ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Faithful Stress in Paradigms: Nominal Inflection in Ukrainian and Russian by LUBA BUTSKA Dissertation Director: Hubert Truckenbrodt This dissertation is the first English-language description and analysis of Ukrainian inflectional stress in nouns. The analysis also offers a new way to capture the generalizations of stress in Russian nouns. Ukrainian and Russian nominal inflectional stress patterns fall into three main divisions: Fixed stress; Post-stem stress; and Mobile stress. Fixed stress surfaces on the same stem syllable throughout the entire inflectional paradigm; these stems are specified for stress in the input. I propose a new analysis for Post-stem stressing nouns in terms of faithfulness: these stems are faithful to an absence of stem stress in the input. The characterization of certain stems as lexically marked for stress, and others as not inherently stressed, is one which has a long history in the generative accounts for Russian (cf. Brown et. al. 1996, Halle 1973, 1997, Halle and Idsardi 1995, Idsardi 1992, Melvold 1986, 1990, Stankiewicz 1986, 1993). But whereas accounts of Russian usually specify a special rule or constraint requiring stress to arise on ii Post-stem syllable, the proposal here is that faithfulness to that lack of stem stress drives the Post-stem pattern. Mobile stress is the final pattern in Ukrainian and Russian nominal inflection. I maintain the two-way distinction of underlying stress (i.e. presence and absence) by looking carefully at the whole paradigm of a Ukrainian nominal stem. I show that a particular member of the paradigm always triggers Mobile stress, and that Mobile stems therefore need not be specially marked in Ukrainian, as they have been in Russian. The Mobile inflected forms are related by OO correspondence: a privileged base affects derivative forms in the same sub-paradigm. Thus I extend base priority to inflectional paradigms. The argument here rests on the priority of a defined base form, rather than the structure of the inflectional paradigm as part of knowledge of the grammar of Ukrainian or Russian. The base-derivative relationship I propose for inflectional paradigms allows us to capture the generalization that Mobile stress always occurs when there is a base form in the sub-paradigm showing stem stress, a generalization missed by previous accounts of Russian nominal inflection. iii 1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview 1.1 STRESS PATTERNS: INTRODUCTION In Ukrainian nominal inflectional paradigms, stress always falls either on the stem or on the inflectional suffix in one of the three main patterns outlined below: (1) Ukrainian stress1 1. Fixed stress: stress is on a particular syllable of the stem in all forms 2. Post-stem stress: stress is on the inflectional ending (when present) in all forms 3. Mobile stress: stress shifts between stem and inflection so that stress is either (a) on inflectional endings in singular, and on the stem in plural, or (b) on the stem in singular, and on inflectional endings in plural. The Fixed stress group is the largest; it is comprised of the majority of the stems in Ukrainian. The Post-stem and Mobile stems receive most of the attention here, as they do in accounts for Russian, since they are the most complex patterns. A representative example of each Ukrainian stress pattern showing nominative singular and nominative plural forms is shown in the table below. Note the short forms for the types of stress in the first column, and the number of stems for each non-fixed pattern. (Examples for each group, and an exhaustive list of all Mobile stems is given in the “Database” section at the end of this dissertation). 1 I use the term ‘stress’ here in order to follow most other accounts for Russian (cf. “References” section. For example, Halle 1997 writes: “A stressed element…is one that is phonetically more prominent than other elements in the word.” The term “accent”, according to Halle, can apply only to elements supplied with stress in the lexicon, e.g. stems with Fixed stress.) 2 (2) Ukrainian Stress patterns, examples TYPE STEM NOM SG NOM PL F (Fixed) /derav/ derav-a derav-y2 ‘government’ P (Post-stem): 296 /arbuz/ arbuz /arbuz/-y ‘pumpkin’ M (Mobile): 426 total (a) Sg. inflectional stress M1 & M2: 203 (i) M1: 171 /kovbas/ kovbas-a kovbas-y ‘sausage’ (pl. final stem stress ) (ii) M2: 32 /olov/ olov-a olov-y ‘head’ (pl: initial stem stress) (b) Sg. stem stress M3: 223 /vik/ vik vik-y ‘age’ (pl. inflectional stress) The second column shows the input form of the stem, shown with slanted lines; note that only the Fixed form shows underlying inherent stem stress. The Post-stem and Mobile stems are inherently unstressed with no stress mark on the underlying stem. Stress appears on all surface forms in the third and fourth columns, which show surface