INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the t»rt directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographicaUy in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnaticn Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Atix)r MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

PALATAUZATION AND CORONALIZATION IN RUSSIAN AND CZECH: A NON-LINEAR APPROACH

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Michael S. Boyd, M.A. *****

The Ohio State University 1997

Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Charles E. Cribble, Advisor

Professor Daniel Collins ______Advisor Professor Ernest Scatton Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures UMI Number: 9801649

UMI Microform 9801649 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the processes of palatalization and

coronalization, as well as the representation of palatalized and palatal

consonants and front vowels in Contemporary Standard Russian and Czech. The analysis is couched in generative theories of non-linear phonology. Specifically, I

follow the constriction-based model of Feature Geometry proposed in Clements & Hume (1995). The distinction between rules of palatalization, which create a secondarily palatalized segment, and coronalization, which cause velar

consonants to front (and dentals to back), is based primarily on Hume (1992). The discussion of the timing tier and syllable and their interaction with palatalization processes is based on a somewhat modified version of Levin's X-Theory (1985).

By applying these theories to Slavic data, I offer both an innovative explanation of traditional problems and further evidence in support of the theoretical claims.

The dissertation is divided into six chapters. In Chapter 1 ,1 briefly discuss

the difference between processes of palatalization and coronalization and the representation of palatalized consonants. Further, I present an introduction to the

theoretical bases on which the analysis is based. The three theoretical

frameworks adopted in this work are highlighted: the Clements and Hume

(1995) model of Feature Geometry, a modified X-slot Theory and Lexical Phonology. Chapters 2 and 3 are concerned with Contemporar}’- Standard Russian [GSR]. In Chapter 2, the phonological system of CSR and its representation are discussed. Specific emphasis is given to the discussion of the representation of the so-called paired (or "soft" and "hard") consonants, the velars and alveopalatal consonants, as well as the high vowel system. In the work it is claimed that the velar consonants are paired for phonemic palatalization, the distinction between / i/ and / y/is phonemic, and the jers are underlying synchronically. In Chapter 3, the most important rules of palatalization and coronalization of CSR are discussed. We formulate and discuss the rules of Surface Palatalization, First Velar Palatalization and Jotation for the consonantal system, as well as e —> o and reduction rules for the vocalic system. Evidence is provided for a general rule of Surface Palatalization which occurs in the environment of any coronal segment, either vocalic or consonantal. Moreover, after Bethin (1992b), Jotation is reanalyzed as two different types of rule: one which creates a "contour" segment and another which readjusts this contour depending on the class of consonants. The rules concerning the vowels are also given a new explanation in light of the non-linear frameworks. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with Contemporary Standard Czech [CSCz]. In

Chapter 4, after a brief discussion of the various codes that comprise CSCz, the phonemic system of the language is introduced. Of particular relevance are the underlying representation of the pre-palatal consonants (which are viewed as "palatalized"), a four-way distinction among the non-back vowels and the presence of a single underlying synchronic jer. The theoretical framework provides for the new analysis of the vowels, and it is proposed that CSCz makes crucial reference to the presence and/or absence of the feature [-anterior] in distinguishing among the vowels underlyingly. In Chapter 5 the major rules of

lU palatalization and coronalization in CSCz are formulated and ordered: Coronal Palatalization, Labial Palatalization, Second Velar Palatalization, Dorsal

Coronalization and Rotation. Of these rules, it is claimed, only the second one is active at a phonological level, while the others are all morphologically bound.

Dorsal Coronalization (formerly. First Velar Palatalization) and Jotation are combined into a single rule.

Chapter 6 concludes the work with a detailed comparison of the phonological inventories and an investigation of the rule systems of the two languages. It is demonstrated that underlying phonemic distinctions rely more on the consonants in CSR, on the one hand, and more on the vowels in CSCz, on the other. Furthermore, while the structural descriptions of many of the rules are similar or even identical, the outputs of most of them are different. Thus, CSR has a rule of Surface Palatalization which operates both at a morphological and phonological level, while the similar rule of Coronal Palatalization in CSCz is limited to morphological environments. Nevertheless, CSCz has a distinct rule of Labial Palatalization which is both morphological and phonological, while CSR has nothing similar. In summary, it is demonstrated, with the help of generative theoretical constructs, that the two related languages differ in their treament of phenomena of palatalization and coronalization.

IV In Memory of Ruth O. Lank (1907-1996) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who deserve my thanks for the completion of this dissertation. First of all, I thank my advisor, Charles Cribble and my readers, Dan

Collins and Ernest Scatton for their intellectual support and guidance which made this work possible.

I thank Jerzy Rubach for providing me with such a stimulating introduction to the frameworks.

I also wish to thank the rest of the professors in the Slavic Department and

Linguistics Department. A very special thanks to Gail and Susan in the Slavic Department Office.

Finally, I thank my family, Erin for her undying support and friendship and Massimiliano for his patience, spiritual guidance and for making me finish. I could not have finished without them.

VI VITA

December 13,1966 ...... Bom, Concord, New Hampshire

1991 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University

1989-1993 ...... Graduate Teaching and Research

Assistant, The Ohio State University 1993-1995 ...... Graduate Fellow The Ohio State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures

vu TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...... ii

Dedication ...... v

Acknowledgments...... vi

Vita ...... vii

List of Tables ...... xii

List of Figures...... xiv

Chapters:

1. Introduction ...... 1

1.0 Preliminary Remarks ...... 1

1.1 Palatalization and Coronalization ...... 1

1.2 Theoretical Bases ...... 4

vm 2. CSR Phonology ...... 11 2.0. Introduction ...... 11 2.1. Phonemic Inventory ...... 12

2.1.1. The Consonants ...... 12

2.1.1.1. Hard and Soft Consonants ...... 14

Background: Previous Analyses ...... 16 The New Approach ...... 20 2.1.1.2. Unpaired Consonants ...... 23

2.1.1.3. Dorsal Consonants ...... 28

2.2.2. The Vowels ...... 30 2.2.2.I. /i/a n d /y / ...... 31 22.2.2. /i/and[j]...... 35

2.2.23. The Jers...... 36

Previous analyses ...... 38 The New Approach ...... 42

2.3. Conclusion ...... 43

3. The Rules of Palatalization and Coronalization in CSR ...... 45

3.0. Introduction ...... 45 3.1. Surface Palatalization ...... 46

3.1.1. Surface Palatalization before vowels ...... 46 3.1.2. Surface Palatalization before consonants ...... 54

3.2. Velar Coronalization ...... 61

3.3. Jotation...... 69

3.4. Vocalic Rules...... 81

3.4.1 e —> o ...... 82

ix 3.4.2 Vowel Reduction ...... 85

3.5. Rule Ordering...... 88

3.6. Conclusion ...... 93

4. CSCz Phonology ...... 96 4.0. Introduction ...... 96

4.0.1. Excursus on Spisovna and Obecna ceêtina...... 97

4.1. Phonemic Inventory ...... 99

4.1.1. The Consonants ...... 99 4.1.1.1. "Hard" and "Soft" Pairings ...... 101

Phonological "hardness" and "softness" ...... 101 Morphological hardness and softness ...... 105

4.1.1.2. Labial Consonants ...... 107 4.1.1.3. The Alveopalatal Consonants/s z c / ...... 109 4.1.1.4. The "Velar" Consonants ...... 109

4.1.2. The Vowels ...... 112 4.I.2.I. Vowel Length...... 113

42.2.2. /i/a n d /y / ...... 115 4.2.2.3. The tw o/e/ phonem es ...... 117 4.1.2.4. /i/a n d /)7 ...... 119

4.1.2.5. The jers...... 122

4.1.2.6. On the Classification of Vowels in CSCz ...... 126

4.2. Conclusion ...... 129

5. Rules of Palatalization and Coronalization in CSCz ...... 131

5.0. Introduction ...... 131

X 5.1. Coronal Palatalization ...... 132

5.2. Labial Palatalization ...... 136

5.3. The Dorsal Coronalizations ...... 140

5.3.1. Second Velar Palatalization ...... 141

5.3.2. First Velar Palatalization ...... 146

5.4. Jotation...... 150 5.5. Rule Ordering...... 165

5.6. Conclusion ...... 171

6. Conclusion ...... 174

Bibliography ...... 182

XI UST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Underlying Consonantal System of CSR ...... 13

2.2 Minimal Pairs with hard and soft consonants in CSR ...... 15

2.6 The Underlying Vowels of CSR ...... 30 2.7 /i/ and /y/ Suffixes in CSR ...... 34 2.8 Examples of [j] in CSR ...... 36

2.9 Near-minimal pairs with and without jers in CSR ...... 37

2.10 Derived Imperfectives in CSR ...... 38 3.1 Suffixes which invoke Sur Pal ...... 47 3.3 Minimal Pairs of hard/soft C before / e / ...... 51

3.6 Examples of C 1C2 Assimilation ...... 35

3.7 Frequency of assimilation for softness ...... 57 3.10 Suffixes which invoke IV P ...... 62

3.13 Jotation in the CSR verbal system ...... 70 3.14 Lightner's ordered rules for Jotation ...... 72

3.16 Sample derivations with and without Jotation from Lightner ...... 72

3.25 e ~ o alternation in CSR ...... 82

3.28 Examples of V-reduction after soft consonants ...... 87

3.30 Sample CSR Derivations I (Jotation) ...... 91 3.31 Sample Derivations H (Imperative) ...... 92

XU Table Page

3.32 Sample Derivations EU (NomPl) ...... 93 4.1 Underlying Consonantal System of CSCz ...... 100

4.2 Roots with and without pre-palatals ...... 101

4.3 Labial-initial roots with and without [j] ...... 107

4.4 The Underlying Vocalic System of CSCz ...... 112 4.5 Minimal and morphological pairs with short and long vowels 113 4.7 Distribution of [j] in CSCz ...... 121

4.8 Near-minimal pairs with/without jers in CSCz ...... 123 4.9 Examples of Lexical Items with Dorsal + jers ...... 124

4.11 The Underlying Vocalic system of CSCz (repeated) ...... 128 5.1 Suffixes which invoke Cor P al ...... 133

5.4 Suffixes which invoke Lab Pal ...... 137 5.9 Suffixes which invoke 2V P ...... 142 5.13 Suffixes which invoke IV P ...... 147 5.16 Jotation in the CSCz verbal system ...... 152

5.30 Sample Derivations I (Jotation) ...... 168 5.31 Sample Derivations II (Imperative 2PSg)...... 169 5.32 Sample Derivations HI (NPl) ...... 170

5.33 Sample Derivations IV (LSg) ...... 171

XIU LIST OF nCURES

Figure Page 1.1 Clements and Hume Model of Feature Geometry ...... 6

1.2 Representation of the Syllable ...... 8 2.3 Palatalized Labial ...... 23

2.4 Alveopalatal Cluster Adjustment...... 25 2.5 Alveopalatal Softening (Redundancy Rule)...... 28

2.11 Farina's rule of Jer vocalization ...... 42 2.12 Jer Vocalization ...... 42 3.2 Surface Palatalization ...... 50 3.4 Vowel Fronting ...... 52

3.5 Dorsal Vowel Fronting ...... 53 3.8 Palatalized labial + palatalized velar prohibition ...... 58 3.9 Surface Palatalization (restated) ...... 59

3.11 First Velar Palatalization ...... 64 3.12 Affricate Assibilation ...... 66 3.15 Vowel D eletion ...... 72

3.17a Lightner's (V -> j) rule ...... 73

3.17b A-adjustment ...... 73

3.18 G liding ...... 75

3.19 Jotation...... 76

XIV Figure Page

3.20 Contour segment ...... 77 3.21 Dental Jotation Readjustment ...... 78

3.22 Dorsal Jotation Readjustment ...... 79

3.23 Sonorant Jotation Readjustment ...... 79

3.24 Labial Jotation Readjustment ...... 80

3.26 CV Dissimilation (e o) ...... 83

3.27 Atonie Vowel Centering (Akan'e) ...... 86 3.29 Atonie Vowel Fronting (Ikan'e) ...... 88

4.6a Long Vowel ...... 114

4.6b Diphthong ...... 114 4.10 Jer Voealization ...... 126 4.12 Default Coronal VPlaee Assignment ...... 129

5.2 Coronal Palatalization ...... 135

5.3 Pre-palatal Spell-out ...... 136

5.5 Labial Palatalization ...... 138 5.6 Labial Depalatalization ...... 139 5.7 J Deletion ...... 139

5.8 Nasal Spread ...... 140

5.10 Seeond Velar Palatalization ...... 144

5.11 /k y / 2VP Spell-out ...... 145

5.12 / x / 2VP Spell-out ...... 145

5.14 First Velar Palatalization ...... 148 5.15 First Velar Palatalization (possible reformulation) ...... 149

5.17 Gliding ...... 153

5.18 A-adjustment ...... 153

XV Figure Page

5.19 Vowel Deletion ...... 154

5.20 Jotation...... 154

5.21 Dental Stop Jotation Readjustment ...... 155

5.22 Affricate Assibilation ...... 156

5.23 Sibilant Jotation Readjustment ...... 157 5.24 Dorsal Jotation Readjustment ...... 158

5.25 Dorsal Coronalization ...... 159

5.26 Sibilant Assimilation ...... 161

5.27 Palatal Dissimilation ...... 162

5.28 Cluster Coronalization (in Jotation) ...... 163 5.29 Sibilant Backing (in Jotation) ...... 164

XVI CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Preliminary Remarks

In this introductory chapter we offer a brief sketch of both the subject area and the theoretical bases adopted throughout the work. First, I discuss the importance of palatalization and coronalization processes in both Contemporary Standard Russian [henceforth, CSR] and Czech [CSCz] and the other Slavic languages and introduce the crucial distinction between palatalization and coronalization as proposed by Hume (1992). Second, I introduce the theoretical frameworks in sofaras they are applicable to the present work. More in-depth discussion of the theoretical claims is provided throughout the various chapters.

1.1 Palatalization and Coronalization

Cross-linguistically palatalization constitutes one of the most wide-spread assimila tory processes.^ The Slavic languages are well-known for their pervasive palatalization processes on both diachronic and synchronic levels. In the historical period, all of the Slavic languages were subject to consonantal palatalizations which, to varying degrees, have remained productive processes synchronically. Although in this dissertation we limit our discussion to CSR and

^For a good general survey of palatalization (and coronalization) processes in the world's languages see Bhat (1978). CSCz, palatalization and coronalization processes are present in all of the Slavic languages. A case in point can be seen with the velar palatalizations.^ However,

while the First Velar Palatalization [IVP] remains an integral part of all of the

modem languages (e.g., CSR and CSCz: ruka 'hand' - rutka 'DIM'), the Second

Velar Palatalization [2VP] has been completely abandoned at word boundaries

(as in CSR), or retained in its former environment (as in CSCz), or its

environment has been modified (as in, e.g., Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian). There are other similar palatalization processes which have remained an integral part

of the languages, as is the case with Jotation, which is important, to varying

degrees, in the verbal morphology of both languages (and the other Slavic languages). While the above-mentioned rules have for the most part become morphologized (or "historicized") in the synchronic grammar, new rules have emerged which have a phonological environment (e.g.. Surface Palatalization

[Sur Pal] in CSR and Labial Palatalization in CSCz).

As demonstrated by Hume (1992), palatalization really includes two

distinct processes: in "palatalization" per se an i-like articulation is superimposed on a consonantal articulation resulting in a palatalized consonant, while in "coronalization" the primary place of articulation changes to coronal in the

environment of a front vowel. In this work, under this assumption, we will

distinguish between rules of palatalization (Sur Pal, etc.), on the one hand, and

rules of coronalization, on the other (IVP and 2VP, Jotation, etc.). The rules

discussed for the two languages demonstrate that the fomier rules are generally

more surface-like (i.e., phonological) in their behavior, while the latter ones are more morphologically based. This is not always the case, however, as we shall

^In the work we deal with the First and Second Velar Palatizations only. We do not discuss the so-called Third (or Regressive) Velar Palatalization. see in the discussion of Cor Pal in CSCz, which, it is argued, is morphologically limited.

Finally, we may also speak of the correlation of phonemic palatalization in the Slavic languages. The two languages which are the focus of this dissertation make very different use of this distinction. On the one hand, in CSR, the majority of the 35 consonantal phonemes (the number assumed in this work) are paired for secondary palatalization (or "softness" and "hardness"). This distinction is probably the most significant "feature" of both the underlying and surface phonemic systems of CSR. In Chapters 2 and 3 we shall see, however, that although many of the palatalized consonants are underlying, there are many cases in which they are derived from underlying nonpalatalized consonants by important phonological rules. In CSCz, on the other hand, the correlation of phonemic palatalization has been lost, although traces of the former state remain.3 In Chapters 4 and 5, it is proposed that CSCz makes use of an underlying distinction between some "palatalized" and "non-palatalized" consonants.

In summary, limiting the discussion to these two languages allows us to analyze both the underlying phonemic inventories and the rules of palatalization and coronalization active in the languages. Furthermore, although the languages share many of the same general rules, their behavior and application for the most part are different. Moreover, these differences are predicted by the underlying phonemic representation postulated for the languages. Therefore, by comparing

^Of course, the fact that Czech had the correlation of distinctive palatalization historically cannot be proved due to the nature of the texts (specifically, palatalization was normally not indicated in the orthography). However, the results of the vowels mutations {pfehlâsky), which we briefly discuss in Chapters 4 and 5 strengthen the argument for positing a stage in which Czech had distinctive palatalization. See Lamprecht, Slosar & Bauer; 1986; Komarek: 1962. and contrasting CSR with CSCz, it is hoped that we can gain a better picture of the nature of palatalization and coronalization and assimilatory processes in the

Slavic languages and in language in general.

1.2 Theoretical Bases

The assumptions presented in this dissertation are couched in recent theories of generative phonology. For the most part, the analysis is based on non­ linear approaches to phonology, which claim that phonological representations are both multi-dimensional and hierarchical. Although the main theoretical focus is the internal organization of segments and the formulation of rules, we are also tacitly concerned with the internal organization of the syllable. Furthermore, in the discussion of the rules and their ordering, we also adopt the claims of internal rule organization as proposed by recent theories of Lexical Phonology. In what follows we give a brief sketch of the most important theoretical constructs adopted in this work (further details of the various frameworks will be addressed throughout the work).

In the first place. Feature Geometry offers a formalization of the internal organization of segments (for the most significant proposals see, especially, Clements 1985, Sagey 1986, McCarthy 1988, Clements and Hume 1995).

Segments "are represented in terms of hierarchically-organized node configurations whose terminal nodes are feature values, and whose intermediate nodes represent constituents." (Clements and Hume 1995:249) The organization of the features expresses the natural classes. A root node dominates both laryngeal (as well as a supra-laryngeal in some theories) and place (or major class) nodes. In some models, various manner features branch directly from the root node, for example, [±sonorant], [±vocoid], etc. The Place node dominates the "major" place features: labial, coronal, and dorsal. These features, it has been argued, are privative and, accordingly, [-coronal], e.g., caimot be referenced.

Further, the major place features dominate the traditional binary features, such as

[±anterior] and [±lateralj. The hierarchical organization predicts that the higher

(sister) nodes automatically presuppose the existence of the lower (daughter) nodes.

In this work we follow the constriction-based model of Clements and

Hume (1995) that allows for a unified representation for vowels and consonants, using an identical place of articulation to characterize them. This is based on the notion "that any segment produced in the oral tract has a characteristic constriction, defined by two principle parameters, constriction degree and constriction location." (275) The features for vowels fall under the V[ocalic]Place node which, in turn, is dominated by both the vocalic and C[onsonantal]Place nodes. The model is given below: (1.1) Clements and Hume Model of Feature Geometry

X (= skeletal tier)

Root [±son] [±vocoid]

Laryngeal Oral Cavity [±nasal]

[±continuant] [±voi] C-Place

Coronal Labial Dorsal Vocalic

[±lat] [±strid] [±ant] V-Place Aperture

Cor Lab Dor [±openl]K [±opon2]

Adapted from Clements and Hume (1995)

The most important claim of the model is that vowels share the same place features with consonants. Therefore, front vowels should pattern with coronal consonants, as both are coronal, while back vowels, characterized as dorsal, should pattern with dorsal consonants. Hence, coronalization processes in which dorsal consonants become coronal before front vowels are seen as

"straightforward case[s] of assimilation" (278). The description of palatalization and coronalization processes in CSR and CSCz which are given in this dissertation provides strong support to this claim. A further claim of the model is that the feature [±consonantal] is irrelevant, as vowels are distinguished from consonants by the presence of a VPlace with no specification under the CPlace. We shall discuss this proposal in detail in our analysis of [j] in both of the languages, which is viewed as derivable from an underlying /i/. Finally, the model also predicts the possibility of segments which are specified under both the CPlace and VPlace, which is the case of secondarily articulated consonants.

Hence, palatalized consonants are represented by a [root] node which is primarily specified under the CPlace node and secondarily specified with a coronal VPlace. Due to the importance of both palatalization processes and palatalized consonants such a distinction is seen as crucial for both of the languages.

In the second place, non-linear phonology offers an explanation of the internal organization of the syllable. In it, the syllable is represented by three autonomous levels (tiers)—the melody, skeleton and syllable—connected by association lines. For a general overview see Selkirk (1982), Levin (1985), Goldsmith (1990) and for a discussion of the facts within Slavic see Spencer (1986), Kenstowicz and Rubach (1987), Bethin (1992a), (1992b), (1992c), Szpyra

(1992), and Rubach (1993a), (1993b). The feature [±syllabic] which makes reference only to individual segments, is replaced by the notion of "nucleus" as the dominant part of the syllable. Whereas in linear generative theory the syllable played a minimal (or no) role in phonological representations, in the new framework the syllable is seen as an independent entity with its own internal organization. The skeleton consists of timing slots, which may function independently from their segmental content, as in the case of long vowels, diphthongs and geminates. The syllabic tier is divided into the onset and the rhyme, which is further subdivided into the nucleus and the coda (see figure 1.2 below). The relationship between the constituents is not a one-to-one correspondence; rather, phonological processes may refer to one tier independently of another. For example, a phonological rule can make reference to the skeleton without mention of the melody.

There are a number of different proposals for the representation of the syllable. In this work, we adopt a modification of Levin's (1985) X-skeleton

Theory, which is based on Rubach (1993a, 1993b). In this theory there is no distinction between vocalic and consonantal slots on the skeletal tier. Both vowels and consonants are represented identically, as an X (or, maximally, two

Xs, for long vowels, diphthongs or geminates). Although it is not my intention to argue for or against one theory over another, this analysis provides evidence that

X-skeleton Theory provides a new and insightful way to describe the facts of CSR and, especially, CSCz. The representation of the syllable is given below:

(1.2) Representation of the Syllable

onset rhyme

coda

X X X

(based on Goldsmith, 1990)

a = syllable; N = nucleus; X = timing slots

Structures such as figure 1.2 are generated by syllabification rules, which are licensed by both linguistic universals and language-specific rules. A discussion of the rules of syllabification for the languages will not be given in the present work. Reference to higher levels of the syllable will not be addressed nor will the individual rules of syllabification be formulated, although syllable-sensitive rules are sometimes assumed in the discussion (as in the case of the Imperative formation).

An X-skeleton representation of the syllable has many advantages over traditional linear approaches to phonology. First, long vowels and diphthongs have a parallel representation on the skeleton: they both consist of two timing slots. In the case of long vowels a single feature matrix branches to two timing slots, and in the case of diphthongs two feature matrices branch to two timing slots. Non-linear phonology, thus, makes the prediction that long vowels and diphthongs pattern together. Second, the underlying inventory of vocalic phonemes may be greatly reduced, as the difference between long and short vowels is no longer at the segmental level (or at the melody) with reference to the feature [±tense], but at the skeleton (Rubach 1993a). Finally, within the vowel system the theory allows for so-called "floating matrices" in phonological representations, i.e., feature matrices that are not linked to timing slots (Kenstowicz and Rubach, 1987, Bethin, 1992a, Rubach, 1993a, 1993b). This is the case of the (synchronic) jers in all of the Slavic languages. Such a distinction will be argued for both CSR and CSCz. As for consonants, the theories allow for the presence of both complex and contour segments. In this discussion we are concerned mainly with the latter which implies a segment which "consists of two root nodes sequenced under a single skeletal position." (Clements and Hume 1995: 254) In spirit to Bethin (1992b) we make a claim for such segments, resulting from the synchronic rule of Jotation (and IVP).

Finally, throughout the discussion of the rules we make frequent reference to the theories of Cyclic and Lexical Phonology. This framework allows for the organization of rules in relationship to the morphology. We draw mainly from

Rubach's (1984,1992a, 1992b) use of Lexical Phonology which provides for a division of the grammar into a lexical and post-lexical components Rubach

summarizes his theory as follows:

Lexical Phonology is a theory of the organization of the phono­ logical component of the grammar, which is viewed as structured in more complex ways than was assumed in SPE. Recognition is given to the fact that different phonological rules may have a different status. Some rules...apply in the lexicon and hence are called lexical rules. They are opposed to postlexical rules which apply after the syntax. (Rubach 1993a: 4)

The theoretical assumptions enable us to make a clear distinction between

the different types of rules of palatalization and coronalization. Furthermore,

Lexical Phonology captures important generalizations about the nature of these rules and provides a straightforward mechanism of ordering them. All of these theoretical frameworks will be referred to throughout the chapters when needed. It should be noted, that in this work we do not argue specifically for one theory over another. Rather, we simply demonstrate the usefulness of the

framework(s) in a description of the synchronic grammars of two Slavic languages. In addition, we compare and contrast the representations of both the segments and the rules on the basis of the theoretical claims. These discussions not only provide additional support for the theories, but also they encourage the

possible revision of many of the problematic claims made by the theories on the

basis of new, Slavic data. Finally, we hope to provide impetus for further

generative analyses of these two languages and the other Slavic languages as well.

"^This is, in fact, a simplified version of his theory, which divides the grammar into the lexical- cyclic, post-cyclic and post-lexical components. Such a three-way distinction is not needed in the present work.

1 0 CHAPTER 2

CSR PHONOLOGY

2.0. Introduction

In this chapter I discuss the underlying and surface phonemic systems of CSR. The language has been the subject of a number of different generative analyses (e.g., Halle (1971); Lightner (1965), (1967), (1968), (1969), (1972); Farina (1991)). With the exception of Farina (1991), most of these discussions are based on Sound Pattern of English [SPE] (linear) phonology. Due to the similarity of both the subject of the work (palatalization and the jers) and the theoretical background (underspecification and lexical phonology). Farina (1991) is of particular significance to the present study, and, therefore, it will be referred to in detail throughout this chapter and next. Other analyses (both generative and non-generative) will also be discussed as appropriate.

In this chapter we discuss the representation of both the consonant and vowel phonemes in CSR, paying particular attention to the so-called paired consonants (hard vs. soft, or palatalized vs. non-palatalized) as well as to the vocalic system. In this first section, we also make reference to previous analyses of Russian, comparing and contrasting these to the proposed system for the language. In the next chapter, the rules of palatalization and coronalization are discussed on the basis of the proposals set forth in this chapter. 2.1. Phonemic Inventory

In these sections the phonemic inventory of CSR is discussed. First, I present a chart of the underlying consonantal and vowel phonemes (under separate headings) posited for the language. In addition, I offer detailed discussion of many of the areas which have been viewed as problematic and subject to debate in past analyses throughout the chapter.

2.1.1. The Consonants

The underlying consonantal system assumed for CSR in this work is given below:

1 2 (2.1) Underlying Consonantal System of CSR

ROOT P P' b b' f f' V v' m m' t t' d d 'i s Is' 1 z 1 [sonorant] + + I 1 [nasal] + + LARYNGEAL [voice] - - + + —— + + -- + + - - +1 + ORAL CAVITY [continuant] - - — - + + + + — -- - + + + 1 + C-PLACE 1 _ 1 labial • coronal [lateral]

[anterior] + + + + + + + + [distributed] dorsal V-PLACE coronal • •• ••••• •

ROOT 1 c s s'l z c n n' 1 1' r r' k k' g g' X x' [sonorant] + + + + + + [nasal] + + LARYNGEAL [voice] - - — + - - - + + - — ORAL CAVITY [continuant] ± + + + ± - - - - + + C-PLACE labial coronal [lateral] + + [anterior] + - —— - + + + + + + [distributed] + - dorsal V-PLACE coronal • •• • • •

^The underlying treatment of this segment will be discussed below. In fact, at the underlying level the feature [distributed] might be redundant.

13 2.1.1.1. Hard and Soft Consonants

It is well-known that CSR makes a distinction between 'hard'

(unpalatalized)^ and 'soft' (palatalized) consonants in the following 15 pairs: p p', b b\ f f, V v',m m',t t',d d',s s', z z', n n',l l',r r',k k',g g \x x'.^ These consonants are termed 'paired' to distinguish them from the consonants which are not involved in this opposition as, e.g., the alveopalatal series. While the status of the hard and soft segments on the surface is generally accepted (with the exception of the velar consonants, which are discussed in detail below), their treatment underlyingly has been the source of some debate in the literature.

In the present analysis, it is assumed that, while many of the palatalized consonants of CSR are underlyingly specified, in other cases they are generated by rule. Namely, there is a rule which I call Surface Palatalization (Sur Pal) which palatalizes consonants in the environment before another coronal (traditionally, [-back]) or coronalized segment. This rule will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Below 1 give examples of minimal and near-minimal pairs with contrasting underlying hard and soft consonants:

^In SPE the 'hard' consonants are explained as having "a moderate narrowing in the velar region ... [with] a certain degree of lip rounding." (308) The origin of this system of classification probably comes from Broch's Slavische Phonetik in which he describes the difference as follows: "one articulatory group, the 'soft' sounds, moves the tongue forward and thereby raises its upper part towards the frond of the hard palate [English "front"]; a second group is distinguished by the fact that it moves the tongue mass backward and raises its dorsum at different heights towards the soft palate." (224; cited in Halle 1971:149) ^Not all scholars agree that the velar (dorsal) consonants are paired for palatalization underlyingly. I will provide arguments below for treating them as underlyingly paired for palatalization.

14 (2.2) Minimal Pairs with hard and soft consonants in CSR^

tomnyj languid MNSg t'omnyj dark MLADJ Ink onion MNSG I'lik hatch MNSg nik hand FGPl r'liksak backpack MNSG val bank MNSG v'al fade Past MSg banka bank MGSG banka bath DimNSG vypit drunk PPP vypit' drink iNF okop trench MNSG kop' mine FNSG krov shelter MNSG krov' blood FNSG mera mayor MGSG m'era measure NSg ser sir MNSg s'er gray MSADJ

These examples demonstrate that hard and soft consonants contrast before vowels and in word- and syllable-final positions. I have purposely omitted

examples with /i ~ y/, as I make a claim for treating these two vowels as distinct underlyingly. Moreover, I have included forms which contrast before /e /. Traditionally, examples such as these are treated as exceptional due to the fact that in native (Slavic) words consonants automatically become palatalized when

preceding / e/(the last two examples). While I generally agree with this view, I

would also argue that forms which are not palatalized before /e ,/ such as the

loan-words mer and ser, must be analyzed underlyingly as consisting of a non­

palatalized consonant followed by / e /. Therefore, the forms can be simply

marked as hard underlyingly (i.e. with a vocalic dorsal node). As the number of such forms which fails to undergo Sur Pal is limited, this may be the best way to

deal with such apparent exceptions.

^Throughout the work we use the following abbrevations for grammatical forms: M (=Mascuüne), F (Feminine), NE (Neuter), V (Vocative), N (Nominative), G (Genitive), A (Accusative), D (Dative), L (Locative), I (Instrumental); SG (Singular), PL (Plural); LAD) (Long- form Adjective), SADj (Short-form Adjective); PPP (Past Passive Participle), INF (Infinitive); DIM (diminutive).

15 In most analyses of CSR, these forms are problematic. The traditional

generative way of dealing with them is to mark them as foreign. Lightner

(1965,1972) introduced the diacritic [-Slavic] to explain the problematic nature of

such loan-words. I suggest that these words should not be marked as

exceptional, as they undergo other rules along with native forms. Thus, while mer

does not have palatalization within the root, the final / r/ will always palatalize

before the LSg ending -e —> [mer'ej. Flier makes a valuable point in his criticism of Lightner: "The assimilation of foreign borrowings into CSR and the

subsequent violation of orthoepic norms can tell us a great deal about the actual, productive processes in language." (1974: 304)

Another position in which soft consonants are predictable by rule is before /- i/, both inside a root and across morpheme boundaries. Below I offer arguments for an underlying distinction between / i/ and /y /. Before discussing

the treatment of hard and soft consonants in the Clement and Hume model, I discuss some of the most significant approaches to the problem.

Background: Previous Analyses

The treatments of the hard and soft consonants in Russian can be divided

into three major groups: the radical structuralist, the generative (based on SPE theory) and the non-linear generative approaches (which is expounded in the

present work). On the one hand, in some structuralist analyses both hard and

soft consonants are seen as underlying (with the exception of the velars, which

will be discussed in detail below) in all environments with no derived soft consonants. This assumption is based on the tenet: "once a phoneme, always a phoneme." As a result, even in such overtly predictable contexts as before the locative singular ending -e , two entries (allomorphs) must be listed for the same

1 6 lexeme as in, e.g., dom 'house/NSG' ~ dom'e 'LSG'.^ Sur Pal of this type in foreign borrowings, which may not undergo palatalization within the root, demonstrates

the regularity of this process, e.g., mer 'mayor/NSG' ~ mere 'LSG'. Examples such as these (and there exist many others, as will be demonstrated later in this chapter) show that the early structuralist analysis of the CSR paired consonants misses an important generalization by positing underlying hard and soft consonants in all environments.

