46 A Reference Grammar of Russian

Table 2.3 Vowel series

		o		ˇo	(=[sˇ ˇz])
series	C			S			C¸

{u}	[ ]
{i}	[ï]
{e}	[ï]∞

[ ] [ï] [ï]∞

[ ] [ì] [ì]∞

		borrowing	´	´
{o}			alternation with [V]	no alternation with [V]
	[ø] ([´]†)	[ø]	[ï]∞	n.a.	[ì]∞
{f}	[ø] ([´]†)	[ø]Co [ï]C¸	[ø]	[ï]∞	[ì]∞

x† = second-degree reduction

x∞ = Avanesov’s conservative norm = [ìε ] [ïε ]

The relations of stressed and unstressed members of vowel series are schematized in Table 2.3 in three contexts.

As shown in Table 2.3, there are more distinctions of vowels under stress -- five -- than among unstressed vowels. In the contemporary norm, three vowels are distinguished after hard consonants, two after soft. (In the conservative style of Avanesov, four distinctions are made after hard consonants, three after soft.) Further reduction and merger is possible under second degree of reduction in some varieties of speech. The troublesome question is whether unstressed [ï*] (using breve here to mark significant shortening of an stressed vowel) is so reduced that it merges with [´] -- whether the unstressed vowels of dat pl lj´,hsv and msc=nt loc sg lj´,hjv are pronounced the same. Panov (1990) decides that merger has long been a constant possibility in a less-than-standard, allegro style, but has not achieved normative status. Also, in an extreme version of allegro style, series {u} may lose its labialization and merge after soft consonants with [ì*] and after hard consonants with [ï*], which in this style will be identical to [´]. At this point, only two unstressed vowel phones would be left under second degree of reduction: [ì*] vs. [ï*] ≈ [´]. The two vowel phones would be distributed complementarily, [ì*] after palatalized consonants, [ï*] ≈ [´] after hard. This allegro system is not normative, in Panov’s view, but it is widespread.23

2.2.5 Unpaired consonants [ˇs ˇz c] and unstressed vocalism

As noted, [s z], which are always hard and therefore immutable and unpaired,

‹‹

affect unstressed vowels in a manner different from that of ordinary mutable hard consonants.24

As mentioned, a vowel from series {e} becomes [ï] after [s z]: ;†vxeu ‘pearl’,

‹‹

;tvxé;ysq [zï]. In similar fashion, for vowels that alternate with stressed [o]

‹ ⁄

and could be identified as series {o}, only [ï] is used after [s z]: nom pl ;=ys,

‹‹

23 As Comrie, Stone, and Polinsky 1996 treat this merger.

24 Kasatkin 1989.

Sounds 47

nom sg ;tyƒ [zïnƒ] ‘wife’, nom sg i=kr, gen sg itkrƒ [sïlkƒ] ‘silk’ (Table 2.3).25
‹	‹

Some recent borrowings have an unstressed vowel which, because it is spelled as ≤j≥, might be identified as belonging to series {o}. In imitation of its foreign source, this ≤j≥ can be pronounced with only partial reduction as a shortened

mid, labialized vowel [o*], for example Ijg†y ‘Chopin’ [so*p†n]. As such words are

‹

assimilated, this ≤j≥ is reduced to [ ] in first pretonic position: ;jyuk=h ‘juggler’

[z ngl˛o5 r], Ijg†y [s p†n], ija=h ‘chauffeur’ [s f˛j´5 r] (Table 2.3). This pronunciation
‹ ⁄	‹	‹

is what might be expected given the pronunciation of unstressed {o} after paired hard consonants: djlƒ [v dƒ] ‘water’.

