Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hl5gf Total loading time: 0.429 Render date: 2023-01-31T20:10:02.250Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

PAVEL IOSAD*
Affiliation:
University of Tromsø/Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics
*
Author's address: Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norwaypavel.iosad@uit.no

Abstract

Much recent work in phonology concentrates on the role of sonority in the phenomenon of vowel reduction, capitalizing on two facts: that reduction involves raising and/or shortening and that higher vowels and schwa are normally interpreted as having low sonority. This paper presents a different approach to vowel reduction in Standard Russian. It is proposed that the apparent sonority-driven effects in Russian are epiphenomenal. In particular, reduction to schwa is outside the domain of phonological computation in Russian, being an artifact of reduced duration. Other types of neutralization arising in vowel reduction are potentially amenable to a sonority-based analysis, but I argue that current approaches to sonority-driven reduction suffer from representational shortcomings. When these shortcomings are rectified, however, sonority is unnecessary as an explicit factor in vowel reduction: standard markedness mechanisms suffice to explain the data.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Versions of this paper were presented at the November Seminar in Russian and the Laboratory Phonology course workshop (both at the University of Tromsø, November 2008 and May 2009, respectively), the Third Scandinavian Ph.D. Conference in Linguistics and Philology (University of Bergen, June 2009) and the Seventh European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (University of Potsdam, December 2009). I thank the audiences at these fora for their valuable feedback and discussion, in particular Abby Cohn, John Kingston, Gjert Kristoffersen, Margje Post, and Anton Zimmerling. Comments by Bruce Morén-Duolljá and two anonymous referees for the Journal of Linguistics have greatly enhanced both content and presentation. The paper has also benefited from discussions with Sergei Knyazev, Tore Nesset, and Evgeny Shaulskiy. I remain solely responsible for any and all shortcomings.