On the other hand, most linear generative analyses (see particularly

Lightner (1972), but also Bratkowsky (1980) and DeArmond (1975)) take the opposite extreme. Consequently, they posit an underlying system in which there are only hard consonants, and all soft consonants must be derived by rule which operates in the environment before a front vowel. As has already been shown above, this is not always the case in CSR. Moreover, there are many examples of

C' + back vowels, e.g., I'ud'i 'people/NPL' (which Lightner analyzes as *leudi: underlyingly). To deal with the many examples such as this, Lightner and other scholars working in the SPE framework posited highly abstract vocalic systems.

Lightner's system includes both tense and lax vowels (a distinction which is non­ existent on the surface) as well as diphthongs (which are very rare on the surface in CSR). In his system the underlying vocalic system is complicated in order to simplify the underlying consonantal system. Not only does this proposal create an overly abstract underlying representation for CSR, it also clouds the facts of the CSR system in which most of the synchronic rules make reference to the consonants rather than the vowels (with the exception, of course, of vowel

^In fact, not all of the structuralists agree with such an extreme approach. Jakobson, for example, proposes a rule of "surface palatalization" in his "Russian Conjugation" (1949). A discussion of all of the structuralist analyses is beyond the scope of this discussion.

17 reduction rules, which are discussed in the following chapter). The distinction

between hard and soft consonants is very important in CSR in both the

underlying and surface representations. This can be seen in the productivity of

rules such as Sur Pal which affects even the most recent foreign borrowings in

inflection and derivation, e.g. in the LSG ending /-e /. For a more detailed

discussion and criticism of Lightner's proposals see, particularly. Flier (1974).

Although I am in agreement with Lightner that palatalized consonants

are generated by rules, there are many instances of palatalized consonant + back

vowel, as well as palatalized consonant in word-final position which cannot always be predicted. These problems in past analyses of the hard and soft

consonants point to the need for another solution, namely, one which admits

both underlying and derived palatalized consonants as well as underlying hushing and hissing consonants. Such an analysis, I argue, captures better the generalization that the consonantal system in CSR carries more weight than the

vocalic system (which is fundamentally different to the system in CSCz). It is, then, a compromise between the extremes of both the structuralist and linear

generative descriptions. Thus, while in many cases, both hard and soft

consonants are underlying, there are still many positions in which the softness (or hardness) of the consonant is derived by phonological rule. Furthermore, we

shall see that the non-linear framework provides the necessary tools to represent

the phonemic inventory of CSR (and CSCz) without relying on excess abstraction.

My approach is similar in spirit to Farina (1991), although her analysis

focuses more on theoretical problems of contemporary generative frameworks

(namely Underspecification), which are not always relevant to the present work.

All the same, she makes a number of important theoretical claims for CSR which

18 deserve mention. In this section I will discuss only those claims which concern the hard vs. soft opposition in CSR; other issues will be mentioned in the following sections.

First, Farina attempts to provide a "compromise" among past analyses. Thus, she stresses the "need for an analysis which is constrained and which

strives for internal consistency in the way that generative analyses have, but which does not resort to multiplication of abstract vowels, or to overuse of

diacritics (phonological or otherwise) to solve problems, and which does not

obscure important facts .... in its attempts at generalization." (72) The present analysis also shies away from the overuse of "abstract" elements. However, 1 am not in agreement with all of Farina's claims concerning hard and soft consonants in CSR. Second, Farina focuses much of her attention on the allophonic nature of [y], which is crucial to her analysis of hard and soft consonants in CSR. Her analysis of y and i as well as my own will be discussed in detail in the section on vowels below, although a few points need to be mentioned here. This analysis captures the importance of the consonantal system by simplifying the underlying vocalic system. 1 argue, however, that the /i ~ y / distinction is too significant for CSR to deny the phonemic status of / y / . On the contrary. Farina claims that [y]

"has been reanalyzed in the Modem Russian phonemic system as a lexical feature specification of [+back] on consonants..." (4), which, in fact, fits very well into her theoretical claims of Underspecification for Russian.

Finally, in accordance with the Sagey model of feature geometry in which her analysis is couched. Farina uses the feature [±back] to distinguish between hard and soft consonants (which, in fact, goes back to the distinctive feature classification of SPE) which we reject in favor of the unified set of features

19 proposed by Clements and Hume (1995). Furthermore, she attempts to greatly

reduce the number of underlying palatalized consonants by using a

'palatalization component', which takes the form of a floating [-back]

specification (as well as the lexical diacritic [Borrowed] for recent foreign

borrowings). Consequently, she is granting special status to underlying

palatalized consonants. For me, the palatalized consonants are too integral to the

system as a whole of CSR to grant them such 'special' treatment. More criticism of this work will be given in the discussion of the vocalic system below.

The New Approach

In the Clements and Hume model palatalized consonants are

distinguished from non-palatalized ones by the presence of a secondary vocalic coronal articulator. In most generative approaches (including Farina), palatalized

consonants are interpreted as they were in SPE, i.e., by the presence of the ■+high1 vocalic features -back . These features are used to demonstrate that

"...subsidiary articulations consist in the superimposition of vowel-like articulations on the basic consonantal articulation. In palatalization the

superimposed subsidiary is [i]-like...." (Chomsky & Halle 1968:305-6) While in

the Clements & Hume model this assumption still holds true, in their theory, front vowels and coronal consonants share the same place feature - coronal.

In Jakobsonian distinctive feature theory, palatalized consonants were assigned the special feature [sharped] (vs. [flat]) which had no other use within the system.6 SPE criticized "the need to characterize palatalization... by independent features... [which] failed to explain why these subsidiary

^For further discussion see Halle: 1971; Jakobson & Halle: 1956; Jakobson, Fant & Halle: 1963.

2 0 articulations are not found with consonants that are formed with the body of the tongue..." (307) SPE also criticizes Jakobsonian theory for not predicting the appearance of a palatal consonant in place of a velar, which in SPE is explained as a change from [+back] to [-back]. (308) However, the SPE proposal also has its flaws. For example, in explaining the velar palatalizations in Slavic (and such changes in general), SPE must first motivate a stage in which the velars are palatalized, and, then (by some unexplainable mechanism), they become

[-anterior] coronals. Chomsky & Halle even admit that "it is easy to understand why a velar would be fronted but not so easy to understand why the other features should also change." (422) Namely, where do the features coronal,

[+delayed release], [+strident] come from?

Hume (1992) presents further criticism of using the feature [±back] to distinguish hard and soft consonants in Russian. Traditionally, in generative theories the soft consonants in CSR are analyzed as [-back] (as well as [+high]), while the hard consonants are [+back]. Hume, however, disagrees with the classification of the hard consonants; "Given that the tongue body is not advanced in the articulation of hard coronals, characterizing these sound as [-back] is unmotivated." (52) In addition, she provides evidence which demonstrates that [±back] cannot be used as the only feature to distinguish hard and soft consonants, due to the nature of certain phonological rules in Russian.^ f Moreover, if the hard and soft consonants of CSR were distinguished only by

^Namely, in CSR "there is a rule which changes 'hard' strident dentals into post-alveoiars before a post-alveolar." (54) Examples of this change are: / s+sit'/ 'sew together INF', /s+citat'/ 'count INF', /bez cest'ijo/ 'dishonor', /s sumom/ 'noise ISC' -> [Syt'] [S'c'itat'j - [§'§'itat'j [b'iS'c'es't'ija] ~ [S'S'] [Sumamj. (based on Hume, 54 and Flier 1980) The rule is triggered by both hard and soft [-anterior] coronals.Unlike Hume, however, I propose a rule which specifies all of the [-anterior] coronal segments as soft. Therefore, they could still be distinguished from the hard consonants using the [±back] feature. However, [+back] would still have the disadvantage of grouping together the hard consonants with the velars (with the feature [+back]).

2 1 [±back], grouping the post-alveolar segments together as a natural class would be difficult. Finally, and most importantly, by using [+back] to distinguish the hard consonants there would be no way of distinguishing them from the velars which are [+back, +high]. (ibid.)

Although Hume does not comment on the representation of the hard consonants of Russian in her discussion, I would argue that the hard consonants of CSR, although distinct phonetically from their soft counterparts, are underlyingly unspecified for secondary articulation, in most instances. The underlying vocalic dorsal place is present only in the (rare) segments which do not undergo palatalization before /e /, such as [me]r 'mayor'. In most cases, though, only the soft consonants are specified underlyingly for secondary articulation. This assumption is based on the fact that most rules which change the status of hard and soft consonants normally work in the direction of softening. Although there are some rules of hardening in CSR, there appear to be no rules which spread hardness (i.e. which spread dorsal). Thus, rules of hardening are viewed as delinking so that a vocalic coronal place is disassociated from the primary place of articulation, with dorsal being supplied by a late default rule. On the other hand, rules of softening (palatalization and coronalization) are the result of spreading a vocalic coronal place.

To summarize, in the Clements and Hume model both palatalization and coronalization (and their representations) are given a straightforward account.

Thus, all of the palatalized consonants of CSR are represented with primary place features under the place node (labial, coronal, dorsal) with a secondary V-place coronal node. Below I give the feature representation of a palatalized labial:

2 2 (2.3) Palatalized Labial

X

Lab VocaUc/oc^li I

In this example, as well as in other palatalized consonants, the secondary coronal

place dominates the feature [-anterior]. In the case of the palatalized consonants the [-anterior] feature is redundant. However, we shall see below that this feature

plays in important roll in rules of coronalization by predicting the outcome of these assimilations.

2.I.I.2. Unpaired Consonants

In addition to the paired consonants described above, there are a number of consonants in CSR of the 'hushing ~ hissing' series which are unpaired with respect to secondary palatalization. These include the postalveolar (or

alveopalatal) consonants: /s / /z / /c / and the dental affricate /c /. It should be noted that [s:'] and [z:'] have been excluded from the underlying consonantal inventory.® There is much debate as to the underlying representation of

/s:'/which is distinguished from /s / with the feature [distributed].

®I will not be discussing the problem of the representation /± V which, according to Timberlake (1993: 829), occurs "in a diminishing number of lexical items like drozS 'yeast'..." For a complete discussion of the facts see Flier (1982).

23 I follow Flier (1980) and Halle (1972) in analyzing the surface [§:'] as an underlying biphonemic //s c //. This analysis is motivated by a number of different factors within CSR. First, /s c / occurs in both non-altemating (as in scuka 'pike', vesc 'thing', etc.) and alternating {iskat' 'to want' ~ iscii 'ISG') environments. In the latter example, the / /s c // must be generated from /sk /.

The most natural way to account for this is to group the alternation with the IVP

— i.e., / k / —> [c] and, then, / s / —> ^]. The mechanisms of IVP will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. Second, as seen above in fn. 7, there is a rule in which dental sibilants change into postalveolars when preceding a postalveolar, e.g. /s+citat'/ -+ [s'c'itat'] ~ [s's']. The variation evident in forms such as this demonstrates the direction of change, namely /s+c/ -> //s c '// -» [s'c'] -+ [s's']. Finally, Flier notes: "it is possible for some speakers to have doublets like [s'c'uka] ~ [s's'uka] ."(1980: 314) Thus, there is ample evidence within the grammar of CSR to demonstrate that surface [s:'] derives from the underlying biphonemic cluster /sc/.

In order to surface, the cluster must undergo both assimilation for coronality ([c] surfaces as soft), which is related to the general CSR rule of Sur Pal, and dissimilation of [-continuant] from the second segment. The rule Alveopalatal Cluster Adjustment is given below:

24 (2.4) Alveopalatal Cluster Adjustment

X X X X

Oral Cav Oral Cav Oral Cav

[+cont] [+cont] [-cont]

CP CP CP

Cor Cor Cor Vocalic / \ Vocalic, [-ant] [+dist] [-ant] [-ant] [-dist] y Cor Cor

The resulting segment is a long, soft [§] which is represented by the presence of two X-sIots linked to the root node. In the assimilation, the feature [-i-distributed] is delinked in the first segment, while [-continuant] is delinked in the second. In fact, there are two different processes which are occurring here. The [-distributed] specification as well as the softness comes from C% while the

[-kcontinuant] comes from Ci. It should be remembered that before this rule can occur /c / must first gain a vocalic coronal place. This rule will be discussed below.

The remaining alveopalatal consonants, /c / /s / /z / pattern together underlyingly; however, they surface as either soft or hard. As mentioned above,

/c / always surfaces as soft [c']. In addition, the 'softness' of /c / influences the surface manifestation of /s c / (—> [s's']). The other two consonants, /s/a n d / z /, however, surface as phonetically hard. The difference in the surface variants can be seen in the N Pl endings, e.g. sto[ly] 'chairs' and no[zy] 'knives', but bi[ci]

'whips'. In the case of the latter form, the NPL ending / - y / is fronted to [i] after

25 the soft [c']. A similar distinction obtains as a result of Vowel Reduction, e.g.

[I'ijzii /lez-u/ 'lie/lSG' ~ [c'ijjôk /caj-ek/ 'tea/DlMNSG'but/"zy/jifl /zon-a/

'w ife/N Sc'. The first two examples show that the unstressed vowel is first

reduced to [i] when preceded by a soft consonant. However, the /z / (as well as

/s /) hardens and causes / i / to back to [y]. This last example is crucial in that it

demonstrates that, before hardening, /z / and /s / must be specified underlyingly as soft.

Traditionally, the alveopalatal phonemes have been grouped together

under the cover term 'palatals' or the perceptually-based 'hushers' due to the fact that they are all formed by "[the] tongue touching or near middle of the roof of

the mouth (hard palate)" and "... are important in grammar and word-formation, because they frequently imply mutation from a nonhushing consonant."

(Townsend: 1980,4) I too propose that the post-alveolar segments should share

the same place specifications in the underlying representation. Specifically, /c / /§ / / z / are all unspecified for softness or backness in the underlying

representation (in most cases). However, the segments must become soft at some point in the underlying representation in order to pattern with the other (paired)

soft consonants in rules for Vowel Reduction. I suggest that there is a

redundancy rule which supplies the softness (in the form of a vocalic coronal place) before the rules of Vowel Reduction take place (to be discussed in the next chapter). In addition, there are many instances in which the 'palatals' are derived from underlying velars, e.g., gliix 'deaf/SADJ' ~ gliisit' [glusyt'j 'to muffle' (<—

//glux-i-t'//) and ruka 'hand' ~ nicka 'DIM' (<— / / ruk-Ek-a//, where E represents an underlying front jer). In such instances, the 'palatal' is first soft (V- coronal), and then it may or may not be hardened.

2 6 The final segment to be discussed is the dental affricate / c / . This segment

may pattern with both the hard and soft series of consonants, although it surfaces as hard, / c / is unique among the dentals in that it is not paired for palatalization and, therefore, does not participate with the other dentals in such rules as Sur

Pal. It does, however, partially participate with the post-alveolar series in rules affecting Vowel Reduction, e.g. /cena/ 'price/NSG' —> [cyjnâ. Thus, / c / is similar to / s / and / z / in that it acts as a soft consonant when undergoing reduction, yet hardens causing / i/ to back to [y]. The underlying softness of /c / can also be seen in the e —> o rule: otec 'father' (not *ot'oc), which demonstrates that / c / is soft when this rule occurs. There is other evidence which shows that

/c / cannot share the same place features as the post-alveolars; it may alternate with the post-alveolar / c / in certain envirorunents, e.g., otec 'father' - otecestvennyj 'LADJ'. In such instances, the [+anterior] /c / is 'backed' to the

[-anterior] [cj. Thus, / c / must be distinguished from both the other dental consonants ([+anterior] coronals) as well as the alveopalatal consonants

([-anterior] coronals). The features [±continuant] and [+anterior] serve to differentiate it from the other coronal consonants. I would suggest that /c /is soft in the underlying representation and is subject to a hardening rule similar to that which affects the alveopalatal fricatives /s / and /z /.

In the Clements & Hume model the post-alveolar series is distinguished from the other coronals by the feature [-anterior]. The dental affricate /c '/ is distinguished from the other dentals by the feature [±continuant] and from the alveopalatals by the feature [+anterior]. As already stated, there is phonological evidence which unites these consonants, although there is no one feature which they all share. Therefore, there is no choice but to propose two different hardening rules which, as we shall see in the next chapter in the discussion of the

27 e o rule, is a fair assumption. The redundancy rule which supplies a secondary coronal to the alveopalatal consonants is given below:

(2.5) Alveopalatal Softening (Redundancy Rule)

X X

CP

Cor Cor Vocalic/ocja [-ant] [-ant] I

It should be remembered that this rule must be ordered before Alveopalatal Cluster Adjustment. In addition, both derived palatals and /c / are not affected by this rule as they are already specified as coronal and, thus, do not meet the structural description of the rule.

2.1.1.3. Dorsal Consonants

The underlying phonemic status of the hard and soft velar (dorsal) consonants has been the source of much debate. At issue is the fact that in most positions the hardness and softness of the dorsal consonants is predictable - palatalized dorsals occur before front vowels, while non-palatalized ones occur before back vowels, e.g., ruka [ka] 'hand/NSG' ~ nike [k'e] 'LSG'; kot [ko] 'cat' ~ kit [k'i] 'whale'. In most non-generative approaches, the phoneme /k / is said to have two allophones: [k] and [k'j. While it is indeed true that in many instances a palatalized dorsal can be generated from a non-palatalized one, this approach

2 8 does not account for palatalized velars before back vowels and, to a lesser extent, non-palatalized dorsals before front vowels. Such environments are usually said to be exceptional as they occur primarily in loan-words, e.g., lik'or 'liqueur', k'lire

'curé'; g'aiir 'giaour', G'ote 'Goethe'; X'iié 'Hue (Vietnam)', etc. As Flier points out, "however rare these words might be, they stand as testimony to the ability of speakers of Russian who use them to distinguish sharped [palatalized] and nonsharped velars before back vowels."(1982:139) In addition, non-palatalized dorsals may occur before front vowels, as evidenced in the forms: keb 'cab', kemping 'campground', xendbol 'handball' (ihid.), gel'ski j 'Gaelic' (from Farina

1991:90), as well as the recent xes 'hashish; marijuana' (Juganov and Juganova

1992: 201) or even kerol (the name of a fast-food restaurant in St. Petersburg).

Although instances of a hard dorsal before a front vowel are rare (hence, marked as non-palatalized in the underlying representation), they still offer further evidence for phonemically palatalized (and non-palatalized) velars. Moreover, there is no reason to treat forms such as lik'or and kemping separately (e.g., by utilizing Lightner's "feature" [-Slavic]), as they are subject to the same rules as native CSR lexemes. There is independent evidence from both 'native' CSR lexemes as well as productive derivation processes which strengthens this analysis. First, forms from the verb tkat' 'to weave' have long been used by both structuralists and generativists to demonstrate the phonemicity of /k '/. The minimal pair sotk'ôm

[satk'om] 'weave/PF IPL' ~ sadkom [satkôm] 'garden/DlMlSG' is typically cited.

The pair bereg'â 'guard/VADV, substandard' (from the verb berec) ~ beregâ

'shore/NPl' provides some evidence, at least in substandard varieties of the language, for the phonemicity of /g '/ as well. Their is further evidence for dorsal

+ /y / sequences the allegro forms of masculine patronymics: {Olegyc <-

29 /O leg+ovic/), [ky] {Markyc) and [xy] (Aristarxyc). (Flier 1982:140) In this process, the hardness or softness of the root-final consonant is consistently preserved, e.g. lva[nyc] /ivan+ic/. Finally, there are certain suffixes beginning with a non-front vowel which palatalize dorsal consonants, e.g., the agentive suffix /-or/ kiosk 'kiosk' ~ kiosk'or; the suffix / -onok/ for offspring makaka

'macaque' ~ makak'onok; Terex 'chub (fish)' ~ zerex'onok. (Flier 1982:140) Thus, there appears to be significant evidence within the grammar of CSR to support an underlying distinction between hard and soft velar consonants.

2.2.2. The Vowels

In this section I discuss the underlying and surface variants of the vowels in CSR. This analysis departs from previous accounts of the CSR vocalic system in a number of different aspects. First, I treat the high non-back segments / i / and / y / (or [i]) as distinct underlyingly. Second, I do not be analyze the glide [j] as distinct underlyingly as is the case in most analyses, but as a positional variant of /i/. Finally, I discuss the treatment of the synchronic 'jers' as floating matrices which may or may not surface. Below I give the underlying specifications for the vowels of CSR:

(2.6) The Underlying Vowels of CSR

i e y a o u dorsal • • coronal • • [open%] — + — + + —

[open2] — — — + — —

The front vowels are specified for coronal and the back vowels for dorsal, while the mid-vowels have no such specifications underlyingly. Unlike CSCz, CSR does not make an underlying distinction between two non-high front vowels on

30 the basis of the feature [-anterior]; accordingly, all of the vowels in CSR are marked redundantly as [-anterior].

2.2.2.I. /i/a n d /y /

In most structuralist analyses of CSR the mid-high vowel [y] is considered

to be an allop hone of the phoneme /i/. The argument is based on the fact that, in most instances, [y] and [i] are in complementary distribution - the former appearing after hard consonants with the latter after soft consonants: [byjl

'be/Past' ~ [b'i]l 'beat/Past'. [i] also appears in isolation, in word-initial position: ikra 'caviar', im'a 'name', etc., while [y] does not normally appear in this position. In addition, an / i / in word- and morpheme-initial position backs to [y] when preceded by a hard consonant: s Ivanom 'with Ivan/ISG' -> [syvanam]. Thus, as the argument goes, / i / is the basic phoneme with the allophones [i] and [y]. Farina (1991) argues that [i] and [y] should be viewed as allophones of the same underlying phoneme / i / due to the reanalysis of the historical phoneme /y / "as a lexical feature specification of [+back] on consonants preceding underlying /i/."(4) I agree with Farina that the segments i and y occupy a 'special' place in the vocalic system of CSR; however, in no way does this diminish the phonemicity of /y/. It would be useful to examine some of Farina's other claims on the nature of i and y. First, she claims that sequences of the type C [+back] V [-back] are generally prohibited in CSR (including the sequences C [+back] + i, as in, e.g., dym 'smoke'). This means that all such sequences must be specially marked underlyingly in her system. In claiming that C + y segments are a closed lexical class in CSR, she denies the possibility of new foreign borrowings with this phoneme. As we shall see below, there have been some recent borrowings from

31 Turkic languages with / y/, although their number is undeniably small.^ Second,

she claims that "in Russian, [i] never follows a nonpalatalized consonant, and [y]

never follows a palatalized one." [italics in original] (64) While this is true, it

could very well be argued that this is a result of a phonotactic constraint in CSR;

thus, there is a general tendency in CSR for / i / to follow palatalized (secondary

coronalization) consonants and for the unspecified / y / to generally follow non­

palatalized consonants. Finally, although she recognizes the morphological

importance of [y], she does not feel that this evidence is enough to grant it phonemic status. This, I argue, is one of the main reasons why / y / is phonemic

is CSR, as we shall see below.

Some linguists argue that [y] is really a separate phoneme on the basis of a number of different factors. The arguments are based on the fact that [y] does indeed appear word-initially in a number of foreign place names: Yjson, Yndin,

Ymyk-KeV and the derivative Ynykcanskij (Gvozdev 1961:14, quoted in DeArmond, 29). However, the use of [y] word-initially in a few rarely-used place names does not sanction an independent phoneme. In addition, there is other evidence within the grammar of CSR which supports the phonemicity of/y/. Gvozdev notes that the pronunciation of [y] in isolation causes no difficulties for a speaker of CSR and that "such awareness of the sound y sharply

would claim that the small number of borrowed forms with / y / is due to the absence of this phoneme (or anything similar) in the most significant donor languages: English, French and German. The influence of the modem Central Asian Turkic languages (in which a similar phoneme exists) on CSR has, of course, been marginal. Therefore, it should not be surprising that most of the examples come in the way of place names. As further evidence against the phonemicity of/y/. Farina uses information from foreign language transfer of Russians speaking foreign languages. For example, she states "given that English consonants are generally perceived as non-palatalized by Russian speakers and the sequence of nonpalatalized C + [y] is allowed in Russian... one could argue that [y] should transfer into the English of Russian speakers even more frequently than [i]." (66) I feel that this is faulty argumentation, as the vocalic system of English is completely different from that in CSR, and there is no correlation of phonemic palatalization in English as in CSR.

32 differentiates it from combinatory variants of phonemes."^° (1963: 99) Hence, [y]

stands out among the vowel allophones in that it is perceived as an independent entity by speakers.

The most convincing evidence for the independent status of/y / comes

from derivational and inflectional morphology. Gvozdev (1963:100) discusses

the suffixes /-ik/, /-ic/, /-in/ and /-ynja/ which appear to be invisible to the

hardness or softness of the preceding roots so that in the first three the final root

consonant is always soft while in the last it is always hard. With other suffixes

such as, /-ys/, /-yg(a)/, /-yrV given in Riisskaja Grammatika{19S2), a final root consonant remains or becomes hard. Below I give examples (from Gvozdev 1963,

Flier 1982,144; Bielfeldt and Riisskaja Grammatika, I (1982)):

^translation my own, MSB.

33 (2.7) /i/ and /y/ Suffixes in CSR

/d k / kolos kolo[s'i]k ear/D im volos volo[s'i]k hair/DlM dom do[m'i]k house/D im signal signa[l'i]k signal/DiM xnistaV xnista[Vi]k crystal/DlM karas' kara[s'i]k p ik e/D im /-ica / lisa li[s'i]ca fox/vixen /-yn ja/ii rab ra[by]nja slave/F milost' milos[ty]nja mercy/alms giis' gu[sy]nja gander/goose ba[r'i]n ba[ryjnja lord/lord's wife /-y s / go[l-y]j go[ly]s naked/naked child pozd[n'-i]j pozd[ny]s late/late-comer xod-it' xo[dy]§ walk/ walker /-yg(a)/ torop- toro[py]ga hurry/person in a hurry motat' mo[ty]ga shake/hoe

Verbal inflection provides further evidence for positing separate underlying segments. Thus, the IMP ending /-i/, which may or may not surface

depending on stress and syllabification (discussed in more detail below), always

causes palatalization of a preceding stem: krik[n'i] 'shout' ~ goto[v'] /gotov+ i/ 'prepare'. The plural past tense marker / -i/ also invokes palatalization of the

preceding vowel, while the adjectival ending does not: usta[Vi] 'tire/PASTPL' - iista[ly] 'tired/NPlSAdj'.12

One final point should be made on the somewhat "marginal" behavior of

the phoneme /y/in comparison to the other vocalic phonemes in CSR. In the

^^The status of the suffix /-ynja/ may have changed as demonstrated by such "productive student derivations with jocular connotation" as lef/Se[fi]nja hoss', doktor/dokto[r’i]nja 'doctor', Sof or! §ofe[r'i}nja 'driver'. (Flier 1982:145) It should be noted that Flier uses such examples to demonstrate the unproductive nature of this suffix in CSR. ^^Another possible example from the verbal morphology may be the Lmperfectivizing suffixes /-i-vat'/ and /-y-vat'/ (as in / peredel+yvat'/ 'do over' vs. ugovar+ivat'/ 'persuade'. It has been pointed out to me, however, that the softness in this case is probably derived from the stem rather than the suffixes. We will leave this problem for future research.

34 Clements and Hume model central vowels are viewed as placeless and are specified only for Aperture (openness). In CSR / y / (along with /a/) are the only

placeless vowel phonemes, and it appears that this placelessness, at least in the case of /y/, creates a somewhat unstable environment. It should not be surprising, then, that / i / which is specified for coronal place is more stable and, consequently, plays a more significant role in the vocalic system.

1.2.22. /i/ and [j]

In most linear analyses of CSR the front vowel, /i/, and the palatal glide,

/j/, are treated as separate underlying phonemes. This is because in a linear approach to the phonology of CSR, /)/ has no direct relationship to /i/, other than the fact that they share the same place features. I suggest, however, that the relationship between these two segments in CSR is completely predictable in terms of syllable structure. In her analysis of Polish, Bethin proposes that "when the feature matrix is independently associated with the syllable nucleus, it is pronounced as [i]. In all other cases it appears as [j]." (1992a: 87) In my view this assumption also holds for CSR. A discussion of the distribution of the two segments will demonstrate this point

First, as with other vowel phonemes of CSR, [i] occurs as a syllable nucleus both stressed (moz''my/NPL') and unstressed {éti 'those/NPL'). In addition, it occurs as the unstressed reduced variant of /a/, /o / and /e / when following a soft consonant (caj 'tea/NSG' ~ cajkïi [cijku] 'tea/DlMGSG'). It may occur word-initially {ikra 'caviar/NSg'), word-finally and between consonants and consonant clusters. Second, [j] has a much more limited distribution. It never occurs in stressed position, as only vowels can function as syllable nuclei in CSR.

In fact, [j] occurs only in the environment of another vowel. Since CSR does not

35 allow complex nuclei (in the form of long vowels or diphthongs), this implies that [j] occurs only in syllable onset or coda position immediately adjacent to a vowel. Below I give examples of the possible environments for [j]:

2.8) Examples of [j] in CSR

a. lY b. VI jagoda berry FNSG boj battle MNSg south MNSg stoj(te) stand Imp jeV fir tree FNSG moj my MNSg jolka Christmas tree FNSG mojego my MGSG b'ju beatISG majka tee-shirt FNSG stat'ja article FNSG znanij knowledge GPL p'jesa play FNSG vorob'ji sparrow NPL

The forms in (a) demonstrate that [j] regularly occurs before a vowel both in word-initial position and when following another consonant (i.e., as part of a consonantal cluster). This environment corresponds to the syllable onset. In (b) [j] occurs following a vowel both in word-final position and preceding another vowel or consonant. This environment corresponds to the syllable code. In non­ linear theories of syllabification, [j] is generated from an underlying / i / that is not associated with a syllable nucleus. The implications of this analysis will be discussed in more detail in the formulation of the rule of Jotation in the next chapter.

2.2.23. The Jers

The "jers" have been the source of much debate in both Slavic and general linguistics, since Lightner (1965) first incorporated them into a synchronic

36 analysis of CSR in order to account for the so-called fleeting vowels.H e was

accused of using overly abstract solutions and absolute neutralization, i.e., positing underlying segments which never appear on the surface. Below are

some data which illustrate the problem - minimal and near-minimal pairs of

forms in CSR, first with 'jers' and then without them:

(2.9) Near-minimal pairs with and without jers in CSR

den'/dn'a\^ day N/GSg olen'/olen'a deer N/GSG rot/rta mouth N/GSg pot/pota sweat N/GSg I'onA'na flax N/GSg kl'on/kl'ona maple N/GS g marka/marok stamp NSG/GPL park/parka park N/GS g strelka/strelok arrow NSG/GPL igrok/igroka player N/GSG IciskaAasok weasel NSG/GPL laskaAask caress NSG/GPL pen'/pn'a stump N/GSg pena/peny foam N/GS g

As can be seen by these examples, the question of the zero ~ vowel alternations cannot be dealt with by simple rules of epenthesis and/or deletion. The existence

of these minimal and near-minimal pairs attests that the presence or lack of the

vowel is not just a question of syllabic structure. Farina highlights the two special problems of the jers (251):

1. they are not distinct on the surface from the nondeleting vowels / e / and /o/; 2. the environment for their deletion/ surfacing cannot be easily described in segmental terms.

The examples above point to the existence of two vocalic segments, which surface as either / e / or /o/. Of particular relevance to the present analysis is the

^^Halle was probably the first linguist to refer to the jer segments with the brief statement in his The Sound Pattern of Russian (1972 [1959]): "Russian posesses a series of stems which have forms with and without vowels. Where-ever these alternations are not predicatable from others, it is necessary to indicate them in the dictionary ... [as in], e.g., {t'ur#k} but {p'ark}." (32) ^^We shall see in (19) in the discussion of Sur Pal that the actual pronunciation of this may be with either a palatalized or non-palatalized [d]. However, this palatalization is caused by the following palatalized consonant.

37 difference between these two segments, in that one of them invokes palatalization while the other one does not. There are similar examples in CSR in which zero alternates with other vowels besides the mid-vowels (such as in the

Derived Imperfectives as we shall see below). In the present analysis, forms such as these can be dealt with easily, as any vowel may be a jer depending on its representation on the syllabic level.

Previous analyses

In structural analyses the jers were described as 'fleeting vowels' and very often represented with the symbols {#} or {/} which had no phonemic or phonetic value. As has already been stated, Lightner was the first linguist to offer an explanation of the synchronic jers in a generative framework. Here, it would be useful to look at some of Lightner's claims on the nature of the synchronic jers. First of all, Lightner grants considerable weight to the alternations in some

Derived Imperfective verbs. A few of his crucial examples are reproduced below (based on Lightner (1972:32-3)):

(2.10) Derived Imperfectives in CSR

DI 3PSG Inf zyvat' zov'ot zvat' call st'ilat' st'el'ot stlat' cover za-dirat' -der'ot -drat' split ob-lygat' -Izot^s -Igat' slander

Lightner dismisses the possibility that the /y / or /i/ in the DI forms are related to the /y /in forms such as pyl' 'dust' due to the fact that "[t]he [y] in ... -zyvat' must... have some source other than y. in order to explain the non-high vowel in

should be noticed that this form does not contain a vocalized 'jer'. For more discussion of how forms like this fit into the system Lightner proposed for CSR see (1972; XI-10).