Vowels of series {a} show variation between two variants, [ ] and [ï]. The older pronunciation was [S‹oεï], later [S‹oïε ], now [ï]. Throughout the nineteenth century up until the beginning of the twentieth century, [S‹oεï], later [S‹ïε ], was used in native words. Both variants occurred in borrowings, with a stylistic difference: [ ], which was closer to the pronunciation of the (often French) sources, was a mark of “spoken language of good society,”26 in contradistinction to the pronunciation that fit the native Russian pattern, with [S‹oεï]/[S‹oïε ]. In the twentieth century, sociolinguistic investigations document that there is variation and change, but the change is not uniform; individual lexemes are regularizing usage, but not all lexemes are regularizing in the same direction.27 Native words in which the unstressed vowel does not alternate with [ƒ] have kept [ï]: h;fyj´q

‘rye’ [rzïno5üi], gen pl kjifl†q ‘horses’ [l´sïd˛e558i]. Native words in which the pre-
‹ ⁄	‹ ⁄

tonic vowel alternates with stressed [ƒ] are generalizing [ ]: gen sg ;fhƒ (nom sg ;ƒh) ‘heat’, gen sg dj;frƒ (nom sg dj;ƒr) ‘guide’, nom pl ifu∫ (nom sg iƒu) ‘step’, 3sg e;fcy=ncz ‘becomes horrified’ (adj e;ƒcysq).28 In borrowings, the vowel depends on the following consonant: [ï] is kept if the following conso-

nant is (or used to be) palatalized: ;fr†n ‘jacket’ [zïk˛e5 t], ;fcv∫y ‘jasmine’. In con-

‹ ⁄

trast, [ ] is being generalized in words in which the following consonant is hard:

ifn†y ‘auburn-haired person’ [s t†n], if,kj´y ‘clich†’, ifkƒi ‘cabin’, ifvgƒycrjt

‹

‘champagne’.29

25As is not surprising, since stressed [o]⁄after [s‹z]‹derives from etymological e. Here is a place where the notion of series is revealed as something of a fiction. In this context, there is no evidence that

the unstressed vowel ever actually became [o]. The unstressed value here is [ï] because it remainede, and had the same fate as other unstressed e after [s‹z]‹.

26See Panov 1990:260ff. Grech (1827) asserted that it was appropriate, in the “spoken language

of good society,” to say ifvgfycrjt (that is, [sø‹]) rather than ibvgfycrjt (a vowel of the type [εï], subsequently [ïε ], now [ï]). At the turn of the twentieth century, Koˇsuti´c (1919) gives two pronunciations for borrowings: [ø] (literary) and [ï] (non-literary). Interestingly, he gives only vowels similar to [ï] in native words in which the relevant vowel alternates with stressed [ƒ]. Thus these two sources suggest that [ø] has long been used in borrowings.

27Krysin 1974.

28:fk†nm ‘pity’, with [ï], is exceptional in this regard if it is related to ;ƒkm, ;ƒkrj ‘feel sorry for’, but the derivational connection is tenuous (and the following [l˛] favors [ï]).

29Panov 1968 puts the burden on alternation, Krysin 1974:105 on the following consonant. Evidently both are relevant.

48 A Reference Grammar of Russian

Evidently, the use of [ ] in borrowings prepared the way for using [ ] in native words in which there is alternation with stressed [á], when the unstressed vowel is still associated with [ƒ], and this has become normative. As noted, [ï] is maintained in native words when the unstressed vowel does not alternate with stressed [ƒ]. In borrowings, both [ ] and [ï] occur, distributed according to the following consonant. A following palatalized consonant tipped the balance in favor of the raised variant [ï]. Thus far with series {o}, only borrowings use a low unstressed vowel [ ]. Words in which the unstressed vowel alternates with stressed [o]⁄do not use [ ]. This is an important difference between {a} and {o}, reflected in Table 2.3.

The sound [c] is, like [s z], an unpaired immutable hard consonant, but it

‹‹

hardly occurs before series {o} or {a}. A visible exception is the root wƒhm ‘tsar’, in which {a} under stress alternates with [ ] under first degree of reduction: gen sg wfhz´, wfh∫wf ‘tsar’s wife’.

