Lexical Stress in East Slavic: Variation in Space and Time

Iryna Osadcha

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto

Abstract

Lexical stress in East Slavic: variation in space and time

Iryna Osadcha

Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Linguistics

University of Toronto

2019

Lexical stress systems are known for their complexity and dependence on morphology. This thesis proposes a unified account of nominal stress in three East Slavic languages (Ukrainian,

Russian, and Belarusian). When analyzed individually and without diachronic context, they seem to be unpredictable. In addition, most existing formal analyses of individual East Slavic languages omit some stress patterns as non-significant or treat them as exceptional.

The analysis here employs single bracketed grid representations. Whereas analyses using

Optimality Theory tend to incur some descriptive and theoretical problems, this framework enables an analysis that covers all existing stress patterns in the three languages, and sheds light on the synchronic and diachronic patterning of lexical stress systems.

Tracing the development of stress in nominal inflectional paradigms from Common Slavic to the modern East Slavic languages shifts the focus from the Russian stress system, which continues to be the most studied, and puts it into a broader context. It is found that a historical opposition between accented and unaccented stems and suffixes, which became obscure due to a series of sound changes, has been gradually replaced by a new opposition between singular and plural subparadigms. This new opposition led to the emergence of shifting stems with stress patterns

iii that depend on number, and to the subsequent reanalysis of many historically unaccented and post-accenting stems and some accented stems as shifting. Putting the burden of accentual contrast on the stem led to the loss of lexical accent from the suffixes. Since this tendency has not yet been completed and has proceeded at a different pace in each of the three languages, their stress systems vary in the degree of regularization, with Belarusian being the most regular,

Ukrainian in the middle, and Russian the least regular. The introduction of shifting stems, which are marked in the lexicon as being subject to the shifting rules, makes possible an analysis which covers all existing nominal stress patterns in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian.

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Elan Dresher and other members of my committee: Peter Jurgec, Joseph Schallert, Keren Rice, Aleksei Nazarov and Christina Bethin. I am incredibly grateful for all the feedback, support, and advice Elan provided to me over the years. He taught me to think like a linguist, to be able to defend my point of view, and to be a better writer. Our thourough discussions and fun conversations (and an awesome defense party!) will remain the favourite part of my PhD. I would not have made it this far without Peter’s expertise on the latest trends in phonology, and Joe’s deep knowledge of the vast literature on Slavic accentology. Keren and Aleksei provided me with very helpful comments, which hopefully made this thesis more readable. Christina’s expertise in both fields and incredible attention to detail helped me to improve this thesis in the final stages.

The Department of Linguistics at the University of Toronto is a very warm, welcoming place. I could not have gotten through my PhD program without the fantastic professors and my fellow students with whom I have been working and having fun together. I have learned so much and made a lot of good friends. There are too many people to list individually; I am thankful to all of you.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends. My mom has been there for me as both a parent and an academic. My husband has been my biggest supporter and a linguistics fan. My daughter has given me lots of laughs and love. My friends believed in me and cheered me up, even if I did not always have time for them.

Thank you all for making this happen. It has been a difficult, but incredibly interesting journey.

- Я сижу на берегу,

Не могу поднять ногу́.

- Не ногу́, а но́гу!

- Всё равно не мо́гу.

Russian folklore

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Stress in East Slavic: an overview ...... 1

1.2 Organization of the thesis ...... 4

2 Theoretical framework ...... 6

2.1 Idsardi’s framework and analysis of Russian ...... 6

2.2 Introducing the Shifting rule ...... 19

2.3 The Tone-insertion rule...... 31

2.4 Interim Summary ...... 33

3 Stress in Common Slavic and Old East Slavic ...... 34

3.1 Previous research ...... 35

3.2 Stress in Common Slavic ...... 37

3.2.1 Early Common Slavic ...... 37

3.2.2 Late Common Slavic...... 45

3.3 Stress in Old East Slavic ...... 50

3.4 Interim summary ...... 57

4 The Rise of Shifting ...... 58

4.1 Historical development of Russian stress ...... 58

4.1.1 Late Old East Slavic and Old Russian ...... 58

4.1.2 From Old Russian to Modern Russian ...... 68

4.1.3 Interim summary ...... 75

vii

4.2 Historical development of Ukrainian stress: from Old Ukrainian to Modern Ukrainian ..77

4.2.1 Unaccented stems...... 77

4.2.2 Post-accenting stems ...... 80

4.2.3 Accented stems ...... 82

4.2.4 Interim summary ...... 85

4.3 Historical development of Belarusian stress ...... 86

5 Modern East Slavic ...... 89

5.1 Modern Ukrainian Stress ...... 89

5.1.1 Previous research ...... 89

5.1.2 Overview ...... 90

5.1.3 Accented and post-accenting stems ...... 94

5.1.4 Unaccented stems...... 98

5.1.5 Shifting stems...... 108

5.1.6 Vocative case ...... 114

5.1.7 Languages in contact: East Sloboda Ukrainian ...... 120

5.2 Modern Belarusian Stress ...... 122

5.2.1 Previous Research ...... 122

5.2.2 Overview ...... 122

5.2.3 Accented and post-accenting stems ...... 126

5.2.4 Shifting types in Belarusian ...... 127

5.2.5 Unaccented stems...... 130

5.2.6 Variation in Modern Belarusian stress ...... 134

5.3 Modern Russian stress ...... 136

5.3.1 Previous research ...... 136

5.3.2 Overview ...... 136

viii

5.3.3 Accented and post-accenting stems ...... 138

5.3.4 Unaccented stems...... 140

5.3.5 Shifting stems...... 143

6 Conclusions ...... 147

7 Bibliography ...... 149

Appendix A: Phonetic Correspondences ...... 160

Appendix B: Abbreviations ...... 161

Appendix C: Stem types ...... 162

1 Introduction

The aim of my thesis is to provide a synchronic and diachronic account of the development of parametric variation in the stress systems of three East Slavic languages: Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian. I will trace the changes in the grammar of stress from Common East Slavic to the modern East Slavic languages and propose the first, to my knowledge, formal analysis to account for these changes. Including in my analysis Ukrainian and Belarusian data, as well as historical data, will contribute to the typology of morphologically conditioned stress. The bracketed grid representations as proposed by Idsardi (1992) will be used as a theoretical framework.

1.1 Stress in East Slavic: an overview

The stress systems of three East Slavic (ESl) languages (Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian) are characterized by lexical stress, meaning that stress is underlying. In these languages, stress can fall on any syllable of the word, regardless of its phonological properties. In phonetic terms, stressed vowels are longer in duration and higher in intensity Stress also affects vowel quality: unstressed vowels are reduced in duration and quality (less so in Ukrainian); for example, in Russian and Belarusian unstressed vowels are subject to neutralization processes the effects of which vary in different dialects (see Bethin 2012, among others). On the phonetics of stress, see Jones and Ward (1969), Chrabaszcz et al. (2014: 1470ff.) on Russian, Zilyns’kyj (1979: Chapter 4), Łukaszewicz and Mołczanow (2017) on Ukrainian, and Dubina (2012: 155-157) on Belarusian.

In East Slavic stress is contrastive, e.g. Russian zámok-Ø1 ‘castle’ and zamók-Ø ‘lock’, Ukrainian and Belarusian múzyk-a ‘music’ and muzýk-a ‘musician’. Stress can also distinguish two grammatical forms, e.g. Russian and Belarusian ‘hand’: GEN SG ruk’-í and NOM PL rúk’-i.

1 Transcriptions given here are phonemic. I will use a dash to show morpheme boundaries. Following Idsardi (1992) and Butska (2002), among others, I will use approximate phonemic transcriptions as it suits our purpose better than using IPA, which would distract the reader from the suprasegmental processes I discuss here. Due to the specifics of Ukrainian and Belarusian orthography the transcriptions are closer to an actual pronunciation than the Russian ones. Please refer to Appendix A: Phonetic correspondences, which provides IPA symbols and correspondences for each language. All translations from Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are mine.

Each language has three declensions and six cases (Ukrainian has also preserved the 4th declension and VOCATIVE case).

st Here are the paradigms of the 1 declension noun ‘head’ (feminine, NOM SG suffix -a) and its cognates in all three languages:

(1) Russian golov-á ‘head’ (unaccented stem, 1st declension)

SG PL Nom golov-á gólov-y Acc gólov-u gólov-y Gen golov-ý golóv-Ø Dat golov’-é golov-ám Instr golov-ój golov-ámi Loc golov’-é golov-áx (2) Ukrainian holov-á ‘head’ (transitional type, 1st declension)

SG PL Nom holov-á hólov-y Acc hólov-u hólov-y Gen holov-ý holív-Ø Dat holov’-í hólov-am Instr holov-óju hólov-amy Loc holov’-í hólov-ax Voc hólov-o hólov-y

(3) Belarusian halav-á ‘head’ (shifting type, 1st declension)

SG PL Nom halav-á halóv-y Acc halav-ú halóv-y Gen halav-ý halów-Ø Dat halav’-é halóv-am Instr halav-ój halóv-amy Loc halav’-é halóv-ax

In Russian (1), golov-á is an unaccented stem. As we can see from (1), unaccented stems show the most variation: depending on the case and number, the stress can surface on the stem (ACC

SG, NOM PL, and GEN PL) or on the suffix (the rest of the cases). Note that GEN PL has stress on the second syllable on the stem; I will discuss this later. Russian mostly preserved the historical unaccented pattern.

In Ukrainian (2), only ACC SG has stress on the stem in SG, the rest of the SG subparadigm has stress on the suffix. In PL, stress is on the stem in all cases; again, GEN PL has stress on the second syllable of the stem. Note that in PL the stress pattern is more regular than the one of the Russian cognate presented in (1). As I will show in this thesis, the reason for this is that Russian preserved the historical stress pattern of unaccented stems going back to Old East Slavic, while Ukrainian went through the series of changes, which I will discuss in detail in Chapter 4. I will call the stems that have this stress pattern transitional types. There is a tendency towards regularization of stress within the subparadigm: it is on the stem in all cases in PL, and on most case suffixes in the SG except for ACC SG. Stress is on the stem in VOC SG as well; I will discuss

VOC SG patterns in Section 5.1.4.

In Belarusian (3), the stress is consistently on the suffix in SG and on the stem in PL. This is what I call a shifting type. Russian reflects the conservative pattern, Ukrainian has moved towards regularization, and Belarusian shows the complete regularization of the paradigm in terms of number, completing the change.

In this dissertation, I will provide the first formal analysis of the historical development of nominal stress patterns from Common Slavic to the modern East Slavic languages. Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are known for their complex stress systems which seem chaotic at first sight. However, once we look at them from the perspective of language change, we will see that their complexity stems from the competition between the remnants of the old system and a relatively recent tendency towards regularization. One of the main insights the historical perspective gives us is the emergence of an opposition between singular and plural subparadigms. As I will argue, this new opposition has been replacing the historical opposition between accented and unaccented stems and suffixes, which gradually became more and more obscure to learners due to a series of sound changes (such as loss of vowel length, loss of tone,

4 and weakening and loss of yers). To illustrate this point, I will present an overview of these processes with examples from literature not available in English. I will also argue that the opposition between singular and plural led to the emergence of a new type of stem, namely a shifting stem, and the subsequent reanalysis of historically unaccented, post-accenting and some accented stems as shifting. This opposition also led to a loss of lexical accents from the inflectional suffixes; however, this process is still in progress as all three languages still have some unaccented stems which retain their pattern. Some unaccented stems have become a transitional type, which historically was a stepping stone to the shifting type. As we will see, both Ukrainian and Belarusian went further with these changes than Russian: the paradigms of ‘head’ presented above illustrate this point in miniature. The introduction of the shifting stems and the shifting rule will allow us to propose an analysis of all possible stress patterns in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian.

I will focus on the stress of nouns in inflectional paradigms, predominantly non-derived nouns. While in some cases it is hard to decide whether a noun is derived or not, the majority of my examples are nouns without derivational suffixes or nouns with bound roots. Non-derived nouns have more distinct stress patterns than derived nouns. Derived nouns behave differently in terms of stress. Some derivational suffixes have their own accentual properties, resulting in a different stress pattern of the derived word from the stem it was derived from (see Idsardi 1992: 128ff, among others). These stress patterns are outside the scope of this thesis.

I will use the single-bracketed grid system proposed by Idsardi (1992) and Halle and Idsardi (1995). While I will use Idsardi’s analysis of Russian as a starting point, I will propose some revisions and will introduce a new rule that accounts for the stress patterns in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, some of which were not accounted for previously.

1.2 Organization of the thesis

This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides background on the theoretical framework, Idsardi’s analysis of Russian, and the problems it poses for both the Russian and the Ukrainian data. I will propose my own solution, which consists of different underlying representations and the Shifting rule. I will also introduce the Tone-insertion rule which is needed to account for Common Slavic stress.

Chapter 3 presents the data from Common Slavic. Unlike modern East Slavic languages, Common Slavic was quantity sensitive and had tone contours associated with certain accentual patterns. I review the traditional approach and propose an analysis of this data and discuss the changes which led to the Old East Slavic stress system. While Old East Slavic inhertited three types of stems and lexical accents from Common Slavic, loss of length and tone, and the subsequent fall of yers led to the system becoming opaque for learners.

In Chapter 4, I present the data from Old Russian, Old Ukrainian, and Old Belarusian illustrating how the opposition between SG and PL subparadigms emerged and how the stems with the most inconsistent stress patterns have been gradually reanalyzed as shifting.

In Chapter 5, I provide a detailed analysis of each of the Modern Ukrainian, Modern Belarusian, and Modern Russian stress systems. I show that shifting stems and shifting rules are the essential components of the stress systems of all three languages, while the lexical accents of the suffixes become irrelevant. I discuss all the existing stress patterns and the tendency towards elimination of unaccented stems and their transition to the shifting types, which is ongoing in all three languages and is the most accomplished in Modern Belarusian.

Chapter 6 concludes. I provide a summary of the thesis highlighting the advantages of introducing the notion of shifting stems for a unified analysis of East Slavic stress.

2 Theoretical framework

In this chapter, I will provide an outline of the theory I will use in this thesis, Idsardi’s (1992) theory of prosody where stress is computed on a separate autosegmental plane represented with metrical grids (see also Halle and Idsardi 1995). I will illustrate how it works with Idsardi’s analysis of Russian, point out the challenges this analysis faces, and introduce the solution to these problems: shifting stems and the Shifting rule.

2.1 Idsardi’s framework and analysis of Russian

The grid consists of the abstract representation of segments that can bear stress (x-marks), parentheses that show edges, constituency, and prominence, and three lines which correspond to the levels of prominence (Line 0, Line 1, and Line 2). Marks on Line 0 indicate syllabic segments (that can potentially bear stress), marks on Line 1 indicate the heads of feet (potential stresses), and marks on Line 2 indicate the most prominent foot in a word (the main word stress). For example, here is the stress representation of the English word autobiographic (from Halle and Idsardi 1995):

(4) x Line 2

x x x) Line 1

(x x (x x (x x Line 0

au to bi o gra phic

In (4) each element that can bear stress (a head of a syllable) is linked to the Line 0, but only the heads marked by parentheses project to the next level, Line 1. The positioning of parentheses on each line is defined by metrical grid settings, which vary from language to language. These language-specific parameters define: which syllables are projected; whether the right or left boundary of a syllable is projected to Line 0; Line 0 and Line 1 edge settings; and finally, which head is projected to Line 2 (Head Location) to determine the position of the main stress. In addition, there are also language-specific constraints which block application of rules that would result in unacceptable configurations.

As Halle and Idsardi (1995) note, in Russian the Syllable Boundary Projection is triggered by an idiosyncratic property of the morpheme and not by phonetic properties of the syllable. Lexical stress is common for East Slavic languages, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit, and is argued to be a feature of Proto-Indo-European (Halle 1997). It is not limited to Indo-European as it is also found in Turkish, , Panoan, some Salish languages, and some Austronesian languages. Stress patterns vary depending on the lexical properties of stems as well as of inflectional and derivational morphemes.

I chose Idsardi’s framework because it was already used for comprehensive accounts of lexical stress (Idsardi 1992, Halle and Idsardi 1995), and it is also well suited for accounting for historical data (Halle 1997, Dresher 2009, among others).

Idsardi (1992) proposes the following analysis for Russian. He argues that Russian has the following Edge marking parameters:

(5) Edge marking parameters for Russian (Idsardi 1992: 110)

a. Line 0: Edge: RRR (Mark the edge placing a parenthesis on a Right boundary to the Right of the Right-most element).

Head: L (Project the leftmost element in a constituent to Line 1)

b. Line 1: Edge: LLL (Mark the edge placing a parenthesis on a Left boundary to the Left of the Left-most element).

Head: L (Project the leftmost element in a constituent to Line 2)

c. Conflation (Eliminate all but the main stress)

These Edge parameters interact with the lexical Edge markings, the metrical parentheses which are present on the stems in the lexicon. According to Idsardi, Russian features unstressed, post- stressing and stressed stems. Since we are talking about inherently accented morphemes, and to avoid confusion with the stress realization on the surface, here and further I will use the corresponding terms unaccented, post-accenting, and accented stems (as in Halle and Idsardi 1995). Throughout the thesis, I will use the terms accent and accented for underlying representations, and stress and stressed for surface representaions.

(6) Classes of stems in Russian

a. accented (Edge: LLL, LLR, LRL2)

Edge: LLL /jágod-/ in jágod-a ‘berry’ Edge: LLR /koróv-/ in koróv-a ‘cow’

(x x x (x

já god- ko róv-

b. post-accenting (Edge: LRR), e.g. /gospož-/ in gospož-á ‘lady’

x x(

gos pož-

c. unaccented stem (no Edge), e.g. /golov-/ in golov-á ‘head’

x x

go lov-

These are the underlying representations. The difference between these three types of stems becomes clearer in the inflectional paradigm when they combine with inflectional suffixes that are also lexically marked for stress (as well as with derivational morphemes, which are outside of the scope of this thesis).

(7) Classes of suffixes in Russian

a. Unaccented suffixes (no Edge), e.g. ACC SG -u in gólov-u

x x x

go lov- u

2 While Edge LRL is definitely a possibility in Russian, it is only available in three-syllable stems which do not exist in underived native words; the only examples of this configuration I found are borrowings, like Idsardi’s example karákul ‘astrakhan’ (from Uzbek), kompjúter ‘computer’ (from English), etc. The same is true for three- syllable LLR stems like kapitán ‘captain’ (from Italian). Borrowings, especially polysyllabic, are almost always accented. Monosyllabic borrowings are either accented (e.g. ball ‘mark’) or shifting (e.g. bal ‘dance party’). Also, some multisyllable borrowings can have stress on a syllable two syllables away from each edge, e.g. apokálipsis ‘apocalypse’, which does not fit in the settings proposed in (6); thus, some additional types of accented stems may need to be added to (6a) (thanks to Aleksei Nazarov for bringing this example to my attention).

3 b. Accented suffixes (Edge LLR), e.g. NOM SG -á in golov-á

x x (x

go lov- a

Now, I will explain in detail how edge parameters interact with the lexical Edge markings through the derivations for each type, starting from the unaccented stems. Here is the derivation for an unaccented stem and unaccented suffix (according to Idsardi’s analysis):

(8) gólov-u ‘head ACC SG’: golov- (unaccented) + ACC SG -u (unaccented)

ACC SG gólovu Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x x) golov+u

In (8), the right parenthesis on the rightmost element on Line 0 is provided by Edge RRR (as defined in 5a). This will happen in every derivation; this parenthesis merely marks the edge of the form. This is the only parenthesis on Line 0, as neither the stem nor the suffix is lexically marked for stress. Because none of the elements are marked, the leftmost available one is projected to Line 1 (Head Left) and gets a parenthesis to the left (Edge: LLL). Due to Head Left, the same element is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired first syllable stress gólov-u. This is the so-called default stress, which will always fall on the first syllable: there must be at least one stressed syllable in the word.

3 As for disyllabic suffixes, Idsardi assumes that they include theme vowels that can be stressed or unstressed: note that the second syllable is never stressed.

(9) golov-á ‘head NOM SG’: golov- (unaccented) + NOM SG -á (accented)

NOM SG golová Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x (x) golov+a

In (9), the left parenthesis on the rightmost element is provided by the suffix’s lexical Edge marking: LLR. The stem does not contribute anything because it has no edge. According to Head L (5a) the leftmost (and the only in this example) element that has parentheses is projected to Line 1, and is marked by Edge LLL (as in 5b). According to Head L (5b), the same element is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired stress on the last syllable: golov-á.

Now, let us consider post-accenting stems:

(10) gospož-ú ‘lady ACC SG’: gospož- (post-accenting) + ACC SG -u (unaccented)

ACC SG gospožú Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x( x) gospož+u Due to the stem’s Edge: LRR, in (10) a parenthesis appears to the right of the second element on Line 0. As a result, the last element is projected to Line 1 and gets a parenthesis to the left (Edge: LLL). The same element is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired stress on the last syllable, gospož-ú.

(11) gospož-á ‘lady NOM SG’: gospož- (post-accenting) + NOM SG -á (accented)

NOM SG gospožá Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x( (x) gospož+a In (11), the contribution of the suffix is the same as in (9): a left parenthesis on the last element. The stem has its own setting LRR that places the parenthesis to the right of the second element on Line 0; the result is two parentheses to the left of the last element (they act as one in terms of marking). Again, the only element that has parentheses (the last one) is projected to Line 1, then it gets a parenthesis from Edge LLL and is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired stress on the last syllable: gospož-á.

Finally, let us consider accented stems.

(12) koróv-u ‘cow ACC SG’: koróv- (accented) + ACC SG -u (unaccented)

ACC SG koróvu Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x (x x) korov+u In (9), the stem edge LLR results in the left parenthesis on the second element on Line 0. Then it is projected to Line 1, gets a left parenthesis and is projected again to Line 2, which results in the desired penultimate stress koróv-u.

(13) koróv-a ‘cow NOM SG’: koróv- (accented) + NOM SG -á (accented)

NOM SG koróva Line 2 x Line 1 (x x Line 0 x (x (x) korov +a In (13), the accented suffix contributes a left parenthesis on the last element on Line 0, as in previous examples. The stem has the setting LLR that places a parenthesis to the left of a stem- final element on Line 0, and the result is a parenthesis to the left of the second element as well. According to Head L, the leftmost elements of both constituents are projected to Line 1. Now there are two competing parentheses, and because of Conflation (5c), only one stress can remain. The leftmost element gets a parenthesis from Edge LLL and is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired stress on the penultimate syllable: koróv-a (not *korov-á, cf. unaccented stem golov-á).

As Idsardi notes, unaccented stems like golov-á have the largest number of stress alternations. The reason for this is the complex system of inflectional suffixes of Russian and their different stress properties. Idsardi provides the following chart which glosses over some details but still shows general patterns of inflectional suffix accentuation across three declensions, which conflate in the plural (the 1st declension is mostly feminine, the 2nd features masculine and neuter, and the 3rd is feminine):

(14) Accents of the suffixes by declension in Russian (from Idsardi 1992: 113)

SINGULAR PLURAL 1 (f) 2a (m) 2b (n) 3 (f) all Nom -á -ъ́ (Ø) -o -ь (Ø) -y/-ý/-i/-á Acc -u Gen -ý -a -i -ъ́ (Ø) Dat -é -u -i -ám Inst -ój -ómъ -ьju -ámi Loc -é -e / (-ú) -i -áxъ

Yers (back ъ and front ь), historically short vowels which are not a part of the inventory of Modern Russian, still affect the stress system according to Idsardi’s analysis because they project stress marks. In fact, only GEN PL yer affects stress patterns; while the NOM SG yer suffix is listed as accented, it does not attract the stress of unaccented stems. I will get back to how Idsardi deals with the effects of yers when I discuss Modern Ukrainian stress in more detail (Section 5.1.1); for now I will just assume that yers are present in underlying representations. Most importantly, in Modern Russian (as well as in Modern Ukrainian and Modern Belarusian) accented -ъ́ of GEN

PL affects the stress assignment in unaccented stems.

Note that the accents of the suffixes matter only for the stress patterns of unaccented stems. The only declension featuring accented suffixes in SG is the first declension (feminine a-stems), which leads to the most inconsistency of stress in the paradigm, like in golov-á:

(15) golov-á ‘head’ (unaccented stem, 1st declension), Russian

SG PL Nom golov-á gólov-y Acc gólov-u gólov-y Gen golov-ý golóv-Ø Dat golov-é golov-ám Instr golov-ój golov-ámi Loc golov-é golov-áx

Note that the only unaccented suffix in SG is ACC SG: the rest are accented. In PL, only NOM/ACC

PL is unaccented, and the rest are accented.

In the second declension, which features masculine and neuter stems, all the suffixes of the SG are unaccented, except for LOC SG suffix -ú. Idsardi argues that this is an example of allomorphy and that LOC SG -u is accent-deleting. I would like to point out that while there are accent- deleting derivational morphemes in Russian, this would be the only one with this property in the nominal inflection. According to Idsardi, it deletes the accent on the stems which otherwise behave as accented, e.g. plén-Ø ‘captivity’: GEN SG plén-a, but LOC SG plen-ú. I have to add that

LOC can be used only with prepositions in Russian, and this suffix is available only for a limited class of one-syllable masculine stems, so it is rather special.

In PL all the suffixes are accented except for NOM / ACC PL which, according to Idsardi, show stress allomorphy, -y vs -ý, regardless of the declension. He uses this explanation to account for two different stress patterns in unaccented masculine stems, zúb-Ø ‘tooth’ and dár-Ø ‘gift’:

(16) zúb-Ø ‘tooth’ (unaccented), Russian

SG PL Nom zúb-Ø zúb-y Acc zúb-Ø zúb-y Gen zúb-a zub-óv4 Dat zúb-u zub-ám Instr zúb-om zub-ámi Loc zúb-e zub-áx

Note that in NOM/ ACC PL stress is on the stem, unlike the rest of the PL.

(17) dár-Ø ‘gift’ (unaccented in Idsardi 1992), Russian

SG PL Nom dár-Ø dar-ý Acc dár-Ø dar-ý Gen dár-a dar-óv Dat dár-u dar-ám Instr dár-om dar-ámi Loc dár-e dar-áx

Note that in PL stress is on the suffix throughout the subparadigm, including NOM / ACC PL; again, in SG the stress happens to be on the stem. Idsardi claims that this can be taken care of with stress allomorphy and proposes the following derivations:

4 GEN PL suffix -ov is, in fact, a theme vowel and an epenthetic consonant which is stressed because of accented suffix yer (see Halle 1994). I will discuss yers in detail in Section 5.1; for now we can just treat GEN PL -ov as an accented suffix, it does not make any difference.

(18) zub- ‘tooth’, NOM PL -y; dar- ‘gift’, NOM PL -ý (unaccented according to Idsardi)

a. NOM PL b. NOM PL zúby darý Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x) x (x) zub+y dar+y

In (18a) NOM PL suffix -y is unaccented, so there is no left parenthesis on Line 0, and we have default stress on the first syllable. In (18b) the allomorph -ý is accented, so it enters the derivation with the left bracket on Line 0, then the second element is projected to Line 1 and the result is stress on the suffix.

There are also cases where stress behaves in a way that cannot be explained either with the 5 original parameters or with allomorphy, like kol’e-só ‘wheel’- NOM PL kol’ós-a where stress is on the suffix in SG and on the stem in PL. Idsardi terms these stems “shifting” following Melvold (1990), and proposes a lexically and morphologically restricted Parenthesis Doubling rule that accounts for them:

(19) Parenthesis Doubling rule (Idsardi 1992: 119)

Ø → ( / _ x( : lexically and morphologically restricted:

Insert a left parenthesis to the left of an element that has a left parenthesis to its right

(only certain nouns and only in NOM PL)

According to Idsardi, this rule can apply to a limited class of nouns, e.g. the post-accenting stem kol’esó ‘wheel’ that shows a pattern that an accented stem would show in NOM PL: kol’ósa due to the parenthesis inserted to the left:

5 Note a historical alternation e/o: e of the stem changes to o when stressed (missing from Idsardi’s examples).

(20) Parenthesis doubling application: kol’es-ó ‘wheel’

a. NOM SG b. NOM PL kol’esó kol’ósa Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x x Doubling -- x (x( x Line 0 x x( x) x x( (x) kol’es+o kol’os+a

In (20a), koles- acts as a post-accenting stem: on Line 0 the parenthesis is to the right of the second element; as a result the last element is projected and gets a parenthesis, and the stress goes to the last element, an originally unaccented suffix of NOM SG -o, kol’esó. However, in (20b) the Doubling rule applies on Line 0 and creates an additional left parenthesis to the left of the second element. Next, both the accented suffix and the second element are projected to Line 1, but only the leftmost one with the parenthesis is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired stress kol’ósa.

6 For the unaccented “shifting” stems like ózer-o - NOM PL oz’ór-a ‘lake’, where the stress shifts inside the stem, the rule will work in the following way:

(21) Parenthesis doubling application: ózer-o ‘lake’

a. NOM SG b. NOM PL ózero oz’óra Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x x Doubling -- x (x (x Line 0 x x x) x x (x) oz’er+o oz’or+ a

In (21a), ozer- acts as an unaccented stem: on Line 0 there are no parentheses except for the edge so we get the default stress on the leftmost element. In (21b) Doubling applies on Line 0 and doubles the parenthesis which originally belongs to the suffix; the result is a left parenthesis to the left of the second element. Again, both the last and the second elements are projected to Line

6 Same alternation as in koles-ó above.

1, but only the leftmost with the parenthesis is projected to Line 2: the second element wins which results in the desired stress oz’óra.

Note that in both (20) and (21) NOM/ACC PL -a is treated as accented, which I understand is another case of allomorphy according to Idsardi; this suffix does not always act as accented. While for (20) it does not change anything, it is crucial for (21) as the suffix conveniently provides the only parenthesis that can be doubled. So we need both allomorphy and Doubling to work together to achieve the right results here; but in other cases like dar allomorphy alone is enough. I find it interesting that according to Idsardi, NOM/ACC PL would be the only case which shows allomorphy in relation exclusively to the stress: -y vs -ý (masculine and feminine) and -a vs -á (neuter), while the suffix -i (which is in fact a variant of -y) is always unaccented. The only other case that has two different stress patterns would be LOC SG, but this allomorphy is not exclusive to stress: it is either unaccented -e or stress-deleting -ú (I will propose my analysis for

LOC SG -u below).

Next, I will propose a solution that will treat all these cases together with one device, the Shifting rule, and relying on the stem properties only: I will introduce the notion of shifting stems.

2.2 Introducing the Shifting rule

Idsardi treats cases like dár-Ø and koles-ó as exceptions. However, while the type frequency of these patterns is low, the token frequency is high in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. They have consistent stress patterns which seem to depend on number rather than on specific case suffixes, unlike unaccented stems. They also behave differently from accented and post- accenting stems, as their stress pattern consistently changes depending on number in the following ways:

(22) a) accented in SG (x, (xx and post-accenting in PL x(, xx(

b) post-accenting in SG x(, xx( and accented in PL (x, x(x

c) accented stem of type (xx in SG and of type x(x in PL

I will call the stems with the above patterns shifting stems.

I propose that in all three languages the stems are divided into the following six types:

(23) Stress patterns in East Slavic7

Types SG PL Examples (Russian) Type 0: unaccented stems x ruk-á ‘hand’, zub-Ø ‘tooth’, noč-Ø (stress depends on lexical x x ‘night’; accent of the suffixes) golov-á ‘head’, óblast’-Ø ‘region’

Type 1: accented stems (x múx-a – NOM PL múx-i ‘fly’; (stem always stressed) (x x jágod-a – NOM PL jágod-y ‘berry’; x (x koróv-a – NOM PL koróv-y ‘cow’

Type 2: post-accenting x( čert-á – NOM PL čert-ý ‘line’; stems (suffix always x x( stól-Ø – GEN SG stol-á – NOM PL stol-ý stressed) ‘table’

Type 3: accented in SG, (x x( dár-Ø – NOM PL dar-ý ‘gift’; post-accenting in PL (x x x x( górod-Ø – NOM PL gorod-á ‘city’

Type 4: post-accenting in x( (x koz-á – NOM PL kóz-y ‘goat’; SG, accented in PL x x( x (x kolbas-á – NOM PL kolbás-y ‘sausage’ st Type 5: shifting from the 1 (x x x (x ózer-o – NOM PL oz’ór-a ‘lake’ nd to the 2 syllable in PL

Many previous analyses, especially of Russian (e.g. Alderete 1999: 68), ignore the shifting types as statistically insignificant infrequent exceptions. I would like to point out that a significant number of accented nouns are polysyllabic borrowings like aspirantúr-a ‘Ph. D. studies’, biológij-a ‘biology’, etc., which, as I mentioned before, are always accented: they keep stress on the stem. These nouns, while found in the vocabulary, are not representative in terms of usage. I coded the first thousand most frequent nouns in Modern Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian (based on Russian National Corpus, Ukrainian National Corpus, and Mazhejka 2006) by the types presented in (23). I found that despite being statistically insignificant with respect to all the existing nouns, the shifting types 3, 4, and 5 are very common from the frequency perspective, especially in Ukrainian and Belarusian:

7 The types with examples are summarized in the table in Appendix C.

(24) The distribution of the types in the first thousand most frequent nouns (token frequency)

8 Type Ukrainian Russian Belarusian (out of 421)

0 (unaccented) 25 (2.5%) 27 (2.7%) 26 (6.1%)

1 (accented) 698 (69.8%) 796 (79.6%) 293 (69.5%)

2 (post-accenting) 83 (8.3%) 64 (6.4%) 28 (6.6%)

Shifting 3 135 (13.5%) 66 (6.6%) 47 (11.2%)

Shifting 4 54 (5.4%) 45 (4.5%) 23 (5.5%)

Shifting 5 5 (0.5%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.4%)

Not surprisingly, Type 1 is the most common type. But the next most common type is 3, then Type 2 and then Type 4, with Type 0 and 5 being the least frequent. Note the list of the nouns of type 0 is exhaustive: while this type is not productive, unlike the shifting types 3 and 4, it constitutes core vocabulary and has survived despite being the least regular type.