38 -zovët and the absence of a root vowel in -zvat'." (31) His goal, then, is "to find

an underlying vowel which can appear phonetically as y, o, or o and which is

different from the vowel in -PYL-; [and] which can appear phonetically as i, e or

0 and which is different from the vowel in -PIS-." (32) Further, in keeping within

the natural constraints of his theory Lightner requires "natural representations of (1) a vowel which always appears as [i], and of (2) a vowel which sometimes

appears as [i], sometimes appears as [e], and is sometimes dropped." (33) His

well-known solution to this problem is to propose a tense and lax distinction for

the CSR vocalic system, introducing another distinctive feature to distinguish the CSR vowels. Accordingly, /û / and / i / are labeled 'jers'.^^ These jers are eliminated in all positions by the application of three important rules:

1. DI-Lengthening, which lengthens /u / and /! / in the roots of derived imperfectives 2. Lower, which lowers / u / and / ! / in the environment before another jer and in the present tense of some verbs 3. Drop, which deletes aU remaining /ti/ and /I /

Although Lightner's proposal for CSR was criticized for its abstraction, he is correct in searching for an explanation of the vowel ~ zero alternations in the form of the jers. The tense/lax distinction plays absolutely no role in the phonology of CSR and the use of these features yields a highly abstract underlying system. Farina states: "while features such as [±high] and [±back] are needed in several phonological rules, features associated with jers are only needed to explain the behavior of jers and for nothing else, and amount to no

According to Lighter, such a proposal is the most 'natural' solution as the short vowels "are the least vowel-like of the vowels in that they are close and lax [,and they] tend to become glides before vowels, voiceless between voiceless consonants and word finally." (1972: 33)

39 more than diacritics." (275-6) In reality, the SPE-based theory which Lightner was adopting was inadequate to deal with the jer alternations in CSR.

With the advent of non-linear phonology the jers have been given a much

more straightforward account which does not require the use of abstract features.

The most pertinent non-linear analysis Farina (1991)i^, who makes the following two assumptions (252):

1. Jers have the same underlying underspecified segmental melody (or feature matrix) as do the non-fleeting vowels / e / and / o / 2. [The rule of] Jer Vocalization replaces [Lightner's] two-rule system of Jer Lower followed by Jer Deletion

Farina's rule of Jer Vocalization uses both underspecification of feature matrices

and Levin's (1985) syllable structure. Of particular relevance to the present analysis is her statement that "Jer Vocalization is not cyclic but applies at any time in the course of word formation, like other (universal or language-specific) rules of syllabification." (ibid.) I accept this assumption. However, Farina rejects

the existence of two underlying jers as well as word-final jers. I disagree with both of these claims. For the former, she claims that "in the majority of cases in noun roots there is a correspondence between the feature for [bk] of the surface

jers and the feature value for [bk] of the preceding consonant." (279) This could also be true due to the fact, that, in most cases, it is the underlying jer which

determines the softness or hardness (i.e., the value for [±back]) of the consonants.

In the case of the word-final jers she states that "[they] are simply present to

provide the environment for rules." (279) Other than the fact that the word-final

the best of my knowledge the first treatment of the jers in non-linear phonology was Spencer (1985), although this analysis concerns Contemporary Standard Polish. Unlike the present analysis, he claims that the jers should be viewed as floating timing slots without segmental content.

40 jers are an important morphological reality (in that all of the other endings have vocalic markers), there exists some evidence that they are present on a phonetic level. Tomson notes that "final palatalized consonants in Russian are actually followed by an aspirated sound... [and] he concludes that the front jer has devoiced, but has not completely disappeared." (cited in Bratkowsky (1980: 334))

Furthermore, he argues that the back jer is also present at some level on the surface in words which end in a hard consonant, (ibid.: 335, fn. 4)

More significantly, the jers which Farina presents are distinguished structurally "by not having an underlying syllable head." (295) Thus, "a jer has absolutely no segmental content underlyingly, and that it therefore has much in common with the completely unspecified underlying vowel l o i ..." (304) The present analysis differs in two very important respects. First, an underlying jer is viewed as a floating matrix (or unlinked), and second, there is both a back and a front jer which are distinguished from each other by the presence of the feature dorsal or coronal, respectively, in the underlying representation. Finally, Farina makes her jer vocalization completely sensitive to syllable structure, so that "jers surface according to the syllable structure (or lack thereof) of adjacent elements, or according to the acceptability of sequences of adjacent elements as determined by the sonority hierarchy." (322) Before giving my own analysis, I reproduce

Farina's rule of Jer vocalization: (327)

41 (2.11) Farina's rule of Jer vocalization (327)

X —> X / ___

The circled C "depict[s] unsyllabified consonants, so as to avoid confusion with

Russian palatalized/fronted consonants as depicted as C'." (327, fn. 46) In the

following, I argue that not all jer vocalizations are based on purely syllabic rules.

The New Approach

The present analysis is similar in spirit to Farina's proposal, in that both are non-linear descriptions of the problems of the jers in CSR. However, my treatment, based primarily on Rubach (1993a, 1993b) and Kenstowicz and

Rubach (1987), treats the jers as floating matrices, i.e., melodic segments without a timing (or X-) slot. The jers vocalize by linking to a timing slot as below:

(2.12) Jer Vocalization

I I E - > e / _ CE

According to this rule, an unassociated jer (indicated by E) vocalizes, i.e., it is assigned to a timing slot, to a full vowel ([e] in this case) when preceding another jer. The symbol C, here, is used as an abbreviation for a minimum of one or a maximum of three consonants. Unassociated jers (that are not vocalized) are deleted at the end of the phonology by Jer Deletion - a convention of "stray erasure." (Kenstowicz and Rubach (1987), based on Steriade (1982))

42 A non-linear analysis makes some important predictions in respect to

syllabification. Namely, prior to Jer Vocalization the jers should be invisible to

rules of syllabification. However, after vocalization a string will be resyllabified.

Thus, underlyingly a form may consist of a closed syllable, but after Jer

Vocalization the syllable(s) may open. As already stated above, I agree with

Farina in that the jer rules are not cyclic and, therefore, may apply at any time in

the course of word formation, like the other universal rules of syllabification. The analysis makes the further prediction that any vowel may be a jer (Rubach

1993a). As jers most often surface as mid-vowels / e / and l o i , they can be posited as such underlyingly: the first being specified underlying as coronal,

while the second for dorsal. As we have seen above, CSR exhibits an alternation

between a high vowel (/y / or /i/) and 0 in the Derived Imperfectives, as in, for

example, -zyvat' ~ zvat' 'call'. In such cases, a high segment (//I //), which underlyingly is not associated with a timing slot, may be posited. A fuller

discussion of the jers is beyond the scope of the present analysis, as I am mainly concerned with their role in rules of palatalization and coronalization we are discussed in the next chapter.

2.3. Conclusion In this chapter we have offered a new analysis of the underlying phonemic system of CSR in the Clements and Hume model. In the consonantal system we have provided evidence for the existence of underlying palatalized velars as well as the cluster / / s c / / for surface [ss'j. In the vocalic system we have seen that the distinction between /y / and / i / should be viewed as underlying, and, therefore, phonemic. Furthermore, we provided a new analysis

43 of the jers. The importance of the proposed phonemic system for CSR will be seen in the next chapter.

44 CHAPTERS

THE RULES OF PALATALIZATION AND CORONALIZATION IN CSR

3.0. Introduction

This chapter discusses the most important rules of palatalization and coronalization in CSR: Surface Palatalization [Sur Pal], First Velar

Palatalization [IVP] and Jotation. Of these three rules, the most productive is the first, although it too is losing some ground in CSR, especially in the case of C 1C2 assimilations. In addition. Sur Pal is particularly relevant to the analysis, as it demonstrates a case of rule change in progress. By observing the direction of the change, we can make some conclusions on the nature of change in palatalization in CSR and, consequently, deduce some more general tendencies on the nature of palatalization processes. As pointed out by Farina, the latter two rules (IVP and

Jotation) are "historicized" and, thus, apply only in derived environments. However, they play a crucial role in certain derivational processes, and may still occur in loan-words. More importantly, these rules demonstrate the difference between various types of palatalization wlrich are still active in CSR: in Sur Pal a consonant gains a secondary coronal place of articulation, while in IVP, a velar

(dorsal) consonants becomes a coronal consonant, which is, in fact, an example of coronalization. Finally, in the case of Jotation, a [+anterior] coronal becomes

[-anterior], a labial + / i / becomes a biphonemic Lab + V, or a velar is coronalized. The rules will also be analyzed in light of the theoretical claims of Lexical and

Cyclic Phonology (to be discussed in the section on IVP).

In the last sections, I discuss three other important rules which concern the

vocalic system: the e -^o rule, which also is historicized, and the rules of Vowel

Reduction, which are still very productive in CSR. The latter rules are discussed

only insofar as they relate to the present discussion, as a full analysis of the

problems of Vowel Reduction is well beyond the scope of this work. Finally, I

demonstrate the importance of rule ordering in some sample derivations.

3.1. Surface Palatalization

As has already been mentioned. Sur Pal is a productive process in CSR, although it is losing ground in certain consonant clusters. This rule is an example

of true "palatalization", as the consonant resulting from the rule gains a secondary vocalic coronal place. The environment is generally before a coronal vowel, although it may also occur before another coronalized consonant (depending on its place feature). I will briefly review the first case, as it has already been discussed in the previous chapter.

3.1.1 Surface Palatalization before vowels There are a number of different inflectional and derivational suffixes in

CSR that begin with a coronal vowel and, accordingly, invoke palatalization of the underlyingly 'hard' stem-final consonant. The most pervasive of these endings is the LSG ending /-e/, which is the most common ending for declinable substantives. As already stated. Sur Pal occurs even in loan-words, as in, e.g., ser

'Sir/NSG' ~ ser'e 'LSC' (which can be compared to the indeclinable substantive

§osse 'highway', with a non-palatalized [s]). In the former example, we observe

46 that Sur Pal occurs only before the LSG ending, while it does not occur within the root. This demonstrates the productivity of the rule in declension. In the latter

case, the noun is indeclinable, so that the addition of the various morphological

endings is blocked. Below I give other examples of suffixes which invoke Sur Falk

(3.1) Suffixes which invoke Sur Pal

/ - i/ pek-ii pe[k'i] bake IPSc/lMP ziv-u zi[v'i] live IPSg/Imp /-ik / prut pni[t'i]k twig MNSg /D im dom do[m'i]k house MNSg/D im /-ist/ metall metal[l'i]st metal/metal-worker Lenin Leni[n'i]st Lenin/Leninist /-izm / kommtin-a kommu[n'iJzm commune/ communism kapital kapita[Vl]zm capital/ capitalism /-e-tV glup-yj glii[p'e]t' stupid/become stupid slab-yj sla[b'e]t' weak/become weak /-i-tV bomba bom[b'i]t' bomb FNSG/Inf voz vo[z'i]t' cart MNSg/ to carry l-e c / gord gor[d'e]c proud/proud person slep sle[p'e]c blind/blind person /-ee/ ~ /-ej/ dobr-yj dob[r'e]e kind/kinder krasiv-yj krasi[v'e]e beautiful/more beautiful /-E-n-yj/ skandal skanda[l'n]yj scandal/scandalous /-E-ba/ rez-at' re[z'b]a carve/carving

Of these suffixes, only the verbalizing /-e-t'/ and the nominalizing /-E-ba/ are not productive. The list is not exhaustive, and there are many other examples

under each suffix. For example, just for the /-i-t'/ verbs there are thousands of examples. (Townsend 1980:100) The forms presented above demonstrate that Sur Pal is common in both the inflection and derivation of CSR.

^The data in this section have been taken from a number of different sources, including: Riisskaja Crammatika, I: (1982:473), Lightner (1972), Townsend (1980).

47 Here we must make some observations about the suffixes which begin

with the front Jer (E). The adjectival suffix /-E-n-yj/ is anomalous in that it

invokes Sur Pal only in roots ending in /I/. This palatalization occurs with other suffixes beginning with a front jer, as in, e.g., /-E-sk-ij /ural'skij (//u r a l//). This can be opposed to tatarskij without palatalization. (Townsend 1980: 35) Farina proposes that "the behavior of /L / can be explained if stem-final /L / cannot be

[+bk] in the lexicon." (1991: 267, fn. 26) However, in the current analysis, we assume that underlying consonants in CSR are marked as hard (i.e., with a secondary vocalic dorsal place) only in the rare instances in which we find a non- palatalized consonant before / e / . Thus, we cannot adopt Farina's solution. The unusual behavior of / I / is well-noted in CSR, as well in the other Slavic languages; thus, the problem might be best solved by positing special rules for /I/, as the number of such examples is limited. We will discuss the anomalous nature of /I / in more detail in the section on Jotation. When the suffix /-E-n-yj/ combines with roots ending in a velar (dorsal) consonant, the root consonant undergoes IVP: e.g., kniga 'book' ~ kniznyj, nauka

'science' - naucnyj, strax 'fear' ~ straSnyj, konec 'end' ~ konecnyj. This is also the case of the nominalizing suffix /-E-ba/.^ In fact, examples in which a suffix invokes both Sur Pal and IVP are rare. Townsend explains that "the juxtaposition of consonants in combination results in the neutralization of the hard-soft opposition in a preceding paired consonant." (1980: 35) He also mentions the suffix /-E-ba/ as being a rare example in which the "neutralization

[is] in favor of soft paired consonants." (ibid.) Thus, Sur Pal is only rarely invoked by a jer (and therefore is marked as such). As the name implies. Sur Pal

^There are a handfuUof examples in Zaliznjak: 145, which have / g / in the root, e.g., dniÿja 'friendship' //drug-E-ba// and s/nffcfl'service'//sIug-E-ba//.

48 occurs when the coronal vowel is on the "surface", i.e., when it is linked to a timing slot, e.g., krasnyj 'red/LADJ MSG' ~ kra[s'e]n 'SADJ'. In both of the examples there is a jer present, but only in the second does it vocalize. Thus, jer vocalization must occur before the implementation of Sur Pal, as it is clearly the vocalized [e] which invokes palatalization and not /E /.

To return to the first two examples in (3.1), the Imperative in CSR is formed by adding the ending /-i-(-te)/ to the basic stem of the verb. This ending normally invokes Sur Pal, but it may also cause Jotation, as we shall see below.

Other examples with Sur Pal include: klad'i 'put', «es'/"carry' and krikn'i 'cry out'. With certain 1st Conjugation verbs we see the effects of Jotation: pisi 'write', skazi 'say' and dremVi 'doze'. In the discussion of Jotation we will see how this rule functions in certain verb classes in CSR. Furthermore, the appearance of -i- on the surface is governed by both stress and syllabification. It surfaces only when stressed or when preceded by a consonant cluster (e.g., krikn'i). If the ending is not stressed, it drops, leaving the palatalization, as in, e.g., the forms stav' 'put', vstan' 'get up'. Thus, both Sur Pal and Jotation must occur before the ending is dropped. This "dropping" can be expressed in a straightforward manner in the framework: the vowel delinks from its timing slot (a rule which must be governed by both stress and coda constraints) and remains floating. It is later deleted in the same way that the jers are deleted. In the discussion of the rule ordering, we give a few sample derivations of these iMPER forms.

For the time being, we will limit the rule of Sur Pal to occurring before a full coronal vowel. However, it should be noted that in the Clements & Hume model, at this underlying level, there is no distinction between a palatalized consonant (without a place specification) and a front vowel. As we shall see below, the fact that Sur Pal occurs before both front vowels and palatalized

49 consonants (although at a more limited scale) offers further support of this theoretical framework. The rule is given below:

(3.2) Surface Palatalization

Vocalic

VP

Cor

As described earlier, in the case of nonpalatalized consonants before / e /

(such as in [me]r and sos[se]) the consonants are marked in the underlying

representation as hard, i.e., they have a secondary vocalic place specification for dorsal. In the present work, in the majority of cases the hard consonants are not assumed to have a secondary place specification underlyingly. Therefore, the

'foreignness' of such lexical items is signaled by their underlying hardness. This 'foreignness' manifests itself further in the very strong tendency for the secondary dorsal to be lost. Subsequently, the consonant becomes subject to the rule of Sur Pal, as there is no longer anything to block it. In fact, in many instances there exist two competing pronunciations of one lexical item: [te]mp ~

[t'e]mp 'tempo';fo[ne]ma ~fo[n'e]ma 'phoneme'; sos[se]/ëos[s'e]. However, there are still many lexical items where this softening does not occur. This is especially the case when there are minimal pairs. A few of these are given below: (from

Riisskaja grammatika, I: (1982: 84))

50 (3.3) Minimal Pairs of hard/soft C before /e/

[m'e]ra measure FNSC [melra mayor MGSG p[a]s[t'e]l' bed MNSg pas[te]V pastel FNSG [m'ejtr meter MNSG [me]tr master MNSG (Fr. maître) [s'ejv sowing MNSg [sejv abbr. for sojuz èkonimi- ceskoj vzaimopmosci [s'e]r ear-wax GPL [se]r Sir NSg [t'ejsta dough NSg [tejsta test GSg

It appears, then, that when a similar native form exists with the expected palatalization before / e /, there is a tendency for the borrowed form to retain its hardness. Although all of the forms in (3.3) are not widely used, the first example, mer 'mayor', has recently come to be used much more frequently in common parlance. In fact, with the increase of borrowings from English into CSR over the past few years, such minimal pairs will undoubtedly increase, thereby strengthening the opposition.

One further comment is in line regarding the behavior of dorsal consonants preceding the high central vowel / y / . In the overwhelming majority of cases, an underlying / y / fronts (or is coronalized), and the dorsal consonant is subsequently palatalized by Sur Pal. We have already discussed the velar consonants in detail in the previous chapter, and, thus, I will not repeat all of the examples. Here we are only interested in the behavior of dorsal consonants before /y /. Some examples which illustrate the problem can be seen in the NPl and the MNSG Adjectival endings: stol/stol-y 'chair' ~ kniga/kni[g'-i] 'book'; krasiv-yj 'beautiful' ~ veli[k'-i]j 'great'. In the first example, the N P l ending alternates between / - y / and /- i/, and, in the second, the adjectival ending alternates between /-y j/ and /-ij/. This is clearly a case of allomorphy which can be seen in the other instances in which / i / appears in the endings, namely when following a soft consonant: slovar'/slovar'i 'dictionary', met'jmeci 'sword'.

51 However, in these latter cases, the vowel fronting is invoked by the coronal place of the stem-final consonant. This rule is given below:

(3.4) Vowel Fronting

X X

CP

Vocalic Vocalic

VP VP

Cor

Thus, the secondary vocalic coronal place spreads to the following placeless vowel (i.e., / / y / /), causing it to front. It should be noted that this rule also covers other vowels when they follow a palatalized segment, and it might also be extended to include the environment preceding a 'soft' segment. However, in the case of the other vowels, the surfacing segment is not phonemic.^

In the case of the dorsal consonants, the / y / first fronts, creating the environment for Sur Pal to occur. The dorsals, then, do not meet the environment for Vowel Fronting. I would suggest, rather, that the high central vowel / y / undergoes an adjustment rule in which it gains a coronal specification when preceded by a dorsal. The rule, which I call Dorsal Vowel Fronting, is given below:

full discussion of the problem is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

52 (3.5) Dorsal Vowel Fronting

CP CP

Cor Vocalic

Aperture^ Dor VP

[-opnl] Cor

It should be remembered that hard velars (before coronal vowels) are exceptional, and, therefore, they are marked as such with a secondary dorsal place and are blocked from the effects of this rule.

In any analysis the forms with the velars are problematic. The present analysis is motivated by the fact that it proposes allomorphy rather than separate endings, and it suggests a more 'natural' sequence of change: the vowel is first fronted by a rule of dissimilation, thereby creating the environment for Sur Pal. The fronting of the vowel can be explained by the unstable environment of the placeless /y / when it follows a dorsal consonant. CSR, then, generally tolerates sequences of K + V [place] (where K is any dorsal and V is any vowel specified for place). Further, sequences of K + V [-place] are generally prohibited. See the section on rule ordering for further discussion of the NPl ending /-y/.

53 3.1.2 Surface Palatalization before consonants

In this section I discuss C 1C2 assimilations for secondary palatalization. In this process Ci assimilates to the following palatalized consonant, i.e., the vocalic coronal place of C 2 spreads to Ci- As mentioned earlier, in many instances, this assimilation is optional or obsolete. As we shall see, it is possible to postulate a hierarchy, since there are some environments where assimilation is more possible than others. Below, in (3.6), I give examples of C 1C2 combinations in which palatalization may or may not occur. It should be noted that I deal only with the forms in which the first segment of the combination is underlying non- palatalized. In fact, there are many instances of underlying C 1C 2, which are not part of this rule. The forms are organized according to the following criteria: (1) combinations in which palatalization is optional; (2) combinations in which palatalization obligatorily occurs; and (3) combinations in which palatalization does not occur.^ (Riisskaja grammatika, I (1979: 27-9) and Riisskaja grammatika, I (1982:44))

"^The data for C-C assimilations are notoriously difficult to deal with, due to the fact that very often the palatalization is optional and/or the consonant is sometimes pronounced as semi­ palatalized or slightly palatalized. I have limited my data to two sources to avoid confusion, although they do not always agree with each other. In the present work I am mainly interested in making phonological generalizations and leave an in-depth 6inalysis for future research.

54 (3.6) Examples of C 1-C2 Assimilation:

[vp'Jer'od - [v'p'] to the front o[bm']en'at' ~ ^'m'] exchange iNF ri[fm']e ~ [f'm'] rhyme LSG [tm']in ~ [t'm'] caraway MNSG [dv'je ~ [d'v'] two FNSG v'e[tv']i - [t'v'] branches NPL [zv'Jer' ~ [z'v'] beast MNSg [sf']era ~ [s'f] sphere FNSG [sp']ektakl' [?] ~ [s'p'l show MNSg [sp'jicka [?] ~ [s'p'l match FNSG my[sl']i [?] ~ [s'l'j thoughts NPl [sl'liva ~ [s'l']5 plum FNSG [dl']a ~ [dT] for [dn']a ~ [d'n'] day GSg ko[ns']ervy ~ [n's'] preserves NPL pe[n's']ija^ pension/retirement FNSG [s't'lep' steppe FNSG [z'd'Jes' here kvi[n't']et quintet MNSG ka[n'd']idat candidate MNSG ko[n'c']ik tip MNSg o[tr]icat'sja differ INF [sp']ektr spectrum MNSg [sx']izma schism FNSG lo[fk']ij adroit MNSG LADJ gro[ mk'Jij loud MNSg LADJ Ia[pk']i7 paw NPl a[kt']or actor MNSg [gd'le where va[kx']ibeskij Bacchic MNSG LADJ

Some comments are in line for these examples. First, in the form otlicat'sja

the [t] is never palatalized due to the fact that the C-C combination occurs on a

^According to Riisskaja grammatika (1979:44) in the staromoskovskaja norma only [s'n'], [z'n'], [s'l'] and [z'r] are permitted. ^This form should be compared with the form above it. In fact, the two forms demonstrate the difficulty in determining a set of rules for C -C assimilations. In this work, I will be assuming that it is the first form that is more regular than the second. ^This form as well as the two above had palatalized labials in the staromoskovskaja norma, (ibid.)

55 morpheme boundary. This difference can better be illustrated in the forms o[tv'Jetil 'answer/Past' ~ ce[t'v']ert' 'quarter'. In the first example the [t] is not palatalized due to the morpheme boundary, while in the second example the [t] is palatalized. However, Halle (1971; 68) presents two examples in which palatalization occurs over a morpheme boundary: [s't'Jor 'wipe off/Past' and ra[z'd']el 'division' which can be opposed to the forms without palatalization

[sp'lel 'sing/Past' and i[zb']it' 'beat up'.

These examples demonstrate that the major place features play the most important role in determining whether assimilation will occur. In (1), in the first three examples the consonants share the same place features, while in the following examples a dental coronal precedes a labial consonant. Moreover, the forms spektakl', spicka and mysli are shown as having only the palatalized variants in Riisskaja grammatika (1979), although in Riisskaja grammatika.{1982) they are noted as optionally palatalized. This may be due to the fact that the coronal fricatives /s / and /z / are more likely to be palatalized than non-fricatives, although this is only a general tendency. The former source gives only my[s'l']i, but gives both possibilities for [sl'jiva ~ [sT], In any case, their special behavior is noted in other processes, as in, for example, onsets and codas in rules of syllabification.

In (2), both of the consonants involved are coronal, however Ci includes only the phonemes [s, z, n]. The first two are easy to group into a natural class as they are both [+cont], while the [n] could be grouped with them by adding an optional [+nasal] as a specification of this natural class. In all of the cases we are dealing with group of labials and coronals, but we need to take the hierarchical nature of these groupings into account. In (3), no palatalization occurs, as most of

56 the examples have labials and/or dorsals. The lack of palatalization in the other

forms has been addressed above.

Scatton (personal communication) notes that there exists such a hierarchy

of assimilation for softness according to the following order (in decreasing order

of likeliness):

(3.7) Frequency of assimilation for softness (in decreasing order)

1. geminates (for place and manner features) 2. paired C before /j/® 3. same points of articulation 4. different points of articulation

He further divides numbers 3. and 4. into the most and least likely combinations of consonants. Of these combinations, the "dentals" are the most likely to undergo assimilatory softening when they precede a palatalized labial, dental or alveopalatal. Alveopalatals are also likely to undergo softening when preceding a palatalized alveopalatal, and "velars" are likely to be palatalized before a palatalized velar. Finally, according to Scatton, labials are optionally palatalized when preceding another labial. Hence, we can see that, although C-C palatalization is not always predictable, there are some environments in which assimilatory palatalization is more likely to occur than others. It should come as no surprise that this palatalization is more common with the dentals and the alveopalatals, namely the coronals. With the labials assimilation is optional for the most part. I have

®In the present work / j / is not treated as either a phoneme or a consonant. Rather it is derived from an underlying [i] and differs from it in its representation on the syilablic tier of representation. Thus, combinations of this type wUI not be discussed in this section. However, Russkaja grammatika, I (1982:48) notes that in combinations of C + j the palatalization of the C is optional, thus ra[zj']ezd ~ ra[z'j']ezd 'departure'. In fact, according to the rule of Sur Pal the first consonant should be palatalized obligatorily. The way to deal with this apparent exception to Sur Pal could be to make the rule optional in such cases.

57 already discussed the "special behavior" of the dorsal consonants and the fact

that they do not generally participate in this assimilation is not at all surprising. Panov states the following on the nature of C'-C' assimilations: "[W]hen

preceding a soft segment another segment experiences (to some extent or

another) a pull towards sharpness (softness). One can find that both segments are low, or both of them are high, or both are compact, or both diffuse. Similarity of

these features is essential."^ (1990:41) This observation seems to fit in well with

Scatton's hierarchy which suggests that geminates and identical points of

articulation are the most likely ones for Sur Pal and that in certain instances the assimilation will not occur. Consequently, we can state that in GSR there is a

phonotactic constraint on Palatalized Labials + Palatalized Velars (and vice versa). This can be represented below:

(3.8) Palatalized labial + palatalized velar prohibition

Lab Vocalic Vocalic

VP VP

Cor Cor

mirror image

^Translation mine, MSB.

58 Now we must discuss a possible reformulation of the rule of Sur Pal. We

have already seen above that, in the Clements & Hume model there is no distinction in the underlying representation between a front vowel and a

palatalized consonant (i.e., any consonant with a secondary coronal under the V- place). However, we have also seen that in many instances C-C assimilation is either blocked (as above) or optional. In the former case, they are excluded from the rule of Sur Pal due to the phonotactic constraint given above. If we leave the rule as given above, we are able to capture the generalization that it usually occurs when Ci and C% share features. Otherwise we would have to write two other rules in addition to the original rule of Sur Pal, which would complicate the phonological description greatly. We should remember, however, that the restated rule of Sur Pal is applied according to the hierarchy and constraint given above and should serve rather as a general tendency than as canonical rule.

(3.9) Surface Palatalization (restated)

Vocalic

The statement of the rule has been left general (i.e., underspecified) in order to account for cases in which it is optional. The most important thing is that a

59 vocalic place dominating coronal spreads to a preceding consonantal segment

(the V-place has not been indicated). Therefore, rather than a rule per se this could be considered as an illustration of the general tendencies of surface palatalization inCSR.

To summarize, in this section we have examined the most prominent cases of surface palatalization. We can conclude the following for CSR: Consonant- vowel palatalization is more common and regular than consonant-consonant palatalization. However, within the latter there is a hierarchy which predicts that assimilation is more likely when the two segments share place features and/or if they are coronals or labials. From both a phonological and phonetic point of view this makes sense, as the coronal and labial classes of sounds are more apt to retain secondary palatalization, rather than succumbing to complete coronalization.

As we shall see below, in the sections on IVP and Jotation, there is another factor at issue here. CSR makes an important distinction between different types of palatalization (i.e., as mentioned above, true palatalization and coronalization). In fact, there are two "historicized" processes active at specific morphological levels which transform dorsal consonants into alveopalatals and, on the other hand, coronal obstruents into alveopalatals and labials into biphonemic sequences. In other words, there are cases in which a palatalization process causes a consonant to change its primary place features. As we have seen. Sur Pal is still active in the nominal and verbal morphology and is automatic (unless the C is marked underlyingly for hardness) before specific suffixes. In addition, hardness and softness of most consonants is an important meaning-distinguishing factor in CSR, and it is a distinction which is becoming more systematic with the growing number of loan-words (especially in the case

60 C+e sequences). Finally, at a purely phonetic level (in the case of C-C

assimilations for softness which are not phonemic) assimilation is governed by a fairly regular hierarchy. All of these observations point to the "surface" behavior

of Sur Pal. Below, we shall see that other important rules of "palatalization" occur at a much deeper level in CSR.

3.2. Velar Coronalization

The second rule to be discussed is First Velar Palatalization [IVP] which is, in fact, not a rule of palatalization but one of "coronalization". As usual in Slavic and general linguistics, we will also use the traditional name, in spite of

the misnomer. In this "historicized" process a dorsal consonant (/k / /g / / x/) is changed into a [-anterior] coronal (/c/ / z/ /s /) in an environment preceding a coronal vowel. Unlike Sur Pal it does not occur in declension and is limited to verbal, nominal and adjectival suffixes, and only in the last is it productive. To repeat from above, it occurs at a deeper level of derivation, hence, the specification "historicized." We have already seen that IVP is also induced by an underlying front jer [E], which, in fact, could be used as further evidence for the

non-surface nature of the rule. Below I give some examples of the suffixes with which IVP occurs.’io

^*hrhe data in this section have been taken from a number of different sources, including; Russkaja Grammatika, I: (1982: 473), Lightner (1972), Townsend (1980).

61 (3.10) Suffixes which invoke IVP

/-it'/ drug druz-it' friend/be friends iNF grex gres-it' sin/lNF miik-a muc-it' torment/iNF /-e (e )/ dik-ij dic-e wilder/COMP lovok lovc-e adroit/COMP /-ij/ cerepaxa cerepas-ij turtle/turtle's ADJ volk Dolcdj wolf/lupine ADJ /-in a / gorox goroé-ina peas/a pea zemciig zemcuz-ina pearls/a pearl f-il skak-a-t' skac-i to jump/lMPER isk-a-t' isc-i to search/iMPER /-E -sk-/ riga riz-sk-ij Riga/Rigan drug dniz-e-skip^^ friend/friendly ADJ /-E -n-/ knig-a kniz-n-yj book/ADJ iispex uspeè-n-yj success/successful ADJ rek-a rec-n-oj river/ADJ

It should be noted that most of these suffixes are unproductive in CSR, and some of the suffixes which remain productive (such as, e.g., / -E-sk-/) may

no longer invoke palatalization, e.g. n'ju-jork-sk-ij 'New York/ADJ' and kazax-sk-ij

'Kazakh/ADJ' (examples from Townsend 1980: 219). The verbal suffix /-it'/ is the same one which invokes Sur Pal, as we have seen above. However, there are no examples of a palatalized dorsal with this ending, which might demonstrate that dorsals first undergo Sur Pal and then, optionally, IVP. As the instances of IVP are more limited, the endings which invoke it could be marked underlyingly.

The IMPER ending / -i(-te)/ invokes IVP only with -A-stem verbs. Verbs of the type pec' and berec are anomalous as they are coronalized within the present paradigm before non-lPSG and 3PPL endings pekii/pecëS' and beregii/berezëS', but

11 We will not discuss the problematic issue of the vocalization or non-vocalization of the Jers in these examples. Consult Farina for a full discussion .

62 not before the Im p e r ending pek'i and bereg'i. These forms are affected by Sur Pal,

but not by IVP (or Jotation). For more discussion see the section on rule ordering

at the end of the chapter.

The suffix /-En-yj/ is probably the most productive, and Townsend calls

it "the most important adjectival suffix" in CSR (1980: 215). There are hundreds

of examples which include many obvious loan-words, e.g., kloac-n-yj (from kloaka

'cesspit/sink'),/rflc-n-y; (from frak 'tail-coat'), spaz-n-i/j (from spaga 'sword'). However, although of foreign origin, these lexical items are not at all recent, and I was unable to find any recent borrowings with IVP. This may suggest that the suffix is loosing its "palatalizing" power in the modem language.

The examples demonstrate that IVP occurs in the environment before a front coronal vowel which is both surface and underlying (as in the case of the front jer /E /). As already mentioned, certain endings may cause a preceding velar to become secondarily palatalized (by Sur Pal), yet be invisible to the

effects of IVP. A way of dealing with this apparent anomaly would be to posit a stage by which the velars first are palatalized and later, optionally (depending on the ending and, possibly, the stem), coronalized. In this way, the input of the rule

of IVP would be a 'soft' velar. In other words, the outcome of Sur Pal would sometimes feed into IVP. Unfortunately, there are problems with this line of

reasoning. We have seen above that the underlying front jer /E / does not normally invoke Sur Pal, although it does cause IVP. Consequently, the rule of

IVP would sometimes apply to 'soft' velars and other times to 'hard' velars. We could resolve the problem through underspecification, such that the rule of IVP does not make reference to the hardness or softness of the velar in its structural description and, therefore, applies with all velars (even if they have been affected by Sur Pal). Similarly, as we shall see in the discussion below of Jotation, the

63 sonorants yield palatalized consonants which are the same as those obtained by

Sur Pal. It may be that these palatalized sonorants are obtained by Sur Pal and

therefore are exempt from the later rule of Jotation. We will discuss the ordering

of the rule in greater detail below. With this in mind, we are now ready to formulate the rule of IVP which is given below:

(3.11) First Velar Palatalization (IVP)

X X

CP CP

dor Vocalic

VP

cor

1-ant]

We have already seen above that coronal redundantly dominates [-anterior], which is the case with all vowels in CSR and in language in general (with some exceptions, as we shall see later in the discussion of CSCz). In this process, the feature automatically becomes overt and, consequently, a velar (dorsal) is transformed into a [-anterior] coronal.

