Sounds 65

There is, then, a range of complex articulations of stop and fricative, which

can be ranked in order of increasing duration: true affricates [c c˛] = [ts t˛s],˛

‹ ‹

which are usually lexical (also derived from clusters of [t] and [s] before consonants: ,hƒncrbq ‘brotherly’); affricates with long closures derived from stops

followed by fricatives or affricates, [ttsˇ tt˛sˇ];˛ and complexes with full fricative

‹

releases, [tss˛ˇ tsˇs˛dzzˇ].61

‹‹ ‹

2.3.7 Soft palatal fricatives

The sound represented by the letter ≤o≥ derives etymologically from Common Slavic palatalizations ( sk before front vowel and stj); it is also the Russian interpretation of the Church Slavonic reflex of tj. Earlier it was pronounced with

an internal closure: [sc˛˛] or, equivalently, [st˛˛s]˛. Throughout most of the Russian

‹‹ ˇ‹‹

dialect area, this older pronunciation has lost out to a Muscovite pronunciation in which the internal stop closure has weakened, resulting in a more or less

homogeneous long, soft alveo-palatal fricative [s˛]: ,j´ho ‘borsch’ [bj´rs˛]. In the
‹	‹

sociolinguistic survey of the 1960s, [s˛] was used by close to 80 percent of speak-

‹

ers born in 1940--49 in ,j´ho and o∫, the most favorable lexical items.62 And

although [sc˛˛] is often said to be a Petersburg variant, another survey from the

‹‹

same period had ninety percent of (then) young Leningrad natives born after

the war using the national variant [s˛].63

‹

In addition to lexical instances of [s˛] (,j´ho, etc.), this sound also arises produc-

‹

tively in combinations of dental fricatives [s z] with [c˛].64 Dental fricatives [s z]

‹

often assimilate in place of articulation to palatals across prefix and preposition

boundaries: ci∫nm ‘suture’ [ss], c ;tyj´q ‘with the wife’ [zz], ,tp ;∫hf ‘without
‹‹	‹‹

fat’ [zz]. These fricatives also assimilate to a following [c˛] in place of articula-
‹‹	‹

tion and, since [c˛] is palatalized, for that feature as well: bcx∫ckbnm ‘calculate’,

‹

c x†cnm/ ‘with honor’ [sc˛˛]. As a further stage, the stop closure in the middle

‹‹

of the complex can be lost: [sc˛˛] = [st˛s˛]˛> [s…˛]. Which variant occurs, whether [sc˛˛]
‹‹	ˇ‹‹	‹	‹‹

or [s˛], depends on how cohesive the two units are: the weaker the morpholog-

‹

ical boundary, and the more lexicalized the combination, the more likely the

further stage of [s˛] is. By now [s˛] is usual in suffixal derivatives (hfccrƒpxbr
‹	‹

‘raconteur’) and in idiomatized prefix--root combinations (cxƒcnmt ‘happiness’, bcx†pyenm ‘disappear’); it is possible with free prefix-root combinations of the type bcx∫ckbnm, hfcxboƒnm ‘clean’, bcxthn∫nm ‘sketch out’, ,tcx†cnysq ‘dishonorable’. In the 1960s, on the order of 10 to 20 percent of all speakers surveyed used

[s˛],65 and it is not uncommon now for speakers under forty. Loss of closure is

‹

rare with preposition and noun, though it occurs in idiomatic combinations:

61Trubetzkoy (1975:182), however, allows that these distinctions are blurred in allegro style.

62Krysin 1974:100.

63	´
	Ivanovna-Lukianova 1971. Similar observations in Baranova 1971, Drage 1968:377--79.
64	And in principle palatal fricatives [s z], as in gtht,†;xbr.	65 Krysin 1974:102--3.
	‹‹

66 A Reference Grammar of Russian

c xtkjd†rjv ‘with a person’ [sc˛˛], c x†cnm/ ‘with honor’ [sc˛˛] ±[s…˛], and idiomatic

‹‹ ‹‹ ‹

c xtuj´ ‘why, from what’ [sc˛˛] [s…˛].