Consider the following example from Ukrainian, a paradigm of báb-a ‘woman’, where in SG the stress is consistently on the stem, and on the suffix in PL (cf. Russian dar-Ø ‘gift’ in (17) above):

8 Belarusian does not have an online corpus which would allow us to calculate frequency. The only available source is Mažejka (2006), which contains a list of the 1000 most frequent words, among which there are only 421 nouns. The numbers still show a similar distribution of the types.

(25) báb-a ‘woman’ (Ukrainian)

SG PL Nom báb-a bab-ý Acc báb-u bab-ý / bab-ív Gen báb-y bab-ív Dat báb-i bab-ám Instr báb-oju bab-ámy Loc báb-i bab-áx Voc báb-o bab-ý

If we assume that NOM SG -a is accented, as suggested by stress patterns of unaccented stems, e.g. ruk-á ‘hand’, which has the same pattern as Russian golov-á ‘head’ in (1), then I have to conclude that bab- is accented too, and would have the following derivation (cf. the derivation for koróv-a in (13)):

(26) báb-a ‘woman NOM SG’, bab- (accented) + NOM SG -a (accented)

a. NOM SG bába Line 2 x Line 1 (x x Line 0 (x (x) bab+a

Here, bab- provides a left parenthesis to the first element and -a provides a left parenthesis to the second element. Both are projected to Line 1, but only the first one is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired form báb-a. If we assumed that bab- is unaccented, we would have *bab-á.

If we assume that bab- is accented and the NOM PL suffix -y is unaccented (like it is in Russian), the derivation in (27) gives the wrong result:

(27) babý ‘woman NOM PL’, bab- (accented) + NOM PL -y (unaccented)

NOM PL *báby Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 (x x) bab+y

Here, the accented stem provides a left parenthesis on the first element, while the last element has only the right parenthesis due to Edge: RRR (as in 2a) on Line 0 and no left one. The first element is projected to Line 1 because it is the only bracketed one, and it gets a parenthesis from the Head L (as in 2b). This should result in the projection of the first element to Line 2, but this gives the wrong result with the stress on the first syllable *báby, while the desired form is babý.

If we assume that the NOM PL suffix -y is accented, the derivation should be as follows:

(28) bába woman’,‘ bab- (accented) + NOM PL -y (accented)

b. NOM PL *báby Line 2 x Line 1 (x x Line 0 (x (x) bab+y

Here, on Line 0 the accented stem still provides a left parenthesis on the first element, but unlike in (27), the accented suffix provides a left parenthesis to the last element. Both elements get projected to Line 1, but only the first one gets a parenthesis from the Head L. Again, this should result in the projection of the first element to Line 2, and would give *báby instead of babý.

st One possible solution is to analyze the NOM PL suffix in the 1 declension as not just accented, but also stress-deleting -ý, parallel to what Idsardi (1992: 114) proposes for Russian LOC SG -u discussed above.

(29) bába woman’,‘ bab- (accented) + NOM PL -ý (stress-deleting):

NOM PL babý Line 2 x Line 1 (x Accent Deletion x (x) Line 0 (x (x) bab+y If we assume that -ý deletes the left parenthesis on the first element on Line 0, then it never is projected to Line 1 and the only element that gets to Line 1 is the last one. The last element is projected to Line 2 as well, which would give the desired form babý.

However, several problems arise for this analysis.

First, while stress-deleting LOC SG -ú exists in Ukrainian as well, it is a rather rare form that is limited to certain one-syllable masculine non-animate nouns. Even with those words, it can only be used with a preposition (na ‘on’, u ‘in’, pry ‘by’), and in some cases an alternative LOC SG suffix -i can be used for the same word without change in meaning, cf. kraj ‘border, country’

LOC SG u krajú / u kráji ‘in a country’. So even if a stress-deleting suffix is possible in Ukrainian (e.g. in derivational suffixes), it is rather unusual for inflection. Also, I would have to suggest three-way allomorphy for all PL suffixes as they would have to be accented, unaccented or stress- deleting (cf. NOM SG holov-á - NOM PL hólov-y - DAT PL holov-ám).

Second, this analysis would not work for another example, verb-á ‘willow’, which patterns as follows, with stress on the suffix in SG and on the stem in PL:

(30) verb-á ‘willow’ (Ukrainian)

SG PL Nom verb-á vérb-y Acc verb-ú vérb-y Gen verb-ý verb-Ø Dat verb-í vérb-am Instr verb-óju vérb-amy Loc verb-í vérb-ax Voc vérbo vérb-y

Note that this paradigm shows a pattern opposite to bába ‘woman’: here all singular suffixes are stressed (except for VOC SG) while in the plural stress is always on the stem.

In the singular the stem verb- seems to behave as post-accenting:

(31) verbá ‘willow’: verb- (post-accenting) + NOM SG -á (accented), ACC SG -u (unaccented).

a. NOM SG b. ACC SG verbá verbú Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x( (x) x( x) verb+a verb+u

The derivation here is the same as for Russian gospož-a ‘lady’ in (10) and (11) and gives the desired results in both cases. However, in the plural we would run into a problem:

(32) verbá ‘willow’, verb- (post-accenting) + NOM PL -ý (stress-deleting)

NOM PL *verbý Line 2 x Line 1 (x Accent deletion x (x) Line 0 x( (x) verb+y

Even if we suppose that -ý deletes the left parenthesis on the first element on Line 0, it does not change anything: the only element that is projected to Line 1 is the last one. The last element is projected to Line 2 as well, and the result is not a desired one, *verbý instead of vérby. Unaccented -y would also result in the wrong form *verbý.

Another problem is that NOM PL -y does not have any effect when a stem is unaccented: recall that NOM PL of holová‘head’ in (16b) is hólovy, not *holový. So with unaccented stems, -y neither has an accent of its own, nor does it change anything on a stem. It seems that an accented stress-deleting NOM PL -y can appear only in the presence of accent on the stem.

While the verbá type can be accounted for by Idsardi’s Doubling rule, the existence of two different accents on the same suffix within the same paradigm, one of them unaccented and another with two properties at once (accented and stress-deleting) seems to be too complex and thus is not an appealing analysis.

The third shifting type, with the stress shifting within the stem depending on the number, is presented by ózer-o ‘lake’:

(33) ózer-o ‘lake’ (Ukrainian)

SG PL Nom ózer-o ozér-a Acc ózer-o ozér-a Gen ózer-a ozér-Ø Dat ózer-u ozér-am Instr ózer-om ozér-amy Loc ózer-i ozér-ax Voc ózer-o ozér-a

I include this pattern with the other shifting ones because even if it does not involve an alternation between stem and suffix, it still depends on the number and not on a lexical accent of a particular suffix. I have to note, however, that this is the rarest type of the three; there are historical reasons for this that I will mention later. Again, while this type can be accounted for by the Doubling rule, I indicated the problems connected to that earlier.

To account for shifting types, I propose a rule that has an effect similar to Idsardi’s parenthesis doubling in (8), which I repeat for convenience here:

(34) Ø → ( / _ x( : lexically and morphologically restricted

Insert a left parenthesis to the left of an element that has a left parenthesis to its right (only certain nouns)

By ‘only certain nouns’, Idsardi means that these nouns are marked in the lexicon as such. However, as I showed above, the shifting stems are not a list of peculiar exceptions. I claim that shifting stems constitute an accentual class that has its own properties: they differ on the one hand from accented and post-accenting stems, which never move their stress, and on the other hand from unaccented stems, which rely on the lexical accent of the suffix.

I propose that accented stems like jágod-a ‘berry’ and koróv-a ‘cow’ are marked in the lexicon differently from shifting stems like ózer-o ‘lake’. In a sense, this echoes Idsardi’s idea about introducing anchored and unanchored parentheses, with anchored parentheses being “stronger” than unanchored ones (Idsardi 1992: 48). Anchored parentheses would be the parentheses of

28 accented and post-accenting stems, which are always connected to the head and never move; I will mark them here with a superscript L.

(35) Accented stems: jágod-a ‘berry’, koróv-a ‘cow’; post-accenting korol’-Ø ‘king’

Line 0 (Lx x x (Lx x x(L

ja - god- ko- rov- ko- rol’-

Further, I propose that shifting stems have a special parenthesis on Line 0 which I will mark from now on with a superscript S (the representations in (36), as in (35), are underlying representations):

(36) Shifting stems: hólub ‘pigeon’, pomel-ó ‘broom’, ózer-o ‘lake’

Line 0 (Sx x x x(S (Sʹx x

holub- po - mel- o - zer-

I propose that both lexical and shifting parentheses are types of anchored parentheses, as opposed to edge parentheses, which are unanchored. According to Dresher (1994, 2016), an anchored parenthesis requires that the Line 0 mark adjacent to it be projected to Line 1. Thus, the left parentheses in (35) and (36) create left-headed feet. Dresher argues that if this restriction is not observed, impossible derivations can result (see Dresher 1994: 83 for examples). Unanchored parentheses are not subject to this restriction.

The rule I would like to propose is the Shifting rule, which comes with several constraints. In order to shift, a parenthesis must be already present on the stem, i.e. the stem can be accented or post-accenting, but not unaccented. Another condition for a parenthesis is to be at the edge of the stem: note that the accented stems of type x(x, e.g. koróva ‘cow’, never show shifting properties. One more constraint for the rule is that the shifting parenthesis cannot lose contact with the stem, i.e. it cannot shift to the middle of the suffix.

(37) Shifting rule, restricted to shifting stems when a plural suffix is present:

a) Move a left parenthesis minimally to an adjacent morpheme: (Sx x > x x(S or

x x(S > x (Sx;

b) Move a left parenthesis one grid mark to the right: (Sʹx x > x (Sʹx.

In (37a) in order to shift stress from the stem onto the suffix, the parenthesis has to move to the right edge of the stem, i.e. two grid marks to the right. However, to shift stress from the suffix onto the stem, shifting the parenthesis one grid mark to the left is good enough. In the limited class of stems that shift the parenthesis within the stem, as in (37b), the parenthesis is marked as S’.

Applying the two versions of the Shifting rule would result in the following derivations for hólub-Ø ‘pigeon’ (Type 3), pomel-ó ‘broom’ (Type 4) and ózer-o ‘lake’ (Type 5). In these derivations, I propose that the suffixes do not have their own lexical accents; in any case, they would not affect the outcome of the derivations.

(38) hólub ‘pigeon’: holub- (shifting, Type 3) + GEN SG -a, NOM PL -y

GEN SG NOM PL hóluba holubý Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (a) -- x x(S x) Line 0 (Sx x x) (Sx x x) ho lub+ a ho lub+y

Here, the shifting parenthesis starts at the left edge of the stem. In SG, stress stays on the stem.

Once combined with the NOM PL suffix, the Shifting rule as defined in (37a) applies on Line 0: in order to move stress to the suffix, it moves the left parenthesis two grid marks to the right, to the right edge of the stem. The final grid mark is projected to Line 1 and to Line 2, and the result is the desired NOM PL form holub-ý.

(39) pomeló ‘broom’: pomel- (shifting, Type 4) + GEN SG -a, NOM PL -a

GEN SG NOM PL pomelá poméla Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (a) -- x (Sx x) Line 0 x x(S x) x x(S x) pomel+ a pomel + a

Here, the shifting parenthesis starts at the right edge of the stem. Again, the stem is just like a regular post-accenting stem in SG. In PL the Shifting rule as defined in (37a) applies at Line 0: to end up on the stem, the parenthesis moves away from the grid mark of the suffix one mark to the left at Line 0, which results in the projection of the stem-final element to Line 1 and Line 2, giving the desired NOM PL form pomél-a.

(40) ózero‘lake’: ozer- (shifting, Type 5) GEN SG -a, NOM PL -a

GEN SG NOM PL ózera ozéra Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (b) -- x (Sˈx x) Line 0 (Sˈx x x) (Sˈx x x) o zer+a o zer + a

Here, the stem is marked as having an Sˈ parenthesis. In PL, the Shifting rule as defined in (37b) applies at Line 0 and moves the left parenthesis one grid mark to the right, which results in the projection of the stem-final element and gives the desired NOM PL form ozér-a.

These derivations will work for Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian shifting stems. This analysis covers all the existing stress patterns in East Slavic; all of them can be accounted for by a combination of Idsardi’s analysis and the Shifting rule. The only forms that still require special treatment are the forms with yers which I will discuss in Section 5.1.

Note that the lexical accents of suffixes do not matter for shifting stems. As we will see in more detail later, I suggest that in the course of history Ukrainian, Belarusian, and, to a lesser extent, Russian reanalyzed some stems as shifting and the lexical accents of the suffixes are gradually disappearing.

2.3 The Tone-insertion rule

For the analysis of the Common Slavic stress, which featured rising (LH) and falling (HL) tones, I will need a rule that will introduce tone in the derivation. I will use a special tone-insertion rule proposed by Kim (1999) for the analysis of the North Kyungsang Korean prosodic system. Originally proposed by Purnell (1997), who considers the tones as being represented with laryngeal features, the rule inserts a high tone onto the most prominent element under the laryngeal node:

(41) Tone-insertion rule:

∅ → H/ x Line 2

x Line 1

x Line 0

X timing tier

[-cons] root tier

∘ laryngeal tier

—

I propose a similar rule for the reconstruction of tone assignment in Early Common Slavic, which I will discuss in detail in the next chapter. In a nutshell, during this period, vowel length was still present, and rising (LH) and falling (HL) tonal contours were assigned to one of the

32 syllables of the word. I propose that the tone assignment in Early Common Slavic was subject to the following tone-insertion rule:

(42) Tone-insertion rule:

a. Insert a HL tone onto the stressed element.

b. If the element has a left parenthesis on Line 0, insert a LH tone on the preceding element.

This rule, combined with the parameters proposed by Idsardi for Russian, will provide the right derivations for the following Common Slavic forms.

(43) *gȏlvām ‘head ACC SG’: *gōlv- (unaccented) + ACC SG *-ām(No Edge): *gȏlvām Tone HL assignment | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x x x) go olv+a am

In (43), the first grid mark is projected to Line 2 and the rule in (42a) assigns the HL tone to it: the result is *gȏlvām, with the falling tone on the first syllable.

(44) *vo ̄̋ rnām ‘crow ACC SG’: vōrn- (accented) + ACC SG -ām (unaccented) *vo ̄̋ rnām Tone LH HL assignment | | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x (x x x) vo orn+a am

Here, , the second grid mark is projected to Line 1, then to Line 2 and gets the tone HL due to the tone-assignment rule in (42a). Then, according to the rule in (42b), the element preceding the stressed one due to a left parenthesis on Line 0 also gets assigned tone LH: the first element gets an LH contour. The result is the desired form *vo ̄̋ rnām, with the LHL tonal contour over two moras of the first syllable of the stem.

2.4 Interim Summary

In this chapter, I outlined the theoretical framework for the analysis I am proposing in this thesis. While Idsardi’s framework is very well suited for lexical stress, his analysis of Russian has some problems. In particular, Idsardi treats stems with stress patterns that depend on number as unaccented. I provide arguments against this analysis and present a case from Ukrainian for which Idsardi’s analysis cannot account. I present an alternative analysis in which such stems are marked in the lexicon with a new type of parenthesis, namely as shifting stems, and propose that they are subject to the Shifting rule. I also provide a tone-insertion rule which will be needed to derive stress and tone in Common Slavic forms, which I will discuss in the next chapter.

3 Stress in Common Slavic and Old East Slavic

The periodization of Slavic, and East Slavic in particular, into different historical periods is a subject of ongoing discussion; in this chapter I will use the terminology as in Bethin (2009), given in (45):

(45) Periodization of Slavic

Common Slavic (CS) (before 8th century A.D.)

Late Common Slavic (LCS), including East (9th-12th centuries) Slavic dialects

Early Old East Slavic (Early OESl) (11th- 12th centuries)

Late Old East Slavic (Late OESl) (13th- 14th centuries)

Old Ukrainian (OU), Old Russian (OR), Old (15th – 17th centuries) Belarusian (OB)

Imperial Russian (18-19th centuries)

Modern Ukrainian (MU), Modern Russian (20th century - present) (MR), Modern Belarusian (MB)

Stress in Common Slavic and Old East Slavic is reconstructed using data from Old Church Slavonic manuscripts as well as various Slavic languages and dialects of different periods. Late Common Slavic is the period when Slavic unity disintegrated, and dialectal differences led to development of the West, East, and South Slavic stress systems. I use the term Old East Slavic for the period when East Slavic had already developed its distinctive features, but Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian had not yet formed as separate languages, i.e. before the 14th century. The stress patterns of this period are still reconstructed but with more accuracy, as the primary sources are the manuscripts without stress marks written in a variety of Old Church Slavonic with a plethora of East Slavic specific features. Starting from the end of the 14th century, stress is consistently marked in the manuscripts written in Old Ukrainian, Old Belarusian, and Old

Russian. These manuscripts are the primary sources for the historical accentological studies of each language.

3.1 Previous research

As Wexler (1977), among others, notes, there is a disagreement among Slavicists on the chronology of the development of Old East Slavic from Common Slavic, as well as the origin of each East Slavic language. The Russian, and Soviet linguistic tradition in general (e.g. Filin 1962), traces all East Slavic back to an Old East Slavic language (also called Old Russian in the literature). Some Western authors trace East Slavic languages back to different dialects of Common Slavic (e.g. Shevelov 1979). This discussion is outside of my topic, so I will assume that there was a Common East Slavic from which the three East Slavic languages eventually emerged.

There is an extended literature on stress in Common Slavic focused on its relation to Baltic and Proto-Indo-European stress (Stang 1957, Garde 1976, Dybo 1981, Olander 2009, Sucač 2013, Jasanoff 2017, among others), and Old East Slavic, mostly focused on its relation to Modern Russian stress (Bulakhovskii 1958, Khazagerov 1973, Zalizniak 1985 and 2014, among others). A crucial concept that determined positions which were further developed by the Moscow school of accentology was proposed by Jakobson (1963). He suggested that in Common Slavic there were two types of words: enclinomena, which are, in our terminology, underlyingly unaccented, and orthotonic, that is, underlyingly accented. Dybo (1981: 9) later proposed that all morphemes (roots and suffixes) of Balto-Slavic had one of the two “accentual valencies”: dominant, corresponding to underlyingly accented morphemes, or recessive, corresponding to underlyingly unaccented morphemes. Another crucial concept, originally developed for Indo-European but valid for both Common Slavic and Modern East Slavic, is the Basic Accentuation Principle proposed by Kiparsky and Halle (1977) and Halle and Kiparsky (1981) (cited from Idsardi 1992: 109):

(46) Basic Accentuation Principle (BAP) If a word has more than one accented vowel, the first of these gets the word accent. If a word has no accented vowel, the first vowel gets the word accent.

Bethin (1998) is one of the few studies that bridges traditional historical linguistics of Slavic languages with a formal approach. Bethin provides an extensive overview of the literature on Slavic stress from both perspectives. One of the central claims is that Late Common Slavic was subject to a MORAIC constraint which states that “syllables must end in moraic segments” (1998: 28). Bethin’s proposal is that tone is a property of the mora, and stress is a property of the syllable (1998: 116). She traces the changes from the Common Slavic stress system to the plethora of modern Slavic language stress systems and claims that stress and other phonological changes, like vowel fronting, are conditioned by changes of the syllable structure. Due to the wide scope of the book, there is no detailed discussion of the stress systems of particular East Slavic languages in the nominal paradigms.

Skliarenko (1998) provides a detailed reconstruction and analysis of Late Common Slavic stress, connecting it to the developments throughout the history of East Slavic. A detailed description of changes from Old to Modern Ukrainian nominal stress is provided in Skliarenko (2006), based on written evidence of the 16-20th centuries.

Baerman (1999) provides an overview and comparison of the stress systems of different Slavic languages and proposes his analysis of the development of fixed stress systems using the framework of Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1995). Among the East Slavic languages, he only discusses the West Bojko dialect of Ukrainian, as this dialect has developed fixed stress.

Veselovs’ka (1970) made the only attempt to compare the development of stress in all three East Slavic languages from the end of the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century. Studies that include all three East Slavic languages are few and do not appeal to current theoretical frameworks. This thesis covers this gap.

3.2 Stress in Common Slavic

As Halle (1997), among others, states, the modern literature on Slavic stress is based on the seminal work of Stang (1957) (see more on the contribution of Stang in Halle 1997: 294-297). Stang generally argued against the idea that the Proto-Indo-European stress system was preserved in Slavic, while acknowledging that it was preserved in Baltic. He also presented his reconstruction of Common Slavic stress and proposed the three accentual paradigm types which have been used in Slavic accentology ever since (Dybo 1981, Zalizniak 1985, Skliarenko 1998, inter alia).

3.2.1 Early Common Slavic

While there are many points of view about how exactly the prosody of Common Slavic should be reconstructed (see Bethin 2009: 114 for discussion), it is commonly agreed that Common Slavic featured lexical stress. Following Stang (1957) and Jakobson (1963), among others, I will assume that only one of the word’s syllables was stressed and had a distinct tone, and the unstressed syllables had level tone. It is also commonly agreed that there were two types of pitch in CS: acute (rising-falling) and circumflex (falling) with the following distributions:

(47) Pitch contours in Common Slavic

a. acute (rising-falling, LHL): occurs on any long syllable of the stem (symbol ̋ ), e.g. *ga ̄̋ dŭ ‘viper’ or on the suffix (symbol ̀ ) e.g. *vĭdóva ̄̀ ‘widow’

b. circumflex (falling, HL): occurs only on the first syllable of the stem, either long (symbol ̑ ) e.g. *jȃje ‘egg’, or short (symbol ̏ ), e.g. *kȍlo ‘circle’

Stang (1957) proposed that in Common Slavic there were three possible stress patterns across paradigms, the so-called accentual paradigms (AP). I illustrate the paradigms with examples from Skliarenko (1998).

(48) Common Slavic accent paradigms:

a) a ‘barytonic’: fixed rising-falling pitch LHL (acute) on the first long syllable of the stem, e.g. *ga ̄̋ d-ŭ ‘viper’;

b) b ‘oxytonic’: fixed rising-falling pitch (acute) with the rising tonal contour on the last syllable on the stem LH (symbol ́ ) and falling contour on the suffix HL (symbol ̀ ), e.g. ACC SG vĭdóv-a ̄̀m ‘widow’;

c) c ‘mobile’: falling pitch HL (circumflex) on the first syllable of the stem

alternating with a pitch on the suffix, e.g. ACC SG *gȏlv-ām ‘head’ vs. NOM SG *golv-a ̄̋ .

While this system seems complicated, it can be explained with the notion of lexical accent. Only one syllable was stressed and could carry a distinctive tone; I assume that unstressed syllables had low tone L in all paradigms. On the surface, the difference between acute and circumflex is that the former has a rising-falling contour LHL and the latter has a falling contour HL. The stems of accent paradigm a are accented: they have a long syllable with the LHL contour spread over two moras. Accent paradigm b stems are also accented but they spread the LHL contour over two short syllables: the final short syllable of the stem (LH) and the first syllable of the suffix (HL). Accent paradigm c stems are unaccented: the first syllable of the stem will carry HL tone regardless of length if the suffix is unaccented.. If the suffix is accented, the tone will surface on the suffix depending on the case: e.g. NOM SG -ā is accented and carries LHL tone, hence NOM SG *golv-a ̄̋ .

In recent years accentologists of the Moscow school (Bulatova et al. 1988, Dybo et al. 1990, Nikolaev 2012, see also Shrager 2011 for a brief overview in English) proposed a fourth accentual paradigm d, which looks like a variant of accentual paradigms b (post-accenting) but with NOM/ACC SG that look like accent paradigm c (unaccented) and consists mostly of -o and -u masculine stems. It goes back to the observation made by Illich-Svitych (1963: 119) on Susak and Istrian dialects of Croatian which had examples of stress patterns that did not fit the existing classification, e.g. NOM SG grâd ‘city’ which bears a circumflex contour consistent with accent paradigm c , and GEN SG grād-ȁ which looks like accent paradigm b (in Istrian dialect). Although

39 there is a growing number of relevant examples, this proposal has not been widely accepted in Western accentology. From our viewpoint, it is not very crucial as accent paradigm d did not survive in the standard modern East Slavic languages; most candidates for this group have either unaccented or shifting patterns in the historical and present day data which I analyze in this thesis (although it has been claimed that traces can be found in some dialects of Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian; see Shrager 2007, Nikolaev 2012).

Jakobson (1963) argues that in Common Slavic only length and rising pitch (acute) matter for the phonology, while the circumflex is predictable. He also argues that syllables bearing rising pitch (acute) were accented, while the ones bearing falling pitch (circumflex) were not. Jakobson supports his claim with the fact that only the position of acute was unpredictable (it could occur on any long syllable of the word, as well as on the final short syllable). Falling pitch, on the other hand, was restricted to the first syllable and could be transferred to the preceding preposition in the case of nouns. Jakobson also claims that in the words containing only falling pitch (that is, the unaccented enclinomena) it played a ‘demarcative’ function, serving only to determine the word boundary.

A similar proposal was argued in Dybo (originally in 1981: 9ff, developed in Dybo et al. 1990: 85ff, and summarized in Dybo 2000: 13ff), who underlines the importance of the distinction between ‘stable’ accent paradigms a and b, which should be treated as accented, and ‘mobile’ accent paradigm с, which should be treated as unaccented. Unlike other authors, he argues that instead of treating words as a whole, stems and suffixes should be treated separately as having certain ‘valences’ that define where stress surfaces in the word. According to Dybo, already at the Balto-Slavic level all morphemes are inherently either dominant (+) or recessive (–), and the stress is assigned according to the “contour rule” which states: “the ictus9 is situated in the beginning of the first sequence of the morphemes of higher valence” (Dybo 1981: 261). He notes that for Common Slavic the rule could also be formulated otherwise: “ictus goes on the first morpheme of the higher valence” (the original rule also works for Caucasian languages). Here are examples to illustrate the different possibilities:

9 Ictus is a stress mark regardless of its tone contour (symbol ̍ ).

(49) Stress assignment in Common Slavic according to Dybo (1981: 261)

a) sta̍ r- ьc- ь ‘old man’ + + +

b) le ̍ n- ъ ‘flax’ – –

10 c) lĕn- ost -ь - jǫ̍ ‘laziness INSTR SG’ – – – +

d) ko̍ z - ь -e - jǫ ‘goat (ADJ) INSTR SG’ + – – +

In (49a) and (49b) all the morphemes have the same valence, so the “beginning of the first sequence” that gets the stress is the leftmost morpheme, i.e. the stem. In (44c), the only dominant morpheme is the last one, INSTR SG suffix, so it gets the stress. In (44d), there are two dominant morphemes interrupted by recessive ones, but again, the first one, i.e. the leftmost, gets the stress.

The dominant/recessive valences correspond to the accented/unaccented distinction in Idsardi’s framework. Dybo also proposes that the stems of accent paradigm с, or enclinomena, are recessive, hence unaccented. His system does not distinguish between different syllables of the stem carrying accent.

From this we can conclude that Stang’s ‘accent paradigms’ correspond to the three types of stems Idsardi (1995) proposed for Russian: accent paradigm a corresponds to accented stems, accent paradigm b to post-accenting stems, and accent paradigm c corresponds to unaccented stems, respectively. Dybo’s valences, on the other hand, also cover Idsardi’s accented and unaccented suffixes.

As for the nature of the tones, the rising contour LH could occur only when preceding a HL contour, either on the first mora of a long stressed syllable (never on the second) or on the short syllable preceding a short HL syllable. There are different views as to which mora was

10 The symbol ǫ stands for nasalized o.

41 underlyingly accented. Jakobson (1963) argues that in Common Slavic the dynamic peak coincided with rising pitch, i.e. was on the first mora. Skliarenko (1998) argues it coincided with the second mora, i.e. on the falling part of the syllable, as in the absence of the rising pitch, the stress would fall on the first syllable of the word (or on the preceding preposition).

I suggest that the falling contour HL associated with unaccented stems, as the only environment where HL tone could appear without being preceded by the rising LH tone, was on the very first mora of the word (Skliarenko 1998, inter alia).

Let us discuss the two possibilities for determining which mora was accented.

(50) Possibilities of underlying accent of the moras in CS a) first mora accented

(x x x x vo or n+a am

b) second mora accented x (x x x vo or n+a am

I will assume that the second mora of the underlyingly accented syllable is accented, as in (44b). An argument for this is the reflexes of liquid diphthongs in East Slavic, e. g. *kőrva > koróva ‘cow’ where the stress is on the syllable -ro-, which constituted the second mora of the diphthong (Kavitskaya and Horn 2002: 138, among others). Also, as we will see below, this is the only configuration that will allow us to derive post-accenting stems.

I propose that while the HL contour was a surface manifestation of both accent and default stress assignment, the LH contour was associated exclusively with accent. I also propose that in Common Slavic the tone was predictable and was differentiated between underlying lexical accent and default stress: lexical accent was realized with acute (LHL), and default stress was realized with circumflex (HL). Tone assignment in Early Common Slavic was subject to the tone-insertion rule I proposed in the section 2.3 and repeat for convenience here:

(51) Tone-insertion rule: a. Insert a HL tone onto the stressed element. b. If the element has a left parenthesis on Line 0, insert a LH tone on the preceding element.

I also propose that Common Slavic had the same parameters as Idsardi (1992) proposes for Russian, as well as three types of stems: accented, post-accenting, and unaccented. Unlike in Russian, where each element represents a syllable, here each element represents a mora. The stems in the following examples are combined with the unaccented ACC SG suffix *-m̥ (tonal contours of the accented suffixes are subject to debate). Unlike stems, for some suffixes the contour cannot be reconstructed even if it is clear whether they were accented. In order to trace further developments within accent paradigm a which gave different reflexes at later stages, I provide two examples of accented stems:

(52) Tone assignment in CS, accent paradigm a (accented)

a) bra ̄̋ trъ ‘brother ACC SG’: *bra ̄̋ tr- (accented) + ACC SG *-a (unaccented) *bra ̄̋ tra ‘brother’ Tone LH HL assignment | | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x (x x) bra at r+a

b) *vo ̄̋ rnām ‘crow ACC SG’: * vo ̄̋ rn- (accented) + ACC SG *-ām (unaccented) *vo ̄̋ rnām ‘crow’ Tone LH HL assignment | | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x (x x x) vo or n+a am

In (52a), there is a left parenthesis on the second element (the second mora of the stem) on Line 0 provided by the lexical stress. As a result, the second element is projected to Line 1, then to Line 2 and gets the tone HL due to the tone-assignment rule in (51a). Then, according to the rule in (51b), the element preceding the left parenthesis on Line 0 also gets assigned tone LH: the first

43 element gets an LH contour. The result is the desired form with the acute (LHL contour) on the first syllable: *bra ̄̋ tr-a.

The derivation in (52b) is the same as in (52a): the second mora of the stem is accented; it is projected to Line 1 and Line 2, and gets the tone HL due to tone-assignment rule in (51a). The first mora of the stem is assigned tone LH according to (51b), which results in the desired form with the acute (LHL contour) on the first syllable: *vo ̄̋ rn-ām.

(53) Tone assignment in CS, accent paradigm b (post-accenting)

vĭdóva ̄̀m ‘widow ACC SG’: vĭdóv- (post-accenting) + ACC SG *-ām (unaccented): *vĭdóva ̄̀m ‘widow’ Tone LH HL assignment | | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x( x x) vi do v+a am

In (53) there is a left parenthesis on the right of the second element of the stem on Line 0 provided by the lexical stress. As a result, the third element (the first mora of the suffix) is projected to Line 1, then to Line 2 and gets the tone HL due to the tone-assignment rule in (51a). Then, according to the rule in (51b), the element preceding the left parenthesis on Line 0 also gets assigned tone LH: here, it is the second element, which gives the resulting form *vĭdóv-a ̄̀m (LHL contour distributed between two syllables).

(54) Tone assignment in CS, accent paradigm c (unaccented)

gȏlvām ‘head ACC SG’: gȏlv- (unaccented) + ACC SG *-ām( unaccented): *gȏlvām ‘head’ Tone HL assignment | Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x x x) go ol v+a am

Unlike in (52) and (53), in (54) the first element is projected to Line 1. This is not due to a left parenthesis provided by lexical stress, but to Head Left. The first element gets a left parenthesis,

44 reaches Line 2 and the rule in (44a) assigns the HL tone to it. While in (47) and (48) the element preceding HL gets assigned LH tone, here the rule in (51b) does not apply and HL is the only assigned tone: the result is the desired form *gȏlv-ām with the circumflex (falling HL tone) on the first mora of the stem.

Note that Jakobson, Skliarenko, and Dybo argue for dynamic stress co-existing with the pitch contours in Common Slavic. In any case, in Common Slavic stress either coincided with high tone on the same mora, or was assigned by default. Most authors suggest that dynamic stress was redundant in CS, being predictable from tone: therefore, I did not include stress in the above derivations.