Note also that the rule changes the [-cont] / k / into the affricate ([±cont])

[c], while [-cont] / g / results in the [+cont] / z / rather than the expected /<%/.

There are, in fact, two problems which need to be addressed here. First, how does the specification for [acont] change? Second, why does the stop / g / result in the

64 fricative [z] rather than [(%]? In the first, the values for [acont] are determined by

redundancy rules which automatically fill in these values - there are no other possible outcomes for [-anterior] coronal. In non-linear phonology such changes are expressed naturally such that the sequence of velar + vowel is reinterpreted as alveopalatal + vowel. In the case of [c] the [-cont] is retained from the original segment (as with the other segments), but a [+cont] specification is spread from the following vowel automatically. The second point has already been discussed in most generative analyses of CSR and other Slavic languages.^^ The issue is that in terms of naturalness and also parallel to the change of / k / —> [c], we would expect the affricate [<%] from / g /. I too propose that first / /c ^ // is derived and then is subject to an adjustment rule of assibilation which follows:

^^Lightner (1972; 16) proposes an assibilation rule which also addresses the change of / / 3 / / to [z] (which we will not be discussing in this analysis). However, he does not specify the features involved in this change. He also notes that similar rules are common mother non-Slavic languages such as Spanish and French (for further information see £n. 4, 29).

65 (3.12) Affricate Assibilation

root

[+voiT| Oral Cav

[+cont] [-cont] CP

Cor

[-ant]

It should be noted that this rule is active only in derived environments (thus, it is lexical, as we shall see below) and does not affect underlying /(%/ in forms such as dzem 'jam', dzinn 'genie' and dzungli 'jungle'.

I now briefly address the issue of rule ordering. At the beginning of this chapter, it was mentioned that IVP occurs at a deeper level of the phonology. However, we have seen that in many instances, the more surface-like Sur Pal precedes IVP, so that the former sometimes feeds into the latter. There are a number of different ways to deal with this problem. First, we have already stated that the rule of IVP occurs within a closed morphophonological class. If we were to mark the endings which cause IVP and order the rule before Sur Pal, only certain forms would undergo the former, while the remaining ones would be automatically subject to the latter. However, w e have also seen above that certain endings (as with, e.g., the iMPER) regularly invoke either Sur Pal or IVP may result. If IVP were ordered before Sur Pal we would not expect different results: we would expect aU velar +■ coronal sequences to be coronalized in regular

66 manner. In addition, we should expect Sur Pal, which is the more basic and more purely phonological of the two rules, to be ordered after IVP.

A more plausible way of dealing with such ordering paradoxes comes

from the theories of Cyclic and Lexical Phonology, which 1 briefly describe here. In this presentation, we are not interested in arguing for the claims of one theory

over another, rather we look at the notion of the different "status" of

phonological rules, which will allow for a better internal organization of the rule

structure. On the one hand, 'cyclic' rules are "phonological rules which as a class reapply after every step in a word-forming derivation starting from the root cycle

(the first cycle)." (Rubach 1993a: 6) In the theory, morpheme boundaries are marked by brackets (according to the so-called 'Bracketing Convention') which are assigned from the innermost to the outermost constituents (5), and, the

phonological rules apply cyclically to these morphemes. (Bethin 1992b: 279) On the other hand. Lexical Phonology proposes that different types of rules occur in different domains or levels of the grammar (e.g., lexical/cyclic vs. post-lexical). Moreover, "[s]uch a view predicts that the order of morphological operations

need not in all cases correspond to the order of phonological operations that are called cycles." (ibid.) Rules that operate lexically are "intrinsically cyclic" (Farina 1991:28), while those which operate post-lexically occur at the level of syntax

without exceptions. Finally, and more importantly, the organization of the rules

"place the less productive, less general, and more idiosyncratic processes in earlier levels, and the more general, productive, and less idiosyncratic processes in later levels of the phonology." (Farina 1991:143) This organization presupposes a stronger relationship between the phonology and morphology of language and offers a better internal organization of rules and a distinction among different types of rules.

67 How, then, should we apply this theory to the facts of CSR? We might argue that while Sur Pal is cyclic, IVP is non-cyclic and thus applies only once in the derivation. In the theoretical framework it is assumed that "non-cyclic affixes will not be processed in the cyclic phonological com ponent.(Rubach 1993a: 6)

However, the less productive rules (i.e., the more lexicalized ones, such as IVP and, as we shall see below, Jotation) occur at an earlier level than the ones which are more productive (such as Sur Pal). I would argue that Sur Pal is, in fact, post- lexical: it occurs late in the derivation and does not normally make reference to the lexical component. The issue will be addressed further in the section below on rule ordering.

Finally, we must address the issue of a similar alternation, namely that the [+anterior] / c / alternates with the [-anterior] [c], as in, e.g., the adjectival form otec-n-yj (from otec 'father') or the nominal kup-ec-estv-o (from kiipec 'merchant'). The environment is similar to that of IVP, which is not very surprising if we look at the historical origins of the rule. However, synchronically the importance of this secondary c ~ £has been minimized. Lightner posits an underlying / / k / / which is changed into / c / and/or /c /. Lightner's proposal has been rejected as too abstract. Unfortunately, it is impossible to group this alternation naturally with IVP. But as the rule is so limited, we could easily formulate another low- frequency rule in which the [-anterior] from a following vowel spreads to the [+anterior] of the / c / causing it to delink.

^^There may be evidence from secondary DIM derivation that points against this idea, as in, e.g., drug 'friend' - dniz-ok - dniz-oc-ek, and, furthermore, the rule occurs lexically, so it cannot even be considered non-cyclic.

68 3.3. Jotation

The final major rule of "palatalization" to be discussed is Jotation, to refer

to it by its traditional name. Like IVP the rule is "historicized", i.e., limited to

certain morphological categories, most of which are no longer productive. It is

most common in the verbal system but also occurs in some nominal derivations.

Here, we focus on the more important and illustrative verbal categories. Unlike IVP the rule affects consonants in all major classes in four overtly distinct processes:

1. with the labials there is epenthesis, transforming them into a complex series P+T / / m b p V f / / [ml' bT pi' vl' fl']

2. the dental obstruents are backed to "palatals" //d t z s st^5// —> [z c z s sc]

3. the dental sonorants are palatalized, i.e., they gain a secondary vocalic coronal place //I n r// [1' n' r']

4. the velars are fronted to "palatals", as in IVP / / g k X s k / / [z c s sc]

Below I give examples from the three main verbal classes (-1-, -E- and -A-)

respectively which illustrate the alternations of this type:

^■^Townsend states that there are thousands of the I-stem verbs and it is still highly productive, although it is difficult to find recent borrowings with mutation. The other two classes are unproductive. (1980:100) ^^This alternation as well as / / sk/ / below will not be discussed here as they are just a combination of two of the segments, and the results are predictable.

69 (3.13) Jotation in the CSR verbal system

TMFINmVH 1PSÇ 2PSÇ 3PPL -I-verbs Vub-it’ I'ubl'-ii I'lib-is' l'iib'-at love krep-it' krepl'-u krep-ië' krep'-at strengthen stav-it' stavl'-u stav-ië' stav'-at put graf-it' grafl'-ii graf-ië' graf -at make lines korm-it' kormV-u korm-ië' korm'-at feed glad-it' glaz-u glad-ië' glad'-at iron plat-it' plac-u plat-ië' plat'-at pay voz-it' voz-u voz-ië' üoz'-at transport nos-it' no§-u nos-ië' nos'-at carry cist-it' cisc-u cist-ië' cist'-at clean pil-it' pil'-ii pil-ië' pil'-at saw govor-it’ govor'-ii govor-ië' gaver'-at speak vin-it' vin'-ii vin-ië' vin '-at accuse -E-verbs terp-et' terpV-u terp-ië' terp'-at endure §iim-et' suml'-u ëiim-ië' ëum'-at make noise vid-et' viz-u vid-ië' vid'-at see vert-et' verc-ii vert-ië' vert'-at turn za-vis-et' za-vis-u za-vis-ië' za-vis'-at depend blest-et' bleëc-ii blest-ië' blest'-at shine vel-et' vel'-ii vel-ië' vel'-at order zven-et' zven'-u zven-ië' zven'-at ring gor-et' gor'-u gor-ië' gor'-at bum -A-verb kap-at''^^ kapl'-u kapl-eë' kapl'-ut drip koleb-at' kolebl'-u kolebl-eë' kolebl'-ut shake drem-at' dreml'-u dreml-eë' dreml'-ut doze glod-at' gloz-u gloz-eë' gloz-ut gnaw groxot-at’ groxoc-ii groxoc-eë' groxoc-iit crash v’az-at' v'az-u v’az-eë' v'az-ut knit pis-at' pië-u pië-eë' pië-iit write isk-at' iéc-u iëc-iit seek alk-at' alc-u al£-eë' - alc-ut hunger brex-at' breS-ii breë-eë breë-ut bark

^^There is an alternative stem with -AJ- without the effects of Jotation: kapaju, etc. (Townsend 1980:101). There are other forms with doublets, e.g., maxat' 'wave'(the rarer ma§u ~ maxajii), bryzgat' 'splash', dvigat' 'move', which point to the unproductivity of the rule in -A-stem verbs.

70 In the first two stem classes (second conjugation) Jotation occurs only before the

IPSg desinence /- u /, while in the third stem class (first conjugation) it occurs

before all desinences /-u, -os', -ot, -om, -ote^^, -ut/. In addition, the non-

1PSG/3PPL endings of -1-/-E-verbs which begin with /- i- / do not invoke

palatalization. Thus, paradoxically, the alternation appears to occur before

rounded back vowels (or, in the present framework dorsal vowels), which is an

unexpected environment for palatalization and coronalization - unless, however,

we are dealing with dissimilation, although this seems unlikely given the facts of

CSR. What exactly is happening here? In order to motivate the palatalization in these instances, we must posit an underlying coronal segment.

There have been many attempts to address this issue in linear generative

terms, although the most relevant to the present analysis is Lightner (1967,1972) (Cf. Halle 1963 for Russian and Rubach 1984,1993a, Spencer 1988, for a similar

discussion of the facts in other Slavic languages). i briefly highlight the linear

approach before discussing the non-linear one. In his article "On the Phonology

of Russian Conjugation," Lightner reviews Halle's proposals and offers some more solutions to the problem. He gives the following ordered rules (which are

formulated phonologically when necessary throughout the discussion): (1967: 47)

^^The [o] ending occurs only under stress and is sometimes written as {ë). I have written the / e / as the surface manifestation of the endings beginning with this segment, although underlyingly the endings begin with / /-o -/ / l®Jakobson (1948) in his revolutionary reanalysis of the Russian verb system was the first linguist to notice the regularity of the system as well as to propose a number of rules. The most famous of these is the rule of Vowel Deletion which deletes a vowel before another vocalic morpheme in the derivation of verbs: V -> 0 / V. Jakobson's work served as the basis for the later generative analyses.

71 (3.14) Lightner's ordered rules for Jotation

1. unrounded vowel j before a rounded vowel 2. i —> j before any vowel except 3. vowels are truncated before vowels 4. consonants are softened (palatalized, sharped) and velars replaced by palatals a. before the morpheme o followed by a consonant; and b. before a morpheme beginning with a front vowel 5. Transitive softening occurs before /, after which j drops.

As we can see, rule 3. is a restatement of Jakobson's vowel deletion rule, which

we formulate below as it will serve us further in the discussion:

(3.15) Vowel Deletion V 0 / V

It should be remembered that the above rule is limited to the system of verbal desinences. Rule 4. fits into the present analysis if we remember that [o] here can be derived from an underlying / /e / / (from the e —> o rule to be discussed below). Based on these rules in (3.14), Lightner gives a sample derivations of

[lovl'u] and [lov'it'J which are summarized below (based on 48):

(3.16) Sample derivations with and without Jotation from Lightner

lov+i+i+u lov+i+i+t' RULE CYCLE 1 lov+i+i lov+i+i lov+i lov+i 3 lov'+i lov'+i 4 lov'+i+u lov'+i+t' CYCLE 2 lov'+j+u 1 vacuous 4 lovl'+u

have omitted reference to the u —» v change also mentioned here by Lighmer as this alternation is of no importance to the present einalysis (it makes reference to verbs of the type; torgovat' ~ torgiiju.)

72 Lightner couches his rules within an earlier framework of cyclic phonology by which "[t]he rules of phonology apply first to the segments within the smallest

(innermost) constituent...and so on." (1969: 50). Thus, his rule of Sur Pal (4) is not only ordered before Jotation (5, 'transitive softening') but it also occurs in an earlier cycle. More importantly, a palatalized consonant feeds into cycle 2 in which transitive softening occurs. We too have proposed a similar ordering for

CSR by which consonants are first palatalized and then, optionally, fed into the other rules. We should further note that Lightner assumes an underlying constituent representation of RCXDT + VERB SUFFIX + PRES THEME + ENDING. Thus, there is an underlying / /-i-// verb suffix as well as present theme, which is crucial to the present analysis.

We still have to address the problem of the -A-stem verbs. Lightner posits a linear rule: (1972: 99)

(3.17a) Lighter's (V: —> j) rule V: - > | / _____ V [-high] This rule predicts that a form like ((pi:s+a:+e)+t) will be transformed into (pi:s+j+e+t) and then undergo the other rules above to eventually produce the surface form [piset]. I suggest, however, that the rule need not mention a phonological environment due to its irregularity in any analysis. It would be sufficient to adopt Bethin's A-Adjustment rule (1992b: 285):

(3.17b) A-adjustment à —> 1 /_____ ejverb

Finally, Lightner formulates rules of palatalization and transitive softening to generate the correct outputs of the mutations, although he requires a number

73 of different rules to reach the correct output.^o Thus, although Lightner's

ordered rules allow him to correctly predict the derivation of verbal forms, his

analysis "does not give any real insight into the process involved nor any

explanation as to why the sequence C + j might undergo iotation..." (Bethin

1992b: 276)

The present analysis draws considerably from Bethin (1992b). Although

she discusses the process of Jotation as well as Gemmation in Ukrainian, she makes important theoretical claims that can be applied to the closely related CSR.

In the linear approach there is nothing that links or even motivates the seemingly unrelated processes occurring in Jotation. We have already seen the non-linear phonology allows for a much more straightforward formalization of rules and

offers more explanatory power. In addition, the notions of the skeleton and

timing slots motivate the change of a simple segment into a more complex one, as we shall see in the explanation below.

We should recall the rule of Vowel Deletion from above, which is an important mechanism in CSR verb derivation. As pointed out by Bethin (and in

Lightner's rules above), this rule must be ordered after the rule of Gliding which

converts / i / into [j] before a non-identical vowel (i.e., a more sonorous one). This

rule is represented as a "dissociation of / i f from the V-slot in the environment of another segment associated to a V-slot." (Bethin 1992b: 283) We should remember that in the present discussion we are not assuming a distinction between V- and C-slots on the syllabic tier, as this distinction is made

^^Lightner admits that he "do[es] not know how [the] dented pedatedizations should best be handled." (1972:152) In SP£ theory it is difficult to derive a more complex palatal from an underlying obstruent with the application of a single rule. Lightner suggests that it might be better to first derive non-strident palatals which then undergo IVP. For the Labial + 1' sequences he correctly proposes a rule which shift s //]// to [1], although he lacks the theoretical tools to justify this. (220)

74 automatically in the V-place and C-place articulator specifications. I give a

reformulation of Bethin's rule which is based on the theoretical assumptions of the present work (283):^^

(3.18) Gliding

root root I i

Vocalic Vocalic

VP Aperture^ VP

Cor l-opnlj

One problem with this rule is that the second X should exclude / i / from its

structural description at least in the Present tense of 2nd Conj. However, as we shall see below in the section on rule ordering, gliding occurs also in some Imperatives. Therefore, in some instances we will have to specify this rule as not applying before another /i/, although we will leave the exact mechanisms for future discussion. Once this rule occurs the segment remains as "floating" and can be reattached to the preceding consonantal segment, thereby causing its

"mutation". According to Bethin, this is "structural change which creates a complex segment by coalescence". (286) It should be noted, however, that Bethin mistakenly uses the term "complex" segment throughout her discussion. In the

Clements and Hume model, a complex segment "is a root node characterized by

^^For the sake of brevity we will not be discussing the rule's sensitivity to syllabic structure, although it could also be interpreted in that way.

75 at least two different oral articulator features" while a "contour" segment is one

"containing sequences... of different features." (1995: 253-4) Thus, the segments created by Jotation are "contour segments".

The general rule of Jotation may now be formulated (also based on Bethin 283):

(3.19) Jotation

X X

root root root 1 1 1 1 Oral CP CP cav j 1

' [acont] Vocalic Vocalic CP _ 1 1 1 VP Aperture^ VP 1 Cor [-opnl]

The rule expresses that the "floating" / i / links to a preceding consonant. The entire root node (as well as everything below it) spreads to the consonant and, consequently, depending on the nature of the consonant, is incorporated into it in various ways. This rule is a great improvement over the traditional linear formulations in that it not only expresses the process in a straightforward manner but also combines all of the seemingly distinct processes of Jotation into one rule. This is a general mutation process which then feeds into various readjustment rules depending on the class of sounds.

Since the resulting segment of jotation is a "contour" segment, it is not surprising that the entire root node is incorporated into the preceding consonant.

It is only in the case of the dental sonorants / / I r n / / that the place does not

76 change, and this is only because of surface constraints on alveopalatal sonorants

in CSR. Bethin is correct in assuming that in an intermediary stage we have a

"contour" ("complex" in her explanation) segment which dominates two root nodes, and it is this intermediary segment which is reinterpreted in various ways. Below I give the representation of this intermediary contour segment (based on Bethin 284):

(3.20) Contour segment

root root I , I [acontl [+contl

It should be remembered that vowels are redundantly [+cont]. This feature becomes overt in the process.

In the case of dental obstruents the resulting segment, as already mentioned, is a alveopalatal [-anterior] coronal. The rule is given below:

77 (3.21) Dental Jotation Readjustment

root

[acont] Vocalic

[-ant]

We can assume that the other features are supplied by redundancy rules (as there are no other possible values permitted by system constraints). The feature

specifications for [±cont] are determined by the combination of the value of the original consonant and the following [+cont] of the vowel. We should recall that / /d / / (as with / / g / / in IVP) first becomes the affricate /(%/ which is then changed into a fricative by Affricate Assibilation.

The next rule to be formulated is that of Velar Jotation which is similar to

IVP but with a different structural description (the latter makes reference to two independent segments). Thus, although the mechanisms are the same, this rule remains part of the other Jotation readjustment rules. As in IVP a velar is changed into a alveopalatal [-anterior] coronal:

78 (3.22) Dorsal Jotation Readjustment

X

root root I Oral CP cav

[acontl Vocalic

VP Dor

Cor

[-ant]

The next rule palatalizes the dental sonorants //I r n // and is similar to Sur Pal:

(3.23) Sonorant Jotation Readjustment X

root root [+sonj

Oral CP cav Vocalic CP

VP Cor

Cor

[-ant]

79 The final rule to be discussed is the transformation of the labials into a biphonemic cluster (i.e., one with two independent X-slots):

(3.24) Labial Jotation Readjustment

root root

Oral CP cav

i fnrn[acontl Vocalic CP

VP Lab

Cor 1^ [-ant] [+lat]

This rule predicts that a biphonemic labial-t-1' (i.e., a contour segment) will surface. However, CSR does not permit such contour labial segments, so the second segment automatically gains its own timing slot (by redundancy rule).

There is still another problem with the formulation of this rule. Namely, where does the [+lateral] specification come from? Bethin explains that "[s]ince the coronal feature [-anterior] has no realization when combined with a labial node, the coronal node may be realized as [lateral]." (284) Further support for this claim comes from Lightner who points to the phonological similarity of /]/ and /I / and to the close pronunciation of [j] and soft [1] in CSR to explain this shift.

(1972:220) Finally, vowels (and [j]) are automatically [-f-sonorant], although they normally not need be specified as such. The lateral is, in fact, the unmarked coronal sonorant consonant, and, thus, the second root node becomes [+lateral]

80 by default.22 In summary, we appear to have ample evidence to justify a change of [-anterior] to [+Iateral] in Labial Jotation.

At this point we should ask ourselves how this analysis improves upon the former linear one. In the end, we have formulated more rules, and we still have to separate the four different processes. While this is true, the non-linear approach allows us to show both the similarity and dissimilarity of the various processes included under the cover term "Jotation". Underlyingly, there is a single (unified) process which links the floating /) / to a preceding consonant, thereby creating a contour segment. In order to surface the different groups of consonants must undergo various readjustments, which are determined by CSR language-specific phonemic and phonotactic constraints. Thus, we should not be surprised to find a similar general rule in the other Slavic languages and in other languages in general, while the secondary readjustments probably differ (as we shall see in the rule of Jotation for CSCz in Chapter 5).

3.4. Vocalic Rules

There are a number of other important phonological and morphophonological rules in CSR, although we will be limiting our discussion to those rules which are directly related to the rules discussed above. We will briefly discuss two important types of rule which concern the vocalic system: e o and Vowel Reduction.

^M y thanks to E. Scatton for suggesting this to me.

81 3.4.1 e -> o

It is generally held that in certain cases an underlying /e / alternates with / o /, the latter occurring before a hard consonant and under stress.^ However, there are many exceptions to the rule: recent loan-words and lexical Church

Slavonicisms^^, as well as forms involving certain morphological suffixes, which point to the non-phonological nature of this rule. While the rule is undoubtedly

"historicized", its important role in G SR morphophonology cannot be denied. Here, what interests is not so much the regularity of the alternation, but rather its relationship to the rules of palatalization and coronalization and its formalization in the present framework. For a more detailed (SPE-based) analysis one should consult Lightner (1969). Below, 1 offer some examples (from Lightner) which show an alternation in various cross-categorial pairs (e.g., iNF ~ PAST, etc.):

(3.25) e ~ o alternation in GSR surface [e] surface [o] pec" bake iNF p'ok bake MSG PAST smert' death FNSC m'ortv-yj dead MNSC LAdj tepl-it'sja glimmer iNF t'opl-yj warm MNG LADJ tverd' support FNSg tv'ord-yj hard MNSg LAdj

These few examples demonstrate the different environments which condition the change of e o. In the first column we notice that the /e / precedes a soft consonant (if we accept that the [r] in tverd' and smert' is palatalized by Sur Pal), while in the second, the following consonant is hard. It is precisely in this environment (and under stress, which we do not consider in depth in the present analysis) that the shift occurs. We have already seen that the 1st Conjugation

^See Farina for an alternative approach (1991: 186-7), although she admits that her analysis is an "uneasy" one. ^'^Some examples of Church Slavonicisms include: beg 'run', delo 'deed', xleb 'bread', met 'chalk'.

82 present tense endings surface as [-0 -] + ending marker, but that they also

condition palatalization and/or coronalization, as in, e.g., pek-u ~ pec'ës'. It

follows that the underlying /e / must first condition

palatalization/coronalization and then back to [o]. Further evidence for this

claim will come in the following section on vowel reduction. In fact, we shall see

that a surface [o] alternates with [i], as in, e.g., [s'ostry] ~ [s'istra] (UR //sestr- y / / and //se str a / /), which, in order to fit in with the other cases of vowel fronting, must derive from an underlying / e / . As the rule makes reference to the following 'hard' consonant, it should probably be ordered after non­ palatalized consonants are specified as 'hard'. However, we stated above that this redundancy rule (feature filling) should apply very late, and it may not even occur in the phonology at all as I have argued earlier. What, then, is the motivation for this alternation? I propose that this is really a rule of dissimilation. Thus, the / e / first palatalizes the preceding consonant by spreading a coronal V-place in Sur Pal, and then, in certain defined cases, namely when preceding a hard consonant and under stress, the / / e / / backs to [o]. Such a rule would be formulated as follows:

(3.26) CV Dissimilation (e o)

X X X

CP CP CP 1 1 1 1 Vocalic Vocalic 1 1 VP VP Aperture^ 1 Cor Dor Cor [+opnl]

83 What do we propose a rule of dissimilation rather than one of assimilation? First, this appears to be the only major rule which makes reference to the "hardness" of a consonant.^ Second, most of the rules that we have seen thus far operate in a right to left direction. Third, the rule has many exceptions, thus pointing to its more marginal status. We would, in fact, expect a rule of dissimilation in CSR to be more limited, as such rules are less common in language in general, and rules of assimilation are more the norm, especially in CSR and Slavic.

Finally, we must address the problem of rule ordering with the non-paired consonantal series. We have already seen that the series /c § z / (along with /cV ) must, at some point in the derivation be specified as soft, although the latter three segments always surface as hard. We have discussed these rules in Chapter 2, so we will only review them briefly. /cV is underlyingly soft, while /c / , /s / and /z / gain their softness (in a non-derived envirorunent) by default.

Hence, we would expect the rule to not occur before these segments. However, this is not the case, as the following examples demonstrate: ot'ec 'father' lec 'lie down' but I'oza 'lying/Gerund' ziv'oS' 'live/2PSG'. The second form is not problematic as /c / surfaces as soft, but the other ones give us cause to reconsider our position of hardening. These examples point to the fact that /z '/ and /s'/ harden before /c '/ and, consequently, are the result of two distinct processes. Since / c '/ is under lyingly soft and it is [+anterior], we would expect it to behave differently from the [-anterior] alveopalatals. In terms of naturalness it makes

^There is, in fact, a low level (phonetic) rule which makes reference to both a preceding and following hard consonant which backs / e / to [e], but this could easily be ordered after the hard consonants are specified with a secondary [dorsal] place.

84 sense that the segments should harden at different times (and by different rules) in the derivation.

3.4.2 Vowel Reduction

The final rules to be discussed concern the processes of centering, raising

and fronting of CSR vowels {akan'e and ikan'e in Russian) which occurs in

unstressed positionsThese distinct processes are commonly grouped under

the cover term of "Vowel Reduction". The process is extremely complex and is

worthy of an independent study. We only briefly consider the phenomena and

problems of their analysis insofar as they are related to the present work. Thus, we do not address the role that stress plays in these processes or the mechanisms involved; rather we are more interested in describing the effect of the consonants

on the adjacent vowels. Namely, what features play a role and should the rules

be viewed as spreading or delinking? Finally, we should remember that this rule is not phonemic and, consequently, occurs at a late level in the phonology. Let us now examine some relevant data. The first examples concern the centering and lowering of unstressed /o / to [a] and [a]27 which occurs in the environment of hard consonants, as in [goratj ~ [garada] 'city/NSG~PL' and

[xaraso] ~ [xaros] 'good'. If we look at the pre-tonic vowel we see that it alternates with stressed [6]. As vowels are maximally distinct under stress, the underlying vowel is the one under stress. Thus, we have a change /o / —> [a]. In the present framework, we recall that the central vowels are unspecified for

fact, this is a phonological description of what happens. Phonetically there are three different processes involved: "their volume is reduced, their length is reduced, and the number of distinctions between vowels in the unstressed position is also reduced." (Hamilton 1980: 36) will only be considering the pre-tonic shift to [a]. For a more detailed description of the factors and problems involved see P. Goodman Finedore and E. A. Scatton (1978).

85 place. This gives us a straightforward way of dealing with the problem. When not under stress the vocalic dorsal place delinks when in the environment of a non-palatalized (hard) consonant and word-initially. Further, the rule gives strong evidence for the validity of the assumptions made by Clements and Hume for the place features used to classify vowels. Since the rule is simply one of delinking and does not involve the features of the following and/or preceding consonant, I would argue that it can occur before these consonants are specified for secondary hardness. The rule is given below:

(3.27) Atonic V ow el Centering {Akan'e) C Î ) ^ CP CP CP

Vocalic

VP Aperture

Dor [+opnl] [-opo2]

condition: vow el is [-stress] and pre-tonic

We should note that the preceding consonant is optional. As with the above­ stated rules the preceding and following segments are underspecified, and their consonantal quality is indicated by the absence of a Vocalic node.

The second, and more relevant, rule to be discussed is that of vowel raising and fronting following soft consonants. In this more-complex process an

86 unstressed non-back and non-high voweps is raised and/or fronted to [i]. The

following examples illustrate the alternation:

(3.28) Examples of V-reduction after soft consonants

tonic atonic p'at' p'iti five s'ostry (UR/ls'e//) s'istra sister m'ésto m'ista place zôny (UR IfzElf) zyna wife cény cynâ price cas c'isa hour

In the first three examples the change occurs after a paired soft consonant while in the latter the consonant is unpaired. Indeed, the raising must occur before the hardening of both / /s' z ' / / and //c '//.^ ^ Furthermore, there is a backing of underlying / i / to [y] which must be ordered after the hardening of the segments. To summarize, we must propose the following rule ordering:

1. //s z//soften 2. vowel reduction occurs 3a. / / s ' z'//h ard en 3b. / / c ' / / hardens 4. //i//backs to [y] With this in mind, we will now formulate the rule within the present framework and discuss the mechanisms involved. I would argue that, unlike Akan'e, this rule makes reference to the preceding soft consonant and, thus, there is a spreading of features from the consonant to the vowel which causes a raising and fronting to [i]. The difference between / i / and the other vowels involved in the

^That is if we operate under the assumption, as is done in the present, that [C'oC] sequences are derived underlying from / /C'eC //. ^^There are some problems with the hardening of these consonants as the following examples demonstrate: mra 'heat' and air'â 'Tsar' do not have the expected [y] in the pre-tonic syllable. In the latter, in the staromoskovskaja norma we do have [Èyrà] but still [car'a]. D. Collins has pointed out to me that this could be solved by proposing a different ordering of the rules below (so that 3b. precedes 2).

87 alternation is in the specification of the [±open] features falling under the

Aperture node. We have seen above that a palatalized consonant is normally

specified by only coronal VPlace with the other features, presumably, redundant.

In Ikan'e, the Aperture specification [-openi, -open 2 ] becomes overt. This

specification should not be surprising, as 'palatalization' is often defined as the

super-imposition of an [i]-like articulation. The proposed rule is given below:

(3.29) Atonic Vowel Fronting (Ikan'e)

CPlace CPlace

Vocalic Vocalic

VP Aperture VP Aperture

[-opnl]ipnl] l-op"2] \ cor /

We should note that the rule occurs under the condition that the vowel place is not dorsal, hence the optional specification coronal. Although we have only

briefly examined the problem and the data, it appears that the rule of Ikan'e in CSR provides evidence for the secondary specification of Aperture in secondarily palatalized consonants. In fact, rules of this type might lead to important

theoretical claims for the organization of features in Feature Geometry.

3.5. Rule Ordering

We have already discussed a number of the problematic areas of ordering in many of the sections above. Here, we reanalyze the nature and ordering of the rules within the theory of Lexical Phonology, which was discussed in Section 3.2.

88 The first major distinction is between the lexical and post-lexical components. We

should recall that within the lexical component we expect the less productive

rules to be ordered before the more productive ones. Moreover, the post-lexical

rules are generally without exception. I first discuss the ordering of the

palatalization and coronalization rules and offer some sample derivations from

specific morphological categories as support for the proposed orderings. The three major rules of palatalization and coronalization are Sur Pal, IVF

and Jotation. Of these three rules the one with the most limited environment and

least productive one is Jotation which occurs most regularly in the verbal system.

There are other rules which must ordered in respect to the application of Jotation: A-adjustment, Gliding, Jotation and, then. Vowel Deletion.

Furthermore, the Jotation Readjustment rules must be ordered in respect to the general rule of Jotation and they must be considered lexical, as they occur only in derived environments. Jotation is followed by IVP which occurs in a greater number of environments and is more productive. There is further evidence for this ordering: namely, there are instances of dorsal consonant + / i / which undergo Jotation rather than IVP. Finally, Affricate Assibilation must be ordered after the latter two rules.

There are a number of different rules which must be ordered in respect to

Sur Pal. The rule occurs late in the phonology of CSR and is not necessarily limited to derived environments and is post-lexical. The rule of Dorsal Vowel

Fronting must be ordered before it and Vowel Fronting after it. Moreover, Imperative Delinking must occur after Sur Pal. Finally, Sur Pal must occur before all of the vocalic rules, as they all make reference to a palatalized consonant in their structural description. We have already discussed the ordering of these rules above, so we do not repeat the arguments here.

89 Below I present an ordering of all of the rules which have been discussed

in Chapters 2 and 3. In some cases the ordering of one rule in respect to another

is irrelevant due to the environment of the individual rules. The rules that are dependent upon other rules are indented:

ordered lexical rules A-adjustment (3.17b) Gliding (3.18) Jotation (3.19) Dental Jotation Readjustment (3.21) Velar Jotation Readjustment (3.22) Sonorant Jotation Readjustment (3.23) Labial Jotation Readjustment (3.24) Vowel Deletion (3.15) IVP (3.11) Affricate Assibilation (3.12)

ordered post-lexical rules Dorsal Vowel Fronting (3.5) Surface Palatalization (3.2/3.9) Alveopalatal Softening (2.5) Vowel Fronting (3.4) Stress Placement (including Resyllabification) Imperative Delinking CV Dissimilation {3.26)^ Atonic Vowel Centering (3.27) Alveopalatal Cluster Adjustment (2.4) Atonic Vowel Fronting (3.29) /sV /zV Hardening /cV Hardening /i/ Backing

late (default) rules Jer Deletion

A few sample derivations from a number of different morphological categories will demonstrate the ordering of these rules:

^ In fact, due to the lexical nature of this rule we would expect it to be a "lexical" rule. As we have already stated, however, the rule must be ordered after Sur Pal. We leave a full discussion of the issues for further research.

