Change: The Status of the Sharped Velars in Russian’, International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 25, 137–148.Google Scholar
  20. Gess, Randall. 2000. ‘On Constraint Re-Ranking in Phonological Change’, unpublished manuscript, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  21. Guion, Susan Guignard. 1998. ‘The Role of Perception in the Sound Change of Velar Palatalization’, Phonetica 55, 18–52.Google Scholar
  22. Guy, Gregory R. 1996. ‘Form and Function in Linguistic Variation’, in G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin and J. Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, Volume 1: Variation and Change in Language and Society, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 221–252.Google Scholar
  23. Gvozdev, A. N. 1949. O fonologicheskikh sredstvakh russkogo iazyka: sbornik statei, Izdatel'stvo akademii pedagogicheskikh nauk RSFSR, Moscow.Google Scholar
  24. Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  25. Halle, Morris. 1962. ‘Phonology in Generative Grammar’, Word 18, 54–72.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, William S. 1980. Introduction to Russian Phonology and Word Structure, Slavica, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  27. Hawkins, John A. and Murray Gell-Mann (eds.). 1992. The Evolution of Human Languages, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, Bruce. 1999. ‘Phonetically-driven Phonology: The Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding’, in M. Darnell, E. Moravscik, M. Noonan, F. Newmeyer and K. Wheatly (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Volume 1: General Papers, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 243–285.Google Scholar
  29. Hoard, James and G. N. O'Grady. 1976. ‘Nyangumarda Phonology: A Preliminary Report’, in R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
  30. Holt, Eric. 1997. The Role of the Listener in the Historical Phonology of Spanish and Portuguese: An Optimality-Theoretic Account, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  31. Hutton, John. 1996. ‘Optimality Theory and Historical Language Change’, unpublished manuscript, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  32. Ivanov, Valerii Vasil'evich. 1990. Istoricheskaia grammatika russkogo iazyka, Prosveshchenie, Moscow.Google Scholar
  33. Jakobson, Roman. 1929. ‘Remarques sur lévolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves’, Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 2. [In Roman Jakobson. 1962. Selected Writings, Volume 1: Phonological Studies, Mouton, 's-Gravenhge, pp. 7–116.]Google Scholar
  34. Keating, Patricia and Aditi Lahiri. 1993. ‘Fronted Velars, Palatalized velars, and Palatals’, Phonetica 50, 73–101.Google Scholar
  35. Kingston, John and Randy L. Diehl. 1994. ‘Phonetic Knowledge’, Language 70, 419–454.Google Scholar
  36. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. ‘Lexical Phonology and Morphology’, in I. S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Hanshin, Seoul, pp. 3–91.Google Scholar
  37. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Explanation in Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. ‘Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology’, Phonology 2, 85–138.Google Scholar
  39. Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. ‘The Phonological Basis of Sound Change’, in J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 640–670.Google Scholar
  40. Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. ‘Paradigm Effects and Opacity’, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  41. Kirby, Simon. 1999. Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kirchner, Robert. 1996. ‘Synchronic Chain Shifts in Optimality Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 27, 341–350.Google Scholar
  43. Kirchner, Robert. 1997. ‘Contrastiveness and Faithfulness’, Phonology 14, 83–111.Google Scholar
  44. Kirchner, Robert. 2001. ‘Phonological Contrast and Articulatory Effort’, in L. Lombardi (ed.), Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 79–117.Google Scholar
  45. Kohler, K. J. 1990. ‘Segmental Reduction in Connected Speech in German: Phonological Facts and Phonetic Explanations’, in W. J. Hardcastle and A. Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
  46. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Language Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Ladefoged, Peter. 1993. A Course in Phonetics, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
  48. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World's Languages, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  49. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Liljencrants, Johan and Björn Lindblom. 1972. ‘Numerical Simulation of Vowel Quality Systems: The Role of Perceptual Contrast’, Language 48, 839–862.Google Scholar
  51. Lindblom, B. 1986. ‘Phonetic Universals in Vowel Systems’, in J. Ohala and J. Jaeger (eds.), Experimental Phonology, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 13–44.Google Scholar
  52. Lindblom, Björn. 1990. ‘Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory’, in W. J. Hardcastle and A. Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 403–439.Google Scholar
  53. Manuel, Sharon. 1990. ‘The Role of Contrast in Limiting Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in Different Languages’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88, 1286–1298.Google Scholar
  54. Martinet, André. 1952. ‘Function, Structure, and Sound Change’, Word 8, 1–32.Google Scholar
  55. Martinet, André. 1964. Elements of General Linguistics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  56. Martinet, Andrée. 1974. Economía de los cambios phonéticos, Editorial Gredos, Madrid. [Translation into Spanish of Économie des changements phonétiques, 1955.]Google Scholar
  57. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1993. ‘Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction’, unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  58. McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince. 1995. ‘Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity’, in J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk and L. Walsh (eds.), University of MA Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP) 18, GLSA, Amherst, MA, pp. 249–384.Google Scholar
  59. Meillet, Antoine. 1951. Obshcheslavianskii iazyk, Izdatel'stvo Innostrannoi literatury, Moscow. [Translation into Russian of Le Slave Commun, 2nd edition].Google Scholar
  60. Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  61. Ní Chiosáin, Máire and Jaye Padgett. 1993. ‘Inherent VPlace’, Linguistics Research Center Report LRC-93-09, University of CA, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  62. Ní Chiosáin, Máire and Jaye Padgett. 2001. ‘Markedness, Segment Realization, and Locality in Spreading’, in L. Lombardi (ed.), iSegmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 118–156.Google Scholar
