Bringing it all together: The Russian e~’o alternation in Stratal Phonology

Keynote presentation at Formal Approaches to Russian Linguistics 3, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Transcript

1. Bringing it all together The e ~ ’o alternation in Stratal Phonology Pavel Iosad Formal Approaches to Russian Linguistics 3, Moscow State University, 6th April 2019 University of Edinburgh 1
2. Figure 1: Some farls 2
3. Outline • The basic crux of the alternation • Russian mid vowels: evidence for phonological classes • Beyond immediate constituency: Stratal Phonology • Why Stratal Phonology is right: converging evidence 3
4. The e ∼ ’o alternation in Modern Russian
5. The problem i • Classic problem in Russian phonology (Trubetzkoy 1934; Lightner 1969; Polivanova 1976; Itkin 1994; Itkin 2007) • In native vocabulary, surface [e] only follows palatalized consonants and [ʂ ʐ t͡s] • Before a following non-palatalized consonant, some stressed [e]’s alternate with [o] (1) a. [sʲelʲ-skʲ-ij] сельский ‘rural’ b. [sʲol-a] сёла ‘village-npl’ • In some morphemes, [e] never alternates: 4
6. The problem ii (2) a. [bʲel-i̵j] белый ‘white’ b. [bʲelʲ-inʲkʲ-ij] беленький ‘white-dim’ • Yet in others, [o] after a palatalized consonant never alternates (3) a. [tʲotʲ-a] тётя ‘aunt’ b. [tʲot-uʂk-a] тётушка ‘aunt-dim’ • In some morphological contexts, the shift overapplies (4) a. [ˈtʲemʲ-enʲ] темень ‘darkness’ b. [tʲomʲ-en] тёмен ‘dark.pred.masc.sg’ 5
7. The problem iii (5) a. [tʲet͡ʃʲ] течь ‘leak’ b. [o-ˈtʲok] отёк ‘swelling’ c. [o-ˈtʲokʲ-i] отёки ‘swelling-pl’ • Even with no alternations, it is tempting to derive [Cʲo] from /Ce/ → /Cʲe/, in line with the drive to derive palatalization from following front vowels (see Hamilton 1976; Plapp 1996) • If accepted, this gives further instances of overapplication (6) a. [nʲeˈsʲ-o-m] несём ‘carry-pres.1pl’ b. [nʲeˈsʲ-o-tʲe] несёте ‘carry-pres.2pl’ 6
8. The historical background • Non-alternating [e] < Old Russian *ě (written <ѣ>) • Alternating [e] < Old Russian *e (written <е>), and the yer *ь > *e • Old Russian *e, but not *ě, > o / Cʲ_C • Later, [o] spread to a number of items where it is not motivated historically 7
9. Lightner on the alternation i • Lightner (1969; 1972) • Underlying /ě/ and /e/ • A backing rule in the context ˈCʲ_C • Overapplication explained by constituent structure • [mʲot] ‘honey’: (méd) → (mʲéd) → (mʲód) → … • [(o) mʲode] ‘honey-prep.sg’: ((méd)e) • Innermost constituent: (méd) → … → (mʲód) • Outer constituent: ((mʲód)e) → ((mʲódʲ)e) • Sometimes constituent structure is not enough: (7) a. [koˈlʲos-a] колёса ‘wheel-nom.pl’ b. [koˈlʲes-nʲik] колесник ‘wheelwright’ 8
10. Lightner on the alternation ii (8) a. [tʲeˈnʲot-a] тенёта ‘net-nom.pl’ b. [tʲeˈnʲot-nʲik] тенётник ‘spider’ • So: ((kolés-ьn-ik)-ъ) vs. (((tenét)-ьn-ik)-ъ) 9
11. Where does constituent structure come from? • Recurring criticism: ad hoc constituent structure, with a circular dependency on the alternation • Kayne (1967); Hamilton (1976); Polivanova (1976); Itkin (1994; 2007) A solution which abandons consistency in assigning constituent structures for the sake of gaining observationally correct surface forms certainly loses more than it gains: constituent structures then have no meaning, and become merely an ad hoc device sup- plementing the system of segmental representations. (Hamilton 1976:8) 10