‹‹ ‹

It is difficult to assign an unambiguous phonemic analysis to [s˛] if one expects

‹

to define a set of features that distinguish it invariantly from all other sounds.66

What necessary property would distinguish [s˛] from [s]? If [s˛] were viewed as
	‹	‹	‹
the soft counterpart of [ ], one might expect [ ] to become [ ˛] before the				{	-e	}	of
s‹	s‹		s‹

the (dative-)locative. It does not: j rfhfylfi† [s†], not [s˛e5] or [se5˛]. Further, [s˛]

‹ ‹⁄ ‹⁄ ‹ is often phonetically long, and it conditions a vowel in the imperative (hßcrfnm ‘roam’, imv hßob; vj´hobnm ‘pucker’, imv vj´hob), as is characteristic of clusters.

Defining [s˛] as the soft counterpart of [s] would not motivate its characteristic
‹	‹

length. But length cannot be its necessary property, because the length some-

times disappears. As a third possibility, it might be tempting to think that [s˛]

‹

in general derives from a cluster -- from [sc˛] or [sc˛] or, with an abstract fricative,

‹ ‹‹

from [Sc˛], inasmuch as [s˛] arises productively from clusters of dental or palatal

‹ ‹

fricative and [c˛] (hfccrƒpxbr). This analysis violates invariance in another way.

‹

It is usually assumed that [c˛] differs from [s] by not being continuous. If all [s˛]
‹	‹	‹

derive from [c˛], then [c˛] has an allophone [s]˛which is continuous, in violation of
‹	‹	‹

this invariant property. There seems to be no analysis which would not violate one or another axiom of structuralist phonemics and, accordingly, no option

other than simply restating the facts: [s˛] is a soft alveo-palatal fricative; it is

‹

historically a long consonant, though it sometimes shortens; it does not form a

canonical pair with [s]; and it can arise from combinations of fricatives with [c˛].
‹	‹

Superficially parallel to [s˛], there is also a voiced [z˛], which, however, differs in
‹	‹

certain respects.67 With [s˛], softness is maintained in all contexts, regardless of

‹

whether length is maintained. In contrast, the soft pronunciation of [z˛] is yield-

‹

ing to a hard pronunciation [z ], on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis. In the 1960s, [z˛]
‹	‹

was used by over half of the speakers of all ages in lhj´;;b ‘yeast’, the word with

the greatest incidence of [z˛], after which came ,hßp;tn ‘gush’, dbp;ƒnm ‘squeal’

‹

(a third), then †p;e ‘I drive’, gj´p;t ‘later’ (a quarter), and finally vj;;td†kmybr

‘juniper’ (15%).68 Nowadays [z˛] is quite limited among speakers under forty. In-

‹

cluded in the set of relevant words should also be lj´;lm ‘rain’, gen sg lj;lz´ (likewise, dj´;lm ‘leader’, dj;lz´), which allows either this pronunciation (that is,

[z˛] or, with devoicing, [s˛]) or one with a palatal fricative and dental stop (that
‹	‹

is, [z˛d˛] or devoiced [st˛˛]). The pronunciation with a stop has become usual; only a

‹ ‹

fifth of speakers surveyed still used [z˛] in the 1960s.69

‹

In the most explicit register, [s˛] is generally pronounced with length, but it

‹

is often shortened to [s]˛. Table 2.8 lists most environments.

‹

The table suggests the following observations. Intervocalic position (<a>) pre-

serves length. (A sonorant intervening between a vowel and post-vocalic [s˛] does
			‹
66	See Avanesov 1948, Panov 1967, Flier 1980.	67 Zinder 1989.	68 Krysin 1974:85.
69	Avanesov transcribes it with a hard fricative. Jones and Ward (1969:142) imply [zd˛¸].
			‹

Sounds 67

Table 2.8 Degemination of [s˛]

‹

context

pronunciation

(possible) syllable structure

<a>

/V

V

[ss˛]˛

Vs.˛sV˛

‹‹

‹‹

<b>

/#

V

[ss˛]˛

.ss˛V˛

´

‹‹

‹‹

[ss˛]˛

[s]˛

Vss˛.˛

<c1>

/V

#

<

>

*

‹‹ ±

‹

‹‹

c2

/V

#

±

[ss˛]˛

[s]˛

Vss˛.˛

´

‹‹

‹

‹‹

<d1>

/V

CV

[ss˛]˛

[s]˛

Vs.˛sCV˛

<

>

*

±

‹‹

‹

‹‹

d2

/V

CV

[s]˛

Vs.˛sCV˛

‹

‹‹

<e>

/VC

V

[s]˛

VC.ss˛V˛

‹

‹‹

± = less acceptable variant

not shorten it: yjc∫kmobr ‘porter’ [l˛s˛], j,vƒyobr ‘deceiver’ [n˛s˛].70) Length is
‹	‹

also preserved in absolute initial, prevocalic position (<b>). Before a following

consonant ([n] or [n˛]), length is often lost: <d2>, ,tcgj´vjoysq ‘helpless’ [sn˛˛],