nominative singular and nominative plural forms respectively for each stem. Mobile stress is divided into three groups according to whether stress is on the stem or on the inflectional ending. Where stress is on the inflection in the singular, there is a 2 Transcriptions given in the thesis are phonemic, with some phonetic illustration of variation within a paradigm, eg. palatalization in later examples. Note the symbol [ ], a voiced laryngeal. Note also that the vowel [y] is an unstable vowel in Ukrainian, also realized as [Y] and unrounded [I] and [] depending on the environment and the dialect. I use [y] after Shevelov 1979 Zilyns’kyj 1979 , and to distinguish this vowel from [-i], another nominative plural suffix. (cf. Appendix 1 for a vowel chart of Ukrainian.) 3 distinction between right edge stem stress M1 and left edge stem stress M2 in the plural. M3 shows stress on the stem in the singular and inflectional stress in the plural. There is no distinction between stem edges for M3 because this group of stems is monosyllabic. (The group of M3 stems comprises all of the monosyllabic non-fixed stems; that is, there are no monosyllabic P stems. See section 3.3 for details.) A graphic representation of each pattern is given in (3); divisions between stem and inflectional ending are represented by a dash. (Both stem and inflectional ending represented here with a syllable, although multi-syllables for both are possible, as we will see.) (3) Stress patterns Singular Plural 1. Fixed σ - σ σ - σ 2. Post-Stem σ - σ σ - σ 3. Mobile (a) σ - σ σ - σ (b) σ - σ σ - σ The contrast between stem stress and inflectional stress shown in (3) and (2) is central to East Slavic stress. In all three East Slavic languages, Ukrainian, Russian, and Belorusian, words are most often overtly inflected; stems are usually not realized alone, but surface with inflectional affixes. Nouns are usually realized with number, case and gender suffixes, and verbs are inflected with person and number suffixes and tense suffixes and prefixes. 4 (2) illustrates an important difference between nominal stems in Ukrainian: some stems take inflectional endings for certain cases like the nominative singular [derav-a], while other stems, like [arbuz], do not for the same case. (Note that since Ukrainian stems always end in a consonant, surface forms without an inflectional ending, like [arbuz], also always end in a consonant.) Forms without overt inflection arise relatively infrequently compared to inflected forms, but they appear with striking regularity in Post- Stem and Mobile stress paradigms. The focus in this chapter is a data summary which highlights these uninflected forms in a paradigm. Their identification will be a crucial part of the analysis in Chapters 3 and 4; Section 1.2 is a preview of the way in which these forms are important for the analysis. 1.2 PREVIEW OF ANALYSIS The different patterns of stress cannot be predicted by surface phonological principles alone. For example, Ukrainian contrasts a Fixed stress stem like /kulyk/ ‘sheaf’with Post- stem stress in the stem /kulyk/ ‘wood-grouse’. The chart in (4) shows nominative and genitive cases for singular and plural forms of both stems to illustrate the contrast: 5 (4) Fixed vs. Post-stem stress Fixed: Post-stem: /kulyk/ ‘sheaf’ /kulyk/ ‘grouse’ SG PL SG PL NOM kulyk kulyk-y kulyk kulyk-y GEN kulyk-a kulyk-iv kulyk-a kulyk-iv The stems /kulyk/ and /kulyk/ are identical in terms of segmental phonological characteristics, and both have the same inflectional endings. There is no surface-based characteristic which explains why one noun has Fixed stress, and the other has Post-stem stress. I follow recent accounts of Russian (cf. Idsardi 1992, Halle 1997, Alderete 1999, Revithiadou 1999, and others) in assuming that some stems are underlyingly specified for stress while others are not. Therefore, /kulyk/ is shown with stress lexically specified on the stem; this distinguishes /kulyk/ ‘sheaf’ from /kulyk/ ‘wood grouse’, with no inherent stress. To explain how stress arises consistently on the inflectional ending in Post-stem stressing stems, most Russian analyses posit a special Post-stem stressing rule (for examples of rules, cf. Halle 1973, 1975, 1997; cf. Alderete 1999 and Revithiadou 1999 for OT constraints.) This work differs from other analyses for Russian by proposing that faithfulness to an absence of stem stress ensures that Post-stem stress is assigned to inflectional endings, 6 and not to the stem for stems like /kulyk/. The lack of stem stress must be maintained, and so the inflectional ending is stressed instead. The details of the analysis of these Post- stem stressing nouns follows in Chapter 2, where I make the first major claim of this dissertation: that faithfulness to an absence of stress, assured by the constraint DEP- STRESSSTEM, explains Post-stem stress in Eastern Slavic.