12. What do we do instead? i • Proposed solution: the alternation is morpheme-driven (Itkin 1994; 2007; Cubberley 2002) • Non-alternating [Cʲo] is /Cʲo/ • Non-alternating [Cʲe] is /Ce 1 / + yer version • Alternating [Cʲe] ∼ [Cʲo] is /Ce 2 / + yer version • The outcome of /Cʲe 2 / depends on the next morpheme • If the next morpheme palatalizes a preceding consonant, it also requires [Cʲe] (9) a. [ɡrʲop] грёб ‘row.past.sg.masc’ b. [ɡrʲebʲinʲ] гребень ‘comb’ 11
13. What do we do instead? ii (10) a. [lʲod] лёд ‘ice’ b. [ɡolo-lʲedʲ-it͡s-a] гололедица ‘ice crust’ (11) a. [ɡrʲoza] грёза ‘dream-nsg’ b. [ɡrʲeʒ-u] грежу ‘I dream’ c. [ɡrʲezʲ-it] грезит ‘(s)he dreams’ • If the next morpheme does not palatalize a preceding consonant, it requires [Cʲo] (12) a. [tvʲerdʲ] твердь ‘firmament’ b. [tvʲord-i̵j] твёрдый ‘solid’ 12
14. What do we do instead? iii (13) a. [po-ˈsʲelʲ-it] поселит ‘(s)he will settle’ b. [po-ˈsʲol-ok] посёлок ‘settlement’ • However, some suffixes are ‘indifferent’ and inherit the e/o vowel from the base (14) a. [mʲorz-nu-tʲ] мёрзнуть ‘be cold.inf’ b. [mʲorz-lʲ-i] мёрзли ‘be cold.past.pl’ 13
15. What do we do instead? iv (15) a. [t͡ʃʲuʐe-ˈzʲemʲ-et͡s] чужеземец ‘foreigner’ b. [t͡ʃʲuʐe-ˈzʲem-k-a] чужеземка ‘female foreigner’ c. [novo-ˈsʲol] новосёл ‘new settler’ d. [novo-ˈsʲol-k-a] новосёлка ‘female new settler’ 14
16. Can we improve the solution? • The /e 1 /–/e 2 / distinction is still basically /ѣ/–/e/: can we improve on this? • Can we formalize the link between the two aspects of suffix behaviour? • Consonant palatalization • e ∼ ’o alternation • Luckily, this is the bread and butter of phonological theory 15
17. Making the alternation phonological
18. How do we show the alternation is phonological? • It targets mid vowels: are they a phonological class? • It involves some kind of |back| feature: are they |back| counterparts? • Palatalization seems to involve |back| somehow: does it? 16
19. Are the mid vowels a phonological class? • They are targeted by vowel reduction • They are able to alternate with zero • Gouskova (2012): in fact this is an effect of the same constraint against mid vowels • They should share some features • Iosad (2012): the feature V-manner[closed] 17
20. Are the mid vowels |front| correspondents? • [e] has to share some frontness feature with [i] • This is necessary for vowel reduction: /e/ → [i] • [e] triggers (some kinds of) palatalization • [o] does not share frontness features with [i] • The reduction pattern is /o/ → [a] • Iosad (2012) • [e] is V-place[coronal] • [o] is not • [i] is also V-place[coronal] 18
21. Does the |front| feature trigger palatalization? i • …obviously • Traditional generative analysis (e.g. Lightner 1972; Farina 1991; Plapp 1996; Rubach 2000; Halle & Matushansky 2002) • Underlying /i/: palatalizes non-velars; coronalizes velars • Underlying /i̵/: does not affect non-velars; palatalizes velars (after being fronted itself) (16) Verbal /i/ a. [krʲik] крик ‘shout.nsg’ b. [krit͡ʃʲ-it] кричит ‘to shout-pres.3sg’ c. [svʲet] свет ‘light.nsg’ d. [svʲetʲ-it] светит ‘to light-pres.3sg’ 19