2.2.6 Post-tonic soft vocalism

In general, unstressed vowels associated with series {a o e} are pronounced as a high front vowel [ì] after any soft consonant. For this reason, one might expect to find [ì] in place of post-tonic vowels in grammatical endings as well. It is regularly stated, however, that this vowel can, depending on the morpheme, be pronounced as [´]. Grammatical morphemes differ, and there is some change -- and some disagreement among authorities. Table 2.4 lists contexts of nouns, organized by the vowel that appears when the given morpheme is stressed.30

There is a gradation of possibilities, from regular [´] to regular [ì]. One phonological condition overrides other considerations. A following soft consonant evokes [ì], as in: Context 10 (Declension<II> ins sg lth†dytq ‘village’ [n˛ìi8]) and

Context 12 (Declension {-†j} gen pl gtxƒktq ‘sorrows’ [pìc˛a55l˛ìi8]). Also, [ì] has

<III> ‹⁄

become usual since the beginning of the twentieth century in Context 6 (ins pl lth†dyzvb: previously [n˛´m˛ì], now [n˛ìm˛ì]).

Beyond this syntagmatic phonetic condition, the choice between [´] and [ì] depends on a paradigmatic condition -- on the vowel phones that occur in the given morpheme in other words. At one extreme, [´] is used consistently in Contexts 1--5, for example, nom sg lth†dyz ‘village’ [n˛´]. The vowel of these morphemes would be [ƒ] under stress (nom sg ujkjdƒ ‘head’, ptvkz´ ‘land’) and [´] after hard

30See Koˇsuti´c 1919 (on Old Muscovite), Avanesov 1972:69--71, Kuz mina 1966, Panov 1968:42--56. In summarizing Old Muscovite usage, Kuz mina claims that the adjectival endings had exclusively

[ì] (1966:7), relying on Koˇsuti´c’s characterization of [ì] as literary, [´] as uneducated (1919:100). But

Koˇsutic⁄(1950:80) transcribes gen sg cbytuj ‘blue’ as [c by fdf], exactly parallel to gen sg lj,hjuj ‘good’ [lj,hfdf]. Presumably Panov would posit [ì] in gen pl {-óv}, ins sg {-ój}, and gen pl {-†j}, contexts with closed syllables, which implies [ì] for Panov.

Sounds 49

Table 2.4 Post-tonic vowel reduction, nominal morphology

Old

Kuz mina,

Context

Muscovite

Avanesov

Panov

Krysin

*

o

´] [

ƒ

]

[C¸V] [C

´

´

´

1

nom=acc pl<Ib> {-ƒ}

2

nom sg<II> {-ƒ}

´

´

´

3

gen sg<I> {-ƒ}

´

´

´

4

dat pl {-ƒm}

´

´

´ ( ì)

´ (90%)

5

loc pl {-ƒx}

´

´

´ ( ì)

6

ins pl {-ƒm˛i}

´

´ ì

´ ì

*

o

´] [ó]

[C¸V] [C

´ ( ì)

´ > ì

´

´ (63%) ì

7

nom=acc sg<Ib> {-ó}

8

ins sg<I> {-óm}

´

´ ì

´ > ì

´ (81--83%)

9

gen pl<Ia> {-óv}

´

´ ì

ì†

10

ins sg<II> {-ój}

´

ì

ì†

*

†

]

[C¸V] [

ì

ì

ì†

ì

11

[dat-] loc sg<[II]I/II> {-†}

12

gen pl {-†j}

ì

ì

ì†

*

´

= unstressed vowel in alternation with stressed vowel

[V]

[V]

x y = x occurs in variation with y x y = x has yielded to y

x > y = x is yielding to y

ins sg<ii> = case-number form of Declension<ii> x†= presumed, not explicitly stated

consonants (nom sg ,ƒ,f ‘old woman’ [bƒb´]). At the opposite extreme, the locative singular of Declension<Ia> and Declension<II> (also the dative singular of Declension<II>) is [†] under stress. The vowel of this morpheme does not occur after hard mutable consonants, and accordingly there is no alternation with [Co´]. Unstressed, this vowel has the variant [ì] after C¸ (and [ï] after immutable

So‹: yf gkz´;t ‘on the beach’ [zï]).