  63. Ohala, John J. 1983. ‘The Origin of Sound Patterns in Vocal Tract Constraints’, in P. MacNeilage (ed.), The Production of Speech, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar
  64. Ohala, John J. 1989. ‘Sound Change is Drawn from a Pool of Synchronic Variation’, in L. E. Breivik and E. H. Jahr (eds.), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of Its Causes, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 173–198.Google Scholar
  65. Ohala, John J. 1990. ‘The Phonetics and Phonology of Aspects of Assimilation’, in J. Kingston and M. Beckman (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 258–275.Google Scholar
  66. Thman, S. E. G. 1966. ‘Coarticulation in VCV Utterances: Spectrographic Measurements’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39, 151–168.Google Scholar
  67. Padgett, Jaye. 1997. ‘Perceptual Distance of Contrast: Vowel Height and Nasality’, in R. Walker, M. Katayama and D. Karvonen (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz, Volume 5, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  68. Padgett, Jaye. 2001. ‘Contrast Dispersion and Russian Palatalization’, in E. V. Hume and K. Johnson (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception Phenomena in Phonology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 187–218.Google Scholar
  69. Padgett, Jaye. to appear. ‘The Emergence of Contrastive Palatalization in Russian’, in E. Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change, Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. ‘Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar’, unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  71. Purcell, Edward T. 1979. ‘Formant Frequency Patterns in Russian VCV Utterances, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66, 1691–1702.Google Scholar
  72. Reformatskii, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. 1957. ‘Fonologicheskie zametki’, Voprosy iazykoznania 2, 101–102.Google Scholar
  73. Reformatskii, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. 1958. ‘O korrelatsii “tverdykh” i “miagkikh” soglasnykh (v sovremennom russkom literaturnom iazyke)’, in Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emil Petrovici par ses amis étrangers a l'occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine, Bucharest, pp. 494–499.Google Scholar
  74. Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. ‘Backness Switch in Russian’, Phonology 17, 39–64.Google Scholar
  75. Sanders, Nathan. To appear-a. ‘Preserving Synchronic Parallelism: Diachrony and Opacity in Polish’, in M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston and S. Neuvel (eds.), iCLS 37: The Main Session. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Volume 1, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. [Also handout of paper presented at the Third Generative Linguistics in Poland Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 2001.]Google Scholar
  76. Sanders, Nathan. To appear-b. Opacity and Sound Change in the Polish Lexicon, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  77. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  78. Schaarschmidt, Gunter. 1998. A Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian Languages, Universitätsverlag C. Winter, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  79. Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. ‘Proto-Slavonic’, in B. Comrie and G. G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, Routledge, London, pp. 60–121.Google Scholar
  80. Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Louis-Jean Boë, Nathalie Vallée and Christian Abry. 1997a. ‘The Dispersion-focalization Theory of Vowel Systems’, Journal of Phonetics 25, 255–286.Google Scholar
  81. Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Louis-Jean Boë, Nathalie Vallée and Christian Abry. 1997b. ‘Major Trends in Vowel System Inventories’, Journal of Phonetics 25, 233–253.Google Scholar
  82. Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  83. Smolensky, Paul. 1995. ‘On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component Con of UG’, handout of talk given at University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  84. Steriade, Donca. 1994. ‘Complex Onsets as Single Segments: The Mazateco Pattern’, in J. Cole and C. Kisseberth (eds.), iPerspectives in Phonology, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 203–291.Google Scholar
  85. Steriade, Donca. 1995. ‘Underspecification and Markedness’, in J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 114–174.Google Scholar
  86. Steriade, Donca. 1997. ‘Phonetics in Phonology: The Case of Laryngeal Neutralization’, unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  87. Stevens, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1989. ‘Primary Features and Their Enhancements in Consonants’, Language 65, 81–106.Google Scholar
  88. Stevens, Kenneth N., Samuel Jay Keyser and Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. ‘Toward a Phonetic and Phonological Theory of Redundant Features’, in J. S. Perkell and D. H. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 426–449.Google Scholar
  89. Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1968. The Phonological Development of Polish, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  90. Sussex, Roland. 1992. ‘Russian’, in W. Bright (ed.), International Encylopedia of Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 350–358.Google Scholar
  91. Timberlake, Alan. 1978. ‘K istorii zadnenebnykh fonem v severoslavianskikh iazykakh’, in H. Birnbaum (ed.), American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, Volume 1: Linguistics and Poetics, Slavica, Columbus, OH, pp. 699–726.Google Scholar
  92. Townsend, Charles E. and Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and Inflection, Slavica Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  93. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1969. Principles of Phonology, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  94. Wright, J. T. 1986. ‘The Behavior of Nasalized Vowels in the Perceptual Vowel Space’, in J. Ohala and J. Jaeger (eds.), Experimental Phonology, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 45–67.Google Scholar
  95. Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. ‘Consonant Mutation in Bantu’, Linguistic Inquiry 26.3, 536–545.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaye Padgett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics Stevenson CollegeUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA E-mail

Personalised recommendations