90 (3.30) Sample CSR Derivations I (Jotation)

SURFACE placii pisu pises I'libl'ii UR plak+a+e+u pis+a+e+u pis+a+e+s I'ubi+i+u Cycle 2 [plaka+e] [pisa+e] [pisa+e] [I'ubi+i]

A-Adj plakie pisie pisie —

G liding plakje pisje pisje —

Jotation plaK'e piS'e piS'e — J-Readjust placu pisu pises' I'ubl'u

VowDel ——— I'ubi Cycle 3 [place+u] [pise+u] [pise+s'j [I'ubi+u]

Gliding — —— I'ubju

Jotation — —— I'uB'u

J-Readjust — — — I'ubl'u

Vow Del placu pisu ——

We should remember that the rule of Jotation derives contour segments which later undergo various readjustment rules. Here, a capital letter is used as an abbreviated way to represent this intermediary stage. As we can see, the relative rules apply in each cycle, the cycles being determined by the morpheme constituents. Cyclic rule ordering is crucial in predicting the correct outputs of the two different types of verb.

Two morphological endings which provide good testing ground for rule interaction and ordering are the IMPER /-i(-te)/ and the N PL /- y /. Derivations for the iMPER are given below:

91 (3.31) Sample Derivations II (iM PE R )

SURFACE b'eg'i stav' skaa dremlf UR beg+i stav+i+i skak+a+i drem+a+i Cycle 2 [beg+i] [stavi+i] [skaka+i] [drema+i]

A-Adj — — skakii dremi+i

Gliding — — skakji dremji

Jotation — — skaK'i dreM'i

J-Readjust — — skaa dreml'i

Vow Del — stavi — ------POST-LEX [begi] [stavi] [skaK'i] [dreM'i]

Sur Pal b'eg'i stav'i —— Stress b'egi stavi skaa dremlf

Imp Delink — stav' — —

It has been seen above that the iMPER ending sometimes invokes Jotation, and,

thus, forms such as skati are not the result of IVP. The first example is blocked

from undergoing IVF by the nature of the morphological ending. The iMPER ending does not invoke this rule.

The final morphological ending to be examined is the NPL /-y/ which

surfaces as either [y] or [i] by a number of different interrelated rules which have

already been included in the ordering above. The sample derivations are given below:

92 (3.32) Sample Derivations III (NPL)

SURFACE ruk'i stoly mec'i ly zy UR ruk+y stol+y mec'+y lyz'+y Cycle 2 [ruk+y] [stol+y] [mec+y] [lyz+y] Po st-lex [ruky] [stoly] [mecy] [lyzy]

Dors V-Fronting ruki — — lyzy

Sur Pal ruk'i —— lyzy

Alveopal Softening —— mec'y lyz'y

Vowel Fronting —— mec'i lyz'i

sVz/ Hardening ——— lyzi

I’ll Backing ——— lyzy

Thus, Lexical Phonology has given a clearer explanation to the various outputs of the NPl endings which have been problematic in non-generative analyses. In general, the theoretical framework allows for a closer relationship between the phonology and the morphology, and provides insights into highly morphophonologically sensitive languages such as CSR (and CSCz as w e shall see in Chapters 4 and 5).

3.6. Conclusion

To summarize, in this chapter we have examined and formulated in the Clements and Hume model of Feature Geometry and non-linear phonology the major rules of "palatalization" in CSR. We use "palatalization" as a cover term to refer to a number of different distinct processes. First, there is a wide-spread and productive rule of Sur Pal in which a segment spreads from right to left a secondary coronal vocalic place creating a secondarily palatalized consonant. The trigger may be either a front vowel or a secondarily palatalized consonant. In the former the rule is still productive, while in the latter the application of the rule is governed by a hierarchy. In our discussion of these two processes, we concluded that, although the two processes can be combined as a "general tendency", the

93 rule of Sur Pal is much more regular and productive in CV sequences. However, the analysis of C 1C2 assimilations was instructive in that it paints a clearer picture of the direction of change of assimilatory palatalization in CSR. Precisely, this type of assimilatory palatalization is more common with the coronal series.

The other two major rules of "palatalization" discussed were IVP and

Jotation. It was seen that both of these rules are historicized in CSR in that they are limited to certain morphological categories. This, however, does not take anything away from the analysis thanks to the high level of interaction between the phonology and morphology which is common to CSR and all the Slavic languages. In addition, after Hume (1992) these processes are considered to be

"coronalization" due to the fact that they yield coronal (normally specified [-anterior]) consonants. IVP is viewed as a fronting of dorsal consonants to [-anterior] coronal ones, while Jotation, as per Bethin (1992b) is divided into two different stages: first, a contour segment is formed, and, second, the segment is reanalyzed on the basis of four different readjustment rules. The readjustment of

Labial + j sequences to Labial + T is justified on both phonetic and phonological grounds. In fact, the analysis proposed here offers new evidence for the location of the [lateral] feature (under the coronal node) which has been the source of much debate in theories of Feature Geometry. Finally, the new approach allows us to separate the dorsal ~ [-anterior] coronal alternations that occur in both rules into two distinct processes.

In the final section of the chapter we briefly examined some important rules affecting vowels in CSR. First, we proposed a new analysis of the well- known e -> o rule as dissimilation. The proposal was based on the rule's anomaly in comparison with the other rules which make reference to palatalization processes in CSR. The final two major rules discussed were the

94 vowel reduction rules of Akan'e and Ikan'e. In Akan'e a pre-tonic unstressed

/o / loses its dorsal place specification and automatically becomes placeless [a].

Once again, the theoretical claims for the representation of vowels presented here provide a phonological justification of this problematic alternation. On the other hand, Ikan'e provides evidence for the spreading of the Aperture node from a palatalized consonant to a following vowel. We argue that this normally unspecified value (at least in the case of secondarily palatalized consonants) becomes overt in certain phonological processes. Although we have only briefly touched on the issue of Vowel Reduction, it is hoped that the analyses offered here will serve as impetus for further, more detailed study of this extremely complex problem. Thus, in this chapter, we have seen that the facts of CSR phonology and morphology provide good testing ground for the claims made by the various theories of non-linear phonology.

95 CHAPTER 4

CSCz PHONOLOGY

4.0. Introduction

This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the underlying and surface phonemic systems of Contemporary Standard Czech [CSCz] (often referred to as

Spisovna cestina [Sc] and Obecnâ ceëtina [Oc]).i Unlike CSR, CSCz has been the subject of few generative analyses, all of them based on linear SPE-phonology (see Newman (1971); Petterson (1972); Anderson and Browne (1973); and Spencer (1986:273-5) and (1988) ). On the other hand, the very similar Contemporary Standard Slovak [CSSlk] has been the subject of a number of different generative studies, both linear and non-linear (see, in particular, Kenstowicz and Rubach

(1987); Rubach (1993a), (1993b) and (1995)). While it is true that CSSlk is an

independent language governed by its own set of constraints and rules, the similarity of these two languages is often striking; therefore, these studies can offer much in the way of support and/or comparison. Consequently, most of

these sources will be referenced throughout the chapter.

This chapter, as Chapter 2, examines the underlying and surface phonemic inventory of CSCz, paying particular attention to the representation of the prepalatal, alveopalatal and velar consonants as well as the long/short and front

^ As we shall see in the section below, this is a slightly artificial distinction. The reasons for such a classification will be given there. vowels. Evidence is given for two types of mid-front (coronal) vowels

distinguished by the presence or absence of the feature [-anterior]. Such a

distinction is crucial for differentiating the outputs of the various palatalizations

and makes important theoretical claims. Thus, the goal of this presentation is to

offer a new synchronic explanation of both the CSCz phonemic system and the

rules of palatalization in light of the non-linear theoretical framework.

Furthermore, we shall compare and contrast the underlying and surface

phonemic systems and the rules with those of CSR.

4.0.1. Excursus on Spisovna and Obecnâ cestina

Before discussing the phonemic system, it is useful to consider the

distinction between Spisovna and Obecnâ testina. The language situation in the

Czech Republic is extremely complex due the existence of a number of different

linguistic codes which include: (1) the artificial Literary Language, Spisovnâ

ceStina [Sc]; (2) Spoken Czech, Obecnâ cestina [Oc]; (3) the so-called Hovorovâ

ceStina, a hybrid between Sc and Oc, although not necessarily an independent

code; (4) and the local dialects, which are gradually dying out.2 Here, we are

mainly concerned with the first two codes which differ greatly from one another on lexical, syntactic, morphological and phonological grounds.

In terms of the relationship between the codes, one should ask if Sc and Oc are derived from the same underlying grammar, if Oc is derived from Sc, or if

they have two separate grammars. The single underlying grammar approach

^The classification of the various codes of CSCz is very complicated. It has been argued that the linguistic situation in The Czech Republic (especially Bohemia) might be considered "diglossic". For further discussion see Hammer (1986). In this analysis we do not make any theoretical claims on the issue, rather we only introduce the terms for classification. A good discussion of the various codes and their usage can also be found in Townsend (1990).

97 appears dubious, as Oc is the native language of most of the people in the Czech lands, while Sc is normally learned from the mass-media and at school.

Therefore, it more likely that the artificial Sc is derived from Oc. However,

although Oc and Sc differ substantially on many grounds, the majority of forms

are shared by both codes. Kucera is correct in stating that "a two-grammar

approach would obviously require the duplication of a vast number of rules

shared by SCz [Sc] and CCz [Oc]... [and] that certain generalizations about the structure of the colloquial strings would be missed." (1973: 501) Therefore, I propose that, after learning Sc, the speaker generalizes a single underlying structure and differentiates the codes (here, only, Oc and Sc) through varying degrees of rule interaction. In this work, we propose general rules of palatalization and coronalization for CSCz. We address differences between the various codes of the language only when these differences affect the overall analysis.

98 4.1. Phonemic Inventory

In this section the phonemic inventory of CSCz is presented and discussed. First, we give a chart with the underlying features for the consonantal and vowel phonemes. Then, we discuss the motivations for the feature specifications of some of the phonemes, especially those which have been viewed as problematic in past analyses. Throughout the discussion the similarities and/or differences between the CSCz system and that of CSR receive special attention.

4.1.1. The Consonants

The proposed underlying consonantal system for CSCz is:

99 (4.1) Underlying Consonantal System of CSCz

ROOT P b f V m t d s 2 C n 1 r [sonorant] + + + + [vocoid] [nasal] + + LARYNGEAL [voice] - + - + + - + - + — + + + ORAL CAVITY [continuant] - - + + - - + + ± - — - C-PLACE labial coronal [lateral] + [anterior] + + + + + + 4- + [strident] - dorsal V-PLACE coronal !

ROOT s 2 c t' d' n r k g X Y [sonorant] + + [vocoid] [nasal] + LARYNGEAL [voice] - + - - + + + — + - + ORAL CAVITY [continuant] + + + + + C-PLACE labial coronal [lateral] [anterior] - - - [strident] + dorsal • •• # V-PLACE coronal •# ••

100 4.1.1.1. "Hard" and "Soft" Pairings Phonological "hardness" and "softness"

The most important systematic difference between the consonantal inventories of CSR and CSCz regards secondary palatalization. In CSR, secondary palatalization is one of the most pervasive phonological and phonetic factors, while in CSCz, it is completely lacking on the surface. This difference is even more obvious if we look at the number of underlying consonants proposed for the two languages: 35 underlying consonantal phonemes for CSR but 24 for

CSCz. Although CSCz does not distinguish between phonetically palatalized and non-palatalized consonants, it does have the prepalatal stops (in the Clements and Hume model [-anterior] coronals) /t' d' n / which, in certain environments, alternate with the dental stops ([+anterior] coronals).^ In this work we claim that the prepalatals are underlyingly "palatalized", i.e., they are specified with a secondary coronal VPlace, as are the palatalized consonants in CSR. First, we present some near-minimal pairs which illustrate the difference between prepalatals and dental stops in roots:

(4.2) Roots with and without prepalatals

d'elo arms den day t'elo body ten this nêmÿ [fie] deaf nemoc illness dü [d'i] part dyrn smoke zim m ln 'i] winter ADJ krdsny beautiful ADJ

In the first column the surface consonants are prepalatals, while in the second they are dental stops.

^The traditional Slavic "features" 'hard' and 'soft' are often used to distinguish these consonants. We will not use these terms in the phonological discussion, however, in order to avoid confusion with CSR and the other Slavic languages. On the other hand, we shall see below that there is some validity for a morphological distinction of hard vs. soft.

101 Second, in other instances, prepalatals alternate with dental stops in certain morphological categories, as in, e.g., the NPL and APL of MAnim nouns such as student, stiiden[t'i] APL ~ stiiden[ti] NPl. In the latter the [t] is a prepalatal, while in the former it is a plain dental. We shall see many similar alternations in

Chapter 5 in the discussion of the rule of Coronal Palatalization [Cor Pal].

Finally, underlying prepalatals occur rarely before.back vowels, mostly in onomatopoetic and expressive vocabulary, e.g., t'apat 'patter', d'obat 'peck' and noiima 'ninny', but also in loan-words, e.g., d'abel 'fiend'. Moreover, there are many instances of prepalatals in word-final position, as in dan 'tax', or before certain morphological desinences, as in vylod'ovat 'disembark'.^ Although the prepalatals may be derived when preceding certain morphological endings, there are still many examples of underlying prepalatal consonants. Where, then, should the line between underlying prepalatals and derived ones be drawn, especially in the case of the prepalatal front vowel sequences in roots?

In (4.2) we have seen that the prepalatals contrast with the dental stops in roots before front vowels. Below in (4.I.2.2. and 4.I.2.3.) we propose a distinction between two high non-back vowels,/i/ and /y /, and two mid-front ones, /é / and /e /. By proposing both underlying prepalatals and a four-way vowel

^This distributional lack is due to the important historical developments of Czech phonology - the so-called pfehlâsky. As a result of this change, back vowels fronted when following or in between 'soft' (palatalized) consonants. According to Short "the process was inhibited by a following hard consonant". (1993:461) The exact time period for the individual vowels does not interest us, but rather the mechanisms of the change. (For a more complete discussion of the historical factors involved see Boretzky (1991), Galton (1988), Vintr (1992), Komarek (1954,1960, 1962,1971), Lamprecht (1956,1966) and especially Lamprecht, Slosar and Bauer (1986)) It is interesting to note that diachronically in the Clements and Hume model the various pfehlasla/ occurred by the spreading of the coronal node from the secondary VPlace of the palatalized consonants. Along with this spreading came the concomitant delinking of the secondary VPlace, perhaps with the introduction of a constraint forbidding palatalized consonants in the environment of coronal vowels. We leave an in-depth analysis and subsequent formulation of the rules for future research.

102 distinction, we may be missing an important generalization. Namely, one might claim that /i/ and /é / invoke Cor Pal within roots as well as before morphological suffixes. Therefore, the prepalatals in (4.2) would be derived.

There is important evidence from the rules of palatalization and loan­ words which help us resolve this problem. First, the rules of 2VP and Cor Pal have an almost identical environment in the morphology, as observed in the examples nika 'hand/FNSG' ~ nice 'L/DSg' and biih 'Cod/MNSG' ~ bozi

'AnimNPL' v s . chata 'cottage/FNSG' - chate 'LSG' and student 'MNSG' and stiiden[t']i 'ANIMNPL'. In roots, however, 2VP systematically fails to apply, e.g., kelimek 'pot' and gigant 'giant'. We would expect the rules of 2VP and Cor Pal to be parallel in their application.

Second, in loan-words Cor Pal systematically fails to apply, as we may observe in the forms: takHka, politika, techmka, diverze and univerzita . In these forms, the underlined sequences are pronounced as dental + /y / sequences.

(Sirokova et al. 1990:43) These data imply that either underlying / i / is losing its "palatalizing" power (which would not be surprising if we consider the limited environments for the coronalization rules in CSCz) or that the rule of Cor Pal no longer occurs within roots. I would argue that both of these proposals are true and that the majority of the palatalizing rules in CSCz occur at the morphological level only. As we have seen in the discussion of CSR, such a distinction can be expressed by Rubach's model of Lexical Phonology in which rules are divided into lexical (applying to the morphological or word-formation component of the grammar) and post-lexical ones (applying at the syntactic or word level). In

CSCz, Cor Pal should be viewed as a lexical rule and all instances of prepalatals within a root should be underlying. We will return to a discussion of these claims in later sections.

103 We now discuss the feature specifications which are needed for the underlying representation of the prepalatal consonants. Phonetically, the

prepalatal stops "are opposed to dental principally in that their articulation is

dorsal rather than apical and the point of closure is farther back, and to velars...

in that the point of closure is relatively more central."5 (Lunt 1956:307) Hume

(1992) claims that palatal stops are specified as coronal [-anterior, +distributed,

-strident]. This, however, is in the surface manifestation, and not all of these

features are needed to distinguish them underlyingly. In the present analysis, it is argued that the prepalatals are underlyingly specified with a secondary VPlace coronal, i.e., they are underlyingly palatalized. Since CSCz does not allow secondarily palatalized consonants, the palatal stops undergo a redundancy rule which automatically supplies them with the correct surface feature values. This rule will be formulated in Chapter 5.

Important evidence for the underlying representation of prepalatals as palatalized, comes from the rule of Cor Pal by which the dental stops and / r / are converted into prepalatals before certain morphological endings with initial / i / and /é /. The mechanism for this change, it will be argued, is "palatalization" of the final stem consonant due to the following coronal vowel. In other words, the coronal consonants are first palatalized (in the Clements and Hume model, we may recall, this implies that they will have specifications under the V-place as well as the C-place) and are later changed into prepalatals (or post-alveolar, in the case of r' —> r).

^Phonologically, in Jakobsonian distinctive features the pre-palatals are [+compact] and [+acute], while the dental stops are [-compact]. (Lunt 1956: 307) It should be remembered that in Jakobsonian theory in CSR the palatalized consonants are [+sharpj, while the non-palatalized ones are [-sharp].

104 Finally, we need to address the underlying representation of the surface post-alveolar [r], which is described phonetically as a voiced alveolar fricative trill.6 (Ladefoged 1993:169) We have seen above that in Cor Pal /r / patterns with the other dental stops. However, the resulting consonant is not a prepalatal but a post-alveolar. The surface realization here is irrelevant, as CSCz has a constraint on palatal liquids. The important point here is the underlying behavior of the segment. At some point in the derivation /r / patterns with the /t d n/. I propose that / r / is first palatalized and later undergoes a default rule which supplies its place features to surface as [r]. / r/ can be grouped together with /t / / d / and /n /a s a natural class by the features coronal [+anterior], [-lateral] and

[-cont]. It should also be noted that, although / f / is paired with /r /, the former does not pattern with the other sonorant consonants, in that it devoices in both word-final position and following voiceless consonants, as in, e.g., tvaf 'face' and pfi 'at'. Voicing and devoicing phenomena are beyond the scope of this analysis, but the behavior of / r / in these processes further stresses its anomalous nature, thus providing more support of an underlying representation which differs from the surface phoneme.

Morphological hardness and softness

The distinction 'hard' ~ 'soft' has often been used mistakenly to describe a phonological contrast in CSCz. This notion is based on both Slavistic and orthographic tradition, as the consonants in Czech are traditionally divided into

^More specifically "what characterizes the Czech variant of the trill manner of articulation is that it is a laminal (and not an apical) trill, and the stricture is held for longer (but probably with a shorter onset and offglide)." (Ladefoged 1971:49)

105 three groups: 'hard', 'soft', and 'neutral'7 In reality, these terms should be

regarded as "metaphors" with "no linguistic validity." (Rinnan 1969:194) As we

have seen above, however, there is some phonological basis for such a distinction

between, at least, 'hard' and 'soft' consonants both in underlying representations

and in derivation. On the other hand, the notion of morphological 'hardness' and

'softness' has much more validity for CSCz. On the basis of this distinction,

Newman divides the CSCz phonemes into two morphological subgroups depending on the desinences which they take. Thus, the Group I phonemes are

[pbfvmtdsznkghxrl] while the Group 11 ones are [t' d' n s z c c r |]. (1971: 21) This distinction, which is peculiar to Czech among the Slavic languages, is the result of the historical pfehlâsky which strengthened the distinction between the hard- and soft-stem declensions. Thus, for each hard ending (e.g., VSg -o) there is a corresponding soft one (e.g., -e).® It has sometimes been argued that the soft desinences are derived synchronically from their hard counterparts, although 1 claim that such a distinction is too abstract and belies the facts of CSCz. Rather, there are two sets of desinences in CSCz which are determined by the morphological hardness or softness of the final stem consonant. This difference is summed up well by Spencer:

Nominal stems come in two basic types, which determine subclasses amongst the declension classes defined in terms of gender. These are 'hard' stems (non-palatalized) and 'soft' stems (palatalized). Oversimplifying somewhat, the hard stems take [+back] vowel allomorphs of inflexional affixes while the soft items take [-back, -low] of [-back, +high] allomorphs. Some

^Thus, {t d n} may be orthographically Tnard' (dental stops) or 'soft' (pre-palatal stops) depending on the grapheme and/or graphic combination: e.g., in shidenty the {t| is 'hard', while in stiidenti it is 'soft', etc. ®Of course, some of the differences between the hard and soft endings are historically justified. The effect that the pfehlâsky had on the morphological system can be seen most clearly in those endings which were originally *u and *a, as in FEM ASG zenu 'woman' vs. duSi 'soul'.

106 consonants (e.g. /c | r/) are inherently palatal. Others are inherently non-palatal (e.g. /k n/) while others are phonologically hard but morphologically ambiguous (e.g. / s 1/). Stems ending in ambiguous consonants of this kind are assigned to hard or soft declensions lexically, and sometimes to both. (1988:14)

Although Spencer stresses the three distinct types of morphological stems, there are some significant terminological errors. As in many analyses of CSCz nominal morphology, he mistakenly uses the terms 'palatal' and 'palatalized'. On the other hand, he does draw some important conclusions: namely, that there exists a two-way (or three-way) morphological classification of CSCz nouns and that this distinction is very often on a lexical basis.

4.1.1.2. Labial Consonants

Unlike CSR, the labial consonants /p b f v m / are not paired for secondary palatalization in CSCz. However, in certain instances they surface as sequences of labial + []]. It is argued here that the alternation is predictable surfacing only before the underlying vowel phoneme /e /. The alternation may occur both inside roots and at morpheme boundaries. First, word-intemally there are a number of minimal and near-minimal pairs of forms with and without [j]:

(4.3) Labial-initial roots with and without [j]

pëch [pje-] beetle pec [pe-j oven pëna foam pen trunk bëdnâ miserable bedna chest méch [mfve-] bag mech moss DIM misek

Second, in the morphology before the endings with /-ë/, a [j] surfaces after a labial, as in mapa ~ L/D Sg mapé [-pje], baba 'old woman' ~ babé [-bje], zima

107 'winter' ~ zimé [-mne], etc. The environment for this alternation appears to be similar to that of Cor Pal (and 2VP). However, there are two important differences between the rules: (1) in the case of the labial, there is no similar alternation before the ending / -i/; and (2) the labial rule does not alter the primary place of articulation of the original segment. An underlying consonantal distinction between two types of labial for the examples with root-internal alternations would unnecessarily complicate the underlying consonantal inventory of CSCz. Therefore, the differing surface realizations must be due to a vocalic distinction.

Above w e have simplified the output of the alternation, ignoring the case of labial nasal consonant /m -/ which alternates with [mn] rather than the expected [mj]. As we shall see below, this can be easily motivated if we assume that [j] (from underlying /i/) assimilates to the nasal, becoming prepalatal [n].

This would imply that mësto [mnesto] is derived from /mjesto/. The existence of forms such as [mjesto] in hypercorrect speech and the dialects offers additional evidence for this solution.

It appears, then, that the labial consonants are also sensitive to a rule of "palatalization" in certain environments, both phonological and morphological. In the present work it will be demonstrated that the labial consonants become secondarily "palatalized", later undergoing a strengthening rule by which the secondary place of articulation gains its own X-slot on the skeleton. This rule, however, is not limited to morphological environments and, consequently, should be considered post-lexical. The rule and related theoretical claims will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

108 4.1.1.3. The Alveopalatal Consonants /s z c/

Due to the historical pfehlâsky, the alveopalatal phonemes /s / /z / and

/ c / , like the prepalatal stops, rarely occur before a back vowel. Examples are

normally limited to 'expressive' vocabulary and loan-words, as in, e.g., ziimpa

'cess-pit' and cokolada 'chocolate'.^ However marginal these sequences may be,

they still exist and are likely increase with future borrowings. In addition,

although stems ending in a alveopalatal normally require a 'soft' morphological ending, they still occur before many suffixes beginning with a back vowel, e.g., miiziim 'men/DPL'. Therefore, the alveopalatal consonant appear to have a similar distribution to the prepalatal stops.

In the Clements and Hume model /§ / /z / and /c/ are treated as [-anterior] coronals, distinguished from the prepalatals underlyingly by their lack of a secondary coronal vocalic place and on the surface by the value [-distributed] (the prepalatals are redundantly specified [+distributed]). Moreover, the prepalatals need not be specified underlyingly for the feature

[-anterior]. In contrast to CSR, in CSCz the alveopalatals need not be specified underlyingly as 'soft'.

4.1.1.4. The "Velar" Consonants

CSCz has four underlying velar (dorsal) consonants /k g x \ / {as compared to the three of CSR). Phonetically, the last surfaces as a voiced laryngeal fricative [fi].^° The reason for the existence of four velar phonemes is the historical change by which the voice velar stop *g lenited to y (and later

^The examples are from Short (1993: 459). ^(^ore specifically, "its articulation occurs in the larynx. The frication occurring in the articulation of [h] arises from the friction caused by the expiration of the air flow against constricted vocal folds which are vibrating." [translation mine - MSB] (Sirokova et al. 1990: 38)

109 backed further to become a laryngeal).The phoneme /g /, however, later

reappeared in foreign borrowings (e.g., gatic 'couch') or, after the historic loss of

the jers, as the voiced allophone of / k / , e.g., kde 'where' [gde]. Synchronically the

surface [h] does not form a natural phonetic class with the other velar

consonants, while in most instances it patterns with them both phonologically and morphologically.

Following Rubach's proposal for Slovak (1993a), we can solve the problem

by positing an underlying voiced velar fricative /y / in place of the surface [fi].

There is abundant evidence for this proposal in CSCz as well. First, the laryngeal fricative patterns with the other velar consonants in both velar palatalizations (IVP and 2VP). For example, [fi] alternates with post-alveolar /z / and dental

/z /, in the same way that /k / alternates with /c / and /c/. Second, in word-

final position and in the environment of another voiceless obstruent the laryngeal

fricative [fi] becomes a voiceless velar fricative, [x], e.g., [krux] 'circle/NS g ' ~

[kruhu] 'GSg '. Trubetzkoy hinted at such an analysis in his work:

The h in Czech ... does not belong to a special laryngeal series [phonologically] (which does not even exist in the language), [but] it belongs to the guttural [i.e., velar, dorsal] series, from the standpoint of the Czech phonological system, only the fact that the lips and the tip of the tongue do not participate is relevant. (1969:124)

Thus, there is ample evidence from the morphophonological and phonological system of CSCz for an underlying /y / for surface [fi].^^

npor a discussion of the facts from a diachronic point of view see Andersen (1969). l^In order to surface, we can assume a redundancy rule which links a [pharyngeal] node to the [root] of / y / In addition, the dorsal CPlace would delink. See Clements and Hume (1995: 273-4) for a full discussion of the problems in the organization of the pharyngeal (or guttural) node.

110 Some other comments about the velar consonants are necessary.

Specifically, there is some evidence which points to the "foreignness" of the

phoneme / g / within the CSCz consonantal system. Kucera claims that the

phonological status of / g / is "ambiguous" for the following reasons:

(a) It occurs in complementary distribution with [k], everywhere except in certain loan-words. (b) In some loan-words, it contrasts phonemically with [k] in non­ loans. (c) In a few specific loan-words, it occurs in free variation with [k]. (1961: 37)

This ambiguity can be seen in Sc in words of foreign origin with /k /w h ich may

be pronounced with a [g], as in, e.g., plakât - plagât 'poster', lokal ~ logal, cirkus

~ cirgiis, inkoust - ingoiist 'ink'. Since this type of alternation never takes place

in the native lexicon, the phoneme / g / appears to have a foreign quality to it and is used to signal obvious foreign lexical items.i^ We shall see in the following

chapter that the application of both IVP and 2VP are sometimes blocked in the case of a stem-final /-g /.

^^According to Dane§, "the tendency to replace / k / with / g / in loan-words ... is due not only to the fact that [g] is considered as a peculiar signal of loan-words,... but also to a tendency striving for conformity between both coexisting subsystems." (1964:167) He goes so far as to propose two coexisting phonemic systems for native and foreign lexical items. However, in my view this claim is too strong, although there clearly is a strong tendency to mark foreignness with the phoneme / g /.

I l l 4.1.2. The Vowels

The proposed underlying vocalic system for CSCz is:

(4.4) The Underlying Vocalic System of CSCz

i ë e y a o u dorsal • • coronal • • • [anterior] - [open%] — + + — + + —

[open2] — — — — + — —

As we can see, the main problem is the underlying specifications for the non- back (non-dorsal) vowels. In this analysis, there an underlying distinction

between both two high, non-back vowels, /i/ and /y /, and two non-high, non-back vowels, /ë / and / e/, although only the two front vowels [i] and [e] surface. The motivations for this claim will be given below. It should be noted that the jer (E) is not included, as its features are identical to /e /, the only difference being its representation on the skeletal tier (as we have seen in the discussion of CSR). There are a number of examples which might point to the existence of a back jer, which differs from the front jer in that it never invokes coronalization and is limited to roots. We address these issues below.

112 4.1.2.1. Vowel Length

CSCz, unlike CSR, distinguishes phonologically between short and long vowels. The long vowels are not included in the underlying vowel chart, as this distinction is made in the number of timing slots on the skeletal tier rather than in the presence or absence of a feature on the melodic tier. Below we give some minimal (and morphological) pairs to illustrate length alternations in CSCz:

(4.5) Minimal and morphological pairs with short and long vowels

rada advice FNSG rada happy F SAdj pas passport MNSG pas belt MNSG piji drink IPSg piji drink 3PPL draha road FNSg draha dear ADJ domu house GSg domû house GPL poleva sauce FNSg polévka soup Dim FNSg vedl lead Past SG vést lead Inf zab frogCPL zâba frog NSg

The first five examples demonstrate phonological (and sometimes, additionally, morphological) minimal pairs, while the last three show length differentiation in various morphological categories. In fact, there are many instances in Diminutive derivation in which the base and derived forms exhibit a differences in length: e.g.rjazyk ~ jazycek 'language/ tongue', dflr ~ dârek'gift', dub ~ doiibek'oak' vs. mba ~ mbka 'frog', misa ~ mis-k-a 'bowl'. In the first three examples, the stem vowel undergoes lengthening by a syllable-sensitive rule (Diminutive Lengthening). In the last two forms, the stem vowel is shortened by another syllable-sensitive rule (Vowel Shortening) which is not limited to Diminutives as we can see above, e.g., zaba ~ M) 'GPL'. While their specifics do not interest us here, these rules will be referred to later in their connection with other rules

(especially IVP which, as in CSR, is invoked by the diminutive suffix /-E-k/).

113 In the present framework long vowels of CSCz are given a straight­

forward representation. It should be remembered that the skeleton consists of

timing slots, which may function independently from their segmental content, as

in the case of long vowels, diphthongs and geminates. Further, long vowels and

diphthongs have a parallel representation on the skeleton: they both consist of a single nucleus with two timing slots. In the case of long vowels a single feature

matrix branches to two timing slots (4.6a) (here, /a/); in the case of diphthongs

two feature matrices branch to two timing slots (4.6b) (here, /ou/):^"*

(4.6a) Long Vowel (4.6b) Diphthong

N N / \ / \ timing tier: XX XX \ / II segmental tier: a ou

Thus, autosegmental phonology predicts that long vowels and diphthongs should pattern together. Such a prediction can easily be shown to be true in

CSCz, in which short vowels alternate with both long vowels and diphthongs in the same environments (e.g., hlas ~ hlâsek, on the one hand, and dub ~ doubek, on the other). Another advantage of the framework is that the underlying inventory of vocalic phonemes is greatly reduced, as the difference between long and short vowels is no longer at the segmental level (i.e., we can dispense with the feature [±tense]), but at the skeleton (Rubach 1993a).

Distributionally, all of the vowels have long counterparts, although there are some restrictions. First, / 6 / occurs only in words of foreign origin (e.g., balon

'balloon', balkôn, mimôza)', original *6 in native words surfaces as [u]. Second,

^^This representation has been simplified. The symbols are used as a short form for all of the features of a given segment. The N indicates that these are syllabic nuclei.

114 / û / sometimes surfaces as the diphthong [ou] {dub ~ doubek). Finally, in Oc / é /

is normally raised to [i] (Sc mléko ~ Oc mliko), while /y / (and sometimes /i/) is

diphthongized to [ej] (Sc bÿt ~ Oc bejt). These latter alternations will be

discussed in detail in the following sections.

4.I.2.2. /i/ and /y /

In CSCz, unlike CSR, there is no phonetic (surface) contrast o f / i / and

/ y /. The orthography, with i and y, generally represents the etymological

distribution and "dictates" the pronunciation only in the case of the dental stops

/ t / , / d / and / n / i n native lexical items. Thus, a superficial glance at the facts might lead one to believe that the distinction between / i / and / y / is an artificial

one based on orthographic and historical factors, and that by positing two

underlying segments we are making abstract postulations. However, both the phonology and the morphology of CSCz provide evidence for two underlying phonemes.