‹

xelj´dboysq ‘monstrous’ [sn˛˛], though its length may be preserved after a stressed
‹	± sn˛˛‹	s‹
s˛n‹
vowel: <d1> bpz´oysq ‘elegant’ [ ]	[ ]. A preceding obstruent shortens [ ˛]:

<e> ufhlthj´,obr ‘cloakroom attendant’ [ps],˛,hfrj´dobr ‘sorter’ [fs]˛. In absolute
‹	‹

final, post-vocalic position, length is also vulnerable: <c1> njdƒhbo ‘comrade’

[s˛] ±[s],˛gj´vjom ‘help’ [s˛] ±[s],˛though less so after a stressed vowel: <c2>

‹ ‹ ‹ ‹

vj´om ‘might’ [s˛].71

‹

These regularities might at first glance seem to follow from syllable structure.

Context <a> suggests length is preserved when [s˛] is ambisyllabic between vow-

‹

els, and context <b> suggests length is preserved in syllable-onset position, while <c1, c2> suggest that the coda position is less than ideal. Up to this point the distribution is consistent with principles of syllable structure. But if

<d1, d2> is ambisyllabic [Vs.˛snV],˛ [snV]˛ should be an acceptable onset, yet length

‹‹ ‹

tends to be lost. In <e>, length is lost despite the fact that the cluster could

be in syllable-onset position, as [VC.ss˛V]˛. In fact, in <d> and <e> it does not

‹‹

matter which syllable [s˛] belongs to. The constraint is whether [s˛] is adjacent
‹	‹

to another consonant. The adjacency of another consonant -- regardless of its

syllable allegiance -- is sufficient to shorten [s˛]. The regularities of Table 2.8 do

‹

not follow from syllable structure.

2.3.8 Geminate consonants

Clusters of identical consonants, as they are written in the orthography, are likely to be simplified in speech, depending on various factors: tempo, register, familiarity of the word, the ability of the geminate cluster to occur in native Russian words. When geminates arise at the boundary between prefix and root,

70According to Avanesov 1972. Panov 1967 transcribes such words with [s˛].‹

71Avanesov 1972 has length here, Jones and Ward (1969:139) shortness.

68A Reference Grammar of Russian

they are normally maintained. At internal boundaries, only [nn] and [ss] occur. Geminate spellings involving most consonants occur in foreign borrowings, and then the gemination may or may not be maintained in pronunciation.72

Certain segments tolerate gemination more readily than others. Geminate [rr] is quite unlikely. Geminate stops occur occasionally (uhéggf ‘group’ 55%, [jrr†q ‘hockey’ 34%). Geminate [ss], [nn], [mm], and [ll] are the most likely. With respect to position in the word, geminates are best maintained between vowels, and they are maintained better following a stressed vowel than following an unstressed vowel. Compare: vƒccf ‘mass’ (88%), rƒccf ‘cashier’ (85%), rjv∫ccbz ‘commission’ (48%) as opposed to rkfcc∫xtcrbq ‘classic’ (44%), ,fcc†qy ‘pool’ (44%). In fact, no less of a native informant (and phonologist) than Trubetzkoy wrote in a letter to Jakobson that geminate [n ] was possible only after stressed vowels; the sequence would be shortened after unstressed vowels.73 In word-final position after a vowel, geminates are often simplified but can be maintained (nom sg rƒccf ‘cashier’ 85% [s ] vs. gen pl rƒcc 52% [s ]). Before a following consonant (in the context VCi CiCj V), geminates are lost, as is sometimes reflected in spelling: jgth†nnf ‘operetta’ but jgth†nrf, héccrbq [sk], dim uhéggrf [pk], dim ghjuhƒvvrf

[mk].74 Just as with [s˛], if a potential geminate is adjacent to another consonant,

‹

it loses length.

In general, maintaining gemination (including [s˛]) requires an environment

‹

which grants a large measure of duration to the interval of obstruents. Intervocalic position, when the geminate is supported on both sides by vocalic intervals, is more favorable to maintaining gemination than absolute initial (prevocalic) position. Both are more favorable to geminates than absolute final (post-vocalic) position. Position adjacent to an obstruent is inferior. Position after a stressed vowel favors maintaining the geminate.

2.3.9 Voicing of consonants

In Russian some obstruents are voiced, some voiceless. Voiced obstruents such as [d], [g], [z˛] are produced with the vocal cords taut and therefore vibrating through much of the duration of the obstruent -- in Russian, voiced stops are voiced through more of their duration than voiced stops in English.75 Voiceless consonants such as [t], [k], [s˛] are produced with spread vocal cords that do not vibrate. Almost all obstruents come in pairs that differ only by voicing. Both kinds of obstruents can occur in the context before vowels and distinguish words: ,∫nm [b˛] ‘be’ vs. g∫nm [p] ‘drink’, l†kj [d˛] ‘matter’ vs. n†kj [t˛] ‘body’.

72Avanesov 1972:128--38, statistics from Glovinskaia 1976. Kuz mina 1976 treats the related problem of simplification in consonant clusters.

73 Trubetzkoy 1975:237.

74 SRIa 1.107--8.

75 Initial [d] is voiced in English only 60 percent of its duration, Russian [d] 90 percent (Heffner 1964:130).

Sounds 69

The obstruents [c c x] are normally voiceless, though they do become voiced

‹

preceding a voiced obstruent within a minimal domain: jn†w ,ßk ‘father was’ > [Zb], nrƒx ,ßk ‘the weaver was’ > [Z˛‹b], ktx,ƒ ‘healing’ [Z˛‹b], lde[ly†dysq ‘two-day’ [ d˛n˛]. The voiced phones [Z Z˛‹ ] do not normally occur before vowels by themselves.76 (Historically, [ ], a Slavonic pronunciation, could occur autonomously, in certain lexical items such as ,kfuj- ‘well-’, <j´u ‘God’, uj´cgjlm ‘Lord’.)

Sonorants are intrinsically voiced. They do not come in pairs that differ by voicing, although sonorants become voiceless in specific contexts. Vowels sometimes become voiceless when they are unstressed between voiceless consonants.

In addition to the paradigmatic constraints on voicing, there are syntagmatic constraints, or “rules,” governing how voicing is distributed in connected speech. Because voicing involves vibration of the vocal cords, absence of voicing is generally taken to be articulatorily less complex and less marked than voicing. But speech might be viewed as basically voiced, and absence of voicing -- voicelessness -- as an interruption of the flow of intrinsically vocalic, and voiced, sound.77 An interlude of voicelessness must be initiated by an active gesture of opening the glottis (“ ”) and terminated by a gesture of closing the glottis (“ ”). These gestures coincide more or less with the oral gestures that define the boundaries of segments; for example, in making [p] in jgz´nm, the glottis spreads (and voicing stops) as the lips close and the glottis is closed (and voicing resumes) as the lips open.

Vowels tolerate a boundary of voicelessness on either side. In n=nz ‘aunt’, the stressed [o⁄] tolerates the onset of voicelessness on its right margin and the

end of voicelessness on its left: [ t˛o55 t˛´]. Sonorants (= “R”), intrinsically voiced,

⁄

extend the vocalic domain, in that they allow a boundary of voicelessness on either side. For example, [r] allows the onset of voicelessness on its right margin in vƒhrf ‘stamp’ [már k ´]; and before a vowel, [v˛] and [l] tolerate the end of

voicelessness immediately before them in cd=rkf ‘beet’ [ s v˛o5 k l´]. Sonorants

⁄

followed by vowels allow preceding obstruents to distinguish voicing: lkz ‘for, on behalf of’ and nkz´ ‘beetle’, which differ by initial [d] and [t], or nk†nm ‘rot’ > [tl˛] vs. lk∫yysq ‘long’ [dl˛], gm÷ ‘I drink’ > [pj] vs. ,m÷ ‘I beat’ [b˛j]. Before a vowel, the two members of the small class of W, voiced labio-dental approximates [vv˛], also allow both voiced and voiceless obstruents to precede (ldj∫[<gen> ‘a pair’ [dv] vs. ndj∫[<genpl> ‘your’ [tv]), just as sonorants do. The distribution is recursive, so that a series of these sounds (sonorants R or W) before a vowel permit obstruents of either type: jn vyj´ujuj ‘from much’ [tmn] vs. gjl vyj´ubv ‘under much’ [dmn],

76As emerges below, the relationship of /f f˛/ to /v v˛/ is not the same as that between /b˛/ and /p/, and it might be justified to include /f f˛/ in the list of consonants that are unpaired for voicing.

77Browman and Goldstein (