22. Does the |front| feature trigger palatalization? ii (17) Nominative plural /i̵/ a. [krʲik] крик ‘shout.nsg’ b. [krikʲ-i] крики ‘shout-npl’ c. [kʲit] кит ‘whale.nsg’ d. [kʲit-i̵] киты ‘whale-npl’ • Basically, [i e] are palatalization triggers and are V-place[coronal], palatalization outcomes are V-place[coronal] • Cf. Clements & Hume (1995) for the framework, Urek (2016) on Latvian 20
23. What triggers palatalization? i • The traditional analysis is that suffixes trigger palatalization because they begin with front vowels • This cannot be sustained (Iosad & Morén-Duolljá 2010; Padgett 2011) • Instead: palatalization is driven by a floating V-place[coronal] (18) Palatalization by back vowels a. [vor] вор ‘thief’ b. [vorʲ-uɡa] ворюга ‘thief.pejor’ 21
24. What triggers palatalization? ii (19) Palatalization by deleted /’o/ a. [krʲuk] крюк ‘hook.nsg’ b. [krʲut͡ʃʲ-ok] крючок ‘hook-dim-nsg’ c. [krʲut͡ʃʲ-k-a] крючка ‘hook-dim-gsg’ (20) Zero palatalizing suffixes a. [ˈt͡ʃʲorn-i̵j] чёрный ‘black’ b. [ˈt͡ʃʲernʲ] чернь ‘rabble’ 22
25. What triggers palatalization? iii (21) Depalatalization a. [ɡusʲ] гусь ‘goose’ ← /ɡus-ʲ/ b. [ɡusi̵nʲa] гусыня ‘female goose’ ← /ɡus-inʲ-a/ • This is the ‘palatalizing morphophoneme’ of Itkin (2007) and others, except it is a phonological feature like any other • Under this analysis /i/ vs. /i̵/ dissolves into /ʲi/ vs. /i/ • Prediction: ‘/i̵/’ can behave as a front vowel in some phonological contexts • It does, after velars: /krʲik-i/ ‘scream.npl’ → [krʲikʲi] • Compare the traditional /ki̵/ → /ki/ → /kʲi/ 23
26. Summing up • The mid vowels are a phonological class • The difference between the mid vowels is the feature V-place[coronal] • The feature V-place[coronal] is what triggers palatalization • The e ∼ ’o alternation really looks like phonology • …what are we going to do about the constituency though? 24
27. Stratal Phonology and the lexical syndrome
28. Whatever happened to constituents? • Lightner’s assumptions about word-internal constituency, informed by the late 1960s state of the art, are clearly inadequate • A better theory of morphology-phonology interactions: Lexical Phonology and Morphology (Kiparsky 1982; Hargus & Kaisse 1993) • Recent instantiation: Stratal Phonology (e.g. Bermúdez-Otero 2012; 2018) 25
29. Basic assumptions of Stratal Phonology • As defined by Bermúdez-Otero (2018), Stratal Phonology • respects cyclicity • respects stratification • builds on parallelist constraint-based theories 26
30. Roots, stems, and words • Roots are lexical items with no part-of-speech characterization • Roots are not cyclic domains • Stems are lexical items with POS characterization, but not inflectable words • Some stems define cyclic domains for stem-level phonological computation • Stem-level domains can be recursive • Words are autonomous lexical items with the full set of inflections • Words are cyclic domains for word-level phonological computation • Word-level domains are not recursive • Utterances are cyclic domains for phrase-level phonological computation • Phrase-level domains are not recursive 27
31. The lexical syndrome • In Lexical Phonology and Morphology, ‘lexical’ rules had a number of properties (Kaisse & McMahon 2011) • Cyclic reapplication • Non-derived environment blocking • Categorical application • Exceptionality • Structure Preservation 28