References

REFERENCES

Alderete, John. 1999. Head dependence in stress–epenthesis interaction. In Oostendorp, Marc van & Hermans, Ben (eds.), The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory (Linguistik Aktuell 28), 2950. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 2008. Using learnability as a filter on factorial typology: A new approach to Anderson and Browne's generalization. Lingua 118.8, 11771220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John & Ewen, Colin. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12.4, 493539.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. 1956. Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and weakness at the interface: Positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2007. Phonetics and phonology in Russian unstressed vowel reduction: A study in hyperarticulation. Ms., Boston University.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill. 1999. Positional faithfulness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007. Diachronic phonology. In de Lacy, (ed.), 497518.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2010. Currently available data on English t/d-deletion fail to refute the classical feedforward modular architecture of phonology. Presented at the 18th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1998. Slavic prosody: Language change and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 2006. Stress and tone in East Slavic dialects. Phonology 23, 125156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia. 2008. The syntax of phonology: A radically substance-free approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2005. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev. 2003. Russian palatalization and Stratal OT: Morphology and [back]. In Brown, Wayles, Kim, Ji-yung, Partee, Barbara & Rothstein, Robert (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Amherst Meeting 2002, 141158. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2009. Cue constraints and their interaction in phonological perception and production. In Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (eds.), Phonology in perception, 55–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke. 2008. The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25, 217270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarko, L. V. 1977. Zvukovoj stroj sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Bondarko, L. V. & Verbickaja, L. A.. 1973. O fonetičeskix xarakteristikax zaudarnyx fleksij v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1, 3749.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1991. Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified theory. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5, 77–123.Google Scholar
Clements, G[eorge] N. & Hume, Elizabeth V.. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 245306. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald & Polinsky, Maria. 1996. The Russian language in the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Catherine M. 2000. Vowel reduction in Russian: A unified account of standard, dialectal, and ‘dissimilative’ patterns. In Crosswhite, Catherine M. & McDonough, Joyce (eds.), University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences (Spring 2000), 107171. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Catherine M. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Boer, Bart. 2001. The origins of vowel systems (Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, Piggott, Glyne & Rice, Keren. 1994. Contrast in phonology: Overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 14, iiixvii.Google Scholar
Evans-Romaine, Dorothy Kathleen. 1998. Palatalization and coarticulation in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Keating, Patricia A.. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101.6, 3728–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28.1, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, Silke. 2004. Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34.1, 5367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harasowska, Marta. 1999. Morphophonemic variability, productivity, and change: The case of Rusyn (Trends in Linguistics 110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 5476. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance. Phonology 14.3, 315370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 2005. Vowel reduction as information loss. In Carr, Philip, Durand, Jacques & Ewen, Colin J. (eds.), Headhood, elements, specification, and contrastivity: Papers in honour of John Anderson (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 259), 119132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations, 3479. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2009. On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26.2, 303351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 2008. Russian vowel reduction with elements and without ease of perception. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Szucsich, Luka, Junghanns, Uwe & Meyer, Roland (eds.), Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference (Linguistik International 20), 92104. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2006. Disagreeing with Agree. Presented at OCP [Old World Conference in Phonology] 3, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1976. Phonologization. In Juilland, Alphonse (ed.), Linguistic studies presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, 407418. Saratoga, CA: Anna Libri.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel & Morén-Duolljá, Bruce. 2012. Russian palatalization: A holistic approach. Ms., University of Tromsø/CASTL.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel & Ward, Dennis. 1969. The phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamprath, Christine. 1987. Suprasegmental structures in a Raeto-Romansh dialect: A case study of metrical and lexical phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kasatkin, L. L. 2003. Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kasatkina, R. F. 2005. Moskovskoje akan'je v svete nekotoryx dialektnyx dannyx. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2, 2945.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1987. Acoustic study of Russian vowel allophones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81S1, S67S68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1988. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5, 275292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1990a. The window model of coarticulation: Acoustic evidence. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, 451470. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1990b. Phonetic representations in a generative grammar. Journal of Phonetics 18, 321334.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1996. The phonology–phonetics interface. In Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), 262278. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kingston, John. 2007. The phonetics–phonology interface. In de Lacy, (ed.), 401434.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L.. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70.3, 419454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. Contrastiveness and faithfulness. Phonology 14.1, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniazev, S. V. 2006. Struktura fonetičeskogo slova v russkom yazyke: sinxronija i diaxronija. Moscow: MAKS-press.Google Scholar
Kniazev, S. V. & Požarickaya, S. K.. 2005. Sovremennyj russkij literaturnyj jazyk: fonetika, grafika, orfografija, orfoepija. Moscow: Akademičeskij proekt.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2002. Production, perception and emergent phonotactic patterns. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Likhtman, R. I. 1999. O foneme <u>v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Problemy fonetiki, 121132.Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 2009. Fundamental concepts in phonology: Sameness and difference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutta, C. Martin. 1923. Der Dialekt von Bergün und seine Stellung innerhalb der rätoromanischen Mundarten Graubündens (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 71). Halle an der Saale: Verlag Max von Niemeyer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25.2, 271319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2009. Harmony in Harmonic Serialism. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst. [ROA-1009]Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2007. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2001. Distinctiveness, coercion, and sonority: A unified theory of weight. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2003. The Parallel Structures model of feature geometry. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 15, 194270.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2006. Consonant–vowel interactions in Serbian: Features, representations and constraint interactions. Lingua 116, 11981244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2007. The division of labour between segment-internal structure and violable constraints. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of analysis? (Studies in Generative Grammar 95), 313344. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mołczanow, Janina. 2007. Russian vowel reduction and phonological opacity. Slavonic and East European Review 85.2, 201230.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2008. Ob'jasnenie togo, čto ne imelo mesta: blokirovka suffiksal'nogo sdviga v russkix glagolax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6, 3548.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1978. Production of tone. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.), Tone: A linguistic survey, 5–39. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as the source of sound change. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 17, 178203.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Hume, Elizabeth V. & Johnson, Keith (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 187218. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2003. Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.1, 3987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2004. Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies 7, 8196.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2011. Russian consonant–vowel interactions and derivational opacity. In Brown, Wayles, Cooper, Adam, Fisher, Alison, Kesici, Esra, Predolac, Nikola & Zec, Draga (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Second Cornell Meeting 2009, 352381, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija. 2005. Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62, 1454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, Jaye & Żygis, Marzena. 2007. The evolution of sibilants in Polish and Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15.2. 291324.Google Scholar
Paufošima, R. F. 1980. Aktivnye processy v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke: assimilyativnye izmenenija bezudarnyx glasnyx. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR (Serija literatury i jazyka 39.1), 6168. Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Plapp, Rosemary Kuhn. 1996. Russian /i/ and /ɨ/ as underlying segments. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4, 76–108.Google Scholar
Plapp, Rosemary Kuhn. 1999. Lexical Phonology and Optimality Theory: Analysis of Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael. 2010. Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27.1, 77–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan. 2002. Arguing optimality. In Carpenter, Angela, Coetzee, Andries & Lacy, Paul de (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory II (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics), 269394. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles. 2007. Modularity in the sound domain: Implications for the purview of Universal Grammar. In Reiss, Charles & Ramchand, Gillian (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 5380. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Orrin Warner. 1976. A ‘scattered’ rule in Swiss German. Language 52.1, 148–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17, 3964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2007. Feature geometry from the perspective of Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. Linguistic Inquiry 38.1, 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Orality and markedness. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 25, 334337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomson, A. I. 1905. Fonetičeskie etyudy (Russkij filologičeskij vestnik 2). Warsaw.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie (Travaux du Cercle lingquistique de Prague 7). Prague: Le cercle linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2005. Weak triggers in vowel harmony. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23.4, 917989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Youssef, Islam. 2010. Laryngeal assimilation in Buchan Scots. English Language and Linguistics 14.3, 321345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998a. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998b. Positional faithfulness and licensing. Ms., MIT. [ROA-282]Google Scholar
Zubritskaya, Katya. 1997. Mechanism of sound change in Optimality Theory. Language Variation and Change 9.1, 121148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology1
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology1
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *