Vowel Reduction in Russian: the Categorical and the Gradient

Home , Schwa

LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA Vowel Reduction in Russian: The Categorical and the Gradient

Jonathan Barnes Boston University I. Introduction

• Phonological vowel reduction (hereafter VR): neutralization of vowel quality contrasts in unstressed syllables.

• Figures in recent theoretical literature (e.g. Barnes 2002, Beckman 1998, Crosswhite 2001, Flemming 2oo1a and b, Steriade 1994) as an example of a pattern of Positional Neutralization with relatively clear phonetic underpinnings.

• Understanding the relationship between these phonetic underpinnings and the phonological grammar in patterns such as VR is a central task of current work on the phonetics-phonology interface.

2. Russian Vowel Reduction

2.1. Facts

• Contemporary Standard Russian: traditionally claimed to display two distinct patterns or degrees of VR, one for the syllable immediately preceding the tonic (here, first pretonic), and one for all other unstressed syllables.

• Five vowels contrast in stressed syllables1. • Mid vowels do not surface in unstressed syllables.

(1) Stressed vowel inventory ﬁ 1 pretonic s ﬁ 2 pretonic, posttonic s

i u i u i u e o ´ a a

• Focus of this talk: /a/ vs. /o/ • /a/ and /o/ contrast in stressed syllables, but this contrast is neutralized in unstressed syllables as follows:

(2) a. /a/, /o/ ﬁ [a]/[å] in first pretonic syllables, a.k.a. Degree 1 reduction b. /a/, /o/ ﬁ [´] in other unstressed syllables, a.k.a. Degree 2 reduction

1 See Padgett 2001 and sources therein for arguments against a contrast between /i/ and the high central vowel /ˆ/. -1- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA

(3) VR in Contemporary Standard Russian

STRESSED DEGREE 1 REDUCTION DEGREE 2 REDUCTION /o/ mo@l´d´stJ youth malo@dJInJkJIj young (dim.) m´lado@j young bo@lJ pain balJe@tJ to hurt b´lJIvo@j pain (adj.)

/a/ sta@rˆj old (adj.) starJi@k old man st´rJIna@ old times ra@zum reason razu@mn´ wisely (adv.) r´zumJe@tJ to understand

• Several exceptions to the pattern described above are recognized: (4) No reduction to schwa in absolute word-initial position

/odno»mu/ [adna»mu] 'one' (dat.sg.) *[´dna»mu] /obi»Zajet/ [abJi»Zajit] 'insult, abuse' (3sg.) *[´bJi»Zajit]

(5) No reduction to schwa in hiatus before [a]

/odnoo»braznˆj/ -> [adnaa»braznˆj] 'monotonous' *[adn´a»braznˆj] /sootno»Senije/ -> [saatna»SenJije] ‘relationship’ *[s´atna»Senije]

(6) No reduction to schwa in absolute phrase-final syllables (Matusevic& 1976: 102, Zlatoustova 1962: 109-139) 2.2. Previous approaches

• Two recent OT accounts: a. Alderete (1995): Faithfulness constraints parameterized to the head foot (i.e. the stressed syllable and first pretonic) rank higher than markedness constraints against [a] in unstressed syllables, which in turn outrank general Faithfulness constraints. b. Crosswhite (2001): vowels outside the head foot cannot bear moras, but [a] cannot be non-moraic, and so is realized as schwa.

• Both these approaches must present essentially diacritic solutions to the exceptional patterns described above.

• All previous accounts of VR in Russian treat both Degree 1 and Degree 2 reduction patterns as phonological, i.e. as changing phonological category membership through manipulation of distinctive feature specifications. 2.3. Phonetic underpinnings of phonological vowel reduction

• Phonological patterns such as elimination of mid vowels and raising of low vowels in unstressed syllables have been claimed to have their source in the reduction of phonetic vowel durations in unstressed syllables.

-2- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA • Languages with phonological vowel reduction are almost invariably those languages with a stress accent strongly and reliably cued by a difference in vowel duration between stressed and unstressed syllables (Lehiste 1970).

• Shortening of vowels in unstressed syllables leads to undershoot of more open target articulations of non-high vowels. Raising of these creates a compressed vowel space in which contrasts are likely to be misperceived and to collapse over time (See Barnes 2002, Flemming 2001a for discussion).

• This accounts for the typological generalization that in VR systems, vowel height contrasts are the first to go. When this happens, the vowels to go are almost invariably the mid and low vowels. High vowels stay put.

3. One experiment, begetting another...

• Though phonological VR has clear phonetic roots diachronically in the shorter durations associated with unstressed syllables in VR languages, to what extent phonetic duration is active in triggering vowel reduction synchronically is still poorly understood.

• The following experiment was designed to investigate this question. 3.1. Methodology

• Experiment #1 was designed to determine what, if any, active role phonetic duration plays in the realization of vowel reduction in reduction.

• Test words: 72 Russian trisyllables 12 stressed /a/ 12 stressed /o/ 12 1 pretonic /a/ 12 1 pretonic /o/ 12 2 pretonic /a/ 12 2 pretonic /o/

• All target vowels were located in open syllables followed by unpalatalized voiced or voiceless stops and preceded by unpalatalized voiced stops, voiceless stops, or laterals.

• Tokens were embedded in frame sentences of the form Mashka X skazala, 'Mashka said X'. Each token appeared twice for a total of 144 sentences.

• Sentences were randomized and arranged in blocks of 12. • Subjects, one male from St. Petersburg, one female from Ufa, student-age native speakers of Russian, were instructed to read through each block of sentences once slowly and then once again as quickly as possible to achieve maximum variation in vowel durations.

• Sessions were recorded directly to CD at a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Duration and LPC formant measurements were taken using Praat 4.1.11 speech analysis software (Copyright@1992-2003 by Paul Boersma and David Weenink).

-3- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Mean values for duration and F1 (7) Speaker 1 2 1 PRETONIC 2 PRETONIC Duration 84 ms. 41 ms F1 553 Hz 462 Hz

(8) Speaker 2 STRESSED 1 PRETONIC 2 PRETONIC /a/ /o/ /a, o/ /a, o/ Duration 86 ms. 73 ms 68 ms. 25 ms. F1 722 Hz 466 726 Hz 492 Hz

• Neither speaker had any significant difference between unstressed /a/ and /o/ in any position. This contrast is completely neutralized.

• Speaker 1 shows a mean F1 for 1 pretonic /a, o/ dramatically lower than a typical value for stressed /a/. Reflects traditional transcription of the former as [ѩ] (e.g. Matusevic ¬ 1972, Avanesov 1968). Probably more like [å], see Barnes 2002, chapter 2, for details. • For Speaker 2, no significant difference was found between F1 values for 1 pretonic /a, o/ and stressed /a/. 3.2.3. Vowel height as a function of phonetic duration

• The following displays the results of linear regression analyses of the relationship between vowel duration and vowel height for Speakers 1 and 2 in Experiment 1. (9) Speaker 1 a. R (92) = .179, p > .05 b. R (60) = .602, p <.0001

First Pretonic /a/ and /o/ Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/

800 600

700 500 600 400 500 Hz Series1 Hz Series1 in 400 in 300 Linear (Series1) Linear (Series1) F1 F1 300 2 R = 0.0145 200 R2 = 0.3981 200 100 100

0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 Duration in ms. Duration in ms.

2 Speaker 1 in fact read a somewhat earlier version of the same experiment containing fewer words and not testing vowels in stressed syllables. -4- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA

Speaker 1: unstressed /a/ and /o/

800

700

600

500

Hz Series1

in 400 Series2 F1 300

200

100

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Duration in ms.

(10) Speaker 2 a. R (146) = .142, p > .05 b. R (78) = .644, p <.0001

First Pretonic /a/ and /o/ Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/

1000 700 900 600 800 700 500 600 400 Series1 Series1 500 Linear (Series1) 300 Linear (Series1)

400 F1 in Hz F1 in Hz 2 2 R = 0.4204 300 R = 0.0297 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 Duration in ms. Duration in ms.

Speaker 2: unstressed /a/ and /o/

1000 900 800 700 600 Series1 500 Series2 400 F1 in Hz 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Duration in ms.

-5- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA 3.3 Interim summary

• Neutralization of /a/ and /o/ in unstressed syllables is categorical. No significant difference between these underlying categories is preserved. This is true regardless of position relative to stress.

• Reduction to schwa in Degree 2 reduction environments has a clear gradient character. Vowel height is strongly dependent on vowel duration. A cline of F1 values is recorded between more [a]-like values on longer vowels and more schwa-like values on shorter vowels.

• Categorical vs. gradient application is argued to be a defining distinction between symbolic phonological processes and quantitative phonetic processes (see e.g. Keating 1988c, Cohn 1990, Zsiga 1993, Myers 2000, Barnes 2002, inter alia)

• Hypothesis: given the duration-dependent cline of F1 values produced in Degree 2 reduction contexts, there is no reason to think the phonology has any role in (or access to) reduction of unstressed /a, o/ to schwa. The merger of /a/ and /o/ in unstressed syllables, on the other hand, is clearly categorical and phonological. 4. Experiment #2: Hyperarticulation

• F1 values for Degree 2 reduction in Experiment 1 approach, but fail to clearly attain canonical [a]-like qualities. Experiment 2 seeks to draw out this result more clearly. 4.1. Methodology

• Test words were 20 trisyllables of Russian, 10 with /a/, and 10 with /o/ in open second pretonic syllables. All target vowels were located in open syllables followed by unpalatalized voiced or voiceless stops and preceded by unpalatalized voiced stops, voiceless stops, or laterals.

• Target words were framed in sentences of the form Po-moemu on X skazal, 'Seems to me he said X'.

• Speakers were four student-age native speakers of Russian: three females raised in Ufa, Saint Petersburg, and Moscow respectively, and one male, from Moscow.

• Sentences were embedded in a longer list of similar sentences and randomized. • Following an experimental paradigm used in, e.g. Johnson, Flemming and Wright 1993, subjects read each sentence, and then were asked twice to repeat themselves by an experimenter simulating incomprehension (speakers were informed this would occur before the experiment began): (11) Sample dialogue

Sp: Po-moemu on X skazal. 'Seems to me he said X' JB: Ah? Ne ponjal. 'Huh? I didn't get that.' Sp: X on skazal! 'He said X!' JB: Sµto eto on skazal??!! 'He said what??!!' Sp: X!

-6- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA

• Each word received three repetitions, the second and third with substantial hyperarticulation.

• All speakers reported finding this experimental methodology deeply exasperating. • Sessions were recorded directly to CD at a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Duration and LPC formant measurements were taken using Praat 4.1.11 speech analysis software (Copyright@1992-2003 by Paul Boersma and David Weenink). 4.2. Results

(12) Vowel height as a function of phonetic duration Speaker 1 Speaker 2 R (54) = .618, p < .0001 R (58) = .934, p < .0001

Speaker 1: second pretonic /a/ and /o/ Speaker 2: second pretonic /a/ and /o/

700 1200

600 1000 500 800 400 Series1 Series1 600 300 Linear (Series1) Linear (Series1) F1 in Hz F1 in Hz R2 = 0.371 400 R2 = 0.8741 200

100 200

0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 50 100 150 200 250 Duration in ms. Duration in ms.

c. Speaker 3 d. Speaker 4 R (58) = .718, p < .0001 R (57) = .84, p < .0001

Speaker 3: second pretonic /a/ and /o/ Speaker 4: second pretonic /a/ and /o/

1000 1000 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 Series1 Series1 500 500 Linear (Series1) Linear (Series1) 400

400 F1 in Hz F1 in Hz 2 R2 = 0.7052 300 R = 0.5154 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Duration in ms. Duration in ms.

-7- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA (13) All speakers, raw scores: r (228) = .737, p < .0001

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/: Raw Scores

1200

1000

800

Series1 600 Linear (Series1) F1 in Hz 400 R2 = 0.5405

200

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Duration in ms.

• To escape problems of interspeaker comparison of vowel formant values, raw duration and F1 values for all speakers were converted to a standardized z-score format3, yielding the following results: (14) All speakers, z-scores: R (228) = .803, p < .0001

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/: standardized

2 Series1 F1 1 Linear (Series1) R2 = 0.6456 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -1

-2 Duration

4.3. Discussion

• All speakers show a highly significant correlation between vowel duration and vowel height. Reduction of /a, o/ to [´] applies gradiently, with syllables afforded sufficient duration by hyperarticulation showing little or no vowel raising.

3 zx = ( x - mx ) / sx, , where m is the mean for a given set of values, and s the standard deviation. -8- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA

• Crucially, no amount of lengthening is sufficient to restore an underlying /o/ in an unstressed syllable. The neutralization of /a/ and /o/ in unstressed syllables is categorical and phonological, displaying no sensitivity whatsoever to phonetic duration.

• Were the non-application of reduction to schwa in clear speech in any sense a paralinguistic effect, e.g. a spelling pronunciation, we would expect restoration of /o/ in unstressed syllables as well. This never occurs.

5. Conclusions

• There are indeed two types of vowel reduction in Russian. • Only one is accomplished in the phonology. The other is a gradient process accomplished by the phonetics. /´/ is not a phonological category in Russian. • This conclusion simplifies Russian phonology greatly, while requiring nothing of the phonetics other than the capacity to implement fine-grained durational patterns conditioned by prosodic structure, a capacity it must have under any circumstances.

• Additional payoff: the seemingly-arbitrary exceptions to Degree 2 reduction detailed in 2 above now make perfect sense. Absolute word-initial position, hiatus before another [a], and absolute phrase-final position are all environments in which additional phonetic duration is likely to be present. Duration-dependent phonetic reduction to schwa does not then apply. • Any model of the phonetics-phonology interface must be equipped to handle not only the distinction between categorical and gradient processes, but also the complete lack of sensititivy of categorical processes to their phonetic environments.

REFERENCES Alderete, John. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers Optimality Archive #94-0000 Avanesov, R. I. 1968. Russkoe Literaturnoe Proiznoshenie. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Barnes, Jonathan. 2001. The role of duration in the positional neutralization of vowel contrasts. Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the LSA, Washington, D.C. Barnes, Jonathan. 2002. Positional Neutralization: a phonologization approach to typological patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional Faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Byrd, Dani. 1996. A phase window framework for articulatory timing. Phonology 13(2): 139- 169. Cohn, Abigail. 1990. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge. de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(1): 491-504. Flemming, Edward S. 2001a. Vowel reduction and duration-dependent undershoot. Paper presented at the Conference on the Phonetics-Phonology Interface, ZAS, Berlin. October 12, 2001.

-9- LSA Annual Meeting [email protected] January 11, 2004 Boston, MA Flemming, Edward S. 2001b. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18:1 Flemming, Edward S. To appear. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. The phonetic bases of markedness, ed. by B. Hayes, R. Kirchner and D. Steriade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K., E. Flemming, and R. Wright (1993) The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated, Language 69, 505-528. Keating, Patricia. 1988a. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5,2: 275-292. Keating, Patricia. 1988b. The phonology-phonetics interface. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Volume I: Grammatical Theory, ed. by F. Newmeyer, 281-302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keating, Patricia A. 1990a. The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, 451-470. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keating, Patricia A. 1990b. Phonetic representations in a generative grammar. Journal of Phonetics 18:321-334. Keating, Patricia. 1996. The phonology-phonetics interface. Interfaces in Phonology, ed. by U. Kleinhenz, 262-278. Studia grammatica 41, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kiparsky, Valentin. 1979. Russian Historical Grammar. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Lindblom, Björn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 11: 1773-1781. Matusevic,¬ M. I. 1976. Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk: Fonetika. Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: the distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, ed. by Burton- Roberts, Noel, Philip Carr and Gerard Docherty, 245-272. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nord, L. 1975. Vowel reduction - Centralization or contextual assimilation? Proceedings of the Speech Communication Seminar, Stockholm. Aug. 1-3, 1974. ed. by G. Fant, pp. 149-154, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Nord, Lennart. 1987. Acoustic studies of vowel reduction in Swedish. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, August 1-7, 1987, Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. Volume 4, pp. 157-160. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R. Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrick and Mary Frances Miller, 178-203. Chicago: CLS. Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, eds., The role of speech perception in phonology, pp.187-218, Academic Press: San Diego, CA. Padgett, Jaye and Marija Tabain. 2003. Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian, Ms. Shcherba, L. V. 1912. Russkie glasnye v kachestvennom i kolichestvennom otnoshenii. Sankt Peterburg. Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Steriade, Donca. 1994. Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. Ms., UCLA Zlatoustova, L. V. 1981. Foneticheskie Edinitsy Russkoj Rechi. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universitata. Zlatoustova, L. V. 1962. Foneticheskaia Struktura Slova v Potoke Rechi. Kazan’: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta. Zsiga, Elizabeth Cook. 1993. Features, gestures, and the temporal aspects of phonological organization. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

-10-