32. Evidence for stratification • Some languages provide good evidence for stem-level constituency • Lexicon stratification: English (Giegerich 1999), Hebrew (Meir 2006) • Spanish: morphological constituency (Bermúdez-Otero 2013b) (22) Spanish manos ‘hands’ word stem root man- stem vowel -o- inflection -s 29
33. Domain structures in Stratal Phonology • Affixes can be stem-level or word-level • Stem-level domains • Stem-level affixation: [ √ root + SL affix]ℒ • Stem-to-stem derivation: [[ √ root + SL affix]ℒ + SL affixℒ ] • Word-level affix attached to a root (Giegerich 1999): [ √ root + WL affix]ℒ • Word-level domains • Word-level affixation to stem-level domain: [[ √ root + SL affix]ℒ + WL affix]ℒ 30
34. Why is Stratal Phonology better? • Many reasons! But for our purposes: • It is still phonology • Phonological predictions: opacity / overapplication across cycles • Morphological expectations: • Anything that produces a POS-characterized output is stem-level • Inflectional/highly productive affixes tend to be word-level, unless affixed directly to a root • Semantic expectations • Allosemy happens at the stem level: deradical forms, or stem-to-stem derivations • The major prediction is that these domain structures are aligned (Bermúdez-Otero 2016) 31
35. Stratal Phonology and Russian • Stratal analyses of Russian offered previously by Rubach (2000); Blumenfeld (2003); Gribanova (2008; 2009) • In many respects, rationalizes earlier analyses with extrinsic ordering by positing strata • The crucial stratal difference (Blumenfeld 2003) • Stem-level /ki/ → [t͡ʃʲi] • Word-level (/ki̵/ →) /ki/ → [kʲi] • …and similarly /e/ • Gribanova (2008; 2009): stratal distinction in yer behaviour, supported by morphosyntactic evidence 32
36. The e ∼ ’o alternation in Stratal Phonology
37. Word-level affixation and opacity i • The descriptive generalizations are heavily indebted to Itkin (2007) • Basic claim: • ‘Indifferent’ suffixes are word-level suffixes • Overapplication of e ∼ ’o is entirely normal cyclicity • Palatalizing suffixes that are compatible with ’o (23) Case suffixes in /ʲe/: inflection a. [utʲos] утёс ‘cliff.nsg’ b. [utʲosʲe] утёсе ‘cliff.prep.sg’ 33
38. Word-level affixation and opacity ii (24) Past tense plural /ʲi/: inflection a. [mʲorz-nu-tʲ] мёрзнуть ‘be cold.inf’ b. [mʲorz-l-i] мёрзли ‘be cold.past.pl’ (25) Diminutive /ʲik/: highly productive a. [t͡ʃʲort] чёрт ‘devil’ b. [t͡ʃʲortʲ-ik] чёртик ‘wee devil’ 34
39. Word-level affixation and opacity iii (26) Diminutive /ʲet͡s/: highly productive a. [rʲeʂot] решёт ‘sieve.gen.pl’ b. [rʲeʂot-t͡s-e] решётце ‘sieve.dim’ • Crucially, these suffixes trigger word-level consonant palatalization: [o-ˈtʲokʲ-e] ‘swelling.prep.sg’, *[oˈtʲot͡ʃʲe] • Non-palatalizing suffixes that are compatible with e (27) a. [t͡ʃʲuʐe-ˈzʲem-k-a] чужеземка ‘female foreigner’ b. [novo-ˈsʲol-k-a] новосёлка ‘female new settler’ 35
40. Word-level affixation and opacity iv • Itkin (2007:241) notes that diminutive /ʲik/ and /ʲet͡s/ are ‘indifferent’ (=word-level), but homonymous non-diminutive morphemes are not (=stem-level) (28) a. [varʲ-on-i̵j] варёный ‘boiled’ b. [varʲ-enʲ-ik] вареник ‘dumpling’ (29) a. [lʲiʂ-on-n-i̵j] лишённый ‘deprived’ b. [lʲiʂ-enʲ-et͡s] лишенец ‘one deprived of civil rights’ • This is immediately predicted by base-driven stratification • [[ √ t͡ʃʲort]ℒ-ʲik]ℒ • Palatalization compatible with word level 36