Another possibility would be to assume that the first mora is accented and is associated with LH tone, and the falling tone assignment is a result of the boundary tone11 HL which is always associated with the right edge of the word, similar to the analysis of Tokyo Japanese presented in van der Hulst (2011: Section 6):

11 Unlike lexical tones, boundary tones are predictably associated with boundaries, in this case with a word boundary.

(55) First mora accented, boundary tone on the right edge a) unaccented stems HL | x x x x) go ol v+a am# b) accented stems LH HL | | (x x x x) vo or n+a am# c) post-accenting stems *LH*HL | | x x( x x) vi do v+a am#

In (55a), the only assigned tone is HL because of the boundary tone which is associated with the right edge but is realized as far left as possible, in this case on the leftmost mora: it would give us the right result, gȏlvām with HL on the first mora. In (55b), the first mora is accented, so it assigns tone LH, so the boundary tone has to be realized on the leftmost available mora, the second one: this would give us the right result vo ̄̋ rnām with LHL contour spread over the first two moras. In (55c), however, we run into a problem with post-accenting stems: the boundary tone HL would have to be realized on the last mora, and the accented penultimate mora would have LH, then the result would be LHL contour spread over two moras of the suffix, which is not the right result, as we need the LH contour on the last mora of the stem and HL on the first mora of the suffix.

3.2.2 Late Common Slavic

Dybo (1981: 19) notes that the stems in Late Common Slavic (LCS) accentual paradigms had the following tonal patterns: a stems had acute tone, b stems had no tone on the stem (meaning it was on the suffix) or the neo-acute tone (since reduced vowels of the suffixes could not bear

46 stress any longer), and c would have circumflex tone unless the form had an accented suffix. As for the suffixes, Dybo (1981: 31) makes the interesting observation that the only suffixes that preserved their long vowel quality from Common Slavic into Late Common Slavic were the accented suffixes. This underlines the “special” status of these suffixes which I propose were accented in both Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic.12 Here is the paradigm Dybo proposes for the Late Common Slavic *golv-a̍ ‘head’ (Skliarenko (1998) proposes different melodies for some of these suffixes; I provide them in parentheses). In any case, the suffixes with diacritics should be treated as accented:

(56) Late Common Slavic *golv-a̍ ‘head’

SG PL Nom *golv-a̍ (-à) *gȏlv-y Acc *gȏlv-ǫ *gȏlv-y Gen *golv-ý (-ỳ) *golv-ъ́ Dat *gȏlv-ĕ *golv-a̋ mъ (-àmъ) Instr *golv-ojǫ̍ (-ǫ̀) *golv-a̋ mi (-àmi) Loc *golv-ĕ̍ (-ĕ̀ ) *golv-a̋ xъ (-àxъ)

Note that Dybo does not specify the exact tonal contour of GEN SG and GEN PL: the diacritic that he uses for these suffixes is the one for ictus, merely specifying that they are stressed. While the exact tonal contours of these suffixes at earlier stages of Common Slavic is under discussion, I follow Skliarenko (1998) in suggesting that in East Slavic dialects of Late Common Slavic GEN 13 SG AND GEN PL suffixes had the neo-acute tone, which I will discuss next.

In Late Common Slavic, two major changes happened that affected stress. The first change affected all LCS dialects: it was the ban on the stress on yers, which resulted in stress shifting to

12 Note that unlike accented stems, some accented suffixes did not necessarily carry acute tonal contour: for example, GEN SG and GEN PL suffixes correspond to ‘stressed circumflex’ in Lithuanian and give different reflexes in Stokavian and Čakavian Serbian than acute suffixes. The exact contour of these suffixes is under dispute (although in archaic Čakavian the reflex is the same as that of the neo-acute, which at the Balto-Slavic level would seem to correspond with the circumflex of accented suffixes in Lithuanian) (Joseph Schallert, p.c.). 13 This suggestion is feasible as the neo-acute can be reconstructed for Čakavian, at least for GEN SG suffix (Joseph Schallert, p.c.).

47 the stem from the yer suffixes in post-accenting stems and the emergence of neo-acute accent, e.g. *bóbь̄̀ > *bòbь ‘bean’. The second change was the shortening of long vowels which occurred in East Slavic dialects (see Bethin 2009: 117 for her proposal of a monomoraic syllable in East Late Common Slavic and for discussion of the literature). Both changes had immediate impact on the East Slavic prosodic system, as now old tones had to be distributed between new short syllables.

After the shortening occurred, ACC SG of *vo ̄̋ rn-ā > vór̥ ̄̀n-a ‘crow’ and vĭdóv-à ‘widow’ remained the same, and in golva̍ ‘head’ the initial vowel shortened. Here are the derivations that I propose:

(57) Tone assignment in Late Common Slavic, ACC SG *-ǫ (unaccented) a. *vór̥ ̄̀nǫ ‘crow’ b. *vĭdóvǭ̀ ‘widow’ c. *gȏlvǫ ‘head’ Tone LH HL LH HL HL assignment | | | | | Line 2 x x x Line 1 (x (x (x Line 0 x (x x) x x( x) x x) vo r̥ n+ǫ vĭ do v+ǫ gol v+ǫ

In (57b), the derivation for ACC SG of post-accenting vĭdóv-à ‘widow’ (accent paradigm b) is the same as (53), as the vowels were already short. In (57c), the derivation for ACC SG of unaccented golvá‘head’ (accent paradigm c) is the same as (52), as a falling contour can still occur on a short syllable as it takes only one mora. The derivation in (57a) of ACC SG of accented *vór̥ ̄̀n-a ‘crow’ (accent paradigm a) is different from (55b) in only one respect: the LHL contour in *vór̥ ̄̀n-ǫ gets distributed between two now short syllables: vo- gets LH and syllabic r̥ gets the tone HL. This type was already present in Early Common Slavic in words with a short initial syllable, e.g. *lópàta ‘shovel’.

However, for nouns with a historically long accented first syllable the shortening meant that the insertion of the LH tone became impossible. For example, the accented stem *bratrъ < *brāter ‘brother’, the Common Slavic derivation of which was presented in (52a), now has the following derivation (note that the weak yer ъ can no longer bear stress and thus has no x mark):

(58) *bra̍ trъ ‘brother’ in Late Common Slavic a. †*brȃtrъ14 b. *bra̍ trъ Tone HL L assignment | | Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 (x) (x) bratr+ъ bratr+ъ

In (58a), the HL tone is inserted successfully, but the insertion of LH tone is now impossible because there is only one mora in the short syllable. Thus, in (58a) what should be the acute LHL contour would now become HL, indistinguishable from the circumflex contour HL. Since this contrast was still important for Late Common Slavic, it had to come up with a positional variation for acute LHL. I propose that for the stems with an initial accented syllable the tone that was inserted was low but had more intensity, i.e. was merely louder, as in (58b). This is my proposal for how dynamic stress arose in Late Common Slavic; initially it coexisted with other tones but later as the tones were able no more to express distinctions, they all were replaced by dynamic stress. This is similar to Skliarenko’s (1998) proposal that dynamic stress emerged in Late Common Slavic as a result of the shortening of long initial syllables that originally had acute tone, e.g. *ja ̄̋ goda > *ja̍ goda ‘berry’.

I assume that the same process occurred when neo-acute accent emerged. While for the post- accenting stems like *vidóvà in (51b) there was nothing problematic after the shortening happened as the suffix could still bear the HL tone, nouns like *bóbъ̄̀ > *bóbъ ‘bean’ could no longer bear stress on the suffix -ъ and the only remaining option was the short vowel of the stem. I propose that in these cases, neo-acute stress was also realized as L tone with high intensity:

14 In order to avoid confusion between two asterisks, I use the dagger symbol † to indicate the ungrammaticality of reconstructed forms.

(59) *bóbъ ‘bean’ in Late Common Slavic a. †*bóbъ̄̀ b. †*bȏbъ c. *bòbъ Tone LH HL HL L assignment | | | | Line 2 x x x Line 1 (x (x (x Line 0 x( x) (x (x bo b+ъ bob+ъ bob+ъ

In (59a), the problem is that ъ can no longer bear stress, so HL cannot be realized and LH cannot be inserted. In (59b), the problem is the same as in the *bratrъ in (58a), since if we only put HL tone on the first syllable, †*bȏbъ would be indistinguishable from an unaccented stem. Thus, in (59c) we have *bòbъ with neo-acute which is realized as L tone with high intensity.

To summarize, I proposed that the changes that occurred in Late Common Slavic did not affect unaccented stems (accent paradigm c), two-syllable accented stems, and post-accenting stems with non-yer suffixes. They did affect, however, one-syllable accented stems of accent paradigm a like *bratrъ (short acute) and masculine stems of accent paradigm b with -ъ in NOM SG which could no longer bear stress, so that the stress shifted to the now short vowel of the stem (neo- acute tone). To distinguish them from post-accenting stems with HL contour on the first syllable, the accented syllable of these stems was realized with a high intensity L tone (note that post- accenting stems of AP b with a non-yer suffix, e.g. *vidov-a̍ , later had this high intensity tone on the suffix). I suggest that this resulted in the complete loss of the tones because the tones could no longer realize the contrast between different kinds of stems.

Interestingly, in some modern dialects of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, vowels preceding the stressed syllable are lengthened and receive a tone contour, as presented in Bethin (2006). These are probably remnants of the Common Slavic prosodic system. However, unlike in the old system, the tone is non-contrastive, and the tone does not correspond to the stressed vowel. While this phenomenon is unusual typologically and very interesting for prosodic theory in general, it falls outside of our scope as the tone does not influence stress assignment; it is secondary to the stress.

In the next section, I will show how East Slavic dialects of Late Common Slavic system developed into Old East Slavic.

3.3 Stress in Old East Slavic

The period that followed Late Common Slavic (LCS) is called Old Russian in the Russian literature; I will call it Old East Slavic (OESl), as I consider it the ancestor of all three East Slavic languages. There is some discussion about its chronological boundaries, but it is generally considered to last from the middle of the 10th century, after the loss of nasalised vowels which gave different reflexes in different Slavic languages, up to the middle of the 13th century, when the yers were finally lost and the Ukrainian language started to develop (Kolesov 1972: 5 inter alia). This section is mostly based on the material provided in Zalizniak (1985, reprinted in 2010), whose findings are based on the research of Dybo (1981), Illich-Svitych (1963), and Jakobson (1964); some data are from Kolesov (1972).

In Early Old East Slavic there were so called ‘tact groups’ (also called ‘accentual units’), which in our terminology are phonological or prosodic words, meaning that there was one stress per word or group of words, not one stress per word as in modern East Slavic languages. If a lexical word has an underlying accent, it would get the stress and would be surrounded by clitics that would never get stress. The clitics are function words like prepositions, particles, and auxiliaries, e.g. žená že ‘wife + PARTICLE’. If a lexical word did not have underlying accent, the default stress would end up on the first syllable of the ‘tact group’, whether it is a clitic or not, e.g. í ne na slov-o ‘and not on word’, slóv-o že ‘word + PARTICLE’. Note that proclisis on the preposition seems to be an important manifestation of the stress patterns of unaccented stems going back to Common Slavic. Unlike proclisis on the negative particle and conjunctions, the proclisis of prepositions survived the longest in the nominal system of Russian. It is still common enough in some lexicalized expressions in Modern Russian, like povérit’ ná slovo ‘trust (someone’s) word’ or zapasát’ ná zimu ‘to stash (something) for winter’, but not in regular expressions, e.g. planírovat’ na zímu‘to plan (something) for the winter’. It was lost earlier in Ukrainian, the effects of which I will discuss in more detail in Section 4.2.

Zalizniak (1985: 120) claims that in Early Old East Slavic underlying accent and default stress were phonetically different: following Jakobson (1964), he suggests that underlying accent was expressed with both high intensity and high tone, while default stress was characterized only by high intensity. Zalizniak claims that eventually the two phonetic expressions converged but it is hard to tell when exactly this happened. Zalizniak (1985: 160) emphasizes that, unlike in the rest

51 of the Slavic languages, in East Slavic old acute and new acute did not have any tonal difference, and argues against the authors who suggest otherwise. In any case, he insists that this difference did not have any effect on the development of East Slavic stress systems.

According to Zalizniak (1985: 115), in Early Old East Slavic the yers were treated as vowels and could form a syllable. They were positionally divided into weak and strong: the final yer of a tact group is always weak, a yer in the environments C_lC, C_rC is always strong, and a yer is strong when it is followed by a weak yer in the next syllable (cf. modern East Slavic languages where a yer surfaces when an underlying yer follows, e.g. NOM SG són-ъ ‘dream’, GEN SG sn-á). This is also known as Havlik’s law. While both kinds of yers could form a syllable, only strong yers could bear stress in Early Old East Slavic.

Besides the classical three types of morphemes (unaccented, accented and post-accenting), Zalizniak (1985: 121) proposes two additional types that are limited to suffixes. He says that some suffixes are marked as RE (from retraction), which means they would change post- accenting marking to accented, hence the stress would appear one syllable to the left of the nd expected position; an example is the LOC PL suffix of the 2 declension. Some suffixes are marked as MIN, turning post-accenting stems into unaccented; an example is the VOC SG suffix (see table in (60) below).

Accented stems (Type 1) occur in all declensions. Some of the feminine a-stems (the 1st declension) are: báb-a ‘woman’ (Type 1 in Modern Russian (MR), Type 3 in Modern Ukrainian (MU)), gúb-a (Type 4 in MR, transitional in MU). Multisyllable accented stems preserved their patterns in the modern languages, e.g. jágod-a (Type 1 in all three), koróv-a ‘cow’ (Type 1 in all three).

Some of the masculine accented o-stems (the 2nd declension) are: brát-ъ ‘brother’ (Type 1 in MR), kúst-ъ ‘bush’ (Type 2 in MR), sýr-ъ ‘cheese’ (Type 3 in all three). Historically accented masculine u-stems did not preserve their type and transitioned to Type 3, e.g. dúb-ъ ‘oak’ (Type 3 in all three), mír-ъ ‘world’ (MR Type 3). Some of the neuter o-stems (the 2nd declension) are: bolót-o ‘swamp’ (Type 1 in MR), dél-o (Type 3 in MR), zérn-o ‘grain’ (Type 4 in MR). Some of the i-stems (the 3rd declension) are: žízn-ь ‘life’ (Type 1 in MR), vétv-ь ‘branch’ (Type 0 in MR),

52 skátert-ь ‘tablecloth’ (Type 0 in MR). Most i-stems, some of them historically accented, are unaccented in Modern Russian.

Interestingly, the multisyllable borrowings were acquired into accented Type 1 already in Old East Slavic, e.g. velblúd-ъ ‘camel’, apóstol-ъ ‘apostle’, the same pattern that multisyllable borrowings have in Modern Russian. It seems that it happened because there was no pattern already in the system where the stress would move from the middle of the stem, only from the edges.

Post-accenting stems (Type 2) are also represented well. Note that the stress is on the stem in the cases where weak yer suffix could not bear stress. The 2nd declension masculine stems are: bób-ъ

‘bean’, GEN SG bob-á (Type 2 in MR), vópl-ь ‘scream’ (Type 1 in MR). Some of them are listed with ‘traces of accentual paradigm a’, e.g. čás-ъ ‘time’ (MR Type 3), pъ́lk-ъ ‘regiment’ (MR Type 2). This tells us that the transitions between these Types 1 and 2 go back at least to this time. As Zalizniak notes (1985: 134), it is especially hard to tell for the nouns with the stress on the second syllable of the stem that happened to contain a yer, e.g. historically accented kozь́l-ъ ‘billygoat’, which looked either accented or post-accenting in Old East Slavic, since the final yer is weak and cannot be stressed.

The post-accenting (Type 2) 1st declension feminine stems are numerous, e.g. glist-á ‘roundworm’ (MR Type 2). Most of the words from this list later changed their type to Type 4: e.g. vdov-á ‘widow’ (MR Type 4), svinь-já (MR Type 4). A few became unaccented, like borozd-á ‘groove’ (MR Type 0). Post-accenting i-stems (the 3rd declension) feature dvér-ь ‘door’ and smért-ь, which both transitioned to Type 0 in Modern Russian.

As for unaccented stems (Type 0), they are also represented in all declensions. Most of the 2nd declension masculine o-stems from this list transitioned to shifting Type 3 later, especially in Modern Ukrainian and Modern Belarusian (MB), e.g. béreg-ъ (Type 3 in MR, MU and MB), bóg-ъ ‘god’ (MR and MB Type 0, MU Type 3), zúb-ъ ‘tooth’ (MR and MU Type 0, MB Type 3). Some words of this group transitioned to Type 1 in all three East Slavic languages, e.g. bés-ъ ‘demon’. Masculine i-stems mostly preserved their type, e.g. gvózd-ь ‘nail’, góst-ь ‘guest’. Interestingly, in Ukrainian and Belarusian, I suppose due to depalatalization which occurred much later, unaccented gólub-ь ‘pigeon’ was reanalyzed as an o-stem and transitioned into Type

3: MU hólub-Ø - NOM PL holub-ý. There are also masculine u-stems, most of which were reanalyzed as Type 3, e.g. dom-ъ ‘house’ (all three), and some as Type 2, e.g. líst-ъ ‘leaf’ (MR and MU). As for the neuters, they mostly transitioned to Type 3 (e.g. mór-e ‘sea’, slóv-o ‘word’) and Type 5, e.g. ózer-o ‘lake’ (all three), dérev-o ‘tree’. One of the rare examples of a neuter unaccented o-stem that became accented (Type 1) in MU is kól-o ‘circle’ and MB kól-a ‘wheel’ (original meaning ‘circle’).

Very few unaccented a-stems (the 1st declension) from Zalizniak’s list preserved their status in all three languages, e.g. nog-á ‘foot’. Most of them transitioned to Type 4, e.g. MR zvezd-á ‘star’, smol-á ‘resin’. A few stems transitioned to Type 1, e.g. svobód-a ‘freedom’. Some nouns, e.g. golov-á ‘head’, remained unaccented in Russian, but changed to Type 4 in Modern Belarusian (see Section 5.3.2) and to a new transitional type in Modern Ukrainian (see Section 5.1.2).

Feminine unaccented i-stems mostly preserved their unaccented status, e.g. noč-ь ‘night’. Some of them were reanalyzed as Type 1, e.g. ból-ь ‘pain’ (all three languages), peč-ь ‘stove’ (Type 1 in MB), drób-ь ‘fraction’ (Type 1 in MB drób-Ø and MU dríb-Ø, probably due to depalatalization).

Zalizniak (1985: 141) proposes the following lexical accents for Old East Slavic suffixes:

(60) Lexical accents of OESl suffixes (according to Zalizniak 1985/2010)

1st decl. 2nd decl. 3rd decl. 1 (f) o-stems (m) o-stems u-stems (m) i- i-stems (n) stems (m) (f)

SG Nom -á -ъ -o -ъ -ь (Ø) Acc -u

Voc -o MIN -e MIN -u (?) -u Gen -ý -a (-ú) / -u (-ú) / -u Dat -e -u -ovi -i Inst -óju -ъmъ (-ъ́mь) / - ъmь (-ьjú) / (-ь́mь) / -ьju - ьmь Loc (-e) / -é -e -u / -ú (dial.) -i / -í (dial.)

PL Nom -y -i -á / -a -ove -i -ьje Acc -y (dial.) -y -i Gen -ъ́ -ъ́ -óvъ -ь́jь Dat -ámъ -ómъ / -omъ (dial.) -ьmъ Inst -áxъ -ý -ъmí -ьmí

Loc -ámi -éxъ RE / -exъ RE (dial.) -ъxъ -ьxъ

DU Nom/Acc -e -á -e -i Gen/Loc -u -ú -ьjú Dat/Instr -áma -omá -ьmá

In this table, empty cells represent suffixes for which there is not enough evidence from the st sources. The suffixes put in parentheses are traces of previous accentuation (e.g. LOC SG of the 1 rd declension, INSTR SG of u-stems and the 3 declension). Some accentuation marks have dialectal nd variation (marked as (dial.) in the table), e.g. NOM/ACC PL of the neuter nouns of the 2 rd nd declension, LOC SG of the u-stems and the 3 declension, as well as DAT PL and LOC PL of the 2

declension. The marking MIN is seen only in VOC SG suffixes. It indicates that the marking of the stem is deleted, e.g. VOC SG žén-o of post-accenting stem žen-á ‘wife’. Since VOCATIVE mostly survived in Ukrainian, I will discuss its present-day accentual patterns in Modern Ukrainian in Section 5.1.4.

While DUAL is included in the table, it has not survived in modern East Slavic languages, except for several words, e.g. Ukrainian NOM SG ók-o ‘eye’, NOM PL óč-i, LOC PL oč-ýma, which preserved the original suffixes, but not the stress pattern.

Note that the 1st declension pattern has been preserved very well, if we compare it to the table of

Modern Russian suffixes in (14). All the suffixes are accented in SG, except for ACC SG -u. In PL, all the suffixes are accented, except for NOM PL.

The most changes would happen to the 2nd declension masculine nouns, due to reanalysis caused by a ban on stress on weak yers in SG, to the regularizations in PL, and to a lesser extent, the convergence of o-stems and u-stems in the single 2nd declension. The markings of the 3rd declension did not change at all.

nd Zalizniak (1985: 42) notes that NOM PL of the neuter nouns of the 2 declension could have a

‘retractive’ effect, which would explain the NOM PL forms sél-a ‘villages’ and čísl-a ‘numbers’ with the stress on the stem that would not be expected on a post-accenting stem like sel-ó ‘village’ and čisl-ó ‘number’ (regardless of whether -a is accented or unaccented, which is subject to dialectal variation). There is evidence that this suffix was accented in CS; thus, Dybo

(2000: 53) proposes the reconstruction for unaccented stem *jâje ‘egg’ with NOM PL *jaj-a̍ , however it cannot be extended to longer stems. Illich-Svitych (1963: 120) notes that this property was related to the fact that -a was historically long (he also notes that Slavic neuter stems with short vowel correspond to Indo-European stems which behave as post-accenting in the SG but have stress on the suffix in the PL, which looks like a precursor of the shifting pattern). Zalizniak also proposes that DAT and LOC PL suffixes could also have the stress retracting property (marked

RE in the table above) in some dialects. These patterns certainly served as a model for the opposition between SG and PL subparadigms which developed later on.

Overall, there seems to be quite a lot of dialectal variation in accentual values of the 2nd declension PL suffixes already in Old East Slavic. As we will see in the next chapter, the stress patterns of both suffixes and stems of the 2nd declension would become reanalyzed, leading to the emergence of the shifting stems.

3.4 Interim summary

At the PIE stage, there was only one opposition: accented versus unaccented stems. Later, in Common Slavic, post-accenting stems developed from accented ones as a result of a shift of the stress to the right from the syllables that had circumflex accent in Proto-Balto-Slavic (Zalizniak 1985: 165, inter alia). This led to the three classes: accented (acute, rising and falling on the stem), post-accenting (acute, rising on the stem, falling on the suffix contour), and unaccented (circumflex, default stress, falling contour on the left edge). The loss of quantity sensitivity in Late Common Slavic was one of the crucial processes which led to further changes to this system. Another was a positional separation of yers into strong and weak. In Early Old East Slavic, the weak yers could not bear stress, which led to the reanalysis of the 2nd declension stems as either accented or post-accenting. However, Zalizniak insists that the position of stress did not cause the fall of the yers; by the time they finally fell in Late Old East Slavic (around the 12th century), they did not affect the position of stress, either (because they already could not bear stress in Old East Slavic). The final significant change to the Old East Slavic system was the loss of the different phonetic realizations of underlying accent and default stress, and later the loss of ‘tact groups’, which led to the processes of regularization between SG and PL subparadigms and the emergence of the shifting stems.

4 The Rise of Shifting

4.1 Historical development of Russian stress

In this section, I will propose my analysis of the data presented in Zalizniak (1985/2010, 2011), Veselovs’ka (1970), Kolesov (1972), Khazagerov (1973), and Vorontsova (1979). I will note the differences with the development of the Ukrainian and Belarusian stress systems. The historical development of stress from Old East Slavic to Modern Russian, with exhaustive classification of the stress types, is provided by Zalizniak (1985). Vorontsova (1979) provides a detailed list of examples which illustrate the latest changes from the 18th to 20th century Russian.

4.1.1 Late Old East Slavic and Old Russian

Zalizniak (1985/2010, 2011, 2017) is the primary source for the history of Russian stress, particularly the Old Russian period. I will call the 14th century Late Old East Slavic (Late OESl), and the 15th -17th centuries Old Russian (OR). There are few sources from the 14th century and many more from the end of the 15th century through the end of the 17th century.

The major change which marks the beginning of Late Old East Slavic was the fall of the yers. Zalizniak claims that in the East Slavic languages, unlike the rest of Slavic, it did not change the position of stress regardless of stem type, as already in Early Old East Slavic weak yers could not bear stress (Zalizniak 2010: 168).

Another major change that did significantly affect stress patterns is the merger of the phonetic realization of default stress for unaccented stems and stress for accented stems. This change was happening gradually in different dialects, but supposedly around the same time as the fall of the yers. Zalizniak (2010: 178ff) provides several kinds of evidence for that, e.g. positioning of secondary stress marks in Merilo Pravednoe ‘Just Measure’ (a manuscript of the middle of the 14th century), where the traces of the original distinction can be detected. Secondary stress is found only in accented stems; in all later sources, secondary stresses are indicated on words with accented as well as unaccented stems (secondary stress fell on every second syllable to the right

59 of main stress, and it was marked up to the 17th century). The evidence shows that by the end of Late Old East Slavic period, the phonetic realization of stress in unaccented stems had become indistinguishable from that of accented stems.

In Early Old East Slavic, if an unaccented stem was preceded by a clitic (e. g. by a preposition), the clitic carried the stress, known as proclisis (for a detailed study of clitics in Old East Slavic see Zalizniak 2008). In Late Old East Slavic and in Old Russian the shifting of the default stress to the clitic is no longer obligatory:

(61) muž-ъ ‘husband’ (unaccented stem) Early OESl Late OESl and OR NOM SG *mȗž-ъ15 múž-ъ

GEN SG *mȗž-a múž-a

‘without’ + GEN SG *bȇz muž-a béz muž-a and bez múž-a

In Early Old East Slavic, the stress on *mȗž-a would be impossible following the preposition bez. In Old Russian sources, however, bez mu̍ ž-a becomes more and more common over time, and later becomes the norm in Modern Russian. While in Modern Russian there are expressions like nág olovu ‘on the head’, they are limited to certain nouns and prepositions and certainly do not extend to all unaccented stems. As forms like be̍ z muž-a were still very common in the Old Russian sources, they must have helped to provide cues to the speakers about the special status of unaccented stems and delayed the changes which occurred in post-accenting stems.

In the sources of the 16th -17th centuries there are often examples of both Old Church Slavonic

(OCS) and supposedly vernacular forms with different stress patterns (at the time, historical NOM

PL -i and ACC PL -y were used interchangeably):

15 Note that in this chapter an asterisk is still used for reconstructed forms, not for ungrammatical ones.

(62) Influence of OCS stress patterns on historically post-accenting stems, NOM PL -i/-y (historically unaccented)

NOM SG OCS influence: Vernacular influence:

NOM PL -i NOM PL (= ACC PL) -i/-y vrág-ъ ‘enemy’ vráz-i vrag-í/ vrag-ý sapóg-ъ ‘boot’ sapóz-i sapog-ý/sapog-í skót-ъ ‘cattle’ skót-i skot-ý orél-ъ ‘eagle’ órl-i orl-ý

Here we can see that in the vernacular of the time these stems were analyzed as post-accenting and that the sources reflect this, despite the influence of Old Church Slavonic on the writing tradition.

Zalizniak also proposes that during the 14th-17th centuries there were two groups of Old Russian dialects that showed different tendencies in the development of stress: I will call them Eastern Old Russian (EOR) and Western Old Russian (WOR). Zalizniak (2010: 369) defines the following major tendencies in the nominal stress. In Western Old Russian dialects, it is definalization, the shift of stress from the suffix to the stem, which happened mostly in historically post-accenting stems (Type 2). In Eastern Old Russian dialects, it is the development of the opposition between singular and plural (NOM and ACC SG vs NOM and ACC PL) in neuter nouns with historically post-accenting and unaccented stems.

As the Eastern Old Russian dialects ended up becoming the base of Modern Standard Russian, the effects of definalization did not influence the further development of stress in Modern Standard Russian: while there are examples of stress shifting from the suffix to the stem, they are not consistent with what we find in the WOR sources. However, the effects of definalization are found in some modern day Western Russian and Belarusian dialects (as examined in Bethin 2012). I also want to mention it here because I see it as an attempt of the speakers to regularize the stress system which became hard to navigate after the loss of tones and weakening of yers, followed by their fall.

At first sight it seems puzzling that in Western Old Russian definalization first affected the post- accenting stems, as this stress pattern seems to be more predictable (stress always on the suffix).

Let us consider for example konь ‘horse’ and vragъ ‘enemy’. In Old East Slavic they are both reconstructed as post-accenting, so in NOM SG forms kon-ь and vrag-ъ the stress was on the yers, providing an immediate clue for the rest of the paradigm. Already in Early Old East Slavic weak yers could not be stressed. In Late Old East Slavic the stress was retracted from the yers to the previous syllable, in this case from the suffix to the stem. As a result, there is no suffix in NOM SG to provide a speaker with a clue about the type of the stem (note that while yers were preserved in orthography during the Old Russian period, they were not pronounced in Old Russian; the signs originally used for yers are still present in the alphabet but are used differently in Modern Russian; see Comrie et al. 1996: 286ff).

Zalizniak (2010: 180) notes that definalization examples can be found in the sources as early as the 14th century (Merilo Pravednoe ‘Just Measure’ and Čudovskiy Novyj Zavet ‘Chudov New Testament’):

(63) kon’-ь ‘horse’ (historically post-accenting), GEN SG -a (unaccented) OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM SG kón’-ь kón’

GEN SG kon’-á kón’-a kon’-á kon’-á

Most examples of definalization are found in later Western Old Russian sources from the 15th and 16th centuries:

(64) vrág-ъ ‘enemy’, GEN SG -a, DAT PL -omъ (unaccented) OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM SG vrág-ъ vrág-Ø

GEN SG vrag-á vrág-a vrag-á vrag-á

DAT PL vrag-ómъ vrág-omъ vrag-ómъ vrag-ám

In both (63) and (64), the stems that were post-accenting in Old East Slavic behave as accented in Western Old Russian (for more examples of this kind see Zalizniak 2010: 185-187). Note that Western Old Russian did not influence standard Modern Russian, where vrág-Ø is a post-

accenting stem, and kón’-Ø is transitional (stress on the suffix in all cases except for NOM/ACC

PL). Also, Zalizniak points out that the Old Church Slavonicisms such as vrágъ tend to behave like post-accenting stems (unlike the Old East Slavic cognate vórogъ ‘enemy’, a likely candidate for accent paradigm d).

Surprisingly, there are also examples of definalization in historically post-accenting neuter (65) and feminine (66) nouns, where the suffix -o and -a are present on the surface in NOM SG and should provide a clue about the stress pattern:

(65) Definalization in WOR: neuter vin-ó ‘wine’ (post-accenting in OESl) OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM SG (unaccented -o) vin-ó vín-o vin-ó vin-ó

GEN SG (unaccented -a) vin-á vín -a vin-á vin-á

LOC SG (unaccented -e) vin-é vín-e vin-é vin-é

(66) Definalization in WOR: feminine žen-á ‘wife’ (post-accenting in OESl) OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM SG (accented -a) žen-á žén-a žen-á žen-á

ACC SG (unaccented -u) žen-ú žén-u žen-ú žen-ú

NOM PL (unaccented -y) žen-ý žén-y žen-y̍ žón-y

Again, the stress in both examples is on the stem, contra Old East Slavic patterns. Note that in

WOR the stem, not the accented suffix, is stressed in NOM SG, which suggests that the stem has been reanalyzed as accented. If the stem had been reanalyzed as unaccented, we would expect

NOM SG žen-á next to ACC SG žén-u, which is not the case.

Interestingly, while clitics helped to preserve the original stress patterns in some cases, they did not necessarily prevent definalization from happening. Within one and the same source (Skitskiy Paterik ‘Skit Paterikon’, 16th century), there are examples of the otherwise definalized post- accenting nouns which have stress on the suffix when followed by a clitic: žen-á že ‘wife (NOM

SG) + EMPHATIC PARTICLE’, žen-ý že ‘wife (GEN SG) + EMPHATIC PARTICLE’. On the other hand, in Celebnik ‘Medicinal Handbook’ (end of the 17th century) there are examples of historically unaccented stems preceded by prepositions that did not avoid definalization nonetheless, e.g. iz

golóv-y ‘from the head (GEN SG)’, na lošád-i ‘on the mare (LOC SG)’. This shows how strong the tendency to transfer stress to the stem was in Western Old Russian.

I propose that in Western Old Russian dialects historically post-accenting stems like vrág-ъ, kón-ь, vin-ó and žen-á were reanalyzed as accented stems: vrág-ъ, kón-ь, vín-o and žén-a. Thus, in Western Old Russian dialects, the role of the stress in the paradigm tends to be minimized by always trying to keep the stress on the stem. The preference for root stress over affix stress is attested cross-linguistically (this preference is generalized in OT as root-faithfulness being ranked high universally; see McCarthy and Prince 1995 and 1999, Alderete 1999, among others).