First, in Oc / y / is regularly diphthongized to [ej]. For example. Sc bÿt

[bi:t] 'to be' is normally realized as bejt 'to be' in Oc, as opposed to bit [bi:t] 'to

beat', which never diphthongizes. There are also some orthographic is (<*i:) which also may undergo diphthongization. This is due to a historical

development of Czech in which some consonants were depalatalized prior to the phonetic fronting of *y > i. These forms should be treated synchronically as

having an underlying /y / regardless of etymology or orthography. A form such

as citit 'to feel', then, which in Oc may be realized as [cejtit] should be treated as

//c y tit// underlyingly. 15 g y positing an underlying distinction between /y / and

l^Other examples of this "new" I > ej include lit ~ left 'pour', nozik ~ nozejk 'knife/DIM' and zitra - zejtra (although the historical origin of this alternation is quite different). (Townsend 1990: 30-1)

115 /i/, the alternations of this type between Oc and Sc are predictable

synchronically: only underlying /y / is subject to diphthongization, while /i/ remains unchanged.

Second, there is an important morphological distinction between / i / and

/y /. Thus, MANM NPL ending /-i/ invokes both 2VP and Cor Pal, while the

MNON-ANIMNPL and APL do not: studenti [t'i] NPL ~ stiidenty [ti] APl and mk

'pupil' ~ zaci. If one does not posit distinct endings for these forms, then the only alternative is to posit two underlying stems—one ending in a dental (or dorsal)

ending and the other in a prepalatal (or dental).

There are other endings which illustrate this difference. In adjectival

morphology there is a difference between both the hard-stem MNSG ending /-y /

and the soft-stem /-{/ (as in spatny [ni] 'bad' ~ jam i [hi] 'spring') and the hard-

stem NSg /-y / vs. the NMAnimPL /-(/ (mlady [di] ~ mladi [d'i] 'young'). In nominal derivation there are many native suffixes beginning with -i- which

invoke coronalization, while the Latinate ones with orthographic -i- do not, as in,

e.g., delnik [hi] 'work' ~ communista [ni]. In the present analysis the latter suffix

is treated underlyingly as /-ysta/. It might be argued that this is an obvious

foreign borrowing, but the fact remains that it is productive in CSCz. Therefore,

there appears to be ample phonological and morphological evidence which for separate underlying phonemes / i / and / y / in CSCz.

With the exception of the /y /, which diphthongizes, the place specifications of these two phonemes appear to play no important role within

roots. Therefore, we might say that within roots / i / and /y / are underlyingly unspecified for place features. If we return to the evidence from loan-words, we recall that, in lexical items such as taktika, the /i/ does not invoke coronalization of the preceding / t / . We have proposed that this is due to the cyclic nature of the

116 rule of Cor Pal. However, we may draw another important generalization from these foreign forms. Namely, the distinction between /y / and / i/ is redundant word-intemally. Therefore, to simplify the representation of underlying root vowels, we propose that unless otherwise specified (as with /y /) /y / and /i/ have no place specifications within roots. To surface, they undergo a default rule which assigns them a coronal place. This proposal fits within the description of the general behavior of default vowels in CSCz. Below we propose that the default specification for all unspecified vowels is coronal. In summary, the distinction between / i/ and /y / is more of a morphological one, although there is some important phonological evidence in the form of diphthongization of / y / .

4.I.2.3. The two /e / phonemes In this analysis a two-way distinction for the mid-front vowels is proposed, based on the feature [-anterior]. We reconsider the theoretical issues and the problems of classification within the framework in (4.I.2.6.). Here, we present both previous analyses and the crucial evidence from CSCz phonology and morphology which support such a distinction.

There have been a number of different proposals addressing the problem. First, Newman proposes two morphophonemes {e} and {ë} based on the fact that

(1) "[e] from [ë ]... occurs after Group II consonants [s, z, c, t', d', h, f, j] (plus [s, z,

1]) only." (2) "[e] from {ë} alternates with [i:] [while] the [e] from (ej alternates with [e:]." (1971: 22) We can see this latter difference in the following examples: nesu 'carry/IPSg' ~ nést 'INF' and jmen 'name/CPL' - jméno 'NSG' vs. bëlit

117 'w hiten/In f ' ~ bUy 'white/ ADJ' and jedl 'eat/PAST' ~ jist 'iNF'.i^ Jn other words,

//ë // when lengthened obligatorily undergoes raising to [f], while //é // is only

optionally raised, e.g. mëch 'bag' ~ miSek as opposed to sklqj 'cellar' ~

sklépek/sklîpek.

Alternatively, Anderson and Browne propose that /é / should be

analyzed as underlying //j e //. (1972) Evidence for this comes from the labial consonants. They admit, however, that by positing a diphthong, their

formulation of the rule which raises mid-vowels no longer has a parallel structural description. It should be noted that there is a rule which raises the mid-long vowels / é / and / 6 / to [i] and [u], respectively in CSCz. Moreover, all of the diphthongs of CSCz are rising (in sonority). Thus, a /je/ diphthong (with falling sonority) would not fit into the system. In the present analysis 1 agree, more or less, with Newman's proposal. Let us, however, present more convincing evidence from both the morphology and the phonology.

The first piece of evidence comes from the varying outputs of the rules of coronalization (which are formulated in the next chapter). 2VP and Cor Pal are invoked before certain nominal endings (MLSg, MAnimNPl, FL/DSg, etc.) as in, e.g., hrad 'castle/NSG' ~ hradè 'LSC' and nika 'hand' ~ nice, while IVP is invoked in others (MVSc), as in, e.g., biih 'Cod/NSC' ~ boze vs. Ivan ~ Ivane (without Cor Pal) .17 In the case of the MLPl hard-stem endings there are different allomorphs

l^There are a number of foreign borrowings which demonstrate the former type of alternation (thus, strengthening the opposition) such as: héros "hero' - heroicky 'ADJ', ténia - tematicky, schéma - schematicl^, etc. (Examples from Mliivnice ceStiny, 1:129) 17We should comment on the VSG ending, as it sometimes causes a stem-final / r/ to change to [r], which is the normal outcome of Cor Pal. The exact environment for this alternation is a stem- final /- r / preceded by another consonant, for example Petr ~ Petfe but doktor - doktore. As the number of forms with this environment is greatly limited, I propose that the forms in which this alternation occurs are exceptional and, therefore, marked in the underlying representation. Moreover, according to Riisskaja grammatika ,1 "the forms of the vocative are defective" and the alternation does not even occur with /x /. (1979:129) [translation mine - MSB]

118 for velars and non-velars. In the latter, the allomorph /-ech / is selected and does

not invoke palatalization, as in, e.g., hrad 'castle' ~ hradech [de] and mësto 'city' ~

méstech [-tex]. On the other hand, the allomorph /-ic h / is selected in roots ending

in velars and invokes 2VP.^® The nominal morphology clearly demonstrates the

existence of two underlying segments.

The behavior of the labial consonants provides further evidence for a

distinction. As pointed out above, before the ending /-é /, a [j] surfaces after a

labial, as in, e.g., mapa ~ mape [-pje] 'L/DSG'. Further, we have seen that [j] also surfaces in many roots after a labial {pëna [pje] ~ pen [pe]). The only way to account for the different surface forms is to posit either two different vowels or different consonants. By positing an underlying consonantal distinction, the underlying consonantal inventory would be unnecessarily complicated. Consequently, the underlying distinction should be expressed by the vowels. Thus, the language provides important morphological and phonological evidence which supports a distinction between two vocalic segments. Below we argue that this distinction is based on the presence/absence of the feature [-anterior].

4.12.4. /i/an d /j/ In most analyses of CSCz, as in CSR, the front vowel, / i / , and the palatal glide, /j/, are treated as separate underlying phonemes. We have already discussed the advantages of the non-linear approach over traditional ones in that

^®In the NON-F stems ending with the velars, there is oscillation between /-ich/ (which is derived from underlying / /-é:ch//) and the F ending / -ach/, as in, e.g., biik 'beech-tree' - buckh/biikâch. In fact, the use of the F hard-stem endings is part of a general tendency in CSCz (especially in Oc) to avoid stem alternations with the velars. We can also see this in LSC forms such as V potokit/ü potoce 'in the brook' and v jazykii/o jazyce 'in the language', which are in free variation.

119 in non-linear phonology [j] is derived from an underlying / i / by syllable-driven

rules. We might propose a similar rule for CSCz to that of CSR which derives [j] from underlying /i/. However, the distribution of [j] in CSCz differs from that of

CSR, which may complicate this assumption.

As with other vowel phonemes of CSCz, [i] occurs both long and short. In the case of underlying / y / (and, rarely, / / ! / / ) the surface form in Oc: may be the diphthong [ej], as in bÿt ~ bejt. In native Czech vocabulary word-initial [#i-j is normally preceded by a prothetic [j] (jiskra 'flame'), although there are many non­ native words which have been completely integrated into the system without the prothetic [j] (ironie 'irony', /ron/c^'ironical').[i] also appears word-finally and between consonants and consonant clusters.^o On the other hand, [j] has a much more limited distribution. It never occurs in stressed position, as only vowels

(and diphthongs) and the syllabic liquids / r/ and /I/ can function as syllable nuclei in CSCz. [j] occurs both in the environment of another vowel and in word- initial position before a consonant. It is this latter environment in which the distribution of [j] in CSCz differs greatly from CSR and appears to make it difficult to derive from underlying /i/. CSCz, unlike CSR, does allow complex nuclei (in the form of long vowels and diphthongs); this implies that [j] occurs as

the case of word-initial vowels there is a general tendency to insert glottal stop [?]. Although an analysis of cill of the facts is beyond the scope of this work, we should point out that this (voiceless) glottal stop is present in the phonology before the operation of assitnilatory voicing rules, as we can see from the form flAmerice (from an underlying //v+Amerik+è//). CSCz appears to avoid word-initial vowels as a general rule. 2®Ku6era sets up a three-way distinction among [i], [j] and [j]. According to him, "[i] occurs after short and long vowels (except after /e :/ and /o :/) before disjuncture or consonant..." (1961: 28) I would argue, that, although the description of the latter segment is true phonetically, it plays no part in the underlying phonology of Czech. Kucera even states that "[i]n casual speech, [i] may occur where [j] is distributionally expected. On the other hand, [j] may substitute for [i] in slow solemn speech. Such alternate pronunciations are phonemically non-contrastive." (29)

120 either syllable onset or coda, or as a extrasyliable segment in certain environments.

Examples of the environments for [j] in CSCz are given below:

(4.7) Distribution of [j] in CSCz

a. IV b. YI c. #JC jahoda strawberry caj tea jho yoke jâtra liver raj paradise jméno name jih south pije drink 2PSG jméni property jit go Inf ëîje sew 2PSG jdii go IPSg jedno one prodej sell Imp jsoii be 3PPl jogiirt yoghurt moje my NEU jâga yoga boje buoy junâckÿ youthful sluj grotto bljejlÿ white tvîij your Masc

In (a), the lack of native elements of j + back vowel is due to the historical

pfehlâsky?-^ The last example is derived from the underlying /bely/in which an

/ i / is inserted after labials by a rule discussed in the next chapter. In (b), the lack of examples with [éj] appears to be due to phonotactic constraint. In (c) we have some examples of [jC]. The environment is basically limited to these sequences,

i.e., #jd- (in the present tense forms of the verb jit 'go'), #jh- (in the one form

listed), #jm- and #js- (in the present tense and related forms of the verb b ÿ t 'be'). Although many of the forms with this sequence are high-frequency words, there

is a tendency even in Sc to eliminate the initial [|], and it is pronounced (as an ultra-short [i]) only in hypercorrect speech.^

2^The form jiim ckÿ is a loan-word, probably from Russian. ^Even in the notoriously prescriptive Mhivnice ceStiny it is noted: "In the dialects and in Obecna ceStina /]/ in those positions [i.e., #jC] is lost, and one can thus speak of the tendency of / j / and / i/ to coalesce into one phoneme." (Vol. 1:127) In addition, "this simplification occurs even in the spoken style of the literary language." (ibid.) [Translation mine - MSB]

121 At first glance, there appears to be nothing which links the environments of (a) and (b) with that of (c). In the first two, [j] appears in the environment of another vowel (either immediately before or after, as a syllable onset or coda). In the latter, it appears when preceding another consonant. If we posited an underlying / i / for the forms in (c), we would have to differentiate between those which alternate with [|] and those which do not (as in, e.g., Irena and inkoust

'ink'). However, we have already said above that #jC pronunciations are both lexically limited and, when pronounced, are typical of hypercorrect speech; thus, we could say that it is an artificial distinction which must be learned by the speakers of Oc (who leam Sc as their 'second' language) and, consequently, is marked in the underlying grammar. An alternative approach would be to propose a "floating" segment / I / , similar to a jer, for the environment #jC. In most forms of speech this segment would be extrasyllabic, and, consequently, subject to deletion (Jer Deletion). Unlike the jer /E /, however, the realization of /I / on the surface would be governed completely by a syllable-sensitive rule (not by the presence of another jer as we propose in the rule of Jer Vocalization below) .23

4.1.2.5. The jers As already seen in the discussion of CSR, the existence of synchronic jers in the Slavic languages is well-established. The arguments given for CSR, for the

23We leave a full discussion of the problem for future research.

122 most part, hold for CSCz as well. My goal here is to apply the jer rules to CSCz, thereby contributing to an overall description of the language.^"^

Below I give examples which illustrate the unpredictability of the 0 ~ e

alternations in CSCz (some examples from Spencer 1991:102):

(4.8) Near-minimal pairs with/without jers in CSCz

with Ter without Ter pârek/pârkii hotdog N/GS g park/parkii park N/GS g pes/psa dog N/GSG lesAesa forest N/GS g barva/barev color NSG/GPL konzeroa/konzerv tin can N/GSG bra/her play NSG/GPL mohér/mohéru mohair N/GSG §ev/Svii seam N/GSG vysev/vysevii sowing N/GS g kotel/kotlu kettle N/GS g hotelAiotelii hotel N/GS g miska/misek bowl NSG/GPL bleskA)leskii spark N/GS g

Many of these lexical items are obvious loan-words. Nevertheless, they are still an integral part of CSCz phonology and morphology, as demonstrated by the fact that they are all declined according to the same models as native elements. Thus, we must distinguish between alternating and non-altemating forms with the presence or absence of a 'jer' in underlying representations. Recall that in a non-linear approach jers are "floating" matrices, i.e., melodic segments without a timing (or X-) slot, which vocalize by linking to a timing slot.

As opposed to CSR, the jers in CSCz have a single surface realization, [ej.

Let us examine the facts to see if there is sufficient evidence for an underlying

^'^With the exception of Spencer (1986,1991), who briefly touches on the issue, I have found no non-linear generative analyses of CSCz which address the issue of the jers. Spencer agrees with the traditional SPE approach to the jers, which I have already rejected in the previous chapter on CSR. For purposes of comparison, I present below Spencer's revised rule of Lower for CSCz:

r +high"| = /-c o [:ï ï s ] co 1 L-tenseJ 0 / elsewhere

123 two-way distinction between a front and back jer in CSCz, as in CSR.^

Provisionally, the difference could be represented as /E ^/ for the front jer and

/E2/ for the back one. The former would have the same place features as /e /,

while the latter would be a mid-central (placeless) vowel. A surface distinction between the two segments can be observed in forms with a dorsal consonant. Below we present some similar examples:

(4.9) Examples of Lexical Items with Dorsal + jers

(a) (b) nika hand Moskoa/Moskeosky Moscow/ ADJ nicka/rucek Dim NSg /GPl m ail ADJ jazyk language / tongue okno/oken window NSG/GPL jazycek/jazycku Dim N/GS g jazycny ADJ hfich sin kachel/kachlu tile N/GSg hfiSek/hfiskti Dim N /G S g kachlik Dim hfesit Inf kachlickovat Inf rarach devil chrchel/chrchlu phlegm N/GSg rarâSek/rarâèka Dim N /G S g chrchlavy ADJ knih circle jehla/jehel needle NSG/GPL krouzek/kroiizhi Dim N /G S g jehlicka Dim krouzivy ADJ duha rainbow hr a/her play NSG/GPL dotizka/doiizek Dim NSG/GPL herecky actor's

I have included examples from a number of different derivational categories to illustrate the different realizations of the dorsal consonants. The most striking

^In other Slavic languages, especially Polish and Serbo-Croatian, the surface representation of the jers has merged into one phoneme. In the former, however, the "front/back quality [of the jers] is carried over into surface representations as the presence versus the absence of palatalization on the preceding consonant." (Rubach 1993a: 135) The latter is more similar to CSCz as the jer always surfaces as [a] with a difference in the presence versus the absence of the velar palatalizations, (ibid.) Slk, which is similar to Cz in so many other respects, makes a distinction on the surface between [e] and [o] (and sometimes [a]).

124 difference, of course, is that in (a) the jer invokes IVP while in (b) it does not.

This difference can be explained without resorting to two underlying jers, if we examine the underlying distribution of the jer. Note that the jers in (a) are part of a suffix which is added to the roots with stem-final dorsal (hence, a derived environment), while the jers in (b) are part of the root. Thus, the "palatalizing" power of the jer seems to be limited precisely to a derived environment.^^ There is a way, then, of dealing with the forms in (a) and (b) without resorting to overly abstract postulations.

As we have seen. Lexical Phonology offers the possibility of organizing phonological rules on the basis of the morphology. In this case, we are concerned mainly with the difference between lexical (cyclic) and post-lexical rules and when they occur in the phonology. In the theory, it is argued that lexical rules occur in the morphological component with the addition of affixes, while post- lexical ones occur at the syntactic or post-word-formation level. Such a distinction is important in defining the environment for IVP, which almost never occurs morpheme-intemally. Thus, it is not surprising that the jer in the forms of (b) does not invoke palatalization, for IVP is cyclic and applies in derived contexts only.27 Furthermore, we propose below that word-internal jers need not be specified for place in the underlying representation, and to surface as [e], they undergo default coronal place assignment. Therefore, it appears that there is no need to posit two different underlying jers in CSCz.

The Jer rules for CSCz are identical to those for CSR. In fact, these rules would probably be almost identical for all of the Slavic languages due to the

have found one obvious exception in the verb hndt which, in the present tense forms, shows the effect of IVP: fenu. In the present analysis, this form would be exceptional. ^This analysis is based on Rubach's (1993a) discussion of Slk. (102-6)

125 similarity of the vocalization phenomena in the various languages. There are, of

course, many differences both in the distinction between front and back jers

(which has been lost in both CSCz and Serbo-Croatian) and the surface

realizations of the jers. The rule of Jer Vocalization is repeated below:

(4.10) Jer Vocalization

E -> e /_ CE

The jers which remain unassociated are deleted at the end of the phonology by Jer Deletion - a convention of "stray erasure." As with CSR, the analysis makes the prediction that any vowel may be a jer (Rubach 1993a). Most jers surface as

[e] which is related to the default vowel specifications of the language (see the section following). However, other jers, which surface as other vowels, can be posited to deal with certain vowel ~ zero alternations in, e.g., Imperfective verbal derivation and the Imperative formation. Moreover, we have seen above that

/i/, in certain environments, may be treated as a floating matrix (/I/). Although the rule of vocalization for this segment is syllable driven (and, therefore, different from (4.10)), a non-vocalized extra-syllabic /I / would still be subject to Jer Deletion.

4.I.2.6. On the Classification of Vowels in CSCz In the discussion of the underlying vowel system for CSCz, we have made a number of important theoretical claims. First, we have provided evidence for a two-way [-back] high vowel distinction. Second, we introduced a two-way distinction between e-vowels. Finally, we demonstrated that CSCz does not distinguish underlyingly between back and front jers. All of these distinctions

126 concern the make-up of the front vowel system of the language. It would be

instructive to re-examine these claims in light of the theoretical framework. We shall first return to the classification of the non-dorsal vowels in the Clements

and Hume model of Feature Geometry.

Since the vowels /i/, /e /, /E / and /ë / all cause some type of

palatalization or coronalization, they should be viewed as coronal, /y / is

placeless, although it shares the same height (openness) features [-open%, -open?] with / i / and surfaces as coronal. As stated above non-low central vowels

automatically surface as coronal. Furthermore, the e-segments are distinguished

by crucial reference to the feature [-anterior]. It should be remembered that in

most unified theories of feature geometry "the VPLACE lacks any contrastive dependents: [strident] is incompatible with a vocalic stricture, and there seems to

be no [±anterior] contrast in front vowels comparable to that found in coronal consonants." (Kenstowicz 1994: 466-7) Hume (1992) assumes that [-anterior] is

supplied to the VPLACE by default rule. I suggest, however, that CSCz provides counter-evidence for this claim, in that /ë / and /i/, in most environments, are underlyingly unspecified for [anterior], while /e/ is specified [-anterior]. The

reason for this distinction is that /i/, in most cases, and /ë / invoke 2VP and Cor Pal, which is what we would expect for a coronal vowel. However, /e / and /i/,

in certain cases, invoke IVP, which is what we expect for an underlying coronal

[-anterior]. Thus, it appears that CSCz provides crucial evidence supporting an underlying coronal vowel distinction based on the presence or lack of the feature

[-anterior]. If we recall the feature specifications for the underlying vocalic system presented above, there are more underlying distinctions than surface ones. We reproduce the underlying vowel chart below for convenience:

127 (4.11) The Underlying Vocalic System of CSCz (repeated)

i é e y a o u dorsal • • coronal • • • [anterior] - [open%] — + + — + + —

[open2] — — — — + — —

We have argued that CSCz makes more use of the vocalic system than the consonantal one, relative to CSR. The vowel system postulated for CSCz allows

for more simplifications in the underlying consonantal representations. On the one hand, the surface vowel system represents the "classic" vowel triangle with two coronal vowels [i] and [e], one placeless, central vowel [a] and two dorsal vowels [u] and [oj. On the other hand, in the underlying vocalic system most of the additional distinctions concern the coronal vowels, or, more precisely, the non-dorsal vowels. All of the other proposed underlying segments, /y /, /ë / and /£ /, surface as coronal vowels. While the /ë / and /E / are already specified coronal in the underlying representation, / y / is placeless both in some morphological endings and in most roots. In addition, the original distinction between front and back jers has been lost in CSCz in favor of the front jer. Furthermore, there appears to be no reason to specify the underlying place features of jers within roots. I would suggest that these factors are due not to chance, but rather to a general rule in

CSCz which assigns the feature coronal as the default vowel place (for placeless vowels). It is precisely for this reason that /y / and / i / surface as the same coronal vowel and the jers have merged into the coronal / e / . The default rule is given below:

128 (4.12) Default Coronal VPlace Assignment

X X

CP CP

VP VP

cor

The placeless vowel is linked to a timing slot which means that the rule is ordered after Jer Vocalization.

The complicated underlying vowel system is justified for a number of reasons. First, it greatly simplifies the underlying consonantal inventory. Second, it provides a link between Oc and Sc. Third, the distinctions are normally stronger at the morphological level. Consequently, within roots the vowel distinctions are often redundant. The surface variants are then supplied by simple default rules. Finally, a more intricate vocalic system demonstrates the importance of the vowel distinctions over consonantal ones. Such a system, it is argued, captures the importance of the role that the vowels play in determining the surface system.

4.2. Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reexamined a number of the problematic areas of

CSCz phonology and proposed solutions on the basis of the theoretical claims made by Autosegmental Phonology and Feature Geometry. In the consonantal system, we proposed a new description of the prepalatal consonants as

129 underlyingly palatalized. The claim is justified by rules of coronalization, as well

as phonological theories of underspecification which allow for minimally marked segments in the underlying representation. In the vocalic system, we proposed

an innovative four-way distinction among the coronal vowels which is

supported by both the phonology and the morphology. In the case of the two e-

vowels a crucial distinction was based on the presence or absence of the feature [-coronal]. This claim has greater theoretical consequences, as, in contemporary

theories of Feature Geometry, vowels are normally said to make reference to this

feature only by default, i.e., underlying the feature is said to be absent. Thus, the evidence from CSCz may contribute to a better understanding of vocalic place features within the theories. Finally, we have demonstrated that CSCz has generalized coronal as the default vowel place. Within roots non-back vowels are usually maximally underspecified for place. Coronal is supplied by a late default

rule. Evidence for such a claim comes from the behavior of the non-back vowels, especially the jer and the high vowels.

130 CHAPTERS

RULES OF PALATALIZATION AND CORONALIZATION IN CSCz

5.0. Introduction

There are a number of coronalization processes that play an important role in both the morphology and, to a lesser extent, the phonology of CSCz. Although CSCz does not have any true palatalization rules like Sur Pal in CSR, it has coronalization rules which affect all consonants (except the labials) and one palatalization rule which applies to labial consonants. Coronal Palatalization

[Cor Pal], as the name implies, converts the [+anterior, -cont] coronal consonants into [-anterior] prepalatal stops and [r]. Labial Palatalization [Lab Pal] transforms plain labials into Labial + j sequences. In addition, two rules change the dorsal consonants into coronals: First Velar Palatalization (IVP) and Second

Velar Palatalization (2VP). Finally, there is a rule of Jotation, which in CSCz has a much more limited environment than in CSR. In the discussion of this rule we will readdress some of the residual problems. 5.1. Coronal Palatalization

Coronal Palatalization is limited to morphological environments. As

demonstrated above, the prepalatal surface phonemes [t'j, [d'], [n], and [r]

within roots are underlying (we will not repeat the arguments here). We can

assume that they arose from the rule of Cor Pal at an earlier historical period,

when it was not limited to derived environments, i.e., when it was post-lexical.

However, at some time in the development of Czech, Cor Pal changed its application from post-lexical to lexical. Synchronically, its environment is similar

to that of both 2VP and Lab Pal (in certain environments), as it occurs in most of the same morphological environments. Below we give some of the most important suffixes which invoke Cor Pal with examples:^

^ These examples have been culled from a number of different sources, including Mltixmice ceStiny (Vol. 1:1986), Townsend (1981).

132 (5.1) Suffixes which invoke Cor Pal

suffix non-altemating alternating form / - è / FL/DSG chata FNSG chatë [t'e] cottage moda môdë fashion hodina hodiné hour sestra sestfe sister MLSg2 svët MNSg svëtë world obëd obëdë lunch Berlin Berlînë Berlin tabor tâbofe camp / - i / MANImNPl student MNSG studenti student had hadi snake american americanfl Americans bratr bratfi brothers l - i l MascanimPlAdj mlady MSG mladt ANIMPl young unaveny MSG iinavenî ANIMPL tired kterâ FSg ktefî ANIMPL which /ej-siV Comparative knity MNSgADJ knitëjsi harsh ADV-ADJ4 hrdÿ hrdëjsî proud krâsnÿ krâsnëjsi beautiful chytry chytrejëî intelligent / - i / Imper 2PSg host MNSg host'/hosti entertain vedii IPSg ved' lead tisknout INF tiskni print /-ë-/ IMPER 1/2PPL vedti IPSg ved'me/ved'te lead tisknu tisnëme/tisknëte print

^There are two ailomorphs /- u / and /- é / for the MASC hard-stems in the LSG and in most cases they are not predictable. However, "[o]f these two endings -u is the more common, particularly with nouns ending in velars and r." (Townsend 1981:104) As we shall see in the discussion of the 2VP, however, some velar stems may take either ending. Townsend further notes that "masculine inanimates with gen sing in -a ... often have the prepositional singular in -*e." (ibid. 105) ^This is the Oï: variant, the S£ would be ameritane without Cor Pal. "^This allomorph is normally limited to adjectival stems ending in -n, -1, -p, -d, - t , -r and -v. The allomorph -EM is normally used with stems ending in -k/-ok/-ek, -h, -ch and also -t, -d and -r. (Sirokova et al. 1990:133) The latter allomorph, as expected, does not invoke Cor Pal but it does cause IVP. It is interesting to note that many of the forms with /-EM/ admit a variant with /-ejM/ in Oc (e.g., bohaty 'rich' ~ bohatSi/bohatëjëî). (Townsend 1990: 65) / -è/ is also the principal adverb forming suffix. The suffix will be analyzed in greater detail in the sections on Lab Pal and IVP.

133 There are many other suffixes within both the verbal morphology and

derivational morphology which invoke Cor Pal, but these examples are sufficient to demonstrate the environment.

It should be noted that the surfacing of the iMPER ending is governed by

syllable-sensitive rules. If the stem (syllable) ends in a single consonant, the ending is normally deleted. However, the effects of the vowel remain on the

stem-final consonant in the form of coronalization. Therefore, the rules of Cor Pal

and 2 VP must be ordered before the ending is deleted. The prepalatal in forms

such as ved' demonstrates that a coronal vow el must be part of the ending. In fact, this ending functions much like the jer (as we shall see below), which

normally does not invoke the rule of Cor Pal. Thus, the place features of an unassociated /-i/ or /-é / may link to a preceding stem-final coronal consonant as predicted by the rule of Cor Pal. This would imply that in the structural

description of the rule the vowel need not make reference to an X-slot.^ We

return to a discussion of the iMPER in the section on 2 VP.

It will be assumed that in Cor Pal a coronal vocalic place, which is not specified for the feature [-anterior], links to a preceding stem-final coronal

consonant. As already noted above, this process occurs with the addition of certain morphological endings. The resulting surface form is a prepalatal stop or

[rj. The rule, however, predicts a palatalized coronal: In the Clements and Hume

^In his description of Slk, Rubach proposes a rule of Imperative Vocalization in which an unvocalized "front jer" or, in this case, "imperative yer is vocalized if it is preceded by an extrasyllabic consonant." (1993a: 223) It is formulated as follows: X I I -> i /*C ___ In the formulation, / represents an unvocalized IMPER ending, while *C is an extra-syllabic consonant. A similar rule for CSCz could be formulated.

134 model a segment with CPIace specification as well as a coronal VPlace

specification is secondarily palatalized. This prediction is not problematic, as

CSCz does not allow secondarily palatalized consonants to surface. These

segment automatically undergo a redundancy rule which supplies them with the

correct place features (to be given below). We formulate the rule of Cor Pal below:

(5.2) Coronal Palatalization

X

Oral 'T " ;avity

CP [-cont] CP

Cor VP

[+ant] [-lat] Cor

The vocalic segment need not make reference to an X-slot as we have seen above

in the discussion of the IMFER, although in most instances it does. The consonant is specified as [-cont] (to exclude, e.g., the sibilants / s / and / z / ) , [-lateral] (to

exclude /I/) and [+anterior] (to exclude the alveopalatals). Let us now formulate the default rule for the prepalatal place specifications:

135 (5.3) Prepalatal Spell-out

X

CP i \ cor VP cor

cor [+distr] [-ant]

This rule will also apply to the underlying palatals to provide them with the correct surface features. Furthermore, [r] surfaces as [+strident], which is supplied by redundancy.

5.2. Labial Palatalization Labial Palatalization [Lab Pal] differs from the other rules in that it

functions on both morphological and phonological levels. In addition, unlike the other rules of coronalization. Lab Pal operates overtly only before the phoneme / ë / . As already discussed, it is a post-lexical rule, as it occurs within roots as well as in derivation. We have already presented a number of near-minimal pairs with root-internal alternations above, so we limit our examples here to morphological ones:^

^Most of these examples are from Townsend (1981) and Popova (1987).

136 (5.4) Suffixes which invoke Lab Pal

suffix non-altemating alternating form / - ë / FNSG zemi FGSG zemé [mne] NSG world koupi koupë [pje] purchase FD/LSG zima FNSG zime winter lampa lampé lamp chiidoba chudobe poverty karafa karafe carafe slava slave glory MLSC7 chrâm MNSG chrâmé temple sloiip sloiipë pole chléb chlébë bread akiizativ akiizativë accusative /- ë j ê i/ Co m par ativ e pitomy MSG ADJ pitomëjëî silly ADV/ADJ hloiipy hloiipëjsî stupid tmavy tmavëjsî dark /-ë t/ iMPERFECnVIZING zatopit PF zatâpët light vyrobit vyrâbët produce vypravit vyprâvët prepare

There are other morphological alternations which demonstrate the results of Lab Pal, but these will suffice for our purposes here. From the forms presented above, w e should note that the FNSG forms in / -é/, e.g., zemé, derive historically from the -ja-stems (Cf. GSR zeml’a). Thus, we might wish to include these alternations with the discussion of Jotation. I would argue, however, that in such forms an underlying [j] (from / i / ) is not recoverable synchronically and, therefore, not part of the underlying representation. Moreover, as we shall see, Jotation no longer applies to the labials in GSR.

Synchronically, the forms in (5.4) are generated by three different rules.

First, in Lab Pal the labial consonants are palatalized (i.e., they gain a secondary coronal VPlace) before both / i / and / é / . The rule is formulated below;

^The normal ending for labial final roots is, in fact, -u, although there are many examples with doublet forms.

137 (5.5) Labial Palatalization

cor

This rule predicts that a labial consonant will be palatalized before both front segments.®

Second, as CSCz does not allow palatalized labials to surface, there is a rule which delinks the secondary coronal VPlace and promotes it to [i]. In this process [i] gains its own timing slot.^ We call this rule Labial Depalatalization:

®E. Hume has pointed out to me that, since CSCz does not distinguish between palatalized labial and labial + j sequences, there is really no reason not to assume that underlyingly (i.e., phonologically) the labials are palatalized at some point in the derivation and then undergo various rule in order to surface. ^Alternately, this could be viewed as j-insertion which occurs only before /yS//. Anderson and Browne use the surface forms with [j] to posit underlying / fys.// (which in my analysis is //ë //). However, an insertion rule of this type does not explain why a [j] is inserted. In the present analysis, the surface [j] comes from the VPlace of the "palatalized" consonant.

138 (5.6) Labial Depalatalization

XX

CP CP

lab VP

cor cor

Note that the second segment is really /i/, and [j] is derived by rules of syllabification.

Finally, a rule of J Deletion deletes a [j] after a labial and before an /i/:

(5.7) J Deletion j -> 0 / P i

We should ask why [j] surfaces before / ë / and not /i/, when it is normally the

high front vowel that has more "palatalizing" power cross-linguistically. I would argue that this is due to the internal facts of CSCz phonology. Namely, there is a

phonotactic constraint which forbids [C+ ji] sequences to surface. Furthermore,

[i] is less sonorous than [e]. We shah see in the discussion of Jotation that the rule of Gliding is blocked before underlying / i / (presumably because of sonority).

Thus, there appears to be a general constraint on /Cji/sequences in CSCz.

We now need to address the very important alternation of the labial nasal consonant which normally surfaces as [mn] as a result of Lab Pal. We have claimed above that this should be analyzed as derived through an intermediary stage /m j/ . There is evidence for this, as [mj] is realized both in hypercorrect

139 speech and in the dialects of Moravia and Southern Bohemia. (Popova 1987: 92)

Furthermore, /m / patterns with the other labial segments both within roots and

in morphological processes. However, where does the palatal nasal come from?

In an autosegmental framework, [n] is derived by a rule of nasal spread in which

the [+nasal] feature of / m / spreads to the following coronal /j/ (or /i/):

(5.8) Nasal Spread

X X

[ropl root]

CP [+nasal] cP

lab VP

cor

As CSCz does not allow nasal glides to surface, the coronal VPlace is copied and then promoted to CPIace with a secondary coronal VPlace. This rule, then, should be ordered before Prepalatal Spell-out, which would specify the place features for surface [n].

5.3. The Dorsal Coronalizations

In this section we consider two important rules which affect the dorsal consonants. In these "historicized" processes the dorsal consonants alternate with coronals, either [+anterior] or [-anterior]. We are, therefore, dealing with coronalization. As with Cor Pal, the rules are limited to morphological environments and, consequently, are lexical (cyclic). Of the two. Second Velar

140 Palatalization (2VP) is the most limited, while First Velar Palatalization (IVP) cuts across the entire morphological system.

5.3.1. Second Velar Palatalization

2 VP is quite limited, occurring mainly in the nominal morphology. In fact, it occurs in many of the same forms as Cor Pal. It should be stressed that while this alternation has been almost completely lost in GSR, it has been maintained in CSCz. In CSCz, this alternation was probably supported by the similar alternations resulting from the rules of Cor Pal and Lab Pal. As a result of the rule, the dorsal consonants /k x fi g / alternate with [c s z]. Below we offer some examples which illustrate the alternation:

of these examples are from Popova (1987) and Sirokova et al. (1990).

141 (5.9) Suffixes which invoke 2VP

suffix non-altemating alternating form /-é/ FD/LSG nika nice hand socha soSe statue stuha stiize ribbon falanga falanze phalanx MLSGii jazyk jazyce language kozich kozise fur coat / - i / MA n im NF l12 delnik delnki worker lenoch lenoâi idler soudruh soudmzi comrade /-fc h / MLPL13 potok potockh stream patriarcha patriarskh patriarch bfeh bfezkh shore kolega kolezkh colleague /- i'/MA n im Pl a dj hezky hezci pretty hluchy hliiSi deaf drahÿ drazi expensive / - ë / ADVERBIAL14 lehky MNSG lehce easy siichy siise dry strohy stroze severe / - i / IMPER 2PSg 15 pekii IPSg pec bake pomohnout INF pomoz help /-ë-/ iMPERl/ZPPL peku IPSg pecte bake pomohnout iNF pomozte help

^^There is allomorphy with /-u /; in fact, the latter is the preferred allomorph in many instances. Even with the forms listed there are doublets: jazyce ~ jazykii, koziSe - kozichu. According to Popova there are no examples of this type of alternation with stem-final -h or -g. (1987: 93) ^^Borrowings with stem-final -g normally take the ending /-o v é / even in 0£, e.g., pedagog - pedagogové. ^^In Oc these forms are normally formed with the FEM hard-stem suffix /-ach/ to avoid the effects of 2VP. In NEU forms, there is often oscillation between the two forms even in % and in some cases the form in /-ach/ is the only possible one: bficho 'stomach' - bfiStch/bnchdch vs. siiclio 'drought' - siichdch. (ibid. 100) ^^There is allomorphy with the suffix /-o / in most forms with both a semantic and syntactic distinction. The comparative in stem-final velars is normally formed with the suffix / -E5i/ which invokes IVP and, therefore, will be discussed in the next section. ^^There is a strong tendency for these forms to be replaced by the effects of the IVP, e.g. pomdè, even in the literary standard. This is yet another example that the environment for 2VP is becoming more limited. However, these forms are also problematic in the Present tense, as forms with the effects of IVP are accepted even before the IPSG and 3PPL endings: pecii and peciit. Both of these anomalies, then, could be attributed to analogy.

142 It would appear that there is a growing tendency in CSCz to encroach upon the

environment of 2 VP. In other words, the rule is becoming more "historicized".

However, the strength of the opposition in the FL/DSg, and the creation of semantic and syntactic distinctions would point to the continued retention of the

rule. There are two important points which need to be addressed before we can formulate the rule for 2VP. First, three of the underlying dorsals result in [+anterior] coronal segments ([c] and [z]), while / x / gives the [-anterior] coronal [s], which is the same output as IVP. How can we account for these different outcomes? One possibility would be to change /x / to /s / and then to [sj. However, we shall see that we may not need to propose an intermediary stage.

The second point concerns the structural description of the rule in the Clements and Hume model. We have proposed that the coronal vowels /ë / and

/ i / not be specified [-anterior], yet the resulting segments from 2 VP are either

[+anterior] in the case of [c] and [z] or [-anterior] in the case of [s]. Thus, the rule predicts a coronal unspecified for the value [±anterior]. 1 suggest, then, that all of the dorsals undergo this rule, and are transformed into the respective [±anterior] by redundancy, The basic rule of 2 VP is:

l^For an alternative approach to this problem, see Rubach (1993a: 104-7). It should be noted, however, that, first, in his model vowels and consonants are treated as having different features and, second, the rule of 2VP has a much more limited environment in CSSlk. His analysis is further complicated by a high level of interaction between IVP and 2VP.

143 (5.10) Second Velar Palatalization

X X

Oral Oral Cav Cav

CPCP [acontj [+cont]

dor VP

cor

The output of the rule is a coronal consonant, which may be either the affricate [c] or the fricatives [z s]. In the former, the [±cont] is a result of the "fusion" of

the [-cont] feature of /k / and the [+cont] of the vowel. In the last two, the underlying dorsal consonant is already [+cont].^^ The two spell-out rules which are limited to the 2VP environment are given below:

the case of an underlying / g / we would expect an affricate to be the result, but [z] surfaces. We can propose that, in fact, 2VP first creates the affricate / g / which undergoes a later rule of Affricate Assibilation. This rule is discussed in the section on Jotation.

144 (5.11) /k y/ 2VF Spell-out

X

fS.[-fcont] CP

Cor

[+ant]

(5.12) /x/ 2VP Spell-out

i S[+cont] . CP

Cor

[-ant]

The rules, then, predict either a [+anterior] or [-anterior] coronal. This new approach allows us to posit a general rule of 2VP, parallel to both Cor Pal and Lab Pal.

145 5.3.2. First Velar Palatalization

IVP occurs in a much wider environment than 2VP, although it is still limited to morphological contexts—i.e., before certain suffixes. We have already seen that it does not occur within roots (e.g., kino 'cinema') with the exception of a handful of lexical items. Forms such as hnât ~ zemi are taken as testimony to the former post-lexical nature of this rule. Diachronically, the rule was not limited to the morphological component. Synchronically, however, the rule is lexical. As we can see from the data presented below, as a result of the rule the dorsal consonants alternate with the [-anterior] coronals [c], [z] and [s]:^®

^®While the result of the stop /k / is the expected affricate, in the case of / g / the result is a fricative. Therefore, we might want to posit a stage in which / g / first changes to an affricate, namely /g / and then undergoes a rule of assibilation (to [2]). We will discuss this rule in the next section.

146 (5.13) Suffixes which invoke IVP

suffix non-altemafing alternating form /-E -k-/ Dim19 reka FNSC ficka river potok MNSg potiicek stream mech MNSg miSek bag kniha FNSG knizka book bilk MNSg bozek god /-E-ka/ FProf chinirg MNSG chinirzka F surgeon /-E n -y/i7 AojBCHVAL^o nika FNSG riicni hand struck MNSg straëny fear kniha knizni book /-€ -/ Pres Theme plakat Inf place 3PSG cry dychat dyëe breathe mohii IPSg müze be able /-e -/ V erbalizing Inf poprchat iNF prëet Inf rain bëhat bëzet run /-i-/ skakat skocit jump struck MNSg straëit fear; haunt /-in / ADjECnviZINC^i babicka FNSg babiccin grandmother snacha FNSG snaëin daughter-in- law Olga Olzin Olga

The data above is slightly problematic in that it demonstrates the reflexes of IVP before /i/ as well as /e /, which is unexpected according to the claim we have made for the CSCz underlying vocalic inventory. We have already

have already mentioned the length alternations apparent in these forms. Although the formulation of the rules is beyond the scope of this analysis, suffice it to say that there are two different rules occurring here (and in other morphological categories): one of lengthening (as in kniha ~ knSka) and one of long vowel raising (as in méch ~ miSek). There is another important rule of vowel shortening which can also be seen in the formation of the Diminutive (as in âifca 'frog' - zabka). In a non-linear approach the formulation of these rules should make crucial reference to syllable structure. ^^hliere appear to be no examples of stem-final -g due to the fact that the normal adjectivizing ending with these stems is /-icky/ which does not invoke IVP or the other rules of coronalization, for that matter (e.g., politick^ without Cor Pal). In the present analysis, we assume that this ending is underlyingly /-y ck y /. ^^This suffix also causes / r / to change to [f], the expected result of Cor Pal as we can see in the form, Vëra - Vëfin, although it does not appear to invoke the Cor Pal with /t d n/. We have observed the anomalous behavior of / r / in other instances, although we will still must treat this form an exception to the rules.

147 discussed the underlying vocalic distinctions in CSCz, so we will not repeat the

arguments here. It has been proposed in Chapter 4 that underlying / i / is

sometimes marked for the feature [-anterior]. The double nature of / i / is also seen in the adjectival ending /-f/, which normally invokes Cor Pal, although

with the consonant clusters / sk/ and / ck/, it invokes IVP (as in, e.g., nisky

'Russian/NSC ~ rusti [st'j 'MANIM N P l' and anglickÿ ~ angliôtf). An argument

for this proposal will be given in the section on Jotation.

Below we formulate the rule of IVP:

(5.14) First Velar Palatalization

CP CP

dor VP

cor

[-ant]

Note that the structural description of the rule makes reference to a [-anterior] vowel. However, where do the other features come from to produce the alveopalatal sounds? As we have seen in the discussion of 2 VP, a rule of coronalization may make reference to the redundant vowel feature [+cont] in order to predict surface [c], [z] and [§], while the rule of Cor Pal does not.

Furthermore, in the case of the velar palatalizations, only the coronal place spreads, not the entire VPlace. Thus, the rules should be formulated in such a

148 way that the spreading of [-cont] (as well as other features) from the vowel to the consonant is explicit.

Bethin's (1992b) analysis of Jotation (which we have discussed in detail in

Chapter 3 and will reexamine below in light of the CSCz data) might offer a

possible solution to the problem. In the case of IVP the resulting segment is a

"contour". In fact, we might posit a stage in which a contour segment is created

by IVP and later simplified. A possible reformulation of IVP is given below:

(5.15) First Velar Palatalization (possible reformulation)

root root

Oral Oral cav c^v [acontl CP [+Cont] CP CP I VP Dor Dor Cor Cor

[-ant] [-ant]

According to the rule, the [root] node of the vowel first spreads to the preceding consonant, creating a "contour". Unlike Jotation, this rule does not predict the absorption of the following vowel segment (i.e., the vocalic X-slot does not delink from its [root] node). Here, the [root] node is "copied" onto the preceding X-slot.

Such a view predicts in a straightforward manner the appearance of a more complex affricate or fricative according to the combination of the [cont] features.

149 We will re-examine the theoretical issues at large here in the following section on Jotation.

To conclude, we have seen in this section the importance of morphological

factors in determining the underlying representation of the CSCz vocalic system. In fact, in certain cases the morphological informations predicts the presence or absence of the feature [-anterior] in the underlying representation of the front vowels. Furthermore, we have offered two possible solutions for the rule of IVP.

5.4. Jotation

The last rule of coronalization, Jotation, is the most limited in its scope. Due to a general realignment of the Czech verbal morphology, the rule appears to be much more "historicized" than in CSR. However, even with these limitations, Jotation still plays a significant role in the formation of both the present tense and the past passive participle (PPP), and it would benefit us to examine the mechanisms involved in the change. In the discussion of the rule, we also readdress some residual problems concerning the representation of the rule of IVP and the reflexes of certain consonant clusters. It would be instructive to highlight the major differences in the rules of

Jotation in CSCz and CSR. First, in CSCz as a result of the rule, / 1/ and / d / are transformed into the [+anterior] coronals affricates [c] and / 3 / (rather than the

[-anterior] coronals [c] and [z] of CSR) .22 Moreover, in CSCz the alternation is limited to the PPP. The lack of the alternation in the present tense in CSCz can be attributed to the change of the -i-stem endings and the subsequent elimination of

^ In fact, these are the reflexes of the important proto-Slavic development of *tj and Mj clusters, and the difference between CSCz and CSR reflects a historical isogloss. This, however, does not affect a synchronic analysis of the reflexes, as they have been integrated into the synchronic morphology of the two languages.

150 Jotation in this class of verbs. Thus, a verb such as platit 'pay' has the IPSG form

platim, without the effects of Jotation (but with the effects of Cor Pal). In fact, all

effects of Jotation have been eliminated from the present of -i-stem verbs (CSCz prosit ~ prosim vs. CSR prosit' ~ proSii). We do, however, see the effects of the rule

in the PPP, which Newman and Townsend explain as "an unpredictable shift... of certain -i+ verbs. If the verb is formed from an adjectival root, a stem final t' or

d' shifts to c or z respectively." (1972:330) This alternation can be illustrated in

the forms, obohatit 'enrich' ~ obohacen 'PPP' and ochiidit 'impoverish' ~ ochuzen. I would argue, however, that the shift is not unpredictable, but rather demonstrates the presence of an underlying / i / which causes Jotation only in these forms. The other major difference in the rules in the two languages can be seen in their output. In CSCz, for example, the labial mutations have been completely eliminated.^ In CSCz, within the rule of Jotation, we can observe four distinct processes as a result of the general rule:

1 . the dental stops become affricates / t d / [c 3 (-^ z)]

2 . the dental sibilants are backed to alveopalatals /s z/ -> [s z]

3. certain clusters are backed to alveopalatal + prepalatal clusters /st zd sk/ -> 1st' zd' st']

4. the dorsals are fronted to alveopalatals, as in IVP /k X y/ -> [c s z]

^This is not surprising especially if we recall the environment of the rule of J Deletion.

151 In fact, 4. is limited to /k /, as there are no examples with the other two dorsal

consonants. Examples of Jotation in the PPP and the IPSG verbal forms are given below:

(5.16) Jotation in the CSCz verbal system

INFINITIVE IPSG PPP zaplatit (zaplatm) *• zaplacen pay ztratit (ztratm ) ztracen lose radit (radim) fazen/faden align hodit (hodîm) hozen throw cesat24 ceSii (cesan) comb hlasit (hlâsîm) hldSen announce mazat main (mazan) wipe vozit (vozm) vozen transport cistit (cistim) cistën^ clean zpozdit (zpozdim) zpozdén delay tisknout (tisknu) listen print plakat placii (plakan) cry skakat skdcii (skâkan) jump

The forms in parentheses do not show the results of Jotation, but are given for

completeness. It is obvious that the environments are much more limited than in CSR. Furthermore, the influence of Jotation appears to be losing ground in the modem language.

Let us restate a few of the most important points concerning Jotation from our of discussion of CSR. Jotation must be ordered after the rule of Gliding

^^There is an alternative stem ces-aj, which is conjugated cesâm, etc., without Jotation. This is a general tendency of the -a-stem verbs of this type, especially if they end in a labial. (Townsend 1981:125) Thus, there appears to be a general tendency to avoid Jotation even in the -a-stem verbs. ^The similar verb ocistit has two possible PPP ociStén/oàstën. The latter form is affected by Cor Pal instead. In fact, according to Sirokova et al. there is a growing tendency for the elimination of the Jotation alternations, as in pokosit 'mow' - pokosen, zobrazit 'express' - zcbrazen and czht 'feel' - citen.

152 which converts / i / into [j] before a non-identical vowel (i.e., a more sonorous

one). I reformulate the rule from Chapter 3:

(5.17) Gliding

# I root root I 1

Vocalic Vocalic

VP A p ^ tu r e ^ V P

Cor [-opnl]

The second X excludes / i / from its structural description. Once this rule occurs

the segment remains as "floating" and can be reattached to the preceding consonantal segment, thereby causing its "mutation". I would argue that in CSCz

this rule is blocked after labials. It is for that reason that Jotation does not occur with the labials - the structural description of a floating [root] node is never met.

We need to account for the insertion of [j] in -a-stem verbs. To do this we

again adopt the lexical rule of CSR which changes /a / into /i/:

(5.18) A-adjustment a —> i / _____ ejverb

This rule predicts that a form such as //m az-a+u// will change to /mazi+u/

and, consequently will meet the structural description for Gliding and Jotation.

Second, we must not forget Jakobson's important rule which deletes a vowel when preceding another one:

153 (5.19) Vowel Deletion V -» 0 / V

The importance of this rule will be demonstrated in the sample derivations. In

the present analysis, the rule is not invoked as frequently as in linear treatments

due to the fact that, as a result of Jotation, the high, front vowel is absorbed by the preceding consonant.^^

Let us first consider the general rule of Jotation which, as in

CSR, creates a contour segment. The labial series has been excluded from the rule, as the labials are not subject to Gliding. With this in mind, the general rule of Jotation is repeated below:

(5.20) Jotation

X X

root root root 1 1 1 Oral CP CP cav 1 1 1 1 [acontl Vocalic Vocalic CP 1

VP Aperture^ VP

1 Cor [-opnl]

^^Nevvman and Townsend give the following examples for this rule in CSCz; zo-a+u zvu (without Jotation) and soiid-i+en soud+en souzen. By their rules, Jotation (or a "shift of stem- final consonants") occurs after deletion. (1972: 326) However, in this case there is no / i / to motivate the change. Rather, the general rule of Jotation (i.e., the creation of a contour segment) should be ordered before deletion, and, consequently, the / i / will no longer be in an environment to be deleted.

154 The rule predicts the linking of the delinked /i/-m elody in the environment a

consonant and preceding another vowel (and, of course, limited to the verbal

morphology). Furthermore, the "floating" i-melody is absorbed by the consonant

creating a contour segment. In turn, this contour is reinterpreted in a number of

different ways through the operation of various adjustment rules which we discuss individually.

In the case of the dental stops /t d /, the resulting segments are the affricate [c] and the fricative [z]. A more natural way to view this change would be to propose that a readjustment rule creates affricates from both segments. In

this way, the rule for both dental stops can be formulated as a single process. In the rule, which we call Dental Stop Jotation Readjustment, the feature [+cont] of the disassociated vowel becomes "overt" and is reinterpreted as the crucial

feature:

(5.21) Dental Stop Jotation Readjustment

X

root root

Oral Oral cav cav

1 [-cont] [+cont] ^ CP 1 1 Cor Vocalic 1 1 [+ant] VP

Cor

Thus, the rule produces a contour [+anterior, ±cont] coronal segment - i.e., an affricate. The other features are automatically deleted.

155 The derived / 3 / , then, undergoes a default rule of "assibilation", giving

[z]. The assibilation rule, almost identical to the one we proposed for CSR, is:

(5.22) Affricate Assibilation f root

voi]^[+voi] Oral Cav

[«ontl 1-'°"" CP

Cor

Unlike the rule in CSR, in CSCz the coronal node does not make reference to the

feature [-anterior], as the rule need not be limited to either a [+anterior] or

[-anterior] voiced continuant coronal consonants. It should be noted that the sequences [dz] and [dz] do occur in the language, but not in derived contexts, as in, e.g., dzban 'jug', dziido 'judo' and podzemm 'underground'.-^ Therefore, the rule should be limited to derived contexts, and, consequently, it is lexical. Moreover, the similar alternations /g / /<%/ —> [z] and /g / 7 3 / [z] can be accounted for by the same rule.

The next readjustment rule concerns the alveolar fricative (sibilant) consonants /s / and / z /. It is different from Dental Stop Readjustment in that the sibilants become to alveopalatals ([-anterior] coronals). The rule is formulated as one of [-anterior] spreading:

^^The examples are from Short (1993:457).

156 (5.23) Sibilant Jotation Readjustment

X

[+cont] Vocalic

[-ant]

Let US consider next the readjustment rule for the dorsal consonants. Note that this rule is almost identical to the second formulation of IVP (5.15). In fact, below we will argue that the mechanism is the same and that IVP and Dorsal Jotation Adjustment should be combined into one rule. We will discuss the similarities and the motivations for such a rule below. A simple rule to readjust dorsals would read as follows:

157 (5.24) Dorsal Jotation Readjustment

root

[acont Vocalic

Dor

Cor

[-ant]

Like IVP, this rule also makes crucial reference to the vocalic feature matrix. As

proposed above in the discussion of IVP, the feature matrix of the front vowel "copies" (i.e., links) onto the preceding consonantal melody, creating a contour segment. In the case of Jotation, however, there is no copying, as the vocalic segment is floating. Consequently, the floating [root] node automatically docks to the consonantal segment. It would, in fact, be fruitful to somehow link these two processes, due to both the limited environment of Jotation in CSCz and its limited scope with the dorsal series of consonants. Recall that the only examples of Jotation with the dorsals affect the segment /k /. We propose that the rule can be generalized by making optional reference to the vocalic timing slot. We call the rule Dorsal Coronalization. This new rule must be ordered after Jotation

(which would make sense in the theory of Lexical Phonology, as Jotation has a more limited environment than Dorsal Coronalization). We present the proposed rule below:

158 (5.25) Dorsal Coronalization

root root

Oral Oral cav cav

[acontl CP CP [+cont]

Dor VF

Cor

[-arrt]

This rule differs from Dorsal Jotation Readjustment and IVP only insofar as it makes optional reference to a linked timing slot. Its formulation reflects the fact that Dorsal Jotation and IVP are really the same process.

The verbal morphology of CSCz provides further evidence to support this view. The evidence comes from present tense forms of the dorsal-stem verbs of the type péct/péci T»ake', vléct/vléci 'drag' and moct/moci T)e able'. While historically all of these verbs had IPSG and 3PSG forms with the Dorsal {pekii - pekou, vlekii, mohu), it is only the last example for which the form with the dorsal is preferred; others have generalized the alveopalatal alternation throughout the present-tense paradigm. To this end, Newman and Townsend note:

159 Stems in final -k regularly have present-tense ... forms in -c, although the bookish variants pekii, pekou ... may still be seen, [while] stems in final -h number only two ... [and] the non­ generalized forms mohu and mohou are sill preferred, though substandard miizii, miizou are frequently heard. (1972: 333)

While the generalization of the stem alternation may be attributed to paradigm leveling, it is still true that the dorsal ~ alveopalatal alternations of verbs such as pecu ~ peceS is now parallel to those such as skâèu ~ skâceë. Regardless of the reasons behind the change, the mechanisms are the same. In some persons IVP is invoked (peces, e.g.), while in others there is no surface motivation for coronalization.^^

To conclude this section, we must consider the alternations the consonant clusters /s t / , /z d / and /s k /. Here, Jotation (and other rules, as we have seen) changes the clusters to [st'], [zd'] and [st']. It would only be natural to examine these alternations in light of the other Jotation readjustments. Furthermore, they clearly pattern together, as they all surface as alveopalatal + prepalatal sequences. On the other hand, they do differ to the extent that the alternation of the clusters / s t / and /z d / is more limited than that of /sk /. Namely, the first two clusters alternate only as a result of Jotation while the latter shares many of the same environments of IVP .^9 Therefore, it is suggested here that the changes.

has been pointed out to me by E. Scatton, that the IPSG forms such as pecii could be attributed to die reanalysis of the IPSG form as /pek-e-u/. ^^For example, "IVP" (i.e.. Dorsal Coronalization) is invoked in both ANIMNPL adjectival endings, e.g., niSti 'Russian' from underlying //rusk+ i://, and in certain suffixes, for example, /-Lna/, as in ceStina 'the Czech language' which underlyingly is //cesk+ina//, and the comparative /-ëj-Si/, as in ceStéjSt 'more Czech' //cesk+éj-§i://.There is a similar alternation of / / c k / / - [ct'l, as in artglickp - anglictina (//an glick + in a//), which is rarer but is subject to the same rules. The only difference would be in the representation of the first consonant as an affricate ([±cont]) rather than a fricative ([+cont]). Finally, within nominal roots the cluster /s k / is treated "normally", i.e. we observe only the effects of 2VP , as in deska 'board/NSG' - desce 'LSG'.

160 although parallel on certain grounds, are really the result of different rules. The

general rule of Dorsal Coronalization, which we have discussed in detail above, allows us to link these processes.

Let us first consider the cluster /s k /, as it has the most wide-spread environment of the three alternations. It is proposed here that the surface reflex [st'] is the result of three separate rules of assimilation and dissimilation. First, the /k / of the cluster undergoes coronalization by the general rule of Dorsal Coronalization: the dorsal / k / becomes [-anterior] coronal / c / . Second, the / s / of the cluster assimilates to the / c / , by the spreading of [-anterior] to the coronal place (to become /s/). Finally, the /c / dissimilates to the preceding continuant, losing its [+cont] specification, becoming prepalatal [t']. The two new rules Sibilant Assimilation and Palatal Dissimilation are formulated below:

(5.26) Sibilant Assimilation

X

Oral Cav Oral Cav

l^ ^ l+ c o n t] [

CP CP

Coc Cor

[+ant] [-ai\t]

161 (5.27) Palatal Dissimilation

X

Oral Cav OraLCav

[+cont] [

[-ant] [-ant]

Let us now consider /st/ and / zd/, which are limited to Jotation in the

verbal morphology.^ According to the rules presented above, /st/ and /zd / clusters should automatically be subject to Dental Stop Jotation Readjustment,

giving /sc / and /z^ / respectively. Since /c / and / j/ are not [-anterior], they do not feed into the rule of Sibilant Assimilation. I suggest that there is a different

mechanism involved here, as the /st/ and /z d / alternations occur only as a result of Jotation. The process must be formulated as two separate rules. First, a rule similar to Cor Pal spreads the coronal VPlace to the second consonant of the cluster creating /st'/ and /zd '/, respectively:

have found another environment for, at least, /st/ which alternates before the suffix /-an/, as in mésto 'town' - méêt'an 'burgher', mëSt'ackÿ 'bourgeois', etc. These forms imply that either there are recoverable instances of Jotation in the nominal morphology as well as the verbal morphology or these forms are exceptional. We will exclude such forms from the present discussion.

162 (5.28) Cluster Coronalization (in Jotation)

X X

root root root 1 1 Oral Oral CP cav cav

I [4-cont| ' Vocalic CP CÇg_

VP Cor Cor 1 1 Cor [+ant] [+ant]

[-ant]

In this process the [-anterior] specification of the vocalic segment may become overt and spread to the first consonant of the cluster. This process is formulated in the second rule:

163 (5.29) Sibilant Backing (in Jotation)

X X

root root root

Oral Oral CP cav cav

I [+cont] ' [-cont] Vocalic CP CP

CorCor

Cor [+ant]

[-ant]

This rule could occur later in the derivation, but we propose that the assimilation occurs at the time when the timing slot is still linked to the melody in order to

highlight the similarity and interdependence of the two rules. These rules,

however, may require some revision, as we shall see in what follows. The addition of two more rules may appear to unnecessarily complicate the grammar. It has been demonstrated, however, that the alternations affecting

/ st/ and /z d / are more irregular and less wide-spread than the similar alternation affecting /sk /. The two rules reflect the historicized mechanisms

involved in the change rather than its regularity. In addition, we should recall that the rule of Jotation has been lost (or is being lost) in many forms in favor of

Cor Pal (as in, e.g., the doublet fazen ~ faden), a generalization which also occurs with many forms with consonant clusters alternations (as in the doublet, e.g., ciStën ~ cistén). Such doublets suggest that Sibilant Backing is, in fact, optional.

Furthermore, forms such as fadén point to a generalization of "coronal palatalization" among the alveodental stop stems, which could be included

164 under the rule of Cluster Coronalization if we changed its structural description to optionally include reference to the initial / s / of the cluster. This new rule would apply in place of the more lexically marked Dental Stop Jotation

Readjustment. Thus, there is importance evidence from the behavior of the dental stops in Jotation which supports the existence of the cluster adjustment rules.

In this section we have demonstrated that, although the rule of Jotation produces various reflexes (depending on the various consonant classes), there is a general rule active in CSCz which creates a contour segment. These contours are subject to various readjustment rules. It has been further demonstrated that the readjustment rule affecting the dorsal series of consonants is identical to IVP and, consequently, a new, general rule. Dorsal Coronalization, has been proposed. Finally, we discussed the fate of various sibilant-initial consonant clusters and combined the more regular alternation of / sk / ~ [st'j with the effects of Dorsal Coronalization. We address the problem of rule ordering in the next section.

5.5. Rule Ordering

In this section some sample derivations are presented in order to demonstrate the ordering of the rules of coronalization and other, related rules.

These derivations serve as a basis for reexamination of the rules proposed for the language in light of the theory of Lexical Phonology. Sufficient arguments for the rules have been given in the pervious sections. Here we offer a valid ordering of the most important rules discussed. Individual rules will be referred to only insofar as they relate to the morphological forms under discussion. The rules are divided into lexical and post-lexical components according to their behavior in

165 the grammar. Evidence for the attribution to one component or another will be

provided when necessary. The sample derivations illustrate various important

morphological categories. In most cases, we adopt the same morphological

categories (NPl, Present tense of verbs with and without Jotation, and the

Imperative) that we used in the discussion of CSR; however, there are additional

derivations from LSG and ANIMNPl Adjectives forms, due to the differences in the interaction and nature of rules (namely. Lab Pal and Cor Pal) of the two

languages. Let us first classify the rules of coronalization according to their lexical nature: lexical/cyclic or post-lexical. We should recall that in the lexical (word-

derivation) component less productive rules are generally ordered before the more productive ones. The most important rules of coronalization and

palatalization in CSCz are Cor Pal, Lab Pal, 2 VP, Dorsal Coronalization and

Jotation. As we have seen, Jotation is the most limited and least productive of the rules and, therefore, should be ordered first. There are three important rules which must be ordered relative to Jotation. The lexical rule of A-adjustment and Gliding must be come before it and the more general Vowel Deletion after it.

The rules affecting the dorsal series of consonants, 2VP and Dorsal Coronalization (in that order), appear to be the next most limited rules. They

create no ordering paradoxes between themselves, as their structural

descriptions (on the basis of the representation of the underlying coronal vowel)

are different. However, if we order the more limited 2 VP before Dorsal

Coronalization the forms which undergo the former rule are automatically excluded from the latter. Dorsal Coronalization must be ordered after Jotation,

as the latter sometimes feeds the former.

166 On the other hand. Cor Pal is a late lexical rule, as its former post-lexical classification is evident within roots. Recent foreign borrowings provided evidence for the change in status of the rule: it has been demonstrated that the prepalatal consonants are underlying within roots. Finally, the rule of Lab Pal, although its reflexes surface only before /ë /, occurs both within roots and at morpheme boundaries, and, consequently, is the only rule of palatalization that has retained post-lexical status in CSCz. Its post-lexical nature has been strengthened by the loss of underlying palatalized labial consonants.

Below w e present an ordered listing of the rules. In certain cases the ordering is based on the range of the environment and not on the feeding/bleeding nature of the rule. The minor rules are sometime indented to indicate that they are dependent on others (such as the 2VP Spell-out rules):

ordered lexical rules A-adjustment (5.18) Gliding (5.17) Jotation (5.20) Vowel Deletion (5.19) Dental Stop Jotation Readjustment (5.22) Sibilant Jotation Readjustment (5.23) Cluster Coronalization (5.28) Sibilant Backing (5.29) 2VP (5.10)) /k y / 2VP Spell-out (5.11) / x / 2VP SpeU-out (5.12) Dorsal Coronalization (5.25) Sibilant Assimilation (5.26) Palatal Dissimilation (5.27) Coronal Palatalization (5.2) Affricate Assibilation (5.21)

ordered post-lexical rules Labial Palatalization (5.5) Labial Depalatalization (5.6) J Deletion (5.7) Nasal Spread (5.8)

167 Jer Vocalization (4.10) Imperative Vocalization

late (default! rules Default Coronal VPlace Assignment (4.12) Prepalatal Spell-out (5.3) Jer Deletion

A few sample derivations will demonstrate this ordering. We begin with

some examples of Jotation, which, as we have stressed, has the most limited

environment of the coronalization rules. The examples come from both the present tense and the PPP:

(5.30) Sample Derivations I (Jotation)

SURFACE fazen mazii placii zpozden UR rad-i+en maz-a+e+u plak-a+e+u zpozd-i+en Cycle 2 [radi+en] [maza+e] [plaka+e] [zpozdi+en]

A-Adj — mazie plakie — Jotation raD'en maZ'e plaK'e zpoZD'en

VowDel — ------—

Jotation Read) fajen maze — —

— — Clust Cor — zpozd'en

Sib Backing — — — zpozd'en

Dors Cor — — place —

Affr Assib fazen ------— Cycle 3 [fazen] [maze+u] [place+u] [zpozd'en] Vow Del — mazu placu zpozd'en

Capital letters represent the intermediary stages before the various consonants undergo the Jotation readjustment rules. As for the first example, recall that there is a doublet surface form fadén with the effects of Cor Pal. If we were to derive this form instead, then the more lexically-limited rule of Dental Stop Jotation

Readjustment would be blocked from applying, and the form would automatically feed into the (reformulated) rule of Cluster Coronalization.