41. Word-level affixation and opacity v • Cyclic overapplication • Compositional semantics • Productive morphology • [[ √ var-ʲen-ʲik]ℒ ]ℒ • Palatalization compatible with stem-level • Transparent application in the stem-level cycle • Idiosyncratic semantics • Non-productive morphology 37
42. Analysis: stem allomorphy i • Under this analysis, the e ∼ ’o alternation is a stem-level process • One current analysis of stem-level phonology is stem allomorphy (Bermúdez-Otero 2006; 2012; 2013b; Iosad 2017) • Stem-level constructs are not produced online, but are stored and compete for lexical insertion • This can gives rise to phonological optimization effects (Nevins 2011) • Basic claim: the e ∼ ’o alternation is phonologically conditioned allomorphy • Floating V-place[coronal] in a suffix within a stem-level domain • Causes stem-level palatalization of the final consonant(s): autosegmental docking/spreading • Forces the choice of a V-place[coronal] vowel allomorph, if available • The alternation is not a rewrite rule whereby /CʲeC/ → /CʲoC/ 38
43. Analysis: stem allomorphy ii • Instead, if a choice between /CʲeC/ and /CʲoC/ is offered by the lexicon, then choosing the /CʲeC/ allomorph improves harmony • /e 1 / (i.e. non-alternating /e/, *ѣ) is /CʲeC/: {/bʲel/} ‘white’ • Non-alternating /ʲo/ is /ʲo/: {/tʲot/} ‘aunt’ • /e 2 / is allomorphy: {/lʲod/, /lʲed/} ‘ice’ • Desirable consequences: • The e ∼ ’o alternation cannot overwrite inputs • Lexical specificity comes for free • Word-level overapplication comes for free • No more underlying /ѣ/ • Link between palatalization and e ∼ ’o is made explicit via V-place[coronal] • Whatever the ontology of the lexical syndrome, we expect stem-level processes to have exceptions, and they do 39
44. Some potential objections
45. Clusters i • If the stem vowel gets its V-place[coronal] from the following suffix, we seem to have non-local spreading (30) a. [ˈsʲostr-i̵] сёстры ‘sister-npl’ b. [ˈsʲestrʲ-in-skʲ-ij] сестринский ‘sisterly’ • Either non-local spreading, or a Duke-of-York derivation with palatalization and depalatalization • Prima facie unattractive, but… • There is no [strʲ] ≠ [sʲtʲrʲ] contrast: this needs an account anyway ⇒ late depalatalization rule • Evidence from other processes, e.g. moderate yakan’ye 40
46. Word-level palatalization by diminutives • The diminutive suffix /-ʲik/ is diagnosed as being word-level by the e ∼ ’o alternation • However, it can trigger stem-level palatalization of velars, cf. [ˈbloʐ-ik] ‘blog-dimin’, *[bloɡʲ-ik] • The palatalization is likely triggered not by the floating V-place[coronal] but by a (stochastic) dispreference for sequences of velars (cf. Kapatsinski 2010; Jurgec 2016) 41
47. Summary • The e ∼ ’o alternation in Modern Standard Russian behaves just like a stem-level rule should behave • The evidence it provides for stratification coincides very well with evidence from other sources • The stem allomorphy framework allows us to dispense with underlying /ѣ/ and deal with the lexical syndrome • The stratal approach works in Russian despite a lack of clear morphological evidence for stem structure 42
48. Спасибо! 42