While definalization is also found in some Eastern Old Russian sources, especially in post- accenting stems, it is not consistent. One noun can be found with either stress and often with two stress marks at a time (possibly scribes’ errors, which might reflect the differences present in their spoken dialect), but there are significantly more tokens of the same noun that preserve the original stress patterns.

At the same time, Eastern Old Russian dialects chose a different path: they tended to keep historical stress patterns in general more than Western Old Russian. In Eastern Old Russian we can see a consistent opposition in terms of stress between NOM/ACC SG and NOM/ACC PL of neuter nouns of historically unaccented (67) and post-accenting (68) stems.

(67) m’ás-o ‘meat’ (unaccented), NOM/ACC PL -a (unaccented/accented in OESl) OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM/ACC SG (unaccented -o) m’ás-o m’ás-o m’ás-o m’ás-o

NOM/ACC PL (-a) m’ás-a/m’as-á m’as-á m’ás-a m’as-á

In (67), the historically unaccented stem m’ás-o has stress on the stem in NOM/ACC SG in both dialects. In Western Old Russian NOM/ACC PL stress stays on the stem, following the above- mentioned tendency of Western Old Russian to keep stress in the same place throughout the paradigm. In Eastern Old Russian, however, the stress in NOM/ACC PL is on the suffix -a, which could be unaccented or accented depending on the dialect of Old East Slavic as proposed by

Zalizniak (see table in (60) above), among others. So in this case, suffix-stressed NOM/ACC PL may well be the preservation of the original pattern which survived up to Modern Russian.

(68) sel-ó ‘village’(post-accenting), NOM/ACC PL -a OESl WOR EOR MR

NOM/ACC SG (unaccented -o) sel-ó

NOM/ACC PL (-a) sél-a / sel-á sel-á sél-a sél-a

In (68), the historically post-accenting stem sel-ó has stress on the suffix in NOM/ACC SG in both dialects. In Western Old Russian, again, it is the same tendency to keep stress in the same position as in NOM/ACC SG, i.e. on the suffix. In Eastern Old Russian the stress in NOM/ACC PL is on the stem, the opposite of the singular. Zalizniak notes that examples like sel-ó - sél-a are not examples of definalization as they have a different dialectal distribution than definalization.

Zalizniak mentions that the Eastern Old Russian form can be traced back to Late Common Slavic where the NOM/ACC PL suffix already had “retractive” properties. By retraction, he means that certain suffixes turned the post-accenting stem into accented. It might be the case that East Old

Russian preserved the historical NOM/ACC PL stress pattern, which was later generalized to other cases.

While in Eastern Old Russian the pattern of different stress in NOM SG and NOM PL spread to all neuter unaccented and post-accenting stems, the tendency to keep stress at the same position as th th in NOM SG prevailed in Western Old Russian. As Zalizniak (2010: 260) notes, in the 15 -16 centuries the Eastern Old Russian model begins to dominate noticeably over the Western Old Russian one and ends up being the standard of Modern Russian. It started with the neuter nouns with unaccented and post-accenting stems, and in the 17th century spread to some stems that were accented in Old East Slavic; e.g. NOM SG dél-o ‘deed’ - NOM PL del-á is found in most sources of the 17th century.

Another innovation attributed to this period by Zalizniak (1985: 256) is what he calls a generalization of GEN PL stress on the second syllable of the stem in some neuter nouns, e.g. historically unaccented ózer-o ‘lake’ - NOM PL ozér-a, and historically post-accenting koles-ó

‘wheel’ - NOM PL kolés-a (as well as NOM PL slovés-a ‘words’, NOM PL telés-a ‘bodies’, which did not survive in Modern Russian, and NOM PL vorót-a ‘gate’ which is a Pluralia Tantum noun). Consider the paradigm of ózer-o ‘lake’:

(69) ózer-o ‘lake’ (historically unaccented - MR Type 5) OR 17th - 18th MR century

NOM/ACC SG (unaccented -o) ózer-o

NOM PL (unaccented -a) ozer-á / ózer-a ózer-a/ozér-a oz’ór-a

GEN PL (accented -a) ozér-ъ ozér-ъ oz’ór-Ø

DAT SG (unaccented -u) ozér-omъ ozér-amъ oz’ór-am

INSTR PL (unaccented -y) ozér-y ozér-ami oz’ór-ami

LOC PL (unaccented -y) ozér-exъ ozér-axъ oz’ór-ax

Note that while the noun was analyzed as unaccented, it had the stress on the second syllable of the stem in GEN PL because of the accented yer suffix. I propose that this is the time when Type 5 emerged. In Modern Russian, this is the least numerous shifting type.

As for koles-ó - NOM PL kolés-a ‘wheel’, this is the disyllabic version of the Modern Russian

Type 4. These examples illustrate that some nouns did not take NOM PL as a pattern for normalizing the PL subparadigm, but rather GEN PL, probably because it has a zero suffix on the surface.

Turning to masculine unaccented stems, they show the same tendency as the neuters discussed above; they transfer original stem stress in NOM/ACC PL to the suffix:

(70) móst-ъ ‘bridge’ (historically unaccented - MR Type 2) OR (15th OR (17th MR century) century)

NOM/ACC SG (unaccented -ъ > Ø) móstъ móst-Ø

GEN SG (unaccented -a) móst-a most-á

NOM PL (unaccented -y) móst-y most-ý most-ý

Unaccented mostъ ‘bridge’ with unaccented -y should result in the form móst-y, but as the tendency to separate the PL subparadigm from SG is stronger, the stem is reanalyzed as post- accenting (Type 2). In Modern Russian, móst-Ø ‘bridge’ has been reanalyzed as post-accenting, but some other nouns, e.g. dár-Ø ‘gift’, were later reanalyzed as Type 3.

This tendency was further strengthened by the new DAT, LOC and INSTR PL suffixes that replaced the old suffixes by the end of the 17th century:

(71) Suffixes of DAT, LOC, and INSTR PL in OESL, OR, and MR OESl / OR old suffixes OR new suffixes MR (late 17th century) Declensions 1st 2nd 3rd all all

DAT PL -ámъ -omъ / -emъ (dial.) -ьmъ -ámъ -ám

LOC PL -áxъ -exъ (dial.) -ьxъ -áxъ -áx

INSTR PL -ámi -ý -ьmí -ámi -ámi

In (71), we can see that the new suffixes are actually suffixes of the first declension that were generalized over all three declensions. The only case where suffixes were for certain historically accented in all declensions is INSTR PL: e.g. unaccented zubъ ‘tooth’ - INSTR PL zub-ý, unaccented kóst’-ь ‘bone’ - INSTR PL kost’-ьmí (this variation of the suffix is still found in some words of the rd 3 declension in MR). Both DAT PL -omъ and LOC PL -exъ were, according to Zalizniak, accented or unaccented depending on dialect already in Old East Slavic. In the sources Zalizniak cites, all these suffixes can be stressed or not stressed when found with unaccented stems, partly due to the mentioned dialectal variation, partly due to definalization. Here are examples of an unaccented stem with old and new suffixes:

(72) zubъ ‘tooth’ (unaccented) OR old suffixes OR new suffixes (late MR 17th century)

DAT PL zúb-omъ and zub-ómъ zub-ámъ zub -ám

LOC PL zúb-exъ and zub-éxъ zub-áxъ zub -áx

INSTR PL zúb-y and zub-ý zub-ámi zub -ámi

As we can see, there was a lot of inconsistency with the old suffixes. However, the new suffixes are all accented, so the PL subparadigm becomes more consistent. Interestingly, these are the suffixes that still keep their historical accents, preventing some transitional stems in Modern Russian from becoming shifting.

While some stems like zubъ resisted this tendency and kept stress on the stem in NOM and ACC PL

(zúb-y), other stems like the above-mentioned mostъ, due to the new suffixes, now had consistent stress on the suffix in the whole PL subparadigm. I propose that this change contributed to the rise of the Shifting rule in Old Russian.

Note that the feminine post-accenting a-stems resisted transferring stress to the stem in NOM and

ACC PL: in the Old Russian sources without definalization we find examples with the stress on the suffix, e.g. žen-á ‘wife’ - NOM PL žen-ý. In the Old Ukrainian sources of the same period (late th 16 century), forms with the stress on the stem in PL are much more common, e.g. NOM PL žén-y.

Zalizniak suggests that the only reliable Old Russian example of this kind is rek-á ‘river’ - NOM

PL rék-i, and argues that this particular change happened later in Old Russian than in Old Ukrainian. Skliarenko proposes that in Old Ukrainian, this process was already completed by the end of the 16th century: while there are some examples of a-stems with the stress on the suffix in

NOM PL, they are attributed to the influence of Old Church Slavonic (Skliarenko 2006: 38). It does not necessarily mean that there were no post-accenting stems at all.

Veselovs’ka (1970: 23) notes that in the Old Russian sources starting from the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century historically post-accenting a-stems that shift stress in Modern

Russian are found with the stress on the suffix in NOM and ACC PL, e.g. vdov-á ‘widow’ – NOM PL vdov-ý. There are some examples of shifting the stress to the stem in the later Old Russian th th sources (the end of the 17 - beginning of the 18 centuries), e.g. svin’j-á ‘pig’ - NOM PL svín’j-i.

I propose that this change resulted in the emergence of Type 4, the stems of type xx( in SG - (xx in PL. This type, widely used in Modern Russian but treated outside of the major types in Idsardi’s (1995) analysis, can be accounted for only by the introduction of the Shifting rule.

These examples illustrate the common tendencies in Old Russian to regularize the stress system, either by definalization, as in Western Old Russian, or by the emergence of stress patterns depending on number, as in Eastern Old Russian. The latter process became the necessary precursor to the reanalysis of different stems as shifting, and the emergence of the Shifting rule.

4.1.2 From Old Russian to Modern Russian

Several prominent researchers point out two common tendencies in the history of Russian stress. One is alignment of stress within the paradigm (Kolesov 1972, Khazagerov 1973). Another tendency, more prominent between the late 18th-20th centuries, is the opposition between singular and plural subparadigms. Vorontsova (1979) argues that the changes driven by the second tendency are still going on in Modern Russian; she notes that the number of nouns where stress is on the stem or on the suffix in SG and PL was growing during this period, mainly taking words from the historically unaccented class.

Khazagerov (1973: 42-45) notes that the alignment of stress follows the pattern of NOM SG (and rarely GEN PL), citing Jakobson’s (1971) proposal that NOMINATIVE is an unmarked case. He also notes that the stress asymmetry within the PL subparadigm is related to the need of expressing a difference between the subject function of NOM PL and the rest of the cases. Khazagerov makes another interesting observation: from a historical perspective, there was an asymmetry in terms of stress mobility between monosyllabic and multisyllabic stems with zero suffixes (masculine stems of the 2nd declension), which goes back to Common Slavic. If the stress moved at all, it would be the stress of the first syllable. Multisyllabic stems stressed on the 2nd syllable would keep stress on the same syllable in all cases (except for post-accenting stems where stress has to surface on the stem in NOM SG but on the suffix in the rest). Monosyllabic stems, on the other hand, could more easily become mobile. As we will see in this section, this generalization can be extended to the 1st declension stems as well.

4.1.2.1 Accented stems

Most accented stems preserved their original pattern. However, some of the Old East Slavic accented stems became shifting in Modern Russian.

Kolesov (1973: 8) and Khazagerov (1972: 62) note that some nouns of the 1st declension that were accented in Old Russian transitioned to shifting of Type 4, e.g. Old East Slavic spín-a (Type 1) > Modern Russian spin-á ‘back’ (Type 4), Old East Slavic sósn-a (Type 1) > MR sosn-á‘ pine’ (Type 4), Old East Slavic plít-a (accented) > MR plit-á (Type 4) ‘slab, plate’:

(73) OESl plít-a (accented) > MR plit-á (Type 4) ‘slab, plate’

th 16 th NOM SG plít-a (late 19 c., dialects ) / plit-á (mid 17 c., dialects - MR) th th GEN SG plít-y (16 c.) / plit-ý (17 c. - MR) th th ACC SG plit-ú (17 c., dialects - MR) / plít-u (first half of the 19 c., dialects) th th th LOC SG na plít-e (16-17 c., the first half of the 19 c.) / na plit-é (mid 17 c. - MR) th th th ACC PL plít-y (17 c. - MR) / plit-ý (mid 17 c. - 19 c.) th DAT PL plit-ám (early 19 c.) > plít-am (MR) th LOC PL plit-ámi (19 c.) > plít-ami (MR)

While unusual, this type of change shows how strong the tendency to the shifting stems was in the history of Russian.

Khazagerov notes that Type 4 was considered by some researchers to go back to Common Slavic (Sadnik 1959, Bulakhovskii 1958), while others considered it specific to Russian (Kiparsky 1950).

The least typical case is that of an accented stem adopting a pattern similar to one of an unaccented stem, which I call a transitional type.

(74) gub-á ‘lip’ (historically accented)

Case OESl/OR 17th century 18th century 19th century 20th century

NOM SG gúb-a gúb-a/gub-á gub-á gúb-a/gub-á gub-á

GEN SG gúb-y gúb-y/ gub-ý gub-ý gub-ý gub-ý

ACC SG gúb-u gúb-u/ gub-ú gúb-u gúb-u gub-ú

NOM PL gúb-y gúb-y/ gub-ý gúb-y gúb-y gúb-y

In Modern Russian, gub-á is post-accenting in SG (including ACC SG), but is inconsistent in PL: it has stress on the stem in NOM/ACC PL (and GEN PL gúb-Ø) and on the suffix in DAT, ACC and LOC

16 Most dialectal data were recorded starting from the late 19th until the middle of the 20th century.

PL, which makes it look like an unaccented stem in PL. I suggest that this rather unusual change might have happened under the influence of other words denoting parts of the body belong to the unaccented class (e.g. ruk-á ‘hand’, nog-á ‘foot’, etc.).

Some of the accented stems of the 2nd declension were also affected by a similar change, only they transitioned to Type 3: e.g. OR sýr ‘cheese’ (accented) - NOM PL sýr-y, GEN PL sýr-ov

(accented) > Modern Russian NOM PL syr-ý (Type 3).

4.1.2.2 Post-accenting stems

Post-accenting stems always have stress on the suffix. While there is some debate about which nouns belonged in Old East Slavic/Old Russian to post-accenting and which to unaccented nouns, there are some nouns that most researchers agree on. Most historically post-accenting st stems of the 1 declension gradually became shifting stems of Type 4 (stress on the suffix in SG - on the stem in PL). While consistently post-accenting in SG since the Old Russian period, these stems gradually changed to stressing the stem in PL over several centuries. In fact, most of these th stems had PL forms which still behaved like post-accenting up to the late 19 century (data from Khazagerov 1973, Kolesov 1972 and Vorontsova 1979).

There was a difference in the pace of this development between NOM/ACC PL and the rest of the th PL forms. The examples of stressed stems in NOM/ACC PL before the 18 century are very few: slúg-i ‘servants’ (16th century, and a single example from the 14th century) and rék-i ‘rivers’ (late 16th century). In the 18th century, there are more examples like these, while the old suffix- stressed forms are still used: NOM PL žén-y and žen-ý ‘wives’, zme-íand zmé-i ‘snakes’, slug-í and slúg-i ‘servants’, stop-ý and stóp-y ‘feet’, stru-íand strú-i ‘streams’, trub-ý and trúb-y ‘trumpets’, igr-ý and ígr-y ‘games’. In the first half of the 19th century, there are even more examples like this, and Vostokov (1832) provides a list of 18 words in which the stem is stressed in NOM/ACC PL. For some words, like bed-ý ‘calamities’ and vin-ý ‘guilts’, stress on the stem is found up to the beginning of the 20th century. In the dictionary edited by Ushakov (1935-1940) words of this group are considered a norm with stem stress in NOM PL.

This change was going more slowly in DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL for the historically post-accenting nouns than for unaccented ones, according to Vorontsova (1979: 50). She provides examples of

th nouns that in poetry of the 18 century stress the suffix in DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL: bed-ám, bed- ámi, bed-áx ‘calamity’ (the same goes for vin-á ‘guilt’, vojn-á ‘war’, dug-á ‘curve’, žen-á ‘wife’, and other nouns, all of which belong to Type 4 in Modern Russian). The only exception th Vorontsova cites is from Deržavin (early 18 century) that I mentioned above: DAT SG ígr-am th and LOC PL ígr-ax ‘play’. Stress on the suffix was the norm in the first half of the 19 century, according to Vostokov’s Grammar (1832) and evidence from poetry. Rare exceptions are: DAT PL

žén-am, INSTR PL žén-ami ‘wives’, DAT PL ígr-am, LOC PL ígr-ax ‘games’, DAT PL skál-am, LOC PL th skál-ax ‘rocks’, INSTR PL trúb-ami ‘trumpets’. Only in the beginning of the 20 century did stress on the stem become more common: Vorontsova claims that old and new patterns were equally possible in the poetry of the first half of the 20th century, but the old pattern is extremely rare in her time, the 1970s.

In Grot (1899), only igr-á and žen-á are considered examples of the new type, while for other nouns he suggests that both forms are possible. Ushakov’s dictionary (1935-1940) still recommends stress on the suffix in PL for some of the nouns which belong to Type 4 in Modern Russian. Stress on the stem is recommended for skal-á ‘rock’, stop-á ‘foot’, struj-á ‘stream’, sudj-á‘judge’ , tolp-á ‘crowd’, trop-á ‘trail’, but only in some cases in PL. Stress on the stem in

NOM/ACC and GEN PL and on the suffix in the rest of PL is recommended for dug-á ‘curve’, žen-á ‘wife’, rek-á ‘river’, sestr-á ‘sister’, skorlup-á ‘eggshell’, sud’b-á ‘fate’. These recommendations clearly lag behind the real usage: as we saw above, DAT PL žén-am, INSTR PL žén-ami existed since the first half of the 19th century. Only in Ožegov (1959) and Borunova et al. (1983) are these words allowed to have stress on the stem in PL, with the notes that for some of them the stress on the stem is possible but is marked as dated, and for trop-á and ščep-á the stress on the suffix is recommended for DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL. In the latest edition of Zalizniak’s dictionary (2016), this recommendation still stands for ščep-á ‘chip’ (which is a dated word by itself), but trop-áis a regular Type 4 stem.

Consider the forms of žen-á ‘wife’, which always had post-accenting forms in SG, but its PL forms show variation over time:

(75) žen-á ‘wife’, OESl/OR post-accenting > MR Type 4

th th 17 th NOM/ACC PL žen-ý (15 - 19 c.), žén-y/ žón-y (from late 18 c.) th th st th DAT PL žen-ám (15 - late 19 ), žén-am (from the 1 half of the 19 c.) th th st th INSTR PL žen-ámi (late 16 c. - late 19 c.), žén-ami (from the 1 half of the 19 c.) th th st th LOC PL žen-áx (16 - late 19 c.), žén-ax (from the 1 half of the 19 c.)

Interestingly, Vasiliy Majkov, a poet of the middle of the 18th century, uses two forms in the same poem: new NOM PL žén-y and old DAT PL žen-ám (unlike other famous poets of the same period, Majkov did not receive a formal education and is known for using colloquialisms in his poetry). Gavriil Deržavin, a poet of the late 18th- beginning of the 19th century, uses both new

NOM PL slúg-i ‘servants’ and old INSTR PL slug-ámi in adjacent lines. Consider in this connection the paradigm of Modern Russian slez-á:

(76) slez-á ‘tear’, OESl/OR unaccented > MR transitional

SG PL Nom sl’ez-á sl’óz-y Acc sl’ez-ú sl’óz-y Gen sl’ez-ý sl’óz-Ø Dat sl’ez-é slez-ám Instr sl’ez-ój sl’ez-ámi Loc na/v sl’ez-é na/v sl’ez-áx

Historically unaccented, in Modern Russian this noun patterns like a post-accenting stem in SG: it has stress on the suffix in ACC SG. In PL, however, it still behaves as an unaccented stem. This noun has aligned its SG paradigm, and is now on the way to becoming a stem of Type 4: there are

DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL suffixes which are still treated as accented. I will discuss transitional stems in Modern Russian in Section 5.3.4. I propose that in the 17-19th centuries nouns like žen-á belonged to the same transitional type.

17 Here and below in NOM PL sl’óz-y we see the e/o alternation: after a palatalized consonant e becomes o in stressed position when preceding unpalatalized consonant (only the instances of e that were historically e and ь, not ĕ, e.g. it does not happen in lés ‘forest’). This alternation is not always marked in orthography. It was also avoided in poetry up to the 19th century for stylistic reasons; hence it was sometimes ignored even if the vowel was stressed.

In Modern Russian, žen-á is a typical stem of Type 4, with a clear SG - PL distinction:

(77) žen-á ‘wife’, Modern Russian Type 4

SG PL Nom žen-á žón-y Acc žen-ú žón-y Gen žen-ý žón-Ø Dat žen-é žón-am Instr žen-ój žón-ami Loc žen-é žón-ax

For some nouns of this class, there is still some variation possible according to Zalizniak (2016):

(78) rek-á ‘river’, OESl Type 2 > MR Type 4 (with variants)

SG PL Nom rek-á rék-i Acc rék-u / rek-ú rék-i Gen rek-ý rék-Ø Dat rek-é rék-am / rek-ám* Instr rek-ój rék-ami / rek-ámi* Loc rek-é rék-ax / rek-áx*

While the ACC SG form is considered possible with both stress patterns, the forms marked with asterisks here are considered dated. This shows that this process is almost completed for the post- accenting stems in Russian.

There are some old borrowings which were adopted into Type 2 to which this change did not apply, mostly Turkic borrowings (e.g. čadr-á ‘chador’ Type 2) and some Old Church Slavonic borrowings (e.g. mečt-á ‘dream’ Type 2). It did apply to the other borrowings: e.g. kolbas-á ‘sausage’ (from Turkic, Type 2 >Type 4), stran-á ‘country’ (from Old Church Slavonic, Type 2 in the 19th century > Type 4 in Modern Russian).

As for the historically post-accenting masculine nouns of the 2nd declension, some of them changed to Type 3: e.g. xlév-Ø ‘cowshed’ was of Type 2 in Old Russian (14th century), but is of

Type 3 in Modern Russian. Other examples of this class are vérx-Ø ‘top’, čás-Ø ‘hour, time’ and rój-Ø ‘swarm’. According to Zalizniak (2010: 377), this change happened throughout the 18th - 20th centuries.

4.1.2.3 Unaccented stems

Old East Slavic unaccented stems of both 1st and 2nd declensions transitioned to the shifting types: stems of the 1st declension to Type 4 and stems of the 2nd declension to Type 3.

Many historically unaccented stems transitioned to Type 4 in Modern Russian starting from the 18th century:

(79) igl-á ‘needle’, OESl unaccented > MR Type 4 th th ACC SG ígl-u (end of 17 ) and igl-ú (beginning of 18 - MR)

According to Veselovs’ka (1970: 21), there are many more historically unaccented feminine a- th stems that have stress on the stem in ACC SG in the documents of the 17-18 centuries than in Modern Russian. The Grammar of Russian (1952: 203) states that this stress pattern is limited to a certain group of nouns that is gradually declining in number. Some of the transitional examples are historically unaccented, like slez-á ‘tear’ (see the paradigm in (76) above) and voln-á ‘wave’ th (had ACC SG vóln-u in the 18 c.):

(80) voln-á ‘wave’

SG PL Nom voln-á vóln-y Acc voln-ú vóln-y Gen voln-ý vóln-Ø Dat voln-é vóln-am / voln-ám Instr voln-ój vóln-ami / voln-ámi Loc na/v voln-é na/v vóln-ax / voln-áx

In Zalizniak (2009), both variants of GEN, DAT, and LOC PL are listed as acceptable, while forms with the stress on the suffix are outdated.

As for the historically unaccented nouns of the 2nd declension, many of them transitioned into Type 3, e.g. dúb-Ø ‘oak’:

(81) dub ‘oak’ Old East Slavic dúb-ъ (Type 0) - MR Type 3 th th NOM PL dúb-y (16 c.) - dub-ý (early 19 c. - MR)

th There was still variation in the 19 century, e.g. NOM PL dár-y and dar-ý ‘gifts’ (clearly Type 3 in Modern Russian).

Some of the words of this class transitioned into Type 3 with the emergence of NOM PL -á nd (originally used only for neuters of the 2 declension) which replaced the historical NOM PL th SUFFIX -y in the 19 century (Zalizniak 2010: 375, Vorontsova 1979: 84). Some of the examples are: lés-Ø ‘forest’(NOM PL lés-y, les-ý - Modern Russian les-á), dóm-Ø ‘house’ (NOM PL dóm-y, th th dom-ý (18 c.) - MR dom-á), and a disyllabic béreg-Ø ‘riverbank’ (NOM PL béreg-y (17 c.), bereg-ý (18th c.) - MR bereg-á).

4.1.3 Interim summary

We have seen that shifting types gradually emerged in Russian starting from at least the late 17th century, while some examples that could be considered leading to this innovation go back to the 14th century. The most prolific targets for this change were historically post-accenting feminine a-stems of the 1st declension, which migrated to Type 4, and unaccented masculine stems of the 2nd declension, which migrated to Type 3. Some unaccented stems became transitional, i.e. having consistent stress in the SG subparadigm (either accented or post-accenting pattern), but still keeping the unaccented pattern in PL: stress on the stem in NOM/ACC PL and on the suffix in the rest of the cases. So while the system has become more complicated in terms of the number of types (three historical types, transitional types, newly emerged Types 3, 4, and 5), it has also become more regular in terms of uniformity within subparadigms. As Khazagerov (1973: 71) notes, the new types do not emerge due to adding more differences within the SG subparadigm, but by establishing new relationships between the SG and PL subparadigms. Indeed, the only class where different case forms have different stress patterns within the SG subparadigm, unaccented a-stems, has become a non-productive type and is gradually disappearing through a transitional

stage. As we saw, the tendency to distinguish SG from PL was so strong that even some accented stems became shifting.

The conditions for this change have been brought about by a series of processes due to which the position of the stress became unclear to speakers. Some of the changes happened already in Common Slavic, like loss of vowel length and tone, and others in the Old East Slavic system, namely weakening and loss of yers. As we saw, in Old Russian (14th-16th centuries) there were attempts in Western Old Russian dialects to regularize the paradigm by putting the stress on the same syllable as in NOM SG, i.e. reanalyzing unaccented and post-accenting stems as accented. In Eastern Old Russian dialects, which influenced the further development of Russian, there were some examples of the new opposition between subparadigms. Starting from the late 17th century down to the present, the shifting types emerged and became more common.

4.2 Historical development of Ukrainian stress: from Old Ukrainian to Modern Ukrainian There are different views on when Ukrainian became a distinct language. Ukrainian scholars of Soviet times proposed the 14th century (e.g. Z͡ Hovtobr͡iukh et al. 1979), contra Shevelov (1979: 31) who argues that Ukrainian should be traced back to the 7th century, the beginning of Common East Slavic (Shevelov’s view prevails in modern Ukrainian linguistics). The stress in Old Ukrainian (OU) can be traced only starting from the middle of the 16th century when stress started to be marked consistently in the Old Ukrainian printed documents (the first document is Peresopnyc’ke Jevangelije, 1556-1551). There is also evidence from Ukrainian poetry of the late 18th- early 20th centuries, as well as dialectal data. Here, I will use the data from Veselovs’ka (1970), Shevelov (1979), Skliarenko (2006), and Vynnyc’kyj (2002).

4.2.1 Unaccented stems One of the distinct features of the Old Ukrainian accentual system compared to Old Russian is a relatively early loss of stress retraction to prepositions preceding unaccented stems with unaccented suffixes (proclisis). As Shevelov (1979: 124) notes, it is still found in the texts up to th the late 17 century, e.g. ná holovu ‘on the headACC SG’. However, it is applied inconsistently, only to some unaccented stems, and sometimes even erroneously, e.g. ná nebes-a ‘towards heavenACC th PL’ (late 16 century) where ACC PL -á is accented and should bear the stress. This shows that already in the 16-17th centuries proclisis on prepositions was not active in Ukrainian. In Modern Ukrainian, this phenomenon is limited to a small number of fossilized expressions, like ná nič ‘overnight’; it is not obligatory and by no means productive. I believe that the earlier loss of proclisis sped up the changes in the stress patterns of unaccented stems and the emergence of the shifting pattern.

In Ukrainian, to a much greater extent than in Russian, historically unaccented masculine stems of the second declension were reanalyzed as shifting of Type 3. As Skliarenko (2006) notes, in Old Ukrainian the singular stress pattern of these stems was the same (always on the stem). In the plural, however, there was variation across documents; consider vovk (< volk) ‘wolf’:

(82) vóvk-Ø ‘wolf’, 2nd declension (unaccented > Modern Ukrainian Type 3)

OU SG MU SG OU PL MU PL Nom vólk-Ø vóvk-Ø vólc-y / volk-ý vovk-ý Acc vólk-a vóvk-a ?vólc-y / volk-ý vovk-ý, vovk-ív Gen vólk-a vóvk-a vólk-ov / volk-óv vovk-ív Dat vólk-u vóvk-u, vóvk-ovi vólk-om vovk-ám Instr vólk-om vóvk-om volk-ý / vólk-amy / vovk-ámy volk-ámy Loc ?volc-e na/u vóvk-u, vóvk-ovi ?vólk-ax na/u vovk-áx

The examples are from Old Ukrainian manuscripts dating from the end of the 16th century to the first half of the 17th century (the forms are listed in chronological order). Note that earlier Old Ukrainian examples suggest that volk- depends on the accent of the suffixes, hence patterning as an unaccented stem. In GEN PL, DAT PL, and INSTR PL, stress can be either on the stem or on the suffix. Since both stress patterns are found in the manuscripts of the same period (and sometimes within one and the same manuscript), I believe this illustrates an ongoing change. The later examples, however, have stress on the suffix in all PL forms, same as in Modern Ukrainian.

Interestingly, in Old Ukrainian the older NOM PL form has the historical alternation k / ͡ts (c in orthography) and the stress is on the stem, while the innovative form volk-ý keeps the k and is stressed on the suffix. The old stress pattern seems to disappear with the old morphophonemic 18 pattern (cf. OU bóh-Ø ‘god’ which shows a similar alternation h / z: NOM PL bóz-i / bóh-y, but only boh-ý, same as in MU). As Kolesov (1972: 145-146) discusses, and as we saw in Chapter 2 above, in Late Proto-Slavic NOM PL suffix -i was unaccented and different from ACC PL -y which either originally was or became accented, so they induced different stress patterns. At some point in Old East Slavic - early Old Russian/Old Ukrainian/Old Belarusian the suffix of ACC PL was generalized to NOM PL forms, which made the forms indistinguishable and eased the transition to innovative stress patterns.

18 Thanks to Joseph Schallert for this observation.

I propose that nouns like vóvk-Ø were treated as unaccented stems in Old Ukrainian, and their stress depended on the accent of the suffix (the same way it still works for the few remaining unaccented stems like zúb-Ø ‘tooth’ in MU). I suggest that the lexical accent of the 2nd declension suffixes was changing in the 16th - 17th centuries, as there is variation in the examples of this period. As most of the plural suffixes became accented, NOM and ACC PL suffix -y nd followed (as in NOM PL vovk-ý). As a result, most of the historically unaccented stems of the 2 declension were reanalyzed as newly emerged shifting Type 3.

Historically unaccented 2nd declension neuter nouns like pól-e ‘field’ also changed to Type 3. According to Skliarenko (2006: 193), this class of nouns historically had stress consistently on the stem in the singular, but in the plural gradually changed their pattern to stress on the suffix

(note that the NOM/ACC PL form was subject to dialectal variation since Common Slavic so it could have been stressed either on the suffix or on the root). Since Skliarenko does not provide examples in SG, I provide the Modern Ukrainian paradigm for reference:

(83) pól-e ‘field’, 2nd declension (unaccented > Modern Ukrainian Type 3)

MU SG OU PL th th th Nom pól-e 19 pól’-a (late 16 - late 17 c.) / pol’-á (late 16 c. - MU) Acc pól-e pól’-a (late 16th c.) / pol’-á (late 16th c. - MU) Gen -- -- Dat pól’-u pól-em / pol-ém (late 16th c.) / pól’-am (late 17th c.) / pol’- ám (early 17th c. - MU) Instr pól-em pol’-ámy (late 17th c. MU) Loc na/v pól’-i pól-ex, pol-éx (late 16th c.) / pól’-áx (late 16th - late 18th c.) / pol’-áx (late 17th c. - MU)

We can see here the same tendency as above: in earlier examples stress varies between stem and the suffix in PL, but in later examples stress is regularized to be on the suffix.

19 Note that l is only palatalized in some forms. This is due to a depalatalization process that started in Ukrainian around the late 12th century: in particular, historically palatalized l’ lost palatalization before e but retained it in other positions (before non-front vowels, before consonants, and word finally (more on this in Shevelov 1979: 181)). Cf. Russian cognate pól’-e ‘field’.

Some of the historically unaccented feminine stems of the 1st declension were reanalyzed as Type 4; consider vojn-á ‘war’:

(84) vojn-á ‘war’, 1st declension (unaccented > MU vijn-á, Type 4) th NOM SG vojn-á (late 16 c. etc.) > MU vijn-á

ACC SG vójn-u (late 16th - late 17th c.) / vojn-ú (late 16th etc.) > MU vijn-ú th th th NOM PL vojn-ý (late 16 - early 17 c.) / vójn-y (late 16 etc.) > MU víjn-y th ACC PL vójn-y (late 16 c. etc.) > MU víjn-y th th GEN PL vojén-Ø (early 17 c., dialects) / vójen-Ø (late 17 etc.) = MU th LOC PL vojn-áx (late 17 c.) > MU víjn-ax

As we can see from the earlier examples, judging from stress on the stem in ACC SG and

NOM/ACC PL, as well as accented suffix in LOC PL, this stem was unaccented, and then it was reanalyzed as Type 4 some time around the 16th - 17th centuries. Some of the historically unaccented 1st declension nouns have Type 4 patterns throughout the Old Ukrainian documents, like koz-á ‘goat’; some of them ended up as transitional types, like sl’oz-á ‘tear’ (which has the same stress patterns as its Modern Russian cognate in (76)).