‹

The contexts of greatest interest are those whose vowels alternate between [o]⁄under stress and unstressed [´] after hard consonants: Context 7 nom=acc

sg vj´ht ‘sea’ -- recall jryj´ [ knj´] ‘window’, gbnm= ‘drinking’ [pìt˛jo5 ], cnƒlj [stƒd´]

⁄

‘herd’ -- and Context 8 ins sg vj´htv -- recall jryj´v [ knj´m] ‘window’, gbnm=v [pìt˛jöj´m], cnƒljv [stƒd´m]. (Context 9, for example, gen pl ,hƒnmtd ‘brothers’, belongs here as well.) In these contexts, the Old Muscovite style at the beginning of the twentieth century had [´] after soft consonants.

With respect to usage after the middle of the twentieth century, there is disagreement among commentators. Avanesov (1972:70), recalling that [´] was the Old Muscovite norm, concedes that in the nominative-accusative singular

50A Reference Grammar of Russian

[ì] has become possible (“widely known”) and that in the instrumental singular [ì] has even replaced [´] (the latter “must be considered moribund”).31

Avanesov’s view contrasts with that of Kuz mina (1966) and Panov (1968), who report on a questionnaire administered during the 1960s to 100 students of the cohort 1940--49. In that questionnaire, 98 percent of the respondents had [ì] in ins sg rƒvytv ‘stone’ and, surprisingly, 98 percent had [´] in nom sg gj´kt ‘field’. Their results seem quite unambiguous in these two contexts; they are dramatically less ambiguous than in other words in which the vowel is usually thought to be pronounced as [´] without variation: loc pl lßyz[ ‘melons’ (74% [´]) or dat pl lßyzv (only 52% [´]).32

A third view derives from the mass survey in the 1960s (Krysin 1974), according to which [´] was reported to be basically stable, or slightly increasing, in both contexts. In that survey, the use of [´] in nom=acc sg gj´kt rose from just above 50 percent for the oldest generation to above 60 percent in the final cohort of 1940--49, and [´] in ins sg vtld†ltv ‘bear’ and ins sg gkƒxtv ‘cry’ basically held constant at 80 percent over the six decades of the survey.33

To summarize about the two contexts, nom=acc sg vj´ht and ins sg vj´htv: Avanesov believed that both were developing towards [ì]; Kuz mina and Panov found that they were moving in opposite directions; Krysin’s survey suggest that both contexts were developing in the same direction, towards [´].

It is difficult to resolve the discrepancy among these sources. A pilot instrumental investigation carried out for this study (six speakers) did not yield unambiguous results. There was no consistent difference between loc sg vj´ht, in which only [ì] is expected, and nom=acc sg vj´ht, in which variation between [´] and [ì] is expected. The one reasonably clear result was that the vowel of ins sg vj´htv had a higher F1 and lower F2 than other vowels in nouns, implying a more [´]-like pronunciation, evidently in anticipation of the following [m]. From this limited investigation, it was not clear to what extent a categorial distinction between [´] and [ì] remains in these morphemes.

31A point of notation: Avanesov (1972) uses three symbols: [(], a low back vowel after hard consonants; [m] is unstressed {i}; and Avanesov’s [´] is the front vowel occurring after soft consonants for series {e a o}. Other sources (Panov) collapse Avanesov’s two front vowels [m] and [´] to [m], and Avanesov himself abandons [´] in favor of [m] in his transcribed texts (p. 356: lh†vktim has [m], not [´]) and in the summary of phonetic variants (pp. 311--14). In Table 2.4, Avanesov’s [m] and his [´] are both written as [ì], [(] as [´].

32Kuz mina 1966, Panov 1968:47--48. Comrie, Stone, and Polinsky (1996:56--59), after deliberation, side with Kuz mina. Panov’s position cannot be separated from his strong belief that the distribution of [´] vs. [ì] must be determined by phonetic factors: for underlying <o>, [´] is said to occur only in final open syllables (therefore in nom=acc sg gj´kt) while [ì] is said to occur elsewhere (therefore in ins sg gkƒxtv).

33Krysin 1974: 114, Fig. 24.