1 6 8 We now present sample derivations from the Imperative verbal

morphology. We limit the examples to the 2PSG ending /-I/ (which alternates

with -0 ). Here, the capital letter indicates that the ending behaves like a jer in

that it vocalizes only under certain syllable-sensitive circumstances (the rule is

called Imperative Vocalization). I will not discuss or reorder the other relevant

rules, as that has already been done above. Problems with the individual forms will be discussed below.

(5.31) Sample Derivations II (Imperative 2PSG)

SURFACE tiskn'i [n] napis pec pec'll UR tiskn+ 1 napis-a-i-I pek+I pek-a+I Cycle 2 [tiskn-tl] [napisa-tl] [pek+I] [peka-t-I] A-Adj — napisil — pekü Jotation — napiST — peKT

Vow Del —— — — Jotat Read) — napisi —— 2VP — — peel — Dors Cor — —— peel Cor Pal tisknT — ------POST-LEX [tisknT] [napisI] [peel] [peel] Imper Voc tiskni — —— Jer Deletion — napis pec pec

It should be noted that each cycle presupposes resyllabification. It is precisely the resyllabification of the Post-lexical cycle which creates the proper environment for Imperative Vocalization. The last two examples demonstrate the crucial ordering of 2 VP with respect to Dorsal Coronalization. If the stem-final dorsal does not undergo 2VP, then it will automatically be subject to Dorsal Coronalization.

We have already discussed the oscillation between the two types of coronalization in the velar- stern nouns. Here we offer a possible explanation of the reinterpretation of the stem through Jotation.

169 The next derivations are forms with the ANIMNPL /-i/ and adjectival / i/ endings:

(5.32) Sample Derivations III (NPL)

SURFACE americani [h] soiidnizi lenoSi cesti [t'j UR american+i soudruy+i lenox+i cesk+i Cycle 2 [american+i] [soudruy+i] [lenox+i] [cesk+i] 2VP soudruzi lenosi blocked Dors Cor cesa Sib Assim cesa Pal Diss cest'i Cor Pal amencan i

Recall that the second and third forms must undergo (two different) spell-out rules in order to surface properly. Further, we have noted that the last form is

"blocked" from 2VP (as we would normally expect that N Pl suffix to invoke

2 VP). Therefore, we must lexically mark the forms which are not subject to the effects of 2 VP. Forms such as these, however, stand out in that they end with a cluster and the suffix is adjectival, rather than nominal.

To conclude the derivations, we present four derivations of nominal forms in LSG:

170 (5.33) Sample Derivations IV (LSG)

SURFACE hodinë [h] falanze lampë [pj] zimë [mn] UR hodin+ë falang+ë lamp+ë zim+é Cycle 2 [hodin+ë] [falang+è] [lamp+ë] [zim+ë] 2 VP— falangë — —

Cor Pal hodin'ë — ------— Affr Assib — falanzé ------— PoST-LEX [hodin'ë] [falanzë] [lampë] [zimë] Lab Pal — — lamp'ë zim'ë Lab Depal — — lampjé zimjë

Nasal Spr — —— zimn'ë

Prepal SO hodinë —— zimnë V ow el D ef hodihe falanze lampje zimne

In these derivations we have included all of the relevant rules in order to illustrate all of the processes involved in producing valid outputs. Vowel Default (which we have not discussed above) merges the two underlying e-

phonemes into the surface [e]. The last two forms do not necessarily illustrate the post-lexical nature of the labial rules. These same rules would also apply to a

word-internal sequence (thus, post-lexically) such as mésto 'town' ( / / m'ësto —> mjesto —> m hesto/ / —> [mnesto]). All of these derivations demonstrate the

importance of rule ordering and the division of the rules according to the principles of Lexical Phonology.

5.6. Conclusion

To summarize, in this chapter we have offered a new analysis of the rules

of coronalization and palatalization in CSCz. In the discussion we have seen that

CSCz limits such rules, for the most part, to morphological environments. In fact, in contrast to CSR, CSCz has no general rule of Surface Palatalization. While Cor

Pal appears to have been a post-lexical rule historically, synchronically it is

171 limited to morphological environments, as are Jotation, 2 VP, and the general rule of Dorsal Coronalization. The post-lexical nature of Cor Pal was supported by crucial evidence from the behavior of coronal + i sequences within roots in loan-words. On the other hand, the rule of Lab Pal has been shown to be post- lexical, as it occurs both within roots and at morpheme boundaries. Further, the rule occurs in most of the same morphological environments as Cor Pal and 2VP, although its reflexes surface only before the underlying vocalic segment

/ ë / . The rule derives "palatalized" labials which never surface due to the phonotactic constraints of the language: rather they are subject to rules of depalatalization, deletion (J Deletion) and strengthening (Nasal Spread). The behavior of the labial consonants and the prepalatals (with roots) provides support for a more complicated vocalic system rather than a consonantal one in the underlying representation of the language. The rule of Jotation, although quite limited in its scope and reflexes

(especially in comparison to CSR), demonstrates the tendency in CSCz for interdependence and/or coalescence of the various rules of coronalization. The general rule is identical to the one proposed for CSR, but the readjustment rules are different. Particularly relevant for the present analysis is the discussion of the effects of Jotation on the dorsal consonants. The limited scope of the rule in the dorsal series of consonants and a reanalysis of certain velar-stem verb class allows for the creation of a general rule of Dorsal Coronalization which includes both Jotation and the former rule of IVP. Such a proposal is in opposition to CSR in which the environment for the two rules remains distinct. Finally, we proposed a new rule of Cluster Coronalization to deal with the reflexes of certain consonantal clusters. It was demonstrated, however, that the rule could

172 be extended to include certain "exceptional" forms. A full comparison with CSR is given in the next chapter.

173 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

In this work we have given a new analysis of the phonological inventories and the rules of palatalization and coronalization in two of the Slavic languages. We have seen that recent theories of generative phonology offer new

explanations of the facts and new insights into some important areas of synchronic Slavic phonology. Furthermore, the non-linear frameworks adopted in this work give a straightforward account of the processes of palatalization and coronalization, as well as related rules in both CSR and CSCz.

First, the underlying phonemic inventories were reanalyzed and some new proposals were given. The most significant difference in the consonantal system, as we have seen, concerns the underlying and surface distinction between palatalized and non-palatalized consonants. In CSR the distinction

touches all of the consonants with the exception of the alveopalatal series both underlyingly and on the surface, while in CSCz the distinction concerns four consonants /t d n r/, and, then, only underlyingly. Since CSCz does not permit secondarily palatalized consonants on the surface, the underlying palatalized segments automatically become the prepalatals /t' d' fi r/ by default rules.

As for the vocalic systems, we may observe some other important differences between the two languages. We have posited more vocalic distinctions for CSCz than for CSR (7 vs. 6 ) on the basis of phonological and morphological evidence. In CSCz the vowels condition the different rules of coronalization and palatalization based on the presence or absence of the feature [-anterior]. Thus, in many instances, morphological criteria determine the underlying composition of the vowels in CSCz. In CSR the same front vowels invoke both coronalization in specific morphological categories and palatalization in all other instances (both morphological and phonological) unless the consonants are marked as underlyingly hard, i.e., with a secondary vocalic dorsal place. Second, in Chapters 3 and 5, we have discussed the major rules of palatalization and coronalization in the languages. For both of the languages, the rules of coronalization are more morphologized, or historicized, while the rules of palatalization are more regular, or surface-like. This makes sense as the former are feature-changing rules and, consequently, change the primary articulation of the consonant, while the latter are feature-adding, and, consequently, add a secondary articulation. We have demonstrated that such a generalization is captured by Lexical Phonology, which distinguishes between lexical and post- lexical rules. In CSCz almost all of the rules which we discussed are lexical with the exception of Lab Pal, while in CSR the rules of coronalization are lexical and the rules of palatalization (which spread only the secondary coronal place, or Aperture as in the case of Ikan'e) are post-lexical. It appears, then, that the post- lexical (or phonological) nature of rules of palatalization is directly related to the systematic retention of secondarily palatalized consonants on the surface, as is the case in CSR. Let us take a closer look at the differences in the rules of palatalization between the two languages. For CSR we saw that although many of the palatalized consonants are underlying, in many environments they are derived

175 by the rule of Sur Pal. This rule is the same one that palatalizes the first

consonant of C 1C2 sequences. The latter is governed by a hierarchy and is more likely to occur in two instances: when the two consonants share features and/or if they are both coronal. The latter environment is not surprising, as we have

mentioned above, and fits into the unified representation of consonants and vowels. Palatalization which spreads a secondary coronal place is more apt to occur in the case of another coronal segment. This tendency is further

strengthened by constraints of both the labial and dorsal consonants. In CSCz the former rule of Sur Pal (which we suppose to have existed historically) has been transformed into two distinct rules: Cor Pal and Lab Pal. Evidence in the form of borrowed lexical items demonstrated that the former is no longer active morpheme-intemally, and, consequently, all instances of morpheme-internal prepalatals are underlying. Lab Pal occurs both internally and at morpheme boundaries, although a distinct surface reflex in the form of biphonemic [Pj] is limited to the position before [e]. The behavior of this rule can be explained by two factors:

1. The phonemic inventory of CSCz does not allow for a surface distinction between two types of labial consonants; therefore, it is not surprising that as a result of the rule a biphonemic cluster surfaces. 2. The /]’/ is deleted before an identical segment (by way of sonority constraints similar to what we have seen in the discussion of Jotation in CSR), and, thus, can only surface before /ë /.

On the other hand, the fact that in Cor Pal prepalatal segments surface before both / i/ and / ë/should not be surprising, as the rule produces independent segments and it applies to coronal segments. Thus, there appears to be a tendency in CSCz to preserve the surface consonantal alternations which are permitted by the phonology of the language. In the labials such a distinction is

176 maintained by means of a surface cluster, while in the coronals it is made with the prepalatals. At the underlying level, the perseverance of these rules can be attributed to the reinterpretation of underlying palatalized consonants in various

ways. In CSCz palatalization is allowed only where the system gives room to a surface distinction (which is most clearly demonstrated by the alveodental -

prepalatal alternations). In CSR palatalization is systematic, regular and wide­ spread due to the important underlying and surface distinction between hard

and soft consonants for the majority of the consonantal phonemes. To summarize, in both of the languages the palatalized consonants are represented by a secondary coronal vocalic place, but it is only in CSR that they surface as palatalized. Thus, a similar underlying representation does not necessarily imply the same surface representation. Moreover, on the basis of the analysis, it appears that the languages make a surface distinction either between plain (phonetically velarized in the case of CSR) and secondarily palatalized consonants or between primary place of articulations (alveodental vs. alveopalatal in CSCz). Furthermore, if a language has secondary palatalization

only underlyingly, the distinction appears to be stronger among the non­

continuant coronal consonants.^ In the case of the other consonants, as, e.g., the labials, the distinction has been reinterpreted (in this instance, as a biphonemic sequence). To this end, we might recall the rule of Sur Pal in CSR among C 1C2 clusters, which is strongest among coronal consonants. Therefore, our analysis demonstrates that secondary vocalic coronal place appears to have more cohesion among the coronal consonants.

^ We can observe a similar tendency in CSSIk in which /t' d' 1 ' ft/ could be viewed as underlyingly palatalized. The fact that it is the / I / instead of the /r / which is involved in this distinction is a language-specific development. The important point is that they are all non­ continuant (if we accept that the liquids are [-cont]) [+anterior] coronal consonants.

177 Third, the rules of coronalization in the two languages occur on a more limited (morphological) basis. Although their structural descriptions are the similar for the most part, there are some important differences between the two

languages. First, CSR has almost completely eliminated the effects of the

historical rule of 2 VP, while in CSCz, at least in some categories, it has remained an active alternation. As we recall, however, in CSR Sur Pal has become an important rule in many of the same morphological categories in which 2VP is

active in CSCz (e.g., CSR nika 'hand/NSG' ~ ni[k'e] 'LSG' vs. CSCz nika ~ nice). In CSR the LSG ending /-e / invokes Sur Pal, while in CSCz /-ë / invokes 2VP, Lab Pal and Cor Pal. Second, IVP (or Dorsal Coronalization) has remained equally important in both of the languages. Finally, Jotation has remained important in CSR, while in CSCz, due to the historical reorganization of the verbal system, its effects are marginal. We have seen that because of this reorganization, CSCz has generalized Jotation of the dorsal consonants. In CSR there are also a number of important rules which affect the vowels and make crucial reference to vocalic features. In the first rule, a pre-tonic unstressed /o / loses its dorsal place specification and automatically becomes placeless [a] by default. This rule lends further support to the placeless nature of

mid-vowels in the Clements and Hume model. The other rule provides evidence for the spreading of the Aperture node from a palatalized consonant to a following vowel. This rule, we have argued, demonstrates that the normally unspecified Aperture value in secondarily palatalized consonants may become overt in certain phonological processes. Although CSCz does not exhibit such vocalic alternations synchronically, it might be interesting for future reference to compare the vowel reduction rules of CSR with the diachronic Czech pfehlâsky

178 In terms of the theory, some important claims have been made. First, evidence was provided from CSCz that some underlying vowels must be specified for the feature [-anterior]. In CSR (and in language in general, it has been argued) the feature is always supplied by default. The data from CSCz may, in fact, call for a modification of the claims for the organization of the vocalic coronal and other place nodes. Second, the coronal place was shown to be the default vocalic place for unspecified vowels in CSCz. Such a generalization is the result of the merger of both the high, non-back vowels phonetically and the jers phono logically and phonetically. Third, also in terms of vowel representations, the rule of Akan'e in CSR provides further support for the placeless representation of the central vowels. Fourth, the readjustment of Labial + j sequences to Labial + 1' serves as evidence for the location of the [lateral] feature under the coronal node, which has been the source of much debate in theories of Feature Geometry. Fifth, also in regards to the liquids, the behavior of /r / in CSCz which patterns with the [-continuant, +anterior] consonants /t d n / lends support to the claim that the segment dominates [-continuant]. Finally, and most importantly, the behavior of the front vowels and secondarily palatalized consonants in rules of palatalization and coronalization have lent further support to a unified feature theory for vowels and consonants. Thus, as predicted in the rules of coronalization, a consonant is transformed into a coronal consonant when preceding a coronal vowel. In the case of the coronalization of an original coronal consonant, the result is almost always a

[-anterior] coronal. The rules of palatalization produce a secondarily palatalized consonant. Furthermore, on the basis of these two languages there appears to be a general tendency for a palatalized ~ non-palatalized distinction to be preserved among the coronal consonants. It is for this reason, then, that the rule of Cor Pal

179 has remained so important (at least at a morphological level) in CSCz and the rule of Sur Pal has remained the most active among the coronal consonants. At the same time. Cor Pal has become morphologically limited, while Sur Pal is still phonological. This would imply that true rules of palatalization are more phonological (thus, surface-like) than rules of coronalization, which is what we observe in our discussion of the different rules of palatalization and coronalization in CSR and CSCz. In this dissertation we have demonstrated the pertinence of recent theories of generative phonology in a synchronic description of the Slavic languages. On the one hand, the theoretical frameworks have allowed for a new description of the languages. In the case of CSR, while there exists a number of linear generative analyses, much less attention has been given to non-linear description.

In Chapters 2 and 3 we made frequent reference to these earlier sources for comparison. In the case of CSCz the generative literature is limited to a handful of sources that were mentioned above. None of these provides analyses in the Clements and Hume model. In the discussion we have demonstrated the usefulness of this model as well as other recent generative frameworks in describing both the phonemic inventories and the rules of the two languages. On the other hand, the discussion of the languages naturally has provided support for the theoretical claims. And, furthermore, some of the theoretical claims have been questioned on the basis of the discoveries made in this work. It is hoped that this work will serve as an impetus for further research on both CSR and CSCz as well as the other Slavic languages in the field of non-linear phonology.

180 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Henning. 1969. "Lenition in Common Slavic." Language, 45 (3): 553-574.

Andersen, Henning. 1973. "Abductive and Deductive Change." Language, 49 (4): 765-792.

Anderson, Stephen R. and Wayies Browne. 1973. "On Keeping Exchange Rules in Czech." Papers in Linguistics, 6 (4): 44M 2.

Avanesov, R. 1.1954. "O slogorazdele i stroenii sloga v russkom jazyke." Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6; 88 - 101.

Avanesov, R. 1.1984. Russkoe literatumoe proiznoSenie. Moscow: Prosve5£enie.

Béli£, Jaromir. 1972. Nastin leské dialektogie. Prague: Statni pedagogické nakladatelstvi.

Be thin, Christina Y. 1992a. Polish Syllables: The Role of Prosody in the Phonology and Morphology. Columbus: Slavica.

Be thin, Christina Y. 1992b. "lotation and Gemination in Ukrainian." SEE/, 36 (3): 275-301.

Be thin, Christina Y. 1992c. "The Syllable inSlavic: Evidence from Liquid Diphthongs." Die Welt der Sloven, 37: 296-343.

Bhat, D. N. S. 1978. "A General Study in Palatalization." In: Universals in Human Language, Volume 2: Phonology, eds. J. H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. A. Morvcsik, 47-92. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bielfeldt, H. H. 1958. Riicklaufiges Worterbuch der Russischen Sprache der Gegenzoart. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Bily, Milan. 1989. "On the Nature of Alternations and the So-Called Zero Vowel in Russian." Scando-Slazhca, 35; 141-165.

BoUa, K. 1981. A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds. Cologne, Vienna: Bohlau Verlag.

Bondarko, L.V. and L.A. Verbickaja. 1965. "O markirovannosti prizneika mjakosti russkix soglasnyx." Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, 18:119-26.

Boretzky, Norbert. 1991. "Contact-induced Sound Change." Diachronica, Vm (1): 1-15.

Bratkowsky, Joan G. 1980. "The Predictability of Palatalization in Russian." Russian Linguistics, 4: 329-336. Please Note

Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Filmed as received.

182

UMI Carlton, Terence R. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages. Columbus: Slavica.

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

Clements, GJvJ. 1985. "The Geometry of Phonological Features." Phonology Yearbook, 2:225-52.

Clements, G. N. 1990. "Place of Articulation in Consonants and Vowels: a Unified Theory." To appear in: L'Architecture et la Géométrie des Représentations Phonologiques, eds. B. Laks and A. Riailland. Paris: Editions du C.NTLS.

Clements, G.N. and Elizcibeth Hume. 1995. "The Internai Organization of Speech Sounds." In: The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by John A. Goldsmith. Cambridge: Blackwell. 245-306.

Cubberly, Paul V. 1982. "The Typology of Juncture in the Slavonic Languages." Melbourne Slavic Studies, 16:1-21.

Dane§, FrantSek. 1964. "Some Remarks on the Phonemic Status of Loan-words in Czech." Zeitschrift fiir Phonetik Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikations-forschung, Bandl7 (2-4): 161- 168.

DeArmond, Richard C. 1975. "On the Phonemic Status of [i] and [j] in Russian." Russian Linguistics, 2: 23-35.

Farina, Donna. 1991. Palatalization and fers in Modem Russian: An Underspecification Approach. Urbana: University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana dissertation.

Finedore, Paula Goodman and Ernest A. Scatton. 1978. "Towards a Typology of Vowel Reduction: The Phonology of Unstressed Vowels in Russian." Lingua, 45: 301-317.

Flier, Michael S. 1974. "Lightner on Russian Phonology." Russian Linguistics, 1: 295-311.

Flier, Michael S. 1982. "Morphophonemic Change as Evidence of Phonemic Change: The Status of Sharped Velars in Russian." International foumal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 25/26: 137-48.

Galton, Herbert. 1988. "How the Czech Language Lost its Correlation of Palatalization - A Case Study of Languages in Contact." Folia Linguistica: Acta Soceatis Linguisticae Europaeae, XXII (1-2): 161-178.

Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Aiitosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Gorecka, Alicja. 1989. Phonology of Articulation. MIT: PhD Dissertation.

Groen, B.M. 1992. "On the Phonological Feature of Palatalization in Contemporary Standard Russian." In: Studies in Russian Linguistics (-Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics Vol. 17), 95-110. Amsterdam: RodopL

Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in Abstract Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

183 Gussmann, Edmund. 1992. "Back to Front: Non-linear Palatalization and Vowels in Polish." In: Phonological Investigations, eds. J. Fisiak and S. Puppel. 5-66 Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Gvozdev, A.N. 1961. Sovremenyj russkij jazyk. Part I. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe u&ebno- pedagogicEskoe izdatel'stvo prosve§£enija RSFSR.

Gvozdev, A.N. 1963. "K voprosu o sisteme fonem sovremennogo russkogo literatumogo jazyka." In: Izbrannye raboty po orfografii i fimetike. Moscow: AN SSSR.

Hala, Bohuslav. 1962 Uvedeni do fonetiky beStiny na obecné fonetichém zdkladé. Prague: Academia.

Halle, Morris. 1963. "O pravilax russkogo sprjaienija." American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress ofSlavists. 113-32 The Hague: Mouton.

Halle, Morris. 1971 [1959]. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.

Halle, Morris. 1983. "On Distinctive Features and Their Articulatory Implementation." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1:91-105.

Hamilton, William S. 1976. "Vowel Power versus Consonant Power in Russian Morpho­ phonemics." Russian Linguistics, 3:1-18.

Hamilton, William S. 1980. Introduction to Russian Phonology and Word Structure. Columbus: Slavica.

Hammer, Louise B. 1986. "Code-Switching in Colloquial Czech." In: Language and Discourse: Test and Protest. A Festschrift for Petr Sgall. (^Linguistic Studies in Eastern Europe, 19). ed. by J.L. Mey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 455-73.

Haugen, Einar. 1956. "The Syllable in Linguistic Description." In: For Roman fakobson: Essays on the Occasionofhis Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by M. Halle. 213-21. The Hague: Mouton.

Havrânek, Bohuslav and Alois Jedlicka. 1968. Strucnd mluvnice ceskd. Prague: SPN.

Hume, Elizabeth V. 1992. Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and their Interaction in Nonlinear Phonology. Cornell University: PhD Dissertation.

IsaSenko, A.V. 1975. "O parallelizme sinxronnyx i istorioeskix zvukovyx processov v russkom jazyke." International foumal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, XX (3): 13-22.

Jakobson, Roman. 1929 [1971]. "Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du Russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves." In: Selected Writings, I: Phonological Studies, 7-116. The Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman. 1948 [1984]. "Russian Conjugation." In: Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931-81. ed. L.R. Waugh and M. Halle. Berlin: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman and Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman, G. Fant andM. Halle. 1963. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

184 Juganov, I. and F. Juganova. 1992.Riisskij mrgon 60-90-x godao: opyt slaoarja. Moscow: Pomovskij i partnery.

Keating, Patricia and Aditi Lahiri. 1993. "Fronted Velars, Palatalized Velars, and Palatals." Phonetica, 50: 73-101.

Kenstowicz, Michael and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. "The Phonology of Syllabic Nuclei in Slovak." Language 63,3:463-497.

Kentowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Komarek, Miroslav. 1954. "K palatalizad souhlasek v stare ïeStiné." Slom a slovesnost, 15:105-109.

Komarek, Miroslav. 1960. "K depalatalizaci souhlasek v ÈeStiné." SIovo a slovesnost, 21:173-187.

Komarek, Miroslav. 1962. Historickâ mluvnice £eskd I: Hldskoslovi. Prague: Statru pedagogicke nakladatelstvi.

Komarek, Miroslr 1966. "Sur l'appréciation fonctionelle des alternances morphonologiques." Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 1:145-161.

Komârek, Miroslav. 1971. "Zur Entwicklung der konsonantischen Mouilierungs-korrelation in Tschechischen." Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 4: 24-35.

Komârek, Miroslav. 1975. "Tvrdé, mékké, obojetné souhlâsky, nebo pismena?" Naèe fet, 58 (5): 233-37.

Kuoera, Henry. 1961. The Phonology of Czech. The Hague: Mouton.

Kuôera, Henry. 1973. "Language Variability, Rule Interdependency, and the Grammar of Czech." Linguistic Inquiry, IV (4). 499-521.

Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Ladefoged, Peter. 1993. A Course in Phonetics. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich: New York.

Lahiri, Aditi and Vincent Evers. 1991. "Palatalization and Coronality." In: Phonetics and Phonology: The Special Status of Coronals, eds. Carole Paradis and Jean-François Prunet, 79-100.

Lamprecht, AmoSt, DuSan Slosar and Jaroslav Bauer. 1986. Historickâ mluvnice ceStiny. Prague: Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi.

Lamprecht, AmoSt. 1956. "Vyvoj hlâskového systému èeského jazyka se zvlâStnim zfetelem k nàfeüm na Moravé a ve SIezsku." Slovo a slovesnost, XVn (2): 65-78.

Lamprecht, Amo§t. 1966. "Sur le développement et la perte de la corrélation de mouillure en ancien tchèque." Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 1:115-124.

Lamprecht, AmoSt. 1987. PraslovanStirm. Bmo: Univerzita J. E. Purkynë.

Lekomceva, M. 1.1968. Tipologija stniktur sloga v slavjanskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka.

185 Le§ka, O. "Fonetika, fonemika i morfofonemika v razvitii jazyka." Ceskoslovenska rusistika, XXIX (4): 170-73.

Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Unpublished MIT PhD Dissertation.

Lightner, Theodore M. 1965. Segmental Phonology of Contemporary Standard Russian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MET.

Lightner, Theodore M. 1967. "On the Phonology of Russian Conjugation." Linguistics, 35:35-55.

Lightner, Theodore M. 1968. "An Analysis oiakan'e and «ton'e in Modem Russian Using the Notion of Markedness." In: Studies Presented to Professor Roman fakobson by his Students, ed. Charles Cribble, 188-200. Cambridge: Slavica.

Lightner, Theodore M. 1969. "On the Alternation E~ O in Modem Russian." Linguistics, 54:44-69.

Lightner, Theodore M. 1972. Problems in the Theory of Phonology: Russian and Turkish Phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.

Ludvikova, Marie and Jin Kraus. 1965. "Kvantitativru vlastnosti sous ta vy Seskych fonémû." Slovo a slovesnost, 27: 334-44.

Lunt, Horace. 1956. "On the Origins of Phonemic Palatalization in Slavic." In: For Roman fakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. M. Halle. 306-315. The Hague: Mouton.

Mathesius, V. 1929. "La structure phonologique du lexique du tchèque modeme." Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 1: Mélanges Linguistiques dédiés au Premier Congrès des Philologues Slaves, 67-84. Prague: Jenota èeskoslovenskÿch matematikù a fysikù.

McCarthy, John. 1988. "Feature geometry and Dependency: a Review." Phonetica 43: 84—108.

Meillet, A. 1934 [1951]. Le Slave Commun. Translated as: ObSèeslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoj literatury.

Mluvnice âeStiny, 1.1986. Prague: Academia.

Newman, Lawrence W. 1971. "The Czech Noun Declension." International foumal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, XIV: 21-31.

Newman, Lawrence W. and Charles Townsend. 1972. "Towards a New Classification of Czech Verbs." Slavic and East European foumal, 16:324-336.

Ni Chiosain, Maire. 1994. "Irish Palatalization and the Representation of Place Features." Phonology 11: 89-106.

Novâéek, Cestmir. 1980. "K vymezeni foneticke a fonologicke soustavy ruskÿch souhlasek a samohlasek." Acta Universitatis Palacanae Olomucensis Philologica 45:151-187.

Nuorluoto, Juhani. 1993. "Zur areal-chronologischen Isoglossenschichtung im Hinblik auf die Entstehung der konsonantischen Palatalitat im Slavischen: Ein Systemtisierungsversuch." Studio Slavica Finlandensia, 10:93-118.

1 8 6 Ondrackovâ, Jana. 1964. Rentgenologickÿ vÿzkum artikulace Seskÿch vokâlû. Prague: Academia.

Palkovâ, Z. 1967. "Some Comments on the Arrangement of Distinctive Features in Czech." Phonetica Pragensia, 6: 79-89.

Pcmov, M.V. 1990. Istorija russkogo literatumogo proiznoëenija XVIII-XX w . Moscow: Nauka.

Petrovd, Emile. 1959. "La distinction phonologique entre trois sortes de N et de L - non diésés, diésés et palateils — en Roumain et en Slave." International journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, I/H: 184-194.

Petterson, Thore. 1972. "On Czech Vowel Quantity." Scando-Slavica, XVIII: 133-43.

Poidauf, Ivan. 1986. Czech-English Dictionary. SPN: Prague.

Popova, T.V. ed. 1987. "MorfologiSeskie tipy substantivnyx paradigm v sovremennom ôe§skom jazyke." In: Slavjanskaja morfologija: substantivnoe slomizmenenie, 89-131. Moscow: Nauka.

Press, J. Ian. 1983. "Correlations of Palatalization in the Slavonic Languages." Irish Slavonic Studies, 4:4-19.

Press, J. Ian. 1986. Aspects of the Phonology of the Slavonic Languages: the Vozvel y and the Consonantal Correlation of Palatalization (=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics Vol. 7). Amsterdam: Rodopi. *

Rinnan, Cyda Dahm. 1969. "Various Forms of 'Softness' in the Slavonic Languages." Scando- Slavica, XV: 193-200.

Romportl, Milan. 1962. "K analyze zvukového systému ruStiny." Slovo a slovesnost, 23: 282-286.

Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rubach, Jerzy. 1993a. The Lexical Phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon.

Rubach, Jerzy. 1993b. "Skeletal Versus Morale Representations in Slovak." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11: 625-53.

Rubach, Jerzy. 1995. "Representations and the Organization of Rules in Slavic Phonology." In: The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by John A. Goldsmith. Cambridge: Blackwell. 848-66.

Russkaja grammatika, 1.1979. Prague: Academia.

Russkaja grammatika, 1.1982. Moscow: Nauka.

Sagey, Elisabeth. 1986. The Representation of Features and Relations in Nonlinear Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1991 by Garland Publications, New York.

Scatton, Ernest. 1975. Bulgarian Phonology. Columbus: Slavica.

Schuyt, Roel. 1982. "Soft Consonants: A Comparison between Russian, Bulgarian and Romanian." In: South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics, 267-77. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

187 Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. "The Syllable." The Stnichire of Phonological Representation 2, ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith. Dordrecht; Foris. 337-84.

Shapiro, Michael. 1974. "Alternative Feature Ranking as a Source of Phonological Change." Scando-Slaoica, XX: 117-128.

Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.

Short, David. 1993. "Czech." in: The Slavonic Languages, B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett, eds. 455-532. N ew York: Routledge.

Sirokova, A.G. 1960. "Review of M. Komarek. Historickâ mluvnice ceskd I: Hldskoslovi." Voprosy jazykoznanija, (2): 131-33.

Sirokova, A.G., V. F. Vasil'eva and A. Edlicka. 1990. CeSskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Smilauer, V. 1972. Nauka o âeSkom jazyku. Prague: SPN.

Spencer, Andrew. 1986. "A Non-linear Analysis of Vowel-Zero Alternations in Polish." Journal of Linguistics, 22:249-80.

Spencer, Andrew. 1988. "Arguments for Morpholexical Rules." Journal of Linguistics, 24:1-29.

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Blackwell: Cambridge.

Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.

Strakova, Vlasta. 1973. Substantivniderivace (v rustiné a teStini). Prague: Nakladatelstvi teskoslovenské akademie véd.

Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. "Ghost Segments in Non-linear Phonology: Polish Yers." Language,68 (2): 277-312.

Timberlake, Alan [A. Timberlèjk]. 1978. "K istorii zadnenebnyx fonem v sevemoslavjanskix jazykax." In: American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress ofSlavists, Zagreb and Ljubljana, September 3-9,1978, Vol. I.Ed. H. Bimbaum. 699-726. Columbus: Slavica.

Timberlake, Alan. 1993. "Russian." in: The Slavonic Languages, B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett, eds. 827-886. New York: Routledge.

Townsend, Charles E. 1980 [1968]. Russian Word Formation. Columbus: Slavica.

Townsend, Charles E. 1981. Czech through Russian. Columbus: Slavica.

Townsend, Charles E. 1990. A Description of Spoken Prague Czech. Columbus: Slavica.

TravniSek, FrantfSek. 1930. Gebauerova pfirubii mluvnice jazyka ëeského pro ucitele a studium soukromé. Prague: Naklad îeské grafické unie a.s.

188 TrâvnîcEk, FrantSek. 1948 [1950]. Mluvnice spisovné œëtiny: cast I: Hlâskoslovi-tvofeni slov-tvaroslom. Russian translation: Grammatika ceSskogo literatumogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo inostrannoj literatury.

Trubetzoy, N. S. 1939 [1969]. Principles of Phonology, trans. by C. Baltaxe. University of California Press: Los Angeles.

Vachek, Josef. 1968. Dynamika fonologicke systému soucasné spisovné ceStiny. Prague: Academia.

Vintr, Josef. 1992. "Depalatalizace staroôeskÿch vokâlû." Slavia: SasopS pro slovanskou filologii, 4:441-46.

Worth, Dean S. 1968. "Vowel - Zero Alternations in Russian Derivation." International journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 11:110-23.

Zaliznjak, A. A. 1977. Grammaticeskij slaoar' russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenije. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.

189