The number of 1st declension stems that preserved their unaccented stress patterns in Modern Ukrainian is higher than in the 2nd declension (Vynnyc’kyj 2002 lists only three of the latter: zúb- Ø ‘tooth’, híst’-Ø ‘guest’, and čóbit-Ø ‘boot’).

4.2.2 Post-accenting stems

The neuter nouns of the 2nd declension that had a post-accenting pattern in Old East Slavic, like sel-ó ‘village’, retained their singular subparadigm pattern with stressed suffixes in both Old Ukrainian and Modern Ukrainian. In the plural, however, Skliarenko (2006: 179) claims that already in Late Common Slavic these nouns had stress on the stem in NOM/ACC PL, INSTR PL, and

LOC PL. In Old Ukrainian data the stress is on the stem in all PL cases except for DAT PL, which eventually also changed to a stressed stem in later documents as we can see below (since in SG the stress pattern did not change, and Skliarenko does not provide Old Ukrainian examples, I am providing Modern Ukrainian SG paradigm for reference):

(85) seló ‘village’, OESl post-accenting - Modern Ukrainian Type 4

MU SG OU PL MU PL Nom sel-ó sel-á (late 16th c.) / sél-a (late 16th c. - MU) sél-a Acc sel-ó sel-á (late 16th - mid 17th c.) / sél-a (late 16th c. - MU) sél-a Gen sel-á ?sél-Ø síl-Ø20 Dat sel-ú sel-ám (late 16th c.) / sél-am (mid 17th c. - MU) sél-am Instr sel-óm sél-y (late 16th - early 17th c.) / sél-amy (late 16th c. - sél-amy MU) Loc na sel-í na sél-ex (late 16th c.) / sél-ox (late 16th c.) / sél-ax na sél-ax (late 16th c. - MU)

There are a few examples of NOM/ACC PL sel-á with the stress on the suffix in Old Ukrainian, which Skliarenko (2006: 191) attributes to the influence of the old DUAL forms which had stress on the suffix and are used with numerals from 2 to 4 (cf. MU NOM PL sél-a but dva / try / čotýry sel-á ‘two / three / four villages’). One cannot be certain, however, about the original pattern of

NOM/ACC PL forms as there was dialectal variation going back to Common Slavic. In any case, th we can see that in Old Ukrainian only earlier examples (before the mid 17 century) of PL forms of sel-ó have stress on the suffix. Besides NOM/ACC PL, only DAT PL shows some variation up to th th the early 17 century. The stem-stressed PL forms are found as early as in the late 16 century and have survived up to Modern Ukrainian.

The majority of historically post-accenting stems of the 1st declension transitioned to Type 4, just as in Russian. Khazagerov (1973: 55) notes that examples of plural forms with the stress on the stem are found in some Ukrainian sources much earlier than in Russian: e.g. žen-á ‘wife’ - NOM

PL žén-y, INSTR PL zén-ami (1620); trub-á ‘trumpet’ - LOC PL trúb-ax (1674). Skliarenko provides th examples of new NOM PL žén-y / žón-y ‘wives’ and old NOM PL žen-ý from the mid 16 century

(cf. žon-á of Type 4 in MU), and there are only examples of the new NOM PL séstr-y ‘sisters’ starting from the mid 16th century (MU Type 4). Skliarenko (2006: 38) claims that in Old

20 There are no examples of GEN PL, hence the question mark. In MU, the change of e > i happened. Interestingly, some MU dialects have an alternative GEN PL form sél-iv (Skliarenko 2006: 189) with the stress on the stem which means that the stem is completely reanalyzed as shifting (otherwise it would be *sel-ív due to the underlying accented yer suffix).

th Ukrainian all nouns of this class had stress on the stem in NOM/ACC PL by the end of the 16 century.

Khazagerov (1973: 51) notes that Type 4 in the nouns of the 1st declension was considered by some researchers to go back to Common Slavic (Sadnik 1959, Bulakhovskii 1958), while others considered it specific to Russian (Kiparsky 1962). Skliarenko (2006: 39) considers that this change started back in the 14th century in what he calls Late Old East Slavic, and provides examples from Čudovskiy Novyj Zavet ‘Chudov New Testament’: NOM PL zvézd-y and NOM PL strél-y ‘arrows’. In the rest of the PL cases, however, examples with the stress on the stem are th found only in the 17 century: e.g. INSTR PL tráv-ami ‘herbs’ (Type 4 in MU), INSTR PL béd-ami

‘misfortune’ (Type 4 in MU), as well as INSTR PL zvézd-ami, and LOC PL zvézd-ax ‘star’ (this noun did not survive in Modern Ukrainian, but has a cognate of Type 4 in Modern Russian). In any case, we can see that this particular transition started and became established earlier in Ukrainian than in Russian.

4.2.3 Accented stems

In Ukrainian the process of accented stems turning into shifting stems is more common than in Russian, especially among the nouns of the 2nd declension. Some historically accented masculine o-stems of the 2nd declension changed to post-accenting, like žúk-Ø ‘bug’ and cár-Ø ‘tsar’, which were accented in Late Common Slavic but changed to Type 2 in Old Ukrainian and remained as th th such in Modern Ukrainian, e.g. GEN SG cár’-a (late 16 - early 17c.) / car’-á (late 16 c. - MU). There are also examples of this class changing into Type 3:

(86) kráj-Ø ‘land’, OESl accented - MU Type 3

OU SG OU PL Nom kráj-Ø kráj-a (late 16th c.) / kraj-í (late 19th c. - MU) Acc kráj-Ø kráj-a (late 16th c.) / kráj-i (17th c.) / kraj-í (late 17th c. - MU) Gen kráj-a (late 16th- late 17th c.) / kráj-ew (late 16th - 17th c.) - kraj-éw kráj-u (late 17th c. - MU) (late 16th c.) - MU kraj-ív Dat kráj-u MU kraj-ám Instr kráj-em kraj-ámy (early 17th c. - MU) Loc na kráj-u (16-17th c.), na kráj-ex (late 16th c.) / kráj-ax (17th c.) th kráj-i (late 16th c. - MU) / / kraj-áx (late 17 c. - MU) kraj-ú (late 16th c. - MU)

As we can see, in SG stress remained on the stem, except for the newly emerged LOC SG -u which, according to Idsardi (1995), has stress-deleting properties, unlike LOC SG suffix -i: in Modern

Ukrainian, both kráj-i and kraj-ú are used. Note a GEN SG suffix -u which was preserved in Ukrainian u-stems (it was replaced with -a in Russian): since it does not affect stress patterns, I consider it unaccented. As for the PL subparadigm, it changed to look like shifting around the same time as unaccented stems of this declension, starting from the late 16th and continuing during the 17th century.

Interestingly, some of the borrowings of this class, which usually adopt the accented pattern, adopted the pattern of Type 3: e.g. the Polish borrowing lán-Ø ‘field’, GEN SG lán-a, etc. - NOM

PL lan-ý, etc.; the Turkic borrowing kýlym-Ø ‘carpet’, GEN SG kýlym-a - NOM PL kylym-ý, etc.

Historically accented neuters of the 2nd declension have also changed into Type 3 in Old

Ukrainian, e.g. lít-o ‘summer’, míst-o ‘city’, and díl-o ‘deed’. They retained stressed stem in SG, and in PL the pattern was changing, consider dél-o ‘deed’ (MU díl-o):

(87) dél-o ‘deed’, 2nd declension (OESl accented > MU díl-o Type 3)

MU SG OU PL Nom díl-o dél-a (late 16th - late 17th c.) / del-á (late 16th c. etc.) - MU dil-á Acc díl-o Gen díl-a ?dél-Ø - MU díl-Ø Dat díl-u dél-om (late 16th - late 17th c.) / del-óm (17th c.) - MU dil-ám Instr díl-om dél-y, dél-amy (late 16th - 17th c.) / del-ý, del-ámy (late 16th - 17th c.) - MU dil-ámy Loc na díl-i dél-ex (late 16th - 17th c.) / v dél-ax (17th - 18th c.) - MU u dil-áx

We do not have all the forms to see the full transition for this particular word, but we can see the same tendency here as with pól-e ‘field’ above: stress remained on the stem in SG and gradually th shifted onto the suffix in PL during the 17 century (LOC PL seems to be the most resistant form). There are very few nouns of this class that kept the historical stress pattern. Some of the nouns of this class have been reanalyzed as Type 4; e.g. zérn-o / zern-ó ‘grain’ - NOM PL zérn-a could be treated as either Type 1 or Type 4 (both are allowed in standard Modern Ukrainian).

One innovation that sets Ukrainian apart from Russian and Belarusian21 is the reanalysis of historically accented 1st declension feminine nouns as Type 3, e.g. báb-a ‘woman’ discussed in th Section 2.2. According to Skliarenko (2006: 16-17), the NOM PL báb-y was used in the 16 century, but the new NOM PL bab-ý was used along with the old form báb-y already by Ivan Kotljarevsky, a poet of the late 17th- first half of the 18th century. Examples of this transition are not very numerous in Standard Modern Ukrainian, but the nouns of this group are very frequent, e.g. xát-a ‘house’ (since the 19th c.), písn’-a ‘song’ (since the 17th c.), cérkv-a ‘church’ (Vynnyc’kyj 2002: 130-131, Veselovs’ka 1970: 25). There are even more examples in Ukrainian th th dialects of the late 19 - 20 century in which the stress is consistently on the suffix in all PL forms: e.g. NOM SG žáb-a ‘toad’ - NOM PL žab-ý, NOM SG kobýl-a ‘mare’ - NOM PL kobyl-ý, and

NOM SG koróv-a ‘cow’ - NOM PL korov-ý, as well as recent borrowings like NOM SG bómb-a

‘bomb’ - NOM PL bomb-ý (all these nouns are of Type 1 in Standard MU, examples from

21 While not a part of Standard Modern Belarusian, Type 3 in the first declension is found in some Belarusian dialects, e.g. báb-a ‘woman’- NOM PL bab-ý.(Smulkowa 1978: 118).

Vynnyc’kyj 2002: 134). Some nouns are still in the process of changing, e.g. both NOM PL víd’m- y (Type 1) and vid’m-ý (Type 4) ‘witches’ are considered to be part of Standard Modern Ukrainian (Vynnyc’kyj 2002: 133). Some of the nouns of this class have been reanalyzed as th th Type 4, e.g. strún-a (Old East Slavic, 17 - 19 c.) > strun-á ‘string’ - NOM PL strún-y, and some of them as either Type 1 or Type 4, e.g. sósn-a / sosn-á ‘pine’ - NOM PL sósn-y (both variants are allowed in standard Modern Ukrainian).

All these examples show how strong is the tendency to distinguish number with the help of the stress in Ukrainian.

4.2.4 Interim summary

In this section, we have seen some of the tendencies continuing from Late Old East Slavic and found in the development from Old Ukrainian to Modern Ukrainian. Unaccented stems of the 2nd declension were reanalyzed as Type 3 and post-accenting stems were reanalyzed as Type 4; to a lesser extent, unaccented stems of the 1st declension were reanalyzed as Type 4. These changes started earlier and became more common earlier in Ukrainian than in Russian. Some of the changes are innovations specific to Ukrainian, like reanalyzing accented stems of the 1st declension as Type 3. This seems to be a part of the same general tendency, a change towards regularization, from variable stress to the singular-plural stress distinction.

4.3 Historical development of Belarusian stress

There are not that many sources on the history of Belarusian stress. The historical grammars of Belarusian do not cover this topic. Karskiy (1955) provides an overview of most significant changes in the history of Belarusian stress. Another source on Old Belarusian stress is Veselovs’ka (1970), who compared Old Russian, Old Belarusian, and Old Ukrainian stress. Smułkowa (1978) provides a comprehensive description of stress pattern in Belarusian dialects of the 20th century and compares them to Standard Belarusian.

Karskiy (1955) notes that only from the end of the 16th century do accentuation marks in the old printed books reflect actual accentuation patterns of Belarusian. Before that time, due to the religious nature of the texts and the influence of Old Church Slavonic, the authors often merely copied the accentuation patterns of South Slavic. His main sources of Old Belarusian data are Evangelie Učitelnoe (1616) and Zapadnorusskaja Psaltyr (17th century) where stress marks are consistent. He also notes that in the later sources of the 18th-19th centuries, mostly collections of Belarusian folklore, the dialectal variation in stress patterns is significant. While not all of these later sources have accentuation marks throughout, most of them mark stress whenever it differs from Russian or Polish, the native languages of the researchers of the time. Karskiy himself is mostly interested in the differences between Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian stress, not only in NOM SG but throughout the paradigm, and notes them quite thoroughly, which suits our purpose.

From the data Karskiy presents we can see that starting from the 17th century, some stems moved from the accented class to either the post-accenting or one of the shifting classes.

The most common change seems to be the one from unaccented 2nd declension masculine stems to Type 3, the same as we saw in Old Russian and Old Ukrainian above, e.g. syn-Ø ‘son’ - NOM th PL syn-ý (1616), , les-Ø ‘forest’ - NOM PL les-ý (early 19 c.) (Karskiy 1955: 427). While Karskiy does not provide all the forms, all these examples are of Type 3 in Modern Belarusian. Some of the changed examples Karskiy mentions did not survive in Modern Belarusian, e.g. historically unaccented dúx-Ø ‘spirit’ - NOM PL dux-íis of Type 1 in Modern Belarusian, probably under influence of Russian NOM PL dúx-i (but note also Russian dux-í‘ perfume’).

Examples from Karskiy (1955) and Veselovs’ka (1970) show variations occuring within the same 17th century documents:

(88) Unaccented stems of the 2nd declension > Modern Belarusian Type 3 Old Belarusian Modern Belarusian

dóm-ъ ‘house’ NOM PL dom-ý NOM/ACC PL dаm-ý

ACC PL dóm-y

kólos-ъ ‘ear (of wheat)’ NOM PL kólos -y NOM PL kalas-ý

sád-ъ ‘garden’ NOM PL sád-y NOM PL sad-ý

snég-ъ ‘snow’ NOM PL snég-i NOM PL sniah-í

GEN PL sniah-ów

čás-ъ ‘time’ NOM PL čás-y NOM PL čas-ý

GEN PL čás-ovъ GEN PL čas-ów

béreg-ъ ‘riverbank’ NOM PL berah-ý

GEN PL béreg-ovъ GEN PL berah-ów

dár-ъ ‘gift’ NOM PL dár-y NOM PL dar-ý

GEN PL dár-ovъ GEN PL dar-ów

Some historically accented stems of this class also changed to Type 3, e.g. brat-Ø ‘brother’ -

NOM PL brat-y,́ GEN PL brat-ów; d’ed-Ø ‘old man, grandfather’ - NOM PL dz’ed-ý, GEN PL dz’ed- th ów; sýr-Ø ‘cheese’ - NOM PL syr-ý (all examples from the early 19 c., Karskiy 1955).

There is at least one example of a historically post-accenting22 stem reanalyzed as Type 3 in

Modern Belarusian: čás-ъ ‘time’ had NOM PL čás-y and GEN PL čás-ovъ in Old Belarusian, but in

Modern Belarusian it is consistently Type 3, with stem stress in SG and suffix stress in PL (NOM

PL čas-ý, GEN PL čas-ów, etc.)

As for the unaccented stems of the 1st declension, the most interesting development unique to

Belarusian is that two-syllable stems changed into Type 4 (of form xx( in SG - x(x in PL). In some

22 Zalizniak (2011: 521) has this stem as post-accenting (with “traces of” accented AP), also possibly AP d. (i.e., the sporadic manifestation of post-accenting reflexes in the SG of some unaccented nouns in some Slavic dialects). See Section 3.2.1 on accent paradigm d.

th th dialects of the 19 -early 20 centuries historically unaccented golov-á ‘head’ had ACC SG hólav-u and halav-ú, showing some variation between an unaccented and post-accenting pattern. In Modern Belarusian historically unaccented halav-á ‘head’and barad-á ‘beard’ consistently have stress on the suffix in SG, and on the stem in PL: ACC SG halav-ú, NOM PL halóv-y, etc.,borod-á

‘beard’ - Old Belarusian ACC SG bórod-u, Modern Belarusian ACC SG barad-ú, NOM PL baród-y (these words are of Type 0 in Modern Russian and of transitional type in Modern Ukrainian). As for one-syllable stems, some of them changed into Type 4 as well, e.g. vod-á ‘water’ has in

Modern Belarusian ACC SG vad-ú and NOM PL vód-y, etc. (cf. Old Belarusian LOC PL vod-áx -

Modern Belarusian vód-ax); and zeml’-á ‘earth’ in Old Belarusian had ACC SG ná zeml’-u, zéml’- u and zeml’-ú, while in Modern Belarusian it is ACC SG z’aml’-ú and NOM PL zéml’-i, etc. Others changed into a transitional type: stress on the suffix in SG, on the stem in NOM/ACC PL, and on the suffix in the rest of PL:

(89) Unaccented 1st declension > MB Transitional

th gor-á ‘mountain’: ACC SG har-ú (early 20 c. - MB), MB NOM PL hór-y, but DAT PL har-ám, etc.

ACC SG OB ná ruk-u, rúk-u and ruk-ú; MB ACC SG ruk-ú - NOM PL rúk-i, but DAT PL ruk-ám, etc.

I will discuss the transitional pattern in Modern Belarusian in Section 5.2.5.

Overall, we see the same tendencies in Belarusian as we saw in the changes that happened in Old Russian and Old Ukrainian. As we will see in the next chapter, in Belarusian these changes went the farthest among the three East Slavic languages: there are almost no unaccented stems left; they became either transitional or shifting.

5 Modern East Slavic

In this chapter, I will present a comprehensive analysis of Standard Modern Ukrainian, Standard Modern Belarusian, and Standard Modern Russian stress systems (second half of the 20th century - present day). I will discuss the stress patterns in detail and show that shifting stems, which have been emerging over several centuries, are now part of the grammar of all three languages.

5.1 Modern Ukrainian Stress

5.1.1 Previous research

The distinctive features of Ukrainian stress have been noted in the literature (cf. Stankiewicz 1993: 229 and so on). While there are many descriptive studies in both Ukrainian and English (Stankiewicz 1993, Vynnyts’kyj 2002, Skliarenko 2006), generative analyses of Ukrainian stress are few, namely Foster (1966), Butska (2002), and Yanovich and Steriade (2010, 2011, 2015). These analyses provide an OT account for most patterns of Ukrainian stress; however, they have some gaps and do not consider stress representations.

While Alderete (1999, 2001) did not consider Ukrainian data, he formulated an analysis of the contrast between SG and PL subparadigms which is consistent with the idea of shifting stems proposed in my analysis. I will return to Alderete’s analysis of Russian in Section 5.3.

Butska (2002) proposes a synchronic OT analysis of Ukrainian stress. It provides many valuable generalizations, but has both descriptive and theoretical problems. Butska treats all unaccented and post-accenting stems as one class and all inflectional suffixes as unaccented: this makes explaining the distribution of stress in the stem syllables difficult, and generally results in complications for the analysis; it also does not cover all nominal paradigms. Overall, multiple additional constraints and different constraint rankings for each class, together with lexical specifications, have to be introduced to account for the various stress patterns. In particular, I do not find Butska’s explanation for the unaccented pattern elegant: she proposes that the nouns of this type are marked in the lexicon with a list of cases where the stem should be stressed (Butska 2002: 128). Since the cases where the suffix is stressed are the same for all these nouns, there is no need for a list of the cases for every stem: the lexical accent of the suffixes is sufficient.

There is an OT account of Ukrainian stress by Steriade and Yanovich (2010, 2011, 2015).

Steriade and Yanovich (2010) propose a constraint SG ≠ PL, which enforces paradigmatic contrast. This analysis accounts well for what I call shifting stems, but leaves aside many other patterns, including unaccented and transitional patterns. In Steriade and Yanovich (2011 and 2015), the authors examine how inflectional nominal stress is related to stress in derived nouns and derived adjectives. They compare Ukrainian to Russian and provide a brief overview of the development of their stress patterns from Old East Slavic stress patterns, assuming accented, post-accenting, and unaccented types of stem. Their analysis relies on the phonological influences between pairs of morphologically related form through constraints on Base-Derivative Correspondence and Input-Output Correspondence in Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000, Bermúdez- Otero 2011). The analysis presented in Steriade and Yanovich (2015) is centered on a constraint they propose, MATCH STEM STRESS: a stem syllable that is never stressed in inflection cannot be stressed in derivation. The authors propose that there is no single underlying stem: all inflectional forms function as a collective base in the evaluation of candidates for the derivative, so any allomorph can act as a base. They propose that accent in East Slavic derivatives is computed by selecting from the collective base one stem which optimally satisfies certain constraint depending on the language: it is Markedness in Ukrainian and affixal Faithfulness in Russian. However, only recessive derivatives are accounted for by this analysis. The paper is mostly focused on how inflectional and derivational stress patterns relate to each other; it does not provide a detailed account of how stress is computed in inflectional paradigms. Unlike in this thesis, Belarusian data are not considered and the diachronic account is not detailed.

The Modern Ukrainian data come from my own judgements, Bilodid et al. (1969), Maznichenko et al. (2015), Holovashchuk (1995, 2003), and Slovnyky Ukraïny on-line.

5.1.2 Overview I propose that Ukrainian features the same Edge marking parameters as Idsardi proposes for Russian in (5). In Section 2.2 I argued that while the three types of stems suggested by Idsardi for Russian exist in Ukrainian, this division is not sufficient to derive all the stress patterns of Ukrainian (and Russian, as we will see in Section 5.3). As I proposed in Section 2.2, all stress patterns can be divided into the following six types:

(90) Types of stress patterns in Ukrainian

Types SG PL Examples Type 0: unaccented stems x ruk-á ‘hand’, zúb-Ø ‘tooth’; (stress depends on lexical x x holov-á ‘head’, óblast’-Ø ‘region’ accent of the suffixes)

Type 1: accented stems (x múx-a – NOM PL múx-y ‘fly’; (stem always stressed) (x x jáhod-a – NOM PL jáhod-y ‘berry’; x (x koróv-a – NOM PL koróv-y ‘cow’

Type 2: post-accenting x( kum-á – NOM PL kum-ý ‘godmother’; stems (suffix always x x( kavún-Ø – GEN SG kavun-á – NOM PL stressed) kavun-ý ‘watermelon’

Type 3: accented in SG, (x x( báb-a – NOM PL bab-ý ‘woman’; post-accenting in PL (x x x x( hólub – NOM PL holub-ý ‘pigeon’

Type 4: post-accenting in x( (x verb-á – NOM PL vérb-y ‘willow’; SG, accented in PL x x( x (x kovbas-á – NOM PL kovbás-y ‘sausage’ st Type 5: shifting from the 1 (x x x (x ózer-o – NOM PL ozér-a ‘lake’ nd to the 2 syllable in PL

Since the Types 3, 4, and 5 shift the stress depending on number, I am uniting them under the notion of shifting stems and proposing the Shifting rule, which can be found in Section 2.2, as well as below in Section 5.2.3.

Upon revising the exhaustive list of the nouns that change stress across the paradigm provided by Butska (2002), I found that in Modern Ukrainian only 15 nouns pattern like Type 0, while 186 nouns pattern like Type 4 and 223 nouns like Type 3. While Butska’s list is not complete (it does not include Type 3 and the nouns of the 3rd and 4th declensions), it still shows the general distribution of the types. Crucially, the least numerous unaccented Type 0 is the only type whose stress pattern is still affected by the lexical accents of the suffixes.

The grammars of Ukrainian distinguish four declensions based on gender and the case suffixes. Following Idsardi’s analysis of Russian, and contra Butska (2002), I argue that in Ukrainian suffixes can be accented or unaccented. I propose the following accents for Ukrainian suffixes:

(91) Lexical accents of inflectional suffixes in Ukrainian.

SG PL

Declension 1st (f) 2nd (m, n) 3rd (f) 4th (n) All

NOM -á -Ø, -o / -e -Ø -a -y/ -i/ -a

ACC -u =NOM OR GEN

GEN -ý -a/ -u -i -y -ъ́ [-Ø, -éj, -ív]

DAT -í -u /-ovi/ -evi -i -i -ám

INST -óju -om/-em -ju -em/-am -ámy

LOC -í -i/(-ú) -i -i -áx

VOC -o/-e -e/-o -u/-e -Ø =NOM

st nd The unaccented suffixes are in bold: ACC SG in the 1 declension, all suffixes in SG in the 2 declension, and NOM/ACC in PL for all declensions. VOC SG is listed as unaccented but has specific properties discussed in Section 5.1.6.

The majority of underived nouns are distributed between the 1st declension, which consists of mostly feminine a-stems, and the 2nd declension, which consists of o-stems and e-stems (masculine and neuter). The 1st and 2nd declensions are also the “productive” declensions, meaning that neologisms and loan words are distributed between them.

st The 1 declension stands out from the rest, as its suffixes in SG are mostly accented except for st ACC SG -u. For all other declensions, the suffixes are unaccented in SG. The 1 declension is mostly feminine stems of all kinds (from most to least numerous): accented, shifting (Type 4 and Type 3), and unaccented stems (the majority of all existing unaccented stems belongs to this declension). Post-accenting stems are very few, as most historically post-accenting a-stems are shifting stems of Type 4 in Modern Ukrainian.

The 2nd declension also represents accented, post-accenting, shifting (Type 3, 4, and 5) and very few unaccented stems: most unaccented stems in this declension became shifting of Type 3. It consists of masculine and neuter stems. Note the GEN SG -u which is used not only for historical nd u-stems, but in general for masculine nouns of the 2 declension with abstract meaning (e.g. GEN

SG universytét-u ‘university’). Unlike in Idsardi’s table for Russian suffixes, I propose that the nd suffix of NOM SG for masculine nouns of the 2 declension is zero. I will discuss this in detail in the following section. Most of the stems of Type 5 are neuter o-stems that belong to the 2nd declension.

The less numerous 3rd and 4th declensions consist exclusively of nouns of Common Slavic origin. The 3rd declension consists of feminine i-stems: unaccented, accented and shifting of Type 3 and Type 5.

th The 4 declension, consisting of neuter n-stems and t-stems, e.g. tel’-á - GEN SG tel’át-y ‘calf’ is the least numerous. This declension is extinct in Russian and is not covered by existing analyses of Ukrainian. To form most of the cases, the stems require so called “stem extensions” which historically were part of the stem. The suffixes are mostly the same as for the 3rd declension, th except for INSTR SG. The 4 declension consists of post-accenting stems and shifting stems of Type 3.

Another difference from Russian is preservation of the VOCATIVE case, which in SG is distinct from NOMINATIVE. I will discuss VOC SG in Subsection 5.2.4.

In PL, all stems have the same suffixes. I propose that NOM PL is unaccented (here I depart from

Idsardi’s analysis of Russian, see discussion in Section 2.1); the rest of the PL suffixes are accented. Note that I propose, following Idsardi, that the suffixes of GEN PL is underlyingly accented yer -ъ́. It can be phonetically realized as a zero suffix, e.g. holív-Ø ‘head GEN PL’, as well as -ej or -iv which are not actual suffixes but rather a combination of theme vowels and epenthetic glides: e + j , as in oblast-éj ‘region GEN PL’, or o + v, as in zub-ív ‘tooth GEN PL’ (o > i in closed syllables, and v is realized as [w]). The phonetic realization of the GEN PL suffix is chosen depending on properties of the stem which are not related to its stress patterns. With some exceptions, zero is used for most stems of the 1st declension and neuter nouns of the 2nd declension, -iv for most masculine stems of the 2nd declension, and -ej for the i-stems of the 2nd rd and 3 declensions. Interestingly, the stems which take a zero suffix in NOM SG prefer a non-zero suffix in GEN PL, and vice versa, probably due to homophony avoidance.

5.1.3 Accented and post-accenting stems

Ukrainian accented and post-accenting stems are derived in the same way as in Russian; see derivations in Section 2.1. In Ukrainian, both accented and post-accenting stems can belong to the 1st and 2nd declensions.

One note I would like to add: when post-accenting stems are combined with zero suffixes in the nd 2 declension, as happens in all masculine stems in NOM SG and ACC SG, the stress ends up on the last syllable of the stem, as shown below:

(92) kavún ‘watermelon’, 2nd declension (o-stem)

SG PL Nom kavún-Ø kavun-ý Acc kavún-Ø kavun-ý Gen kavun-á kavun-ív Dat kavun-ú, kavun-óvi kavun-ám Instr kavun-óm kavun-ámy Loc na/u kavun-í na/u kavun-áx Voc kavún-e kavun-ý

I propose the following derivation for a post-accenting kavún (I assume the unaccented NOM PL suffix for now as it would not change the derivation):

(93) kavún- ‘watermelon’ (post-accenting) + NOM SG Ø, NOM PL -y (unaccented)

a. NOM SG b. NOM PL kavún kavuný Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x( ) x x( x) kavun+Ø kavun+y

In (93b) the second element is marked as post-accenting so the suffix element is projected to Line 1, receives the parenthesis, and is projected to Line 2, which results in the desired form

95 kavun-ý. In (93a) a parenthesis on the last element on Line 0 (due to the stem edge LRR marking all post-accenting stems) is dangling because the zero suffix does not have its own mark. I am departing from Idsardi’s analysis here and propose a different approach to the interpretation of this structure. As I discussed in the Section 2.2, the projected parentheses must be adjacent to lexical parentheses, so this parenthesis remains. There is no other mark that could be projected to Line 1. I propose that the only way to interpret this structure is to project the last element onto Line 1 and obtain the desired form kavún.

In Ukrainian, most post-accenting stems with a zero suffix in NOM SG, like kavún, have stress on the last syllable of the stem in NOM SG, and consistently show a post-accenting pattern throughout the rest of the paradigm (except for VOC SG which I will discuss later).

There are also several words that have stress on the first syllable of the stem in NOM and ACC SG

(and VOC SG) but are otherwise post-accenting, like čóven-Ø ‘boat’.

(94) čóven ‘boat’, 2nd declension (o-stem)

SG PL Nom čóven-Ø čovn-ý Acc čóven-Ø čovn-ý Gen čovn-á čovn-ív Dat čovn-ú čovn-ám Instr čovn-óm čovn-ámy Loc na/u čovn-í na/u čovn-áx Voc čóvn-e čovn-ý

In NOM SG and ACC SG the stem has two syllables: čoven-, while in the rest of the cases it is one- syllable čovn-: note that e disappears. Compare this to (92) above, where the vowel in the second syllable of the stem does not change: NOM SG kavún-Ø, GEN SG kavun-á, etc. The reason for this is that unlike u in kavún, e in čoven is in fact historically derived from a yer.

The issue of vowel-zero alternation related to yers in Slavic is complicated. While it is clear where yers came from historically, it is very hard to come up with a reasonable synchronic

96 analysis (see Bethin 1998: 205-214 and Scheer 2011 for the overview and the literature on the issue; see also Becker and Gouskova 2013 on Russian yers).

There is no generative analysis I know of specific for Ukrainian, but it is clear from the data that yer effects cannot be explained by syllable structure alone: the -vn coda is possible, e.g. fávn-Ø

‘fawn’ (also cf. víter-Ø ‘wind’ - GEN SG vítr-a and litr-Ø ‘liter’ - GEN SG lítr-a). It is also clear that Ukrainian yer-effects are different from Russian in both native words (e.g. lób-Ø ‘forehead’,

Rus. GEN SG lb-á vs Ukr. GEN SG lób-a) and loan words (e.g. Rus. sviter-Ø ‘sweater’- GEN SG sviter-a vs Ukr. svetr-Ø ‘sweater’ - GEN SG svetr-a). There are two kinds of yers: ь (ĭ) causes e- insertion (and sometimes palatalization of the preceding consonant), and ъ (ŭ) causes o-insertion.

Following Idsardi (1995), Ι propose that in Ukrainian, like in Russian, yers surface as [o] and [e] in strong positions (when followed by another yer in the following syllable) and are deleted in weak positions (at the end of the word), which is captured by the rules (95a) and (95b), respectively:

(95) a. Yer-insertion: V → [-yer] / _ C0 [+yer]

b. Yer-deletion: V [+yer] → Ø (Idsardi 1992: 115)

To account for the effects of yer-deletion, Idsardi also proposes a special Parenthesis Deletion rule that deletes a dangling parenthesis that remains after yer-deletion:

(96) Deletion of dangling parenthesis: ( → Ø / _ # (Idsardi 1992: 118)

If I were to follow Idsardi’s analysis, the rules in (95) and (96) would be necessary for deriving

NOM SG of čóven. I suggest that in Ukrainian, NOM and ACC SG suffixes of masculine o-stems are underlyingly unaccented yer.

(97) čóvn- ‘boat’ (post-accenting) + NOM SG yer (unaccented), GEN SG -a (unaccented)

a. NOM SG b. GEN SG čóven čovná Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x) x( x) čo ven čovn+a Line 0 x x -- Parenthesis čo ven deletion Line 0 x x( -- (Final) yer čo ven deletion Line 0 x x( x -- Yer insertion čoven+ь Line 0 x( x -- čovn+ь

In (97b), the derivation goes as it would for any post-accenting stem. In (97a), however, we first would have to deal with yer-insertion which surfaces as [e] according to the rule in (95a), then deletion of the final yer and its mark according to (95b), and then we would have to delete the final dangling parenthesis using a parenthesis deletion rule (note that the rules are applied before grammatical Edge marking, marked with the right parenthesis on Line 0).

Then the stem would become unaccented and would end up with the default stress. This solution is problematic because it would predict that kavún would end up with the stress on the first syllable which does not happen.

Also, this seems redundant to me. While yer is definitely responsible for the surfacing of [e], it does not take part in assigning stress. I will not use a parenthesis deletion rule as it would introduce an unnecessary complication to my analysis. I am standing by my proposal for kavún provided in (93a), which has fewer steps and derives the right form. I propose a simpler version of the derivation for čóven:

(98) čóvn- ‘boat’ (post-accenting) + NOM SG yer (unaccented), GEN SG -á (unaccented)

a. NOM SG b. GEN SG čóven čovná Yer deletion čóven -- e-insertion čóvenь -- Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x( ) x( x) čovn+ь čovn+a

While the suffix yer causes e-insertion, it does not really affect stress assignment here due to its unaccented nature. Therefore, I propose that unaccented yers do not have stress marks on Line 0 (unlike accented yers which I will discuss in the next section). This falls in line with the analysis of Polish yers by Rubach (1986) and Kenstowicz and Rubach (1987), who proposed that yers are floating pieces of contour which are not associated with an x-slot, unlike regular vowels.

I propose instead that čovn- retains its parenthesis of a post-accenting stem, and the stress surfaces on the previous element because otherwise the structure would be uninterpretable (as in the derivation for kavún in (94) discussed above). The final yer is deleted late in the derivation, after stress is computed and e is inserted.

5.1.4 Unaccented stems As I mentioned in Section 2.2, while unaccented stems are not very numerous, they happen to be among the most frequently used words. Here is the full paradigm for the a-stem holov-á ‘head’ (stem holov-), cognate to Russian unaccented golov-á:

(99) holov-á ‘head’ (Ukrainian)

SG PL Nom holov-á hólov-y Acc hólov-u hólov-y Gen holov-ý holív-Ø Dat holov-í hólov-am Instr holov-óju hólov-amy Loc na/u holov-í na/u hólov-ax Voc hólov-o hólov-y

The ACC SG has stress on the first syllable of the stem, which together with PL forms is a clear indicator that it is an unaccented stem. In GEN PL there is a vowel alternation o > i (known as ikavism) which, according to Carlton (1974), is a historical change specific to Ukrainian: etymological o, e > i in closed syllables where neo-acute arose as a result of stress shift from weak yers. Note that o does not always become i in closed syllables, e.g. vorón-a ‘crow’ - GEN

SG vorón-Ø.

If I assume that holov- is unaccented, just like its Russian counterpart golov-á, and adopt Russian

Edge Marking Parameters (see (5) in Section 2.1), the derivations for NOM SG (100a) and ACC SG (100b) are the same as provided in Section 2.1:

(100) holov- ‘head’ (unaccented) + NOM SG -á (accented), ACC SG -u (unaccented)

a. NOM SG b. ACC SG holová hólovu Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x (x) x x x) holov+a holov+u

Next, as I proposed in (92), GEN SG -ý has accent, and has the same derivation as the NOM SG in

(102a), while NOM PL unaccented -y results in the same derivation as ACC SG in (102b):

100

(101) holov- ‘head’ (unaccented) + GEN SG -ý (accented), NOM PL -y (unaccented)

a. GEN SG b. NOM PL holový hólovy Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x (x) x x x) holov+y holov+y

So the suffixes of a-stems should have the following lexical accents:

(102) Accents of suffixes of a-stems (1st declension)

SG PL Nom -á -y Acc -u -y Gen -ý (holív) Ø Dat -í -ám Instr -óju -ámy Loc -í -áx Voc -o -y

The general pattern throughout this paradigm seems to be that the stress suffixes of the singular are mostly accented (with the exception of the ACC SG) and the plural suffixes are accented

(except for NOM and ACC PL). The GEN PL suffix stands out: it is phonetically null, and the stress pattern produced by it (holív with the second syllable stressed) is an effect of it being underlyingly an accented yer.

The rule of yer-deletion in (96b) accounts for the derivation of the GEN PL forms of unaccented stems like holov-:

101

(103) holov- ‘head’ (unaccented) + GEN PL yer (accented)

GEN PL holív Yer-deletion holów Line 2 x Line 1 (x Yer grid-mark deletion x x( ) Line 0 x x (x) holov+ъ

Here, yer actually participates in the derivation: it has a mark and a parenthesis on Line 0, unlike in čóven discussed above in (98): the mark is deleted early in the derivation, but the parenthesis remains. Since the yer grid mark is deleted, there is a dangling parenthesis which has to surface on the last element, the same way it happens when post-accenting stems meet zero-suffix in NOM

SG, as in (98) above.

The noun holov-á clearly patterns as an unaccented stem in SG (the only case with stress on the stem is ACC SG); however, in the plural subparadigm it does not. The NOM PL and ACC PL forms are as we predicted, hólov-y, and GEN PL is holív-Ø (the stress is on the last syllable of the stem because of the accented yer suffix which is phonetically null).23 But if we assume holov- is unaccented, and the suffixes of DAT PL, INSTR PL and LOC PL are accented, then we cannot derive hólov-am, hólov-amy and hólov-ax. However, we cannot propose that these suffixes are unaccented in Ukrainian, as they act as accented when combined with one-syllable stems like ruk-á ‘hand’:

23 Some Ukrainian dialects regularized this exceptional form by inventing a new GEN PL hólov-iv (Skliarenko 2006: 69).

102

(104) ruk-á ‘hand’, unaccented a-stem, 1st declension

SG PL Nom ruk-á rúk-y Acc rúk-u rúk-y Gen ruk-ý rúk-Ø Dat ruc-í ruk-ám Instr ruk-óju ruk-ámy Loc ruk-í ruk-áx Voc rúk-o rúk-y

All stems which pattern like holov-á are disyllabic, with the exception of monosyllabic stems 24 which are subject to yer-insertion in GEN PL, e.g. zeml’-á ‘land’: (105) zeml’-á ‘land’, transitional a-stem, 1st declension

SG PL Nom zeml’-á zéml’-i Acc zéml’-u zéml’-i Gen zeml’-í zemél’-Ø Dat zeml’-í zéml’-am Instr zeml’-éju zéml’-amy Loc zeml’-í zéml’-áx Voc zeml’-e zéml-i

Again, zeml’-á ‘earth’ patterns like holov-á in (99): it has stress on the stem in ACC SG and in all

PL. The GEN PL form has stress on the second syllable of the stem, the result of e-insertion, which are both effects of the accented yer suffix.

All stems that pattern like ruk-á, i.e. true unaccented stems, are monosyllabic and are found across all declensions:

24 Thanks to Christina Bethin for suggesting this example.

103

(106) zub ‘tooth’, unaccented o-stem, 2nd declension

SG PL Nom zúb-Ø zúb-y Acc zúb-Ø zúb-y Gen zúb-a zub-ív Dat zúb-u zub-ám Instr zúb-om zub-ámy Loc zúb-i zub-áx Voc zúb-e zúb-y

Here is an example of an unaccented stem in the 3rd declension (i-stem):

(107) kist’ ‘bone’, unaccented i-stem, 3rd declension

SG PL Nom kіst’-Ø kóst-і Acc kіst’-Ø kóst-і Gen kóst-і kost-éj Dat kóst-і kost’-ám Instr kі́st’-u kіst’-mý, kost’-ámy Loc na/u kóstі na/u kost’-áx Voc kóst-e kóst-і

We have to conclude that in Ukrainian, unlike in Russian, there are no two-syllable unaccented stems. Interestingly, disyllabic stems which ignore most of the accented lexical suffixes in PL, are still affected by accented GEN PL -ъ́, e.g. holov-á – GEN PL holív-Ø discussed above and also óblast’ ‘region’:

104

(108) óblast’-Ø ‘region’, unaccented i-stem, 3rd declension

SG PL Nom óblast’-Ø óblast’-i Acc óblast’-Ø óblast’-i Gen óblast’-i oblast-éj Dat óblast’-i óblast’-am Instr óblast’-u óblast’-amy Loc na/u óblast’-i na/u óblast’-ax Voc óblast-e óblast’-i

Note that GEN PL is the only case with stress on the suffix in PL. This leads some speakers to reanalyze this stem as accented. Professor Ponomariv, in his prescriptivist blog on BBC Ukraine, mentions that stressing the words óblast-ej ‘region, GEN PL’ and hóst-ej ‘guest, GEN PL’ (another unaccented stem of the 3rd declension) on the first syllable, as he hears on the radio, is incorrect, and notes that correct stress is oblast-éj (Ponomariv 2015).

Interestingly, shifting stems are not affected by GEN PL suffix: (109) sosn-á ‘pine’, 1st declension, type 4

SG PL Nom sosn-á sósn-y Acc sosn-ú sósn-y Gen sosn-ý sósen-Ø Dat sosn-í sósn-am Instr sosn-óju sósn-amy Loc sosn-í sósn-ax Voc sósn-o sósn-y

If the surface stress of sosn-á were affected by the accented yer of GEN PL, it would have been *sosén. This is an additional argument for positing shifting stems as a separate class (cf. also pelen-á ACC SG pelen-ú, GEN PL pélen, which shows it is not just an effect of e-insertion discussed above).

105

Dialectal data show a different picture from Standard Ukrainian. I was not able to find data on stress in unaccented stems, so I composed a questionnaire and asked six native speakers of Ukrainian for their judgements. For some speakers of the Sloboda Ukrainian dialect spoken in the Eastern Ukraine, as well for some speakers from the Zakarpattia region (Western Ukraine), the paradigm looks like this:

(110) holov-á ‘head’,1st declension, dialectal variation

SG PL Nom holov-á hólov-y Acc hólov-u hólov-y Gen holov-ý holív-Ø Dat holov-í holov-ám Instr holov-óju holov-ámy Loc holov-í holov-áx Voc hólov-o hólov-y

Here we see a pattern identical to the Russian and historical Ukrainian pattern. Another speaker from the Zakarpattia region had INSTR PL holóv-amy, which is neither Standard Ukrainian nor

Russian, and for LOC PL in different sentences used hólov-ax, holov-áx, and even holóv-ax. This shows that there is a variation either within the speaker’s dialect or between their dialect and Standard Ukrainian in cases of disyllabic unaccented stems.

The same applies for borod-á ‘beard’, which for some speakers of both Sloboda and Zakarpattia dialects has the following paradigm:

106

(111) borod-á, dialectal variation

SG PL Nom borod-á bórod-y Acc bórod-u bórod-y Gen borod-ý boríd-Ø Dat borod-í borod-ám Instr borod-óju borod-ámy Loc borod-í borod-áx Voc bórod-o bórod-y

Interestingly, younger consultants, regardless of their dialectal background, adhered to the Standard Ukrainian stress pattern as shown in the paradigm for holov-á in (99). I suggest that this is an instance of the change I discussed above, the change in which unaccented stems are reanalyzed as shifting.

Another interesting example of a historically unaccented stem which does not follow the unaccented pattern is slobod-á ‘settlement’:

(112) slobodá ‘settlement’

SG PL Nom slobod-á slóbod-y Acc slobod-ú slóbod-y Gen slobod-ý slobíd-Ø Dat slobod-í slóbod-am Instr slobod-óju slóbod-amy Loc na/u slobod-í na/u slóbod-ax Voc slobod-ó slóbod-y

Interestingly, in ACC SG it has stress on the suffix, like post-accenting stems and unlike hólov-u.

In NOM PL the stress is on the first syllable of the stem, in line with the unaccented pattern of NOM

PL hólov-y. Note that if it was a shifting stem of Type 4, it would have had stress on the second syllable of the stem in PL, like kovbas-á – NOM PL kovbás-y ‘sausage’. On the other hand, it has

GEN PL slobíd-Ø, which patterns along with holív-Ø. But then it has stress on the first syllable of

107

the stem in DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL, in the same way as holov-á in Standard Ukrainian does, meaning that slobod- does not care about lexical stress of these suffixes, either.

I propose that Ukrainian two-syllable unaccented stems are in the middle of a change; they are a

“transition” class heading towards shifting stems of Type 4: post-accenting in SG and accented in

PL. Unlike Type 4, these stems have stress in PL falling on the first syllable of the stem and not the second: they are of form x x( in SG and (x x in PL. This looks like a reverse pattern of Type 3 which has form (x x in SG and x x( in PL, the type which is only attested in stems that have zero suffix in NOM SG, e.g. hólub-Ø – NOM PL holub-ý. The new pattern, let us call it 4a, of form x x( st in SG and (x x in PL, could become a new shifting type that would exist in the 1 declension (note that there are no disyllabic Type 3 stems in the 1st declension). In fact, there is at least one example of this change going through; consider the paradigm of pelen-á ‘shroud’:

(113) pelen-á ‘shroud’, Type 4a

SG PL Nom pelen-á pélen-y Acc pelen-ú pélen-y Gen pelen-ý pélen-Ø Dat pelen-í pélen-am Instr pelen-óju pélen-amy Loc na/u pelen-í na/u pélen-ax Voc pélen-o pélen-y

As we can see, this historically unaccented stem now has a consistent shifting pattern, stress on the suffix in SG and on the stem in PL (note the GEN PL form which has stress on the first syllable of the stem, unlike unaccented and transitional stems). I suppose that over time, more unaccented and transitional stems of the 1st declension might be reanalyzed as this type.

Given the other tendencies to regularization we have seen in this thesis, I suggest that elimination of disyllabic unaccented stems from the system is a development that makes the stress system more easily learnable. The learner still has to remember the lexical accents of the suffixes, but now they only have to combine with monosyllabic stems. There are fewer syllables in the resulting forms, hence fewer possibilities for the stress to surface. It is either on the stem (the

108

first syllable of the word) when the suffix is unaccented, e.g. rúk-u ‘hand ACC SG’; or on the suffix (the second syllable of the word) when it is accented, e.g. ruk-ý ‘hand GEN SG’, ruk-ámy 25 ‘hand INSTR PL’. For disyllabic stems, there are numerous possibilitites: stress could fall on the first syllable as in hólov-u, the second syllable as in holív-Ø, the third syllable as in holov-á or holov-ámy; these patterns are harder to learn because there are more possible combinations. Note that for disyllabic unaccented stems, all the PL suffixes are unaccented except for the GEN PL suffix, accented yer. As I discussed above, GEN PL already has a special status as it surfaces differently for different stems. While there is an alternative hypothesis that monosyllabic stems are too short to make a well-formed prosodic word, and hence do not have underlying stress; it has to be rejected, as there are monosyllabic accented stems.

Interestingly, both monosyllabic and disyllabic unaccented stems were preserved only in the 1st and the 3rd declensions. In the 2nd declension, most monosyllabic and all disyllabic unaccented stems became shifting; there are only several monosyllabic unaccented stems.

This change is also in line with the following tendency: the more syllables a word has, the more likely it will belong to the accented type. The shifting stems can be monosyllabic or disyllabic. There is only one trisyllabic stem that patterns like holov-á: it is skovorod-á ‘frying pan’. Multisyllable stems, including derived and borrowed words, belong to the accented class.

5.1.5 Shifting stems

As I discussed in Section 2.2, there are some patterns in Ukrainian that cannot be accounted for within Idsardi’s framework if we only rely on accented, unaccented and post-accenting stems. I propose that they are marked in the lexicon as shifting and are subject to the Shifting rule which I repeat for convenience here:

25 See Tesar (2017) for a discussion of paradigmatic information in learning monosyllabic roots and affixes (thanks to Aleksei Nazarov for this suggestion).

109

(114) Shifting rule, restricted to shifting stems when a plural suffix is present:

a) Move a left parenthesis minimally to an adjacent morpheme: (Sx x > x x(S or

x x(S > x (Sx;

b) Move a left parenthesis one grid mark to the right: (Sʹx x > x (Sʹx.

The two versions of the rule can account for all attested stress patterns of Ukrainian. I have found that shifting stems are distributed among all four declensions of Ukrainian.

In the 1st declension, shifting stems are represented by monosyllabic stems, like báb-a ‘woman’ of Type 3 and verb-á ‘willow’ of Type 4, discussed in Section 2.2. There are also disyllabic stems, for which the same derivations apply, like kovbas-á - kovbás-y ‘sausage’.

nd The 2 declension consists of masculine stems (zero suffix in NOM SG) and neuter stems (-o and

-e in NOM SG). Shifting stems are very common for this declension; all three shifting types 3, 4, and 5 are represented here.

Most monosyllabic masculine shifting stems are historically unaccented stems, i.e. vovk- Ø ‘wolf’:

(115) vovk ‘wolf’, 2nd declension, Type 3

SG PL Nom vovk-Ø vovk-ý Acc vóvk-a vovk-ý, vovk-ív Gen vóvk-a vovk-ív Dat vóvk-u, vóvk-ovi vovk-ám Instr vóvk-om vovk-ámy Loc na/u vóvk-u, vóvk-ovi na/u vovk-áx Voc vóvč-e vovk-ý

This paradigm has the same pattern as in báb-a ‘woman’ (22): the stress is on the stem in the singular and on the suffixes in the plural. If we assume that vovk ‘wolf’ is a shifting stem of Type 3, the derivation will work out in the same way as for bába in (23) (note that lexical accents of

110 the suffixes do not affect the derivations of shifting stems so I do not include them in the examples below):

(116) vovk ‘wolf’, GEN SG -a, NOM PL -y

GEN SG b. NOM PL vóvka vovký Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (a) -- x(s x) Line 0 (sx x) (sx x) vovk+a vovk+y

In SG, the first element has a left shifting parenthesis on Line 1. A SG suffix does not trigger shifting, so the result is vóvk-a. In PL, the NOM PL suffix triggers application of the shifting rule as stated in (114a); due to the post-stressing stem which projects the second element, we derive the desired form vovk-ý.

The majority of masculine disyllabic stems are shifting stems of Type 3. They are mentioned in grammars with a rule of thumb: masculine nouns which have stress on the first syllable in NOM

SG, have stress on the suffix in NOM PL and the rest of PL; accented stems of this class are listed as exceptions in the grammars of Ukrainian (e.g. Cherems’ka et al. 2010). The rule applies to both native words and borrowings, e.g. pásport -NOM PL pasport-ý ‘passport’.

nd Neuter nouns of the 2 declension of shifting types have suffixes -e or -o in NOM SG and can belong to Type 3, Type 4, or Type 5. Type 3 is represented by monosyllabic stems, e.g mór-e -

NOM PL mor’-á ‘sea’ (the derivation would look the same as in (116) above). Type 4 is represented by both monosyllabic and disyllabic stems, e.g. sel-ó - sél-a ‘village’ and pomel-ó -

NOM PL pomél-a ‘broom’ (see the derivation in (39), Section 2.2).

Note that all nouns of Type 5 are found only in the 2nd and 3rd declensions. In the 2nd declension, the stems of Type 5 are neuter and have suffix -o in NOM SG. This type is the only shifting type where stress is shifted within the stem, and only from the first syllable of the stem to the second:

111

SG (x x - PL x (x. I propose that these stems are marked in the lexicon as having a S’ parenthesis.

Here is the derivation for ózer-o -NOM PL ozér-a ‘lake’:

nd (117) ózer- ‘lake’ (shifting of Type 5, 2 declension) + NOM SG -o, NOM PL -a

NOM SG NOM PL ózero ozéra Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (b) -- x (S’x x) Line 0 (S’x x x) (S’x x x) o zer+o o zer + a

In PL, since the stem has a S’ parenthesis, the PL suffix triggers the application of the Shifting rule as defined in (114b). The rule applies at Line 0 and moves the left parenthesis one grid mark to the right, which results in the projection of the stem-final element and gives the desired NOM

PL form ozér-a.

In the 3rd declension, which consists mostly of unaccented and some accented stems, there are only two examples of shifting stems, both of them disyllabic: mátir ‘mother’ of type 3 and rózkiš ‘luxury’of type 5.

(118) matir ‘mother’, shifting of Type 3, 3rd declension

SG PL Nom mátir-Ø mater-í Acc mátir-Ø mater-ív Gen máter-i mater-ív Dat máter-i mater’-ám Instr mátir-ju mater’-ámy Loc na/u máter-i na/u mater’-áx Voc mátir-Ø mater-í

The derivation for mátirwill work in the same way as for vovk in (116).

112

(119) rózkiš ‘luxury’, shifting of Type 5, 3rd declension

SG PL Nom rózkiš-Ø rozkóš-i Acc rózkiš-Ø rozkóš-i Gen rózkoš-i rozkóš-iv Dat rózkoš-i rozkóš-am Instr rózkiš-š’u rozkóš-amy Loc na/u rózkoš-i na/u rozkóš-ax Voc rózkoš-e rozkóš-i

The derivation for rózkiš will work in the same way as for ózero in (117).

The Shifting rule also allows us to derive the forms for stems of the 4th declension, which have not been discussed in previous analyses. These stems require suffixes -en- and -at- in most cases in both SG and PL. Note that while they are called suffixes in traditional grammars, they are historically part of the stem. As we will see below, -en- still behaves as a stem extension, while - at- behaves rather like a suffix.

The first pattern of the 4th declension is the one with the stem extension -en-:

(120) plémj-a ‘tribe’, 4th declension

SG PL Nom plémj-a plem-en-á Acc plémj-a plem-en-á Gen plém-en-i plem-én-Ø Dat plém-en-i plem-en-ám Instr plém-en-em plem-en-ámy Loc na/u plémen-i na/u plem-en-áx Voc plémj-a plem-en-á

Here, in the singular the stress is on the first syllable of the stem and in the plural it is on the actual suffix, not on the stem extension -en-, which suggests that it is treated as a part of the stem. It clearly shows the shifting pattern of Type 3. I propose to treat -en- as a stem extension,

113 with the stem being subject to the shifting rule as defined in (114a): plemj- and plemen- of form s s s ( x and ( xx in the SG respectively and of the form x x( in the PL. The derivations would work as follows:

(121) plémja ‘tribe’, stem plemj- , NOM SG -a; stem plemen-, GEN SG -i, NOM PL -a

a. NOM SG b. GEN SG c. NOM PL plémja plémeni plemená Line 2 x x x Line 1 (x (x (x Shifting (a) x x(s x) Line 0 (sx x) (sx x x) (sx x x) plemj+a plemen+i plemen+a

In (121 a) and (121b), regardless of the form, the first grid mark of the stem has a left parenthesis and is projected, which results in the desired forms plémja and plémeni. In (121c) the shifting rule applies and the left parenthesis moves from its original position to the edge of the stem, ending up on the right of the second grid mark of the stem. This results in the projection of the last grid mark to Line 1 and the result is the desired form plemen-á.

Another paradigm from the 4th declension is vedmež-á ‘bear cub’, which has stem extension -at- in all cases except for NOM SG and INSTR SG:

114

(122) vedmežá ‘bear cub’, 4th declension, suffix -at-

SG PL Nom vedmež-á vedmež-át-a Acc vedmež-á vedmež-át-a Gen vedmež-át-y vedmež-át-Ø Dat vedmež-át-i vedmež-át-am Instr vedmež-ám vedmež-át-amy Loc na/u vedmež-át-i na/u vedmež-át-ax Voc vedmež-á vedmež-át-a

Note that -at- is always stressed. Most of the words of this class denote children or animals’ young. I suggest that unlike -en-, this stem extension has been reanalyzed as a suffix. In fact, -at- is a productive derivative suffix which can even be used to form neologisms, as Volianska (2014) notes, e.g. berkut’-át-a ‘children who attend “Berkut” sports group’. I propose that stems like vedmež- are post-accenting, and -at- is not treated as a part of the stem, but as a suffix. This would give us the following derivations:

(123) vedmež- ‘bear cub’, post-accenting + NOM SG -a, NOM PL -at- + a

a. NOM SG b. NOM PL vedmežá vedmežáta Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 x x( x) x x( x x) vedmež+a vedmež+at +a This derivation works as it would for any post-accenting stem.

5.1.6 Vocative case Another interesting problem that can be accounted for by the Shifting rule is VOCATIVE

SINGULAR stress patterns across the declensions. There are proposals that Vocative case is different from other cases syntactically: e.g. D'Alessandro and Van Oostendorp (2016) propose

115

that VOCATIVE is a speech act, and speech-act related information is encoded in syntax with phi- features and is targeted by prosody. I will treat it as a case here.

Unlike in Russian, where VOCATIVE has been preserved only for several words, in Ukrainian it is a functioning case. It is largely ignored by the existing analyses of Ukrainian. In Butska (2002),

VOC SG is said to be “the same as Nominative” or to “pattern with the plural” (Butska 2002: 13, 14); however, as we will see below, this is not always the case. In Steriade and Yanovich (2013),

VOC SG is mentioned only in the context of the potential VOC SG xálv-o for xalv-á ‘halvah’, with an ironic remark that it is doubtful that Ukrainians ever address halvah; hence, halv-á is one of the nouns which lack a form with a stressed stem. I understand why it might sound funny to some, as due to its meaning VOCATIVE seems more suitable to animate nouns, and indeed, it must be used when addressing people and some entities in Ukrainian. However, many inanimate nouns have VOC SG forms in Ukrainian, which are used widely, especially in literature, such as tales, songs and poetry, e.g. vesn-á ‘spring’ - VOC SG vésn-o is very common. The inanimate vs animate distinction does play a role in gender distribution, as only masculine and feminine nouns have VOC SG suffixes distinct from NOM SG. Depending on the final consonant of the stem, it can be -o, -e or -u for the 1st declension and for the masculine and feminine of the 2nd and 3rd declensions. Historically, neuter nouns could not denote animate beings, so there were no distinct nd th suffixes for VOC SG of neuters of the 2 and 4 declensions. Synchronically, it is the same as

NOM SG (both morphologically and in terms of stress), even if they denote an animate being in

Modern Ukrainian. VOC PL is the same as NOM PL for all declensions.

Here is how VOC SG suffixes affect stress patterns:

(124) VOC SG stress patterns across declensions

a) No change in stress

st koróv-a ‘cow’, VOC SG koróv-o (1 declension, accented) x (x

st dón’-a ‘daughter’, VOC SG dón’-u (1 declension, accented) (x

st s báb-a ‘woman’, VOC SG báb-o (1 declension, Type 3) ( x

nd s hólub-Ø ‘pigeon’, VOC SG hólub-e (2 declension, Type 3) ( x x

rd nič-Ø ‘night’, VOC SG nóč-e (3 declension, unaccented) x

116

rd óblast’-Ø ‘region’, VOC SG óblast-e (3 declension, unaccented) x x

b) From suffix to the first or second syllable of the stem

st holov-á ‘head’, VOC SG hólov-o (1 declension, unaccented) x x

st s verb-á ‘willow’, VOC SG vérb-o (1 declension, Type 4) x(

st s novyn-á ‘news’, VOC SG novýn-o (1 declension, Type 4) x x(

nd méč-Ø ‘sword’, GEN SG meč-á, VOC SG méč-e (2 declension, post-accenting)

nd koról-Ø ‘king’, GEN SG korol-á, VOC SG koról-u (2 declension, post-accenting)

x x(

c) No change at all

nd s pól-e ‘field’, VOC SG=NOM SG (2 declension, Type 3, neuter) ( x

nd s sel-ó ‘village’, VOC SG=NOM SG (2 declension, Type 4, neuter) x(

th s plémj-a ‘tribe’, VOC SG=NOM SG (4 declension, Type 3, neuter) ( x

th vedmež-á ‘bear cub’, VOC SG=NOM SG (4 declension, post-accenting, neuter) x x(

The stems presented in (124a) have a VOC SG distinct from NOM SG but do not change their stress patterns in VOC SG: these are all accented stems regardless of where the stress is in NOM SG (as we would expect), shifting stems of Type 3, and unaccented stems of the 3rd declension. All neuter stems presented in (124c), regardless of the declension and stress type, do not have a distinct VOC nd SG form and do not change their stress patterns (they include neuter stems of the 2 declension and all stems of the 4th declension).

The stems in (124b) change their patterns in the following ways. It seems that it does not matter for stress what allomorph is used: -o, -e and -u are found in (124a) as well. Unaccented stems of st the 1 declension have stress on the first syllable in VOC SG, as in hólov-o. Shifting stems of Type

4 shift stress one syllable to the left, as in vérb-o, novýn-o, which corresponds to their PL patterns nd (NOM PL vérb-y, novýn-y). Surpisingly, post-accenting stems of the 2 declension shift stress one syllable to the left as well: VOC SG méč-e and koról-u. Here is the paradigm of koról’:

117

(125) koról’ ‘king’ (2nd declension, post-accenting)

SG PL Nom koról’-Ø korol’-í Acc korol’-á korol’-í Gen korol’-á korol-éj Dat korol-évi, korol’-ú korol’-ám Instr korol-ém korol’-ámy Loc korol’-í korol’-áx Voc koról-u korol’-í

Note that korol’ is post-accenting throughout the paradigm, including PL forms which have stress on the suffix, except for the VOC SG (paradigm of méč has the same pattern). Hence, VOC SG of post-accenting stems does not pattern with PL. The same is true for the shifting stems of Type 3 listed in (124а) which have VOC SG forms which do not pattern like their PL forms: VOC SG báb-o vs NOM PL bab-ý, VOC SG hólub-e vs NOM PL holub-ý.

So VOC SG does not really tend to be identical with PL: there are prosodic restrictions that bring the stress as close to the beginning of the word as possible. If the stress is already on the first syllable, then nothing happens; if the stress is on the second syllable of the accented stem, again, nothing happens. For unaccented stems, the stress shifts all the way to the left: it looks like the default stress in the forms with unaccented suffixes, cf. VOC SG hólov-o and ACC SG hólov-u. If the stem behaves as post-accenting in SG, regardless of whether it is shifting of Type 4 (NOM SG novyn-á - VOC SG novýn-o) or an actual post-accenting stem (GEN SG korol’-á - VOC SG koról-u),

VOC SG suffix causes stress shift to the left, same as the shift of Type 4 in PL.

I propose that the VOC SG suffixes (-u, -o, -e) convert an adjacent left parenthesis into a special parenthesis, marked (V, which is subject to the Shifting rule, version (c):

(126) Shifting Rule (c): applies when VOC SG suffix is present (c) Move a (V parenthesis one element to the left. Here are the derivations:

118

(127) Applying the Shifting Rule (c) (a) Accented stems: no change in stress, koróv-a ‘cow’

VOC SG -o koróv-o Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x (x x) ko rov + o (b) Unaccented stems: default stress, holov-á ‘head’

VOC SG -o hólov-o Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 x x x) ho lov + o (c) Shifting stems, Type 3: no change in stress, báb-a ‘woman’

VOC SG -o báb-o Line 2 x Line 1 (x Line 0 (Sx x) bab + o (d) Post-accenting stems: Shifting Rule (c), koról’-Ø ‘king’

VOC SG -u koról-u Line 2 x Line 1 (x Shifting (c) x (Vx x) Assign (V x x(V x) Line 0 x x( x) ko rol + u (e) Shifting stems, Type 4: Shifting Rule (c), novyn-á ‘news’

VOC SG -o novýn-o Line 2 x Line 1 (x Shifting (c) x (Vx x) Assign (V x x(V x) Line 0 x x(S x) no vyn + o

119

As we can see, in (127a), (127b), and (127c), Shifting Rule (c) fails to apply because there is no parenthesis adjacent to the element of the suffix on Line 0. This results in no change of stress for

VOC SG koróv-o and báb-o and default stress in VOC SG hólov-o. In (127d) the parenthesis to the right of the second element is adjacent to the VOC SG suffix -u. The suffix converts it to a V parenthesis on the last element. The Shifting Rule (c) applies and the parenthesis moves one element to the left, which results in the desired form koról-u. The derivation goes the same way in (127e), with the only difference that the parenthesis on the second element on Line 0 which is converted to V starts as a shifting parenthesis.

Note that the neuter nouns presented in (124c) do not take the VOC SG suffixes which trigger the application of the Shifting rule (c). Even though some of them are of Type 4 (sel-ó, vedmež-á), they are not subject to the stress shift; their VOC SG form is in fact the NOM SG form.

120

5.1.7 Languages in contact: East Sloboda Ukrainian

In this section, I will give some examples of how shifting works in the area of contact between Ukrainian and Russian, on the example of the East Sloboda Ukrainian (ESU) dialect (analyzed here for the first time, to my knowledge) using data from Kobyrynka (2012). This dialect stands apart for two reasons. First, the ancestors of its speakers arrived from other regions of Ukraine; second, the historic Sloboda region (modern Eastern Ukraine) borders Russia so there is extensive language contact with the speakers of Southern Russian (SR) dialects. Both factors have an effect on the stress patterns of ESU; here I will focus on the differences with Russian stress patterns.

As I mentioned before, shifting stems, especially those of Type 3, are more common in Ukrainian than in Russian; the same is true for East Sloboda Ukrainian. In the East Sloboda Ukrainian data presented in Kobyrynka (2012), I was able to find nouns of both Type 3 (e.g.

NOM SG báb-a - NOM PL bab-ý) and Type 4 (e.g. NOM SG verb-á - NOM PL vérb-y).

Some stems belong to Type 3 in both Standard Ukrainian (StU) and East Sloboda Ukrainian

(ESU), e.g. báb-a ‘woman’, which has stress on the stem in all SG forms and on the suffix in all

PL forms. Note that the Russian cognate báb-a ‘woman’ is accented (Type 1), meaning that the stem is stressed in all forms of both SG and PL:

(128) báb-a ‘woman’ in Russian and Ukrainian

a) StU and ESU: NOM SG báb-a - NOM PL bab-ý (Type 3)

b) Russian: NOM SG báb-a - NOM PL báb-y (Type 1)

However, some of the stems that belong to Type 3 in Standard Ukrainian do not shift the stress to the suffix in PL in East Sloboda Ukrainian, e.g. xát-a ‘house’:

(129) xát-a ‘house’

a) StU: NOM SG xát-a - NOM PL xat-ý, INSTR PL xat-ámy (Type 3)

b) ESU: NOM SG xát-a - NOM PL xát-y, INSTR PL xát-amy (Type 1)

121

On the other hand, some Russian borrowings have different stress patterns in East Sloboda Ukrainian than in Standard Russian. For example, in Standard Russian svád’b-a ‘wedding’ is an accented stem as it keeps stress on the stem in PL: NOM SG svád’b-a - NOM PL svád’b-y. In East Sloboda Ukrainian, however, it is treated as a shifting stem, i.e. accented in SG and post- accenting in PL: NOM SG svád’b-a - NOM PL svad’b-ý (note that Standard Ukrainian vesíll’-a ‘wedding’ is not cognate with svád’ba). This is especially interesting because as I mentioned, Type 3 in the 1st declension is unique to Ukrainian.

We have seen that some stems which are treated as shifting in Standard Ukrainian are treated as accented in East Sloboda Ukrainian. We could attribute this to the influence of the neighbouring SR dialects, but I would prefer to talk about it in terms of incomplete change. On the other hand, some stems that are of Type 1 in Russian are treated as shifting in East Sloboda Ukrainian, which shows us that this change specific to Ukrainian was applied to words that do not have cognates that went through this change. While the scope of this thesis does not allow me to go in the details of other Ukrainian (as well as Russian and Belarusian) dialects, this is one example of how my analysis could be applied to explain dialectal variations in stress patterns.

122

5.2 Modern Belarusian Stress

5.2.1 Previous Research

Karskiy (1956) provides a description of the developments of stress from Old to Modern Belarusian, which is not as detailed as Zalizniak (1985) and Skliarenko (2006), but still gives us an idea of the same tendencies as the other languages. A comprehensive description of Modern Belarusian (MB) stress is provided in Biryla and Shuba (1985) and Biryla (1986). Smulkowa (1978) provides a detailed description of the stress patterns of dialects of Modern Belarusian and their differences from the Standard Modern Belarusian, with a special focus on what I call shifting types, and traces their development as a new tendency. In English, an overview of Modern Belarusian stress patterns is provided in Stankiewicz (1993).

The only formal analysis of Belarusian stress known to me is Dubina (2012). He proposes a tonal analysis of the Modern Belarusian stress, suggesting that the accented morphemes are not marked in the lexicon diacritically, but are associated with an underlying high tone, while unaccented morphemes are associated with a floating tone. He notes that the association with the high tone is more stable than with the floating one due to a constraint against delinking of the pre-associated tone. This is a similar idea to the one I put forward in Section 2.2 by proposing two different kinds of parentheses for accented and shifting stems (unlike Dubina, I treat unaccented stems as having no association, or in my terminology, no parenthesis; I assume that default stress is assigned through computation). Dubina discusses both inflectional and derivational patterns.

Here, I will show that the stress patterns of Modern Belarusian are closer to Ukrainian than to Russian and that Belarusian has moved the furthest in reanalyzing stems as shifting.

5.2.2 Overview

Belarusian is spoken in Belarus and the bordering regions as a first language by a majority of the population according to the official census, but is currently considered endangered due to the continuous language policy of Russification. Belarusian has two standards and multiple dialects which, among other things, differ in terms of the distribution of stress patterns. Here I will focus on Standard Belarusian, also known as Reformed Standard Belarusian (the term used by Wexler

123

1977), the official language of the Republic of Belarus. Reformed Standard Belarusian was introduced by the Communist government in 1933 and was considered by many a “Russified” version of Belarusian. I will use Biryla and Shuba (1985) and Biryla (1986) as my primary sources of data and generalizations about Reformed Standard Belarusian stress, which I will refer to as Standard Belarusian in this chapter. I will also use Dubina (2012) and Belarusian dictionaries (Krapiva et al. 1977, Arashonkava et al. 2008).

Another standard is Unreformed Standard Belarusian. It was used before the reform and outside of Belarus during Soviet times; since the late 1980s it has been used by some authors and periodicals in Belarus. One of the differences that Dubina (2012), who reflects both usages of standards, includes in his examples is retaining a gender distinction in PL suffixes, a feature which has not been retained in Reformed Standard Belarusian. For example, halav-á ‘head’ is feminine: LOC PL form is halav-áx in both Reformed and Unreformed Standards. A masculine noun stol-Ø ‘table’ in Standard Belarusian has LOC PL stal-áx (the same suffix as for feminine nouns in Belarusian and as in Russian masculine nouns), while in Unreformed Standard

Belarusian the LOC PL form is stal-óx. In the examples provided by Dubina (2012: 95ff), Unreformed Standard Belarusian does not seem to have different stress patterns in the forms with different suffixes.

As in Russian and Ukrainian, stress in Belarusian is usually not specified in writing (except in orthoepic dictionaries, or dictionaries which include stress information, and elementary level textbooks); however, in Belarusian the position of stress can often be figured out from the way akanje is represented in orthography. Akanje (Belarusian akannja) is a neutralization process common to Russian and Belarusian whereby unstressed /o/ and /e/ are realized close to [a] (although in Standard Russian unstressed /e/ is closer to [i] than to [a]). Modern Belarusian examples are: NOM SG hólub ‘pigeon’ - NOM PL halubý and NOM SG v’arbá ‘willow’ - NOM PL v’érby.

Another feature specific to Belarusian is extensive variability of stress patterns, meaning that the same word can belong to different types and they are both acceptable as standard. This variation is discussed in Dubina (2012: 109-112). He notes that a previous researcher of Belarusian (Loban 1957: 203) noticed this instability as an indicator of ongoing processes in Belarusian

124 connected to “shift of stress” and wondered what its causes are and in what direction it was going. Dubina notes that this shift is very hard to explain as it goes in different directions. In my thesis, I am attempting such an explanation by an analysis of this “stress shift” and its tendencies, as well as putting this change in historical context.

Traditional grammars of Belarusian recognize three declensions and a special group of nouns, mostly cognates to the nouns of the Ukrainian 4th declension. For uniformity, I will refer to them in the same order as I did for the languages discussed above (in Biryla and Shuba (1986), the 1st declension is called the 2nd declension and vice versa).

(130) Lexical accents of inflectional suffixes in Belarusian.

SG PL

Declension 1st (f) 2nd (m, n) 3rd (f) 4th All

NOM -a -Ø, -o / -e -Ø -Ø -y/ -i/ -a

ACC -u =NOM OR GEN

GEN -y -a/ -u -i -i -ъ́ (-Ø, -ej, -ow)

DAT -e/-y -u -i -i -ám

INST -oj(u) -om/-em -ju -em/-am -ámi

LOC -i -e/-u/-y -i -i -áx

VOC -o/-e -a/-u/-e -u/-e -Ø =NOM

In SG I propose that the suffixes are unaccented in all declensions, and in PL, all suffixes are accented except for NOM and ACC PL. However, as we will see below, this difference matters only for a few nouns of the 2nd declension and for the 3rd. Standard Belarusian does not include Vocative Singular in its inventory but Biryla and Shuba (1985) list examples of its use in the dialects.

At first glance, Modern Belarusian features the same stress patterns as Modern Ukrainian:

125

(131) Types of stress patterns in Belarusian

Types SG PL Examples Type 0: unaccented stems x ruk-á ‘hand’, zub-Ø ‘tooth’, noč-Ø (stress depends on lexical x x ‘night’; accent of the suffixes) vóblasc’-Ø ‘region’

Type 1: accented stems (x múx-a – NOM PL múx-i ‘fly’; (stem always stressed) (x x jáhad-a – NOM PL jáhad-y ‘berry’; x (x karóv-a – NOM PL karóv-y ‘cow’

Type 2: post-accenting x( s’awn’-á – NOM PL s’awn’-í ‘seed drill’; stems (suffix always x x( stól-Ø – GEN SG stal-á – NOM PL stal-ý stressed) ‘table’

Type 3: accented in SG, (x x( dár-Ø – NOM PL dar-ý ‘gift’; post-accenting in PL (x x x x( hólub-Ø – NOM PL halub-ý ‘pigeon’

Type 4: post-accenting in x( (x kaz-á – NOM PL kóz-y ‘goat’; SG, accented in PL x x( x (x kawbas-á – NOM PL kawbás-y ‘sausage’ st Type 5: shifting from the 1 (x x x (x vóz’er-o – NOM PL az’ór-a ‘lake’ nd to the 2 syllable in PL

However, the distribution of the types is different. Using the numbers from Biryla and Shuba (1985) which, unlike the numbers for Ukrainian provided in Section 5.1.2, include derived words, the distribution is the following:

126

(132) Distribution of types in Belarusian (estimates, adapted from Biryla and Shuba 1985)

Declension/ 1st (feminine 2nd (masculine 2nd (neuter 3rd (feminine a-stems) zero-stems) o-stems) zero-stems) Type 0 4 170 1 7500+ 8500 4500 3000+ 2 140 1500 40 3 300+ 100 4 160 42+ 5 2

As we can see, Type 0 has only 4 stems in the 2nd declension that could be truly considered unaccented: this is the least among the discussed languages. There are also unaccented stems in the 3rd declension (I will discuss Type 0 in Section 5.3.3). Type 1 is the most numerous, as expected, especially because the derived words are included, and derived words tend to have an accented stress pattern. Unlike in Ukrainian, Type 3 is limited to the 2nd and 3rd declensions, and Type 4 to the 1st declension and neuter stems of the 2nd declension. As in the other two languages, Type 5 is the least represented, and here it consists of only two words (this stress pattern is not recognized as a distinct one by Biryla (1986), but I was able to find at least two examples of it in the dictionaries).

5.2.3 Accented and post-accenting stems

The most numerous stems of types 1 and 2 can be derived using an Idsardi style analysis. All suffixes are treated as unaccented, as there are no nouns of Type 0 in the 1st declension:

127

(133) báb-a ‘woman’, Type 1, NOM SG -a, NOM PL -y

a. NOM SG b. NOM PL bába báby Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Line 0 (x x) (x x) bab+a bab+y

The accented type is found across all declensions.

(134) barsúk-Ø ‘badger’, Type 2, GEN SG -a, NOM PL -i

a. GEN SG b. NOM PL barsuká barsukí Line 2 x x Line 1 x x Line 0 x x( x) x x( x) barsuk+a barsuk+i

There are very few examples of 1st declension post-accenting stems, e.g. kalanč-á ‘watchtower’ (Biryla 1986). While there is a prescriptive norm that they must have stress on the suffix in the

PL, in fact their use in PL is avoided (see Dubina 2012: 102), so it would be impossible to tell whether they are post-accenting or shifting of Type 4 (historically post-accenting stems of the 1st declension now belong to Type 4, much like in Ukrainian). Truly unaccented stems are masculine stems of the 2nd declension, like barsúkin (134).

I will return to the question of why I consider that most suffixes are no longer lexically accented in Belarusian in the discussion of unaccented stems in Section 5.3.3.

5.2.4 Shifting types in Belarusian

The only way to derive the right forms for Types 3, 4, and 5 is the Shifting rule I proposed earlier and repeat for convenience here:

128

(135) Shifting rule, restricted to shifting stems when a plural suffix is present:

a) Move a left parenthesis minimally to an adjacent morpheme: (Sx x > x x(S

or x x(S > x (Sx;

b) Move a left parenthesis one grid mark to the right: (Sʹx x > x (Sʹx.

Applying the Shifting rule will result in the following derivations. All the suffixes are treated as unaccented.

Type 3 is limited to the masculine nouns of the 2nd declension in Modern Belarusian. Smulkowa (1978: 118) notes that in some Belarusian dialects there are examples of feminine Type 3 nouns, e.g. báb-a ‘woman’ - NOM PL bab-ý, xát-a ‘house’- NOM PL xat-ý. Interestingly, she notes that examples like these are also found in regions that do not border Ukraine, so they are not only due to Ukrainian influence, but rather to a common tendency. Here is the derivation for a Type 3 stem.

(136) bérah ‘riverbank’, Type 3, GEN SG -a, NOM PL -y

GEN SG NOM PL béraha berahý Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (a) -- x x(S x) Line 0 (Sx x x) (Sx x x) be rah+a be rah+ y

In PL the Shifting rule, as defined in (135a), applies in PL at Line 0: it moves the left parenthesis two grid marks to the right to start a foot on the suffix. The result is the desired NOM PL form berah-ý.

Type 4 is limited to the 1st (feminine a-stems) and 2nd declensions (masculine zero-stems, e.g. kon’-Ø ‘horse’) in Belarusian. Here is the derivation for halin-á ‘branch’:

129

(137) halin-á ‘branch’, Type 4, NOM SG -a, NOM PL -y

NOM SG NOM PL haliná halíny Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (b) -- x (Sx x) Line 0 x x(S x) x x(S x) ha lin+a ha lin + y

In PL, on Line 0 the left parenthesis is at the right edge of the stem, and the stress falls on the suffix. The Shifting rule, as defined in (135a), applies in PL at Line 0 and moves a parenthesis one grid mark to the left in order to start a foot on the stem, which results in the desired NOM PL form halín-y. Most historically unaccented stems of the 1st declension that belong to the unaccented type in Russian and Ukrainian belong to Type 4 in Belarusian, e.g. halav-á ‘head’ and vad-á ‘water’.

As for the Type 5, Biryla and Shuba (1985) do not discriminate it as a separate pattern and do not mention it, but I was able to find it at least two examples in the dictionaries: NOM SG vóz’er-a

‘lake’ - NOM PL az’ór-y and vóblak-a ‘cloud’, which is listed in the dictionaries with possible alternative for plural forms, e.g. NOM PL could be vóblak-i (Type 1) or ablók-i (Type 5).

(138) vóz’er-a ‘lake’, Type 5, GEN SG -a, NOM PL -y

a. GEN SG b. NOM PL vóz’era az’óry Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (b) -- x (S’ x x) Line 0 (S’x x x) (S’x x x) voz’er+a a z’or+y

In PL the Shifting rule, as in (135b), applies in PL and moves the left parenthesis one grid mark to the right at Line 0, which results in the desired NOM PL form azjór-y.

130

Note that in Belarusian, as well as in Ukrainian, there is no possibility for shifting if the parenthesis is inside the stem and not on the edge. This means that there is no shifting available for stems of the form x(x: e.g. karóv-a ‘cow’ would never show shifting to xx( like *karov-ý, there are no examples of such patterns. The only exception in Belarusian is abrús ‘tablecloth’

(Biryla and Shuba 1985), which in the singular patterns as accented (GEN SG abrús-a) and in plural as post-accenting (NOM PL abrus-ý); however, it is a borrowing from Polish, which could explain its exceptionality.

5.2.5 Unaccented stems

As I mentioned above, Type 0 is extremely rare in Belarusian; according to Biryla and Shuba (1985), it is limited to the following words: masculine zúb ‘tooth’, vús ‘mustache’, róh ‘horn’, kon’ ‘horse’; and neuter vók-a ‘eye’ and vúx-a ‘ear’ (note that as in Ukrainian, these are words denoting body parts that are frequently used and thus can be easily memorized as exceptions). Dubina (2012) calls these patterns ‘minor’ and ‘exceptional’; while he provides examples of them, he excludes them from his analysis (Dubina 2012: 103-105).

Here is the paradigm of Belarusian zúb ‘tooth’:

(139) zúb-Ø ‘tooth’, 2nd declension, Type 0

SG PL Nom zub-Ø zúb-y Acc zub-Ø zúb-y Gen zúb-a zub-ów Dat zúb-u zub-ám Instr zúb-am zub-ámi Loc zúb-e zub-áx

Here the stress is on the stem in singular, NOM PL and ACC PL, and on the suffix in the rest of the cases. The stress patterns of Belarusian zub are identical to those of its cognates in Russian and Ukrainian (see in (106) above).

131

Biryla notes that vús-Ø ‘moustache’ can have NOM/ACC PL vus-ý colloquially and in some dialects, meaning that this stem can belong either to unaccented or to shifting of Type 3, depending on the speaker.

Another group of nouns for which we would still need to assume that suffixes have lexical stress is the 3rd declension. Feminine nouns with zero suffix (the 3rd declension) have stress on the stem in SG and in PL only in the NOM PL (and ACC PL for inanimates), the rest of the PL cases having stress on the suffix:

(140) vóblasc’ ‘region’, 3rd declension, unaccented

SG PL Nom vóblasc’-Ø vóblasc’-i Acc vóblasc’-Ø vóblasc’-i Gen vóblasc’-i ablasc’-éj Dat vóblasc’-i ablasc’-ám Instr vóblasc’-u ablasc’-ámy Loc na/u vóblasc’-i na/u ablasc’-áx

Animate feminine nouns with zero suffix have the same ACC PL suffix and stress pattern as GEN

PL:

(141) hus’ ‘goose’, unaccented, 3rd declension

SG PL Nom hús’-Ø hús’-i Acc hús’-Ø hus’-éj Gen hús’-i hus’-éj Dat hús’-i hus’-ám Instr húss’-u26 hus’-ámy Loc na/u hús’-i na/u hus’-áx

The only plural case where stress remains on the stem is NOM PL.

26 The last consonant of the stem is geminated due to the interaction with the suffix -ju.

132

Dubina (2012: 105) lists nah-á ‘foot’ and ruk-á ‘hand’ as examples of the 1st declension unaccented pattern:

(142) nah-á ‘foot’, 1st declension, Type 0

SG PL Nom nah-á nóh-i Acc nah-ú nóh-i Gen nah-í nóh-Ø Dat naz’-é nah-ám Instr nah-ój nah-ámi Loc naz’-é nah-áx

Note that unlike in Russian and Ukrainian feminine Type 0 nouns, here ACC SG has stress on the suffix. The only case that has stress on the stem is NOM=ACC PL; this is a transitional type.

There are also several 1st declension nouns which in Standard Belarusian belong to Type 4 but can also have Type 0-like stress patterns as acceptable variants (Biryla and Shuba 1985: 380).

They list 17 nouns that can have stress on the stem in ACC SG, while in other cases they consistently show Type 4 patterns. Here is the Standard Belarusian paradigm of vad-á ‘water’; I list the acceptable variants in parentheses:

(143) vad-á ‘water’, Type 4 + variants

SG PL Nom vad-á vód-y Acc vad-ú (vód-u) vód-y Gen vad-ý vód-Ø Dat vad-é vód-am Instr vad-ój vód-amy Loc vad-é vód-ax

There is also one noun, the already familiar to us halav-á ‘head’, that shows even more of Type 0-like patterns as acceptable variants. Here is the Standard Belarusian paradigm of halavá; again, I list the acceptable variants in parentheses:

133

(144) halav-á ‘head’, Type 4 + variants (from Biryla and Shuba 1985: 380)

SG PL Nom halav-á halóv-y (hólav-y) Acc halav-ú hólav( -u, hólaw-Ø) halóv-y (hólav-y) Gen halav-ý halów-Ø Dat halav-é halóv-am Instr halav-ój halóv-amy Loc na/u halav-é na/u halóv-ax

Interestingly, in the variants halav-á can have stress on the first syllable of the stem not only in

ACC SG, but also in NOM PL and ACC PL, like its cognate in Russian and Ukrainian. It is the only noun listed in the grammar that patterns with Russian and Ukrainian unaccented stems. The standard stress pattern with the stress on the second syllable of the stem is an interesting innovation from a historical point of view as it is unique to Belarusian (it reminds us of the

‘generalization’ of the GEN PL form to the rest of the cases, something like ózero - ozéra‘lake’ of Type 5).

As we can see, there are very few nouns that could be classified as unaccented. The rest of the stems belong to the Types 1-5, the majority of them to Type 1. I suggest that among the three languages, the lexical stress of the suffixes play the least role in determining stress patterns in Belarusian.

Combining the Idsardian analysis with the Shifting rule accounts for all stress patterns in all three nominal declensions of Belarusian. I suggest that the introduction of the Shifting rule had an even stronger effect on the Belarusian stress system than on Ukrainian. It resulted in the loss of lexical stresses in suffixes and subsequently a loss of Type 0 and unaccented stems in the 1st declension, limiting its spread to several nouns in the 2nd and 3rd declensions, which are much less numerous than the 1st and 2nd declensions. It is also possible that the Shifting rule came into effect earlier in Belarusian (since it seems to be a West to East historical development, if we consider Russian more conservative).

134

5.2.6 Variation in Modern Belarusian stress

Interestingly, Smulkowa (1978), Biryla (1986), and Dubina (2012) note that many stems of Type 1 can have acceptable variants that pattern as Type 3, and stems of Type 1 can have variants as Type 2, especially in oral speech. Biryla (1986) lists more than 90 such words that have variants between Type 1 and Type 3 and mentions that there are more. He attributes this variation to the influence of dialects and other East Slavic languages. Biryla makes prescriptive recommendations regarding which of them deviate from the standard: some variants are considered as part of Standard Belarusian, some are labeled as acceptable, and some as unacceptable. Compared to Russian and Ukrainian, Belarusian has a shorter and less enforced history of standardization, hence more variants. As Smulkowa (1978: 137f) notes, Standard Belarusian was created on the basis of the spoken dialects and not literary tradition, and reflects stress patterns of different dialects. I suggest that this is another reason why we see the further advancement of shifting stems in Belarusian than in other East Slavic languages.

Smulkowa (1978: 134ff) also notes that variation between Types 1 and 2, as well as between Types 1 and 3, is very common between different dialects of Belarusian and Standard

Belarusian. For example, in some dialects zájac-Ø ‘hare’ is Type 1 (NOM PL zájc-y), in other dialects and in Standard Belarusian it is Type 3 (NOM PL zajc-ý).

I attribute this variation to the fact that a word can belong to different types in the grammars of different speakers:

(145) Variation of Types in Belarusian.

a. Type 1 vs Type 2: NOM SG ahlóbl’-a (Type 1) and ahlabl’-á ‘shaft’ (Type 2);

b. Type 1 vs Type 3: NOM SG dz’éver-Ø ‘brother-in-law’, NOM PL dz’éver-y (Type 1) and dz’ever-ý (Type 2);

c. Type 3 vs Type 1: NOM SG bród-Ø ‘wade’, NOM PL brad-ý (Type 3) and bród-y (Type 1).

Note that the variation between non-shifting and shifting type is found in the nouns with zero suffix, like in (145b) and (145c). I suggest that when there is a suffix present, like in (145a), it

135 provides an unambiguous clue to the speaker: if the suffix is not stressed, as in ahlóbl’-a, the speaker classifies the word as Type 1; or if the suffix is stressed, as in ahlobl’-á, then it is Type 2 (note that Type 2 is much more numerous, besides, Type 3 is more common for one-syllable stems). In either case, this would be a non-shifting type.

However, when there is a zero suffix in NOM SG, there are two possibilities: it could belong to

Type 1 or Type 3. When a one-syllable stem in NOM SG has zero suffix, there are three possibilities for the stress in the paradigm: a) stress on the stem in all cases (Type 1); b) stress on the suffix in all cases except for NOM SG (Type 2); or c) stress on the stem in the singular and on the suffix in plural (Type 3). Type 3 mostly consists of one-syllable stems like dub- ‘oak’; while Type 3 is less numerous, it contains a lot of frequently used words. I suggest that this is the reason for the choice of Type 3 over Type 2 or even more predictable Type 1. As a result, speakers classify them as one or another type; but once they have classified them, they stick to their choice within the paradigm.

Note that Dubina (2012: 109-112) considers it unlikely that the dialectal influence is the cause of this variation. He proposes that aquisitional ambiguity is a factor, coming to a similar conclusion: feminine nouns are less ambiguous in terms of their stress type as all of their SG forms have overt suffixes.

136

5.3 Modern Russian stress

5.3.1 Previous research

Russian stress has been extensively studied in the generative tradition, including both rule-based (Halle 1973, Idsardi 1992, Halle and Idsardi 1995, Halle and Kiparsky 1979, Melvold 1989, among others) and constraint-based accounts (Alderete 1999 and 2001, Revithiadou 1999, among others); as well as the analysis of Brown et al. (1996) in the framework of network morphology which includes all stress types.

Melvold’s (1990) analysis is one of the most comprehensive analyses of stress in non-derived (and derived) nouns, presented in the framework of cyclic phonology. Unlike most analyses, she proposes to treat what I call shifting stems as a separate class, and proposes that they are subject to a Post-accentuation rule in SG and to a Retraction rule in PL. This proposal works for Russian but it would not work for shifting Ukrainian feminine a-stems like báb-a, NOM PL bab-ý.

Alderete (1999, 2001) proposes a trans-derivational anti-faithfulness mechanism for enforcing the paradigmatic contrast between SG and PL. His analysis includes Output-Output correspondence between morphologically related word forms. Alderete rejects the Basic Accentuation Principle (defined in (46) above) and proposes that the default stress in Russian is post-accenting, which would result in unaccented stems always having stress on the suffix, unless they have specific lexical marking, e.g. ACC SG gólov-u.

Revithiadou’s (1999) analysis relies on the proposal that the stress falls on the morpheme constituting the head of the word, dominating over other morphemes’ accents. If the suffix is category-changing, which happens in derived words, then this suffix is a morphological head. In non-derived words the morphological head is the root, meaning that inflectional suffixes can show dominant (accented) behaviour only if the root has no accent mark. See the criticism of Revithiadou’s analysis in Dubina (2012: 61-82).

5.3.2 Overview

Modern Russian is spoken in Russia and in most countries of the former Soviet Union. I will mostly discuss stress in Standard Modern Russian. The standard is regulated by the Russian Academy of Science and the Ministry of Science and Education. The stress patterns prescribed

137 by the standard often differ from the ones in colloquial and dialectal varieties of Russian. While there is no spoken corpus of Russian I could use to track these differences, they are noted in general and specialized orthoepic dictionaries. I will discuss these differences because they show the same tendencies towards shifting as we have seen in Ukrainian and Belarusian, but unlike those languages, are not reflected in the Standard to the same extent. Among the three languages, Russian has the longest uninterrupted history of literary tradition (starting from the 14th century) and prescriptivism (starting from the 18th century). I will use the data from monographs on stress (Red’kin 1971, Fedianina 1982) and dictionaries (Zalizniak 2008, Borunova et al. 1983, Reznichenko 2003).

Traditional grammars distinguish three declensions in Russian. I propose that they have the following lexical accents:

(146) Accents of the suffixes by declension in Russian

SINGULAR PLURAL 1 (f) 2a (m) 2b (n) 3 (f) all Nom -á -Ø -o, -e -Ø -y/-i/-a Acc -u Gen -ý -a -i -ъ́ (Ø, -óv, éj) Dat -é -u -i -ám Inst -ój -om -ьju -ámi Loc -é -e / (-ú) -i -áx

This table is slightly different from the one presented in (14) in Section 2.1. Unlike the accents nd th proposed in Idsardi (1992: 113), I propose that NOM SG suffix of the 2 and the 4 declension is zero (same as in Ukrainian and Belarusian, see the discussion in Section 5.1.3), and that all st suffixes of NOM PL are unaccented. In SG of the 1 declension, all suffixes are accented except for nd ACC SG. The SG suffixes of all other declensions are unaccented. In SG of the 2 declension, as well as in PL of all declensions, GEN is used instead of ACC for animate nouns. In PL, all the suffixes are accented except for NOM/ACC PL. One NOM/ACC PL suffix is specific to Russian and not to the other East Slavic languages: suffix -a, historically used only for neuter nouns, is used

138 for some masculine nouns of the 2nd declension (as a result of innovation that happened only in Russian dating back to the 18th century).

I propose that besides the three traditional accentual paradigms proposed by Stang and used in Idsardi’s analysis (Types 0, 1, and 2), Russian also has three more patterns (Types 3, 4, and 5) that should be distinguished:

(147) Types of stress patterns in Russian

Types SG PL Examples Type 0: unaccented stems x ruk-á ‘hand’, zub-Ø ‘tooth’, noč-Ø (stress depends on lexical x x ‘night’; accent of the suffixes) golov-á ‘head’, óblast’-Ø ‘region’

Type 1: accented stems (x múx-a – NOM PL múx-i ‘fly’; (stem always stressed) (x x jágod-a – NOM PL jágod-y ‘berry’; x (x koróv-a – NOM PL koróv-y ‘cow’

Type 2: post-accenting x( čert-á – NOM PL čert-ý ‘line’; stems (suffix always x x( stól-Ø – GEN SG stol-á – NOM PL stol-ý stressed) ‘table’

Type 3: accented in SG, (x x( dár-Ø – NOM PL dar-ý ‘gift’; post-accenting in PL (x x x x( górod-Ø – NOM PL gorod-á ‘city’

Contra Idsardi (1995), I propose that the patterns represented in types 3, 4, and 5 are not unaccented stems, but shifting stems.

5.3.3 Accented and post-accenting stems

In Russian, accented stems are found in the 1st and 2nd declension, and post-accenting stems are distributed between the 1st and 2nd declensions. The derivations are the same as in Section 2.1: (12) and (13) for accented stems and (10) and (11) for the post-accenting. The bottom line is that accents of the suffixes do not have an effect on the surface position of the stress: it will always

139 remain on the stem in accented stems and on the suffix in post-accenting. The only time when stress ends up on the stem in post-accenting nouns is the 2nd declension masculine nouns which have a zero suffix in NOM SG, e.g. otéc-Ø ‘father’:

(148) otéc-Ø ‘father’, 2nd declension, post-accenting

SG PL Nom otéc-Ø otc-ý Acc otc-á otc-ý Gen otc-á otc-óv Dat otc-ú otc-ám Instr otc-óm otc-ámi Loc na/v otc-é na/v otc-áx

nd Idsardi (1995: 115) proposes that NOM SG suffix of the 2 declension masculine nouns is underlyingly an accented yer. As I discussed above in Section 5.1.3, I do not see why it should be accented as it does not affect the stress patterns of either post-accenting or unaccented stems; the only thing the underlying yer affects is the insertion of [e]. I discussed the details of my alternative proposal in Section 5.1.3.

Another interesting point about post-accenting stems in Russian is that while they are relatively nd common in masculine nouns of the 2 declension with zero-suffix in NOM SG, I found only one nd neuter stem of the 2 declension (NOM SG -o) which is post-accenting (očk-ó ‘point’ - NOM PL st očk-í). In the 1 declension (NOM SG -a) there is only a limited set of post-accenting stems. Most of the historically post-accenting stems of the 1st declension and neuters of the 2nd are now shifting of Type 4, e.g. žen-á ‘wife’ - NOM PL žón-y and sel-ó ‘village’ - NOM PL s’ól-a. There are several frequently used words like čertá ‘feature; line’, mečt-á ‘dream’, stat’j-á ‘paper’ which are clearly post-accenting (these words are in the one thousand most frequent nouns I extracted from RNC). There is also a list of borrowings which, according to the dictionaries, are post- accenting in PL; but in fact they are rarely used in PL, and it is hard to tell what pattern they really have. The native speakers I consulted with were not sure where to put stress in the PL. These are old borrowings, mostly of Old Church Slavonic (e.g. gospož-á ‘lady’) and Turkic origin (kalanč-á ‘watch tower’). Some more recent borrowings, e.g. graf-á ‘column’, originally had been listed as post-accenting with NOM PL graf-ý (Red’kin 1971: 30), but in the most recent

140 dictionaries it has shifting variants as acceptable: both gráf-y and graf-ý (Borunova et al. 1983, Zalizniak 2009).

5.3.4 Unaccented stems

Among the three languages, Russian is the most conservative in terms of preserving stress patterns of unaccented stems. They are more prominent in Russian in two ways. First, they are more numerous: Fedianina (1982: 35) notes there are about 200 nouns in Russian that I would classify as unaccented. Second, there are more stress patterns that deviate from the “classic” unaccented pattern: besides the golov-á pattern discussed in Section 2.1, there are several pattern variations that I will call transitional types. As I discussed in Section 2.2, the majority of stems which Idsardi would consider unaccented have a consistent SG - PL shifting pattern, so I consider them shifting stems.

Unaccented stems are found in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd declensions.

In the 1st declension Fedianina (1981: 41) lists 33 stems which pattern like golov-á, meaning that the stress always follows the accent of the suffixes. There are also several transitional types:

(149) sl’ez-á ‘tear’: post-accenting stem in SG, unaccented in PL

SG PL Nom sl’ez-á sl’óz-y Acc sl’ez-ú sl’óz-y Gen sl’ez-ý sl’óz-Ø Dat sl’ez-é slez-ám Instr sl’ez-ój sl’ez-ámi Loc na/v sl’ez-é na/v sl’ez-áx

As you can see, the suffix is consistently stressed in SG and in DAT, INSTR, and LOC PL. I call it transitional because if it was patterning like golov-á, it would have stress on the stem in ACC SG, because ACC SG is unaccented; but slez-ú does not (even if historically it was unaccented and had

ACC SG form with stress on the stem; see Zalizniak 2011: 161). In PL, however, it behaves like a regular unaccented stem: NOM and ACC PL have unaccented suffixes, hence the stress on the stem;

GEN PL does not have an extension so the stress ends up on the stem as well; and in the other

141 cases it is on the suffix. According to Fedianina (1982: 85), there are 35 words that pattern like slez-á. There is at least one example of variation between this subtype and Type 4: voln-á ‘wave’ patterns like slez-á in SG but has two acceptable variants in PL: either an unaccented stem pattern or with accented stem. This shows us that this subtype could be moving towards shifting Type 4.

There is also an opposite pattern:

(150) cen-á ‘price’: unaccented stem in SG, accented in PL

SG PL Nom cen-á cén-y Acc cén-u cén-y Gen cen-ý cén-Ø Dat cen-é cén-am Instr cen-ój cén-ami Loc na/v cen-é na/v cén-ax

Here, the stem has stress on the stem in ACC SG and on the suffix in other cases in SG, as suggested by the lexical accent of the suffixes. Unlike regular unaccented stems, cen-á has stress on the stem in all cases in PL; hence, it is moving towards Type 4, with ACC SG being the last case in the way of the change. Only 12 words pattern like this (Fedianina 1982: 85).

There is also another type, which patterns as accented in SG and unaccented in PL:

(151) derévn’-a ‘village’: accented stem in SG, unaccented in PL

SG PL Nom derévn’-a derévn’-i Acc derévn’-u derévn’-i Gen derévn’-i derevén’-Ø Dat derévn’-e derevn’-ám Instr derévn’-ej derevn’-ámi Loc na/v derévn’-e na/v derevn’-áx

Here it is even more clear that the stem patterns as unaccented in PL as it is sensitive to the GEN

PL underlyingly accented yer suffix, hence the accent on the last syllable (in disyllabic shifting

142

stems the stress in GEN PL surfaces on the first syllable, cf. Type 4 sosn-á ‘pine tree’ - GEN PL sósen-Ø).27

Consider the pattern of rek-á ‘river’, which is in the middle of the transition from unaccented to shifting type:

(152) rek-á ‘river’: unaccented/post-accenting in SG, accented in PL

SG PL Nom rek-á rék-i Acc rék-u/ rek-ú rék-i Gen rek-í rék-Ø Dat rek-é rék-am Instr rek-ój rék-ami Loc na/v rek-é na/v rék-ax

In the dictionaries, both variants of ACC SG are marked as acceptable. In PL, there are several variants marked as “archaic”: DAT PL rek-ám, INSTR PL rek-ámi, and LOC PL rek-áx. It is clear that only the ACC SG form is keeping this historically unaccented noun from final transition into shifting Type 4.

Interestingly, there are no examples which would be unaccented in SG and post-accenting in PL. I suppose that the reason for this is that the unaccented stems which have been reanalyzed as shifting first became consistent in SG and then in PL, similar to what we saw in Section 4.1.2. This is different from Ukrainian transitional type as here the SG regularized first,

In the second declension, there are 50 unaccented masculine stems, e.g. zub-Ø ‘tooth’, and only 5 neuter stems, e.g. úx-o ‘ear’. Most stems of the 3rd declension (feminine) are unaccented. As the nd rd suffixes of both the 2 and 3 declensions are unaccented in SG, this distinction is visible only in

PL: NOM/ACC and GEN PL the stress is on the stem and in the rest of the PL stress is on the suffix.

27 It also seems that derévn’-a is problematic or at least irregular, since it is a pleophonic stem (-ere- comes from Common Slavic *-er-), which has irregular stress in the plural even though it is stressed on the stem-final syllable (like koróv-a, an accented stem) and not on the suffix like unaccented golov-á, which has plural gólov-y (not *golóvy), golóv, golovám (thanks to Joseph Schallert for this observation).

143

5.3.5 Shifting stems

While there are not as many shifting stems in Russian as in the other two languages, there are still many historically unaccented stems that changed their type to shifting.

As I mentioned above, in the first declension most historically post-accenting stems became Type 4 shifting stems. Unlike in Ukrainian, there are no Type 3 stems in the 1st declension.

(153) sosn-á ‘pine’, 1st declension, Type 4

SG PL Nom sosn-á sósn-y Acc sosn-ú sósn-y Gen sosn-ý sósen-Ø Dat sosn-é sósn-am Instr sosn-ój sósn-ami Loc na/v sosn-é na/v sósn-ax

While Idsardi proposes to apply the Parenthesis Doubling rule for nouns like sosn-á, I argue that they belong to shifting stems as they behave differently from both post-accenting and unaccented stems. First, they do not have stress on the stem in ACC SG like unaccented stems. Second, they are not affected by lexical suffixes of the suffixes, but unlike post-accenting stems, all the forms have stress on the stem in PL. Also, the stress is on the first syllable in GEN PL, and not on the second, as it would be for unaccented stems. The derivation goes as follows:

144

(154) sosn-á ‘pine’, GEN SG -y, NOM PL -y

GEN SG NOM PL sosn-ý sósn-y Line 2 x x Line 1 ( x (x Shifting (a) -- (sx x) Line 0 x(s x) x(s x) sosn+y sosn+y

Here, in SG the stem has a regular post-accenting stem derivation. In PL, the Shifting rule I proposed in Section 2.2 as defined in (114a) applies at Line 0: the parenthesis moves away from the suffix one grid mark to the left at Line 0, which results in the projection of the stem element to Line 1 and Line 2, giving the desired NOM PL form sósn-y.

Among the masculine stems of the 2nd declension, there are 225 words that belong to Types 3 and 4 according to Fedianina (compare this to 25 unaccented masculine stems of the 2nd declension). I argue that this is quite a significant pattern in terms of numbers; rather than being treated with a special rule, like Idsardi’s analysis does, I suggest these stems should be recognized as newly emerged types. I propose that stems like dár-Ø ‘gift’ and górod-Ø ‘city’ belong to Type 3 and stems like list-Ø ‘leaf’ belong to Type 4 in Russian (note that list ‘sheet of paper’ is of Type 2).

The neuter stems of the 2nd declension also include a significant number of Type 3 (33 words) and Type 4 (70 words) stems. Here is the derivation for Type 4 óblak-o ‘cloud’:

145

(155) óblak-o ‘cloud’, GEN SG -a, NOM PL -a

a. GEN SG b. NOM PL óblaka oblaká Line 2 x x Line 1 (x (x Shifting (a) -- x x(s x) Line 0 (sx x x) (sx x x) oblak+a oblak+a

In PL, the Shifting rule applies on Line 0 and the parenthesis moves two grid marks to the right to start a foot on the suffix. This way, we do not have to propose accented suffix -a for NOM PL.

Many masculine stems of 2nd declension show variation between Type 1 and Type 3, e.g. déd-Ø

‘grandfather’ should have NOM PL déd-y according to the dictionaries, but they note that there is also NOM PL ded-ý which is “unacceptable in straight literary speech” (Reznichenko 2003). The same applies to tórt-Ø ‘cake’ where NOM PL tórt-y is proposed as a norm and tort-ý is considered non-standard, while “it can often be heard from the pastry chefs and vendors” (ibid.). Note that these are not isolated examples: déd-Ø is in the first thousand most frequently used words, among with words like sčót-Ø ‘count’ and štab-Ø ‘staff (military)’ which also have variation between Types 1 and 3.

Another possible variation is between Type 0 and Type 3, found in frequently used words like gód-Ø ‘year’ and véter-Ø ‘wind’. Interestingly, in NOM PL both nouns can take either the old suffix -y or the new suffix -a:

146

(156) véter-Ø ‘wind’, 2nd declension, Type 0 or Type 3

SG PL Nom véter-Ø vétr-y / vetr-á Acc véter-Ø vétr-y / vetr-á Gen vétr-a vetr-óv Dat vétr-u vetr-ám Instr vétr-om vetr-ámi Loc v/na vétr-e/vetr-ú na/v vetr-áx

In case it takes the old suffix -y, this historically unaccented noun still looks like an unaccented stem; but when it takes -a it looks like a shifting stem because all its PL forms will have stress on the suffix.

As we have seen in this section, while Russian has not moved as far as the other languages towards reanalyzing unaccented stems as shifting, the same tendency as in other East Slavic languages is still present to a significant extent. I argue that my analysis of Russian captures more patterns than previous analyses, and shows more accurately the place of Russian in the context of the other East Slavic languages.

147

6 Conclusions

In this thesis, I made an attempt to bridge the traditional historical linguistic approaches to stress in East Slavic and formal theory. I proposed the notion of the shifting stems, which have different properties from unaccented stems, and are marked differently in the lexicon: unlike accented and post-accenting stems, which have a parenthesis that is anchored to a certain grid mark, shifting stem parentheses mark that the stem is subject to the Shifting rule, while unaccented stems have no parentheses. Together with traditional types, shifting stems are part of the grammar of all three languages.

I proposed that shifting stems emerged as an attempt to regularize the stress patterns in paradigms, which became obscure to learners due to a series of sound changes. One of the first significant changes was loss of length, which caused loss of tonal contours, some time in the Late Common Slavic period. The weakening of yers and ban of the stress on weak yers, which occurred during the Old East Slavic period, made the distinction between unaccented

and post-accenting stems in NOM SG less obvious. Finally, the loss of ‘tact groups’ and different realizations of underlyingly accented and unaccented stress in Late Old East Slavic erased the distinction between unaccented stems and the rest. Some of the suffixes changed their lexical accent marking, bringing even more instability to the system.

I suggested that shifting stems became established as a new class during the Old Russian/Old Ukrainian/Old Belarusian period, with some precursors going back to Old East Slavic (and nd arguably CS), like 2 declension neuter sel-ó ‘village’ which had NOM PL sél-a. Unaccented stems started this change and were the most productive class to be reanalyzed as a shifting class of Type 3 (masculine stems of the 2nd declension) and Type 4 (feminine stems of the 1st declension, neuter stems of the 2nd declension). The majority of post-accenting stems of the 1st declension have been reanalyzed as Type 4. Some accented stems have been reanalyzed as Type 4 and Type 3. Many unaccented stems acquired a transitional pattern, and if they follow the same direction as the historical change, they might end up as shifting types, leading to a complete disappeance of the unaccented type. Unaccented neuter stems of the 2nd declension created their own Type 5, the only type where stress moves inside the stem. This change affected Russian to a large extent, but was more productive in Ukrainian (almost all stems of

148 the 2nd declension are accented or shifting), and went the furthest in Belarusian, where unaccented stems are almost extinct. In both Ukrainian and Belarusian, monosyllabic unaccented stems turned out to be the most resistant; I suggest that while this pattern is inconsistent, it is easier to learn than disyllabic stems where the stress also moves within the stem in GEN PL, e.g. Rus. golóv-Ø. Disyllabic unaccented stems turned into either transitional (in Modern Ukrainian) or shifting (Modern Belarusian) types. In Ukrainian, two-syllable unaccented stems of the 1st declension are transitioning into a new shifting type of form x x( rd in SG - (x x in PL, e.g. pelen-á ‘shroud’ - NOM PL pélen-y. The 3 declension (feminine i- stems), however, almost completely consists of unaccented stems, with disyllabic stems showing transitional tendencies.

I proposed that there are six types of accentual patterns in East Slavic, which can be further narrowed down to three types of stems marked in the lexicon as unaccented (no parenthesis), accented and post-accenting (with the parenthesis marked as L), and shifting (with the parenthesis marked as S or Sʹ). Among these types, only unaccented stems still rely on the lexical accents of the suffixes. All shifting stems are subject to the Shifting rule which is sensitive only to the plural marking on the suffix. Since unaccented stems constitute the least numerous pattern and the only one that still relies on lexical accent of the suffixes for computation of stress, I propose that East Slavic languages have moved towards a system where nominal inflectional suffixes no longer have lexical stress, and the difference between singular and plural subparadigms is reinforced with the help of the Shifting rule.

While keeping unaccented stems and lexical stress of the suffixes in my analysis makes it less elegant, I insist that unaccented stems cannot be omitted from a comprehensive analysis of East Slavic stress systems, despite being the least numerous and a disappearing class.

My analysis puts Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian in the perspective of a common East Slavic system, and provides an insight into tendencies not visible only from the study of the stress systems of the individual languages.

149

7 Bibliography

Alderete, John (1999), Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Alderete, John (2001), Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.

Ambrosiani, Per (1991), On Church Slavonic Accentuation: The Accentuation of a Russian Church Slavonic Gospel Manuscript from the Fifteenth Century. (= Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Slavic Studies 21). Stockholm: Almqvist andWiksell International.

Arashonkava, Hanna, Nadze͡ia CHabatar, Alena Astapchuk, Viktory͡ia Ulasevich (eds.) (2008), Hramatychny sloŭnik nazoŭnika [Grammatical dictionaruy of noun]. Minsk: Belaruska͡ia navuka.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2011), Cyclicity. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds) The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 4, 2019-2048. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Borunova, Svetlana N., R. I. Avanesov, V. L. Voron︠ts︡ ova, N. A.Esʹkova, and Institut russkogo ︠ia︡ zyka (Akademi︠ia︡ nauk SSSR) (1983), Orfoėpicheskiĭ slovarʹ russkogo ︠i︡azyka: Proiznoshenie, udarenie, grammaticheskie formy [Orthoepic Dictionary of Russian: Pronunciation, Stress, Grammatical Forms]. Moskva: "Russkiĭ ︠ia︡ zyk".

Baerman, Matthew (1999), The Evolution of Fixed Stress in Slavic. München: Lincom Europa.

Becker, Michael and Maria Gouskova (2013), Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31:735–765.

150

Beckman, Jill, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds). (1995), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 18, Papers in Optimality Theory, Graduate Student Linguistic Association, Amherst.

Bethin, Christina Y. (1998), Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. Cambridge University Press.

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

Bilodid, I. K., and Instytut movoznavstva im. O.O. Potebni. (1969), Suchasna ukraïns'ka literaturna mova. [Standard Modern Ukrainian]. In 5 vol. Kyïv: Naukova dumka.

Biryla, Mikalaĭ V. (1986), Natsisk nazoŭnikaŭ u suchasnaĭ belaruskaĭ move. [Noun Stress in Modern Belarusian]. Minsk : Vyšejšaja škola.

Biryla, Mikalaĭ V., and Pavel.P. Shuba (1985), Belaruska͡ia hramatyka. [The Grammar of Belarusian] Vol. 1: Phonology. Orthoepy. Morphology. Word formation. Stress. Minsk: Navuka i tėkhnika.

Brown, Dunstan, Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, Andrew Hippisley and Alan Timberlake (1996), Russian Noun Stress and Network Morphology. Linguistics 34 (1): 53-107.

Bulakhovskiĭ, L.A. (1958), Istoricheskiĭ kommentariĭ k russkomu literaturnomu ͡iazyku. [Historical Comment to Standard Russian Language]. Kyiv: Rad’͡ians’ka Shkola.

Bulatova, Rimma V., Vladimir A. Dybo, Sergeĭ L. Nikolaev (1988). Problemy akcentologicheskikh dialektizmov v praslav͡ianskom [Problems of Accentological Dialectic Forms in Proto-Slavic]. In: Slav͡ianskoe ͡iazykoznanie (10th International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1988), Moskva: Nauka, pp. 31–66.

Butska, Luba (2002), Faithful Stress in Paradigms: Nominal Inflection in Ukrainian and Russian. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.

151

Carlton, Terence R. (1974), Ukrainian Ikavism as a Reflex of Proto-Slavic Neo-Acute. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Cherems’ka, Ol’ha S., Halyna H. Haǐdamaka, Valentyna F. Z͡ Hovtobr͡iukh (2010), Ukraïns′ka mova: navchal’nyǐ posibnyk [Ukrainian: The Handbook]. Kharkiv: Kharkivs′kyǐ na͡tsionalnyĭ ekonomichnyĭ universytet.

Comrie, Bernard, G. Stone and M. Polinsky (1996), The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford.

D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Marc van Oostendorp (2016). Prosody, phi-features and deixis in southern Italian: what vocatives can tell us on the architecture of language. Romance languages and Linguistic Theory 10. Ed. by Edited by Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira. P. 61-82.

Dresher, B. Elan (1994), Acquiring Stress Systems. In Eric Sven Ristad (ed.), Language computations (DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, v. 17), 71–92. Providence, RI: AMS.

Dresher, B. Elan (2009), Stress Assignment in Tiberian Hebrew. In Contemporary Views On Architecture and Representations in Phonological Theory, eds. Charles Cairns and Eric Raimy, 213-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dresher, B. Elan (2016), Covert Representations, Contrast, and the Acquisition of Lexical Accent. In Dimensions of Phonological Stress, eds. Jeffrey Heinz, Rob Goedemans and Harry van der Hulst, 231–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dubina, Andrei. (2012), Towards a Tonal Analysis of Free Stress. Doctoral Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Dybo, Vladimir A. (1981), Slav︠i︡anska︠i︡a ak︠t︡sentologi︠i︡a: Opyt rekonstruk︠t︡sii sistemy ak︠t︡sentnykh paradigm v praslav︠i︡anskom. [Slavic Accentology: Reconstructing the System of Accentual Paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. Moscow: Nauka.

152

Dybo, Vladimir A., Sergeĭ L. Nikolaev, Galina I. Zam︠ia︡ tina and Bulatova, Rimma V. (1990). Osnovy slav︠i︡anskoĭ ak︠t︡sentologii [Foundations of Slavic Accentology]. Moscow: Nauka.

Fed͡ianina, Nina A. (1982). Udarenie v sovremennom russkom ͡iazyke [Stress in Modern Russian]. Moskow: Russkiĭ ͡iazyk.

Filin, Fedot. P., and Institut russkogo ︠ia︡ zyka (Akademi︠ia︡ nauk SSSR) (1962), Obrazovanie ︠i︡azyka vostochnykh slav︠i︡an [Formation of the East Slavic]. Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, Leningradskoe otd-nie.

Foster, James (1966), Some phonological rules of Modern Standard Ukrainian. Univ. of Illinois, Doctoral Dissertation.

Grot, I͡ Akov Karlovich (1899). Trudy I͡ A.K. Grota. Filologicheskie razyskani͡ia. [The Works of J. K. Grot. Philological research.] K.I͡ A. Grot (ed.). Sankt-Peterburg: tip. M-va put. soobshch. (t-va I.N. Kushnerev i K°).

Halle, Moris (1997), On Stress and Accent in Indo-European. Language 73, No. 2 (June 1997), pp. 275-313.

Halle, Morris. (1959), The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation. With an excursus on the Contextual variants of the Russian vowels, by Lawrence G. Jones. 's-Gravenhage, Mouton.

Halle, Morris (1994), The Russian declension: An illustration of the theory of Distributed Morphology. In Perspectives in Phonology, ed. by Jennifer Cole and Charles Kisseberth, 29–60. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.

Halle, Morris, and William J. Idsardi (1995), General Properties of Stress and Metrical Structure. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), A Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell. 403 – 443.

Khazagerov, Tomas G. (1973). Razvitie tipov udareni︠i︡a v sisteme russkogo imennogo skloneni︠i︡a [Development of Stress Types in the System of Russian Nominal Declension]. Moskow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta.

153

Holovashchuk, Serhiĭ I. (1995), Skladni vypadky naholoshenn︠i︡a: Slovnyk-dovidnyk [Difficult Cases of Stress Placement: The Reference Dictionary]. Kyïv: Lybidʹ.

Holovashchuk, Serhiĭ I. (2003). Slovnyk naholosiv: Ponad 20 000 sliv [Dictionary of Stress: Over 20,000 words]. Kyïv: Naukova dumka.

Idsardi, William (1992), The Computation of Prosody. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Illich-Svitych, Vladislav M. (1963), Imennaia aktsentuatsiia v baltiǐskom i slavianskom. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR (= Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and Slavic. Translated by Richard Leed and Ronald Feldstein, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979).

Jakobson, Roman (1964), A Phonemic Approach to the Structure and Evolution of the Common Slavic Prosodic Patterns. In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963, Vol. I: Linguistic Contributions. pp. 153-178.

Jakobson, Roman (1971), Morphologicheskie nabludeniia nad slavianskim skloneniem [Morphological inquiry into Slavic declension]. In Selected Writings II: World and Language. 154-183. The Hague: Mouton.

Jones, Daniel, and Dennis Ward (1969), The phonetics of Russian. London: Cambridge U.P.

Kager, René W. J. (2000). Stem stress and peak correspondence in Dutch. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw and J. van de Weiyer (Eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121-150.

Kager, René, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld (eds). (1999), The Prosody-Morphology Interface, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Karskiĭ, Evfimiĭ F. 195( 5), Belorusy: iazyk belorusskogo naroda. Vol. 1 Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Kenstowicz, Michael & Jerzy Rubach (1987), The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63. 463–497.

154

Kim, Sun-Hoi (1999), The metrical computation in tone assignment. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

Kiparsky, Paul (2000), Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351-367.

Kiparsky, Paul and Moris Halle (1979), Internal Constituent Structure and Accent in Russian Words. In Studies in Honor of Horace G. Lunt. Ed. Ernest A. Scatton, Richard D. Steele, and Charles E. Gribble. 128-153. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

Kiparsky, Valentin (1950), O kolebaniiax udareniia v russkom literaturnom iazyke: Odnoslozhnye imena sushchestvitelnyie [On Stress Fluctuations in Modern Standard Russian: Monosyllabic Nouns]. In Ezhegodnik Instituta po izucheniiu SSR v Finliandii, Prilozhenie 1. Helsinki.

Kobyrynka, Halyna S. (2012) Tenden͡tsiï naholoshuvann͡ia u skhidnosloboz͡ hans′kykh hovirkakh [Tendenies of Stress in East Sloboda Dialects]. In Linhvistyka 1 (25), Vol. 1: 108-114.

Kolesov, Vladimir V. (1972), Istoriia russkogo udareniia [History of Russian Stress]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.

Krapiva, K., and Instytut movaznaŭstva im︠ia︡ I︠ A︡ kuba Kolasa.(Ed.) (1977), Tlumachalʹny sloŭnik belaruskaĭ movy [The Explanatory Dictionary of Belarusian]. Minsk: Hal. rėd. Belaruskaĭ Savetskaĭ Ėntsyklapedyi.

Łukaszewicz, Beata, and Janina Mołczanow (2018), Rhythmic stress in Ukrainian: Acoustic evidence of a bidirectional system. Linguistics 54, 367–388.

Mazhėĭka, Nadezhda S. (2006), Chastotny sloŭnik belaruskaĭ movy: A--I︠ ︡A. (The Frequency Dictionary of Belarusian). Minsk: UP "Zorki hor".

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. (1995). Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity, in J. Beckman et al. (eds), 249–384.

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince (1999), Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology, in R. Kager et al. (eds), The Prosody-Morphology Interface. 9. 218–309.

155

Melvold, Janis Leanne (1990), Structure and Stress in the Phonology of Russian. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Pater, Joe (2009), Morpheme-Specific Phonology: Constraint Indexation and Inconsistency Resolution. In Steve Parker, (ed.) Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. London: Equinox. 123-154.

Ponomariv, Oleksandr (2015, December 7). Blog prof. Ponomareva: I͡ Ak pomyl͡ia͡iut′s͡ia televeduchi (Prof. Ponomariv’s Blog: What Mistakes TV Announcers Make). Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/blogs/2015/12/151207_ponomariv_blog77_ko

Purnell, Thomas C. (1997), Principles and Parameters of Phonological Rules: Evidence from Tone Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

Redʹkin, Vitaliǐ A. (1971), Ak︠t︡sentologi︠i︡a sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo ︠i︡azyka [The Accentology of Modern Standard Russian]. Moskow: Prosveshchenie.

Revithiadou, Anthi (1999), Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.

Reznichenko, Irina L. (2003) Orfoėpicheskiĭ slovarʹ russkogo ͡iazyka: Proiznoshenie. Udarenie. [The orthoepic Dictionary of Russian: Pronunciation. Stress.] Moscow: Astrel.

Rubach, Jerzy (1986), Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: The yers. The Linguistic Review 5. 247–280.

Russian National Corpus: http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/

Sadnik, Linda (1959), Slavische Akzentuation. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.

Scheer, Tobias (2011), Slavic yers. In The Companion to Phonology, edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume and Keren Rice. Vol. 5. London: Blackwell.

Shrager, Miriam-Maria (2011), Accentuation of Masculine Monosyllabic Nouns of Susak Speakers in New Jersey. In BALTISTICA VII Priedas: 207–225.

156

Shrager, Miriam (2007), The Accentual System of Masculine Nouns in “Kriviči” Dialects. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.

Shevelov, George (1979), A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Skl︠ia︡ renko, Vitaliĭ H. (1998), Praslov'︠i︡ansʹka ak︠t︡sentolohi︠i︡a.[Proto-Slavic Accentology] Kyiv: Ukraïnsʹka knyha.

Skl︠ia︡ renko, Vitaliĭ H. (2006). Istori︠i︡a ukraïnsʹkoho naholosu: Imennyk. [History of Ukrainian Stress: The Noun]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.

Smułkowa, Elzbieta. (1978). Studia nad akcentem języka białoruskiego. Rzeczownik. [Studies on Belarusian Stress: The Noun.] Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warsawskiego.

Slovnyky Ukraïny on-line. Ukraïns′kyǐ movno-informa͡tsiǐnyǐ fond NAN Ukraïny. [Ukrainian Dictionaries On-line. Ukrainian Foundation of Language and Information, National Academy of Science of Ukraine], http://lcorp.ulif.org.ua/dictua/

Stang, Christian (1957), Slavonic Accentuation, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Stankiewicz, E. (1993), The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Steriade, Donca, and Igor Yanovich (2010), Base priority effects in inflectional subparadigms: evidence from Ukrainian. Handout. OCP 2010 in Nice and at RUMMIT Fall 2010 (http://web.mit.edu/yanovich/www/)

Steriade, Donca, and Igor Yanovich (2011), Inflection dependence in the nominal accentuation of East Slavic: evidence from Ukrainian and Russian. Handout. FASL 2011. (http://web.mit.edu/yanovich/www/).

Steriade, Donca, and Igor Yanovich (2013), Accentual allomorphs in East Slavic: an argument for inflection dependence. In Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives From Optimality

157

Theory, eds. M. Eulalia Bonet I Alsina, Maria-Rosa Lloret and Joan Mascaró, Sheffield, UK ; Bristol, CT: Equinox. 254-314

Sucač, Roman (2013), Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and Balto-Slavic Accentology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Tesar, Bruce (2017). Phonological Learning with Output-Driven Maps. Language Acquisition, Vol. 24, No. 2, 148-167.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert, and Luba Butska (2003), Ukrainian Nominal Inflection and Conditions on Asymmetric Faithfulness. Unpublished MS. University of Tübingen and Ryerson University, Toronto.

Maznichenko I͡ E. I., N. M. Maksymenko, O. V. Osadcha.(Ed.) (2015), Ukraïns′kyǐ pravopys [Ukrainian Orthography]. NAN Ukraïny, Instytut movoznavstva imeni O. O. Potebni; Instytut ukraïns′koï movy. Kyïv: Naukova dumka.

Ukrainian National Corpus. http://www.mova.info/corpus.aspx

Ushakov, Dmitry N., ed. (1935-1940), Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka: in 4 volumes. Moscow: Gosudarstvennyj institut «Sovetskaja jenciklopedija» (Vol. 1); Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannyh i nacional'nyh slovarej (Vol. 2-4).

Veselovs'ka, Zinaida M. (1970), Naholos u skhidno-slov'ians'kykh movakh. Kharkiv: Vyd-vo Kharkivs'koho universytetu.

Vol͡ians′ka, I͡ Evheni͡ia (2014), Morfonolohichni pozy͡tsiï v novykh slovakh suchasnoï ukraïns′koï movy. [Morphonological positions in new words in Modern Ukrainian]. Typolohi͡ia ta funk͡tsii movnykh odyny͡ts′ Vol. 2/2014. p. 32-41.

Voron︠ts︡ ova, Vera Leonidovna (1979), Russkoe literaturnoe udarenie XVIII-XX vv.: Formy slovoizmeneni︠i︡a. [Stress in Standard Russian of the 18th-19th Centuries: The Declensional Forms.] Moscow: Nauka.

158

Vostokov, Aleksandr. K., I. I. Martynov and N. Grech (1832). Svod sokrashchennoĭ Russkoĭ grammatiki g-na Vostokova i Nachalʹnykh pravil russkoĭ grammatiki g-na Grecha. [Compendium of the Abridged Russian Grammar by Vostokov and the Beginner’s Rules of the Russian Grammar by Grech]. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. Departamenta nar. prosv︠ie︡ shchenī︠ia︡ .

Vynny͡tsʹkyĭ, Vasil M. (2002), Ukraïnsʹka ak︠t︡sentna systema: Stanovlenn︠i︡a, rozvytok. [The Accentual System of Ukrainian: Formation and Development]. Lʹviv: Biblos.

Wexler, Paul (1977), A Historical Phonology of the Belorussian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (1985), Ot praslav︠i︡anskoĭ ak︠t︡sentua︠t︡sii k russkoĭ. [From Proto-Slavic to Russian Accentuation.] Moscow: Nauka.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (Ed.) (2008), Grammaticheskiĭ slovarʹ russkogo ︠i︡azyka: Slovoizmenenie : okolo 100 000 slov. [The Grammatical Dictionary of Russian: Declension: about 100,000 words.] Moscow: AST-PRESS.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (2008), Drevnerusskie ėnklitiki.[Old Russian Enclitics]. Moscow: I͡ Azyki slav͡ianskikh kulʹtur.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (2010), Trudy po ak︠t︡sentologii. [Papers on Accentology] Vol.1. Moskow: I͡ Azyki slav͡ianskikh kulʹtur.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (2011), Trudy po ak︠t︡sentologii. Drevnerusskiĭ i starovelikorusskiĭ ak︠t︡sentologicheskiĭ slovarʹ-ukazatelʹ. [Papers on Accentology: Old East Slavic and Old Russian Accentological Dictionary]. Vol.2. Moscow: I͡ Azyki slav͡ianskikh kulʹtur.

Zalizn︠ia︡ k, Andreĭ A. (2014), Drevnerusskoe udarenie: Obshchie svedeni︠i︡a i slovarʹ. [Old Russian Stress: Common Facts and Dictionary]. Institut slav︠ia︡ novedeni︠ia︡ (Rossiĭska︠ia︡ akademi︠ia︡ nauk) Moskow: I͡ Azyki slav͡ianskikh kulʹtur.

159

Zilyns’kyj, Ivan (1979), A Phonetic Description of the Ukrainian Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Z︠ H︡ ovtobr︠iu︡ kh, Mykhaĭlo A., Rusanivsʹkyĭ, V. M., and Skl︠ia︡ renko, V. H. (1979), Istori︠i︡a ukraïnsʹkoï movy: Fonetyka. [History of Ukrainian: Phonetics]. Kyïv: Naukova. dumka.

160

Appendix A: Phonetic Correspondences Convention IPA Russian Belarusian Ukrainian ́ (primary stress) [ˈ] ’ (palatalization) [j] c [͡ts] č [͡tɕ] [͡tʃ] [ʈʂ] dz [dz] [dz] h [ɣ] [ɦ] šč [ɕ:] [ʃ͡tʃ] š [ʂ] [ʂ] [ʃ] ž [ʐ] [ʐ] [ʒ] v [v] [β]/[ʋ] [v] w [w] [w]/[u̯ ] x [x] e [ɛ]/[e], unstressed [ɪ] [ɛ] [ɛ] a [a] o [o], unstressed [a] y [ɨ] [ɨ] realized as [ɪ] or [ɛ] depending on the environment

Special note about yers:

ъ back yer, historically short back rounded vowel *[ŭ] (in the discussion of Modern Eat

Slavic languages used only to denote the underlying representation of GEN PL suffix).

ь front yer, historically short front vowel *[ĭ] (not used in the discussion of Modern East Slavic languages).

161

Appendix B: Abbreviations

CS Common Slavic

LCS Late Common Slavic

MB Modern Belarusian

MR Modern Russian

MU Modern Ukrainian

OB Old Belarusian

OESl Old Belarusian

OR Old Russian

OU Old Ukrainian

162

Appendix C: Stem types

Types UR Examples (from Modern Russian)

SG PL SG PL

0 Unaccented stems (stress x NOM SG ruk-á ‘hand’ NOM PL rúk-i depends on lexical accent ACC SG rúk-u DAT PL ruk-ám of the suffixes) x x NOM SG golov-á ‘head’ NOM PL gólov-y ACC SG gólov-u GEN PL golóv-Ø DAT SG golov-é DAT PL golov-ám

1 Accented stems (stem (x NOM SG múx-a ‘fly’ NOM PL múx-i always stressed) (x x NOM SG jágod-a ‘berry’ NOM PL jágod-y x (x NOM SG koróv-a ‘cow’ NOM PL koróv-y

2 Post-accenting stems x( NOM SG čert-á ‘line’ NOM PL čert-ý (suffix always stressed if x x( NOM SG piróg-Ø ‘pie’ NOM PL pirog-í present) GEN SG pirog-á S S 3 Shifting: stem in SG, ( x x( NOM SG dár-Ø ‘gift’ NOM PL dar-ý suffix in PL GEN SG dár-a etc. S S ( x x x x( NOM SG górod-Ø ‘city’ NOM PL gorod-á S S 4 Shifting: suffix in SG, x( ( x NOM SG zvezd-á ‘star’ NOM PL zv’ózd-y stem in PL S S x x( x ( x NOM SG kolbas-á NOM PL kolbás-y ‘sausage’ st Sˈ Sˈ 5 Shifting: from the 1 ( x x x ( x NOM SG ózer-o ‘lake’ NOM PL oz’ór-a syllable of the stem in SG nd to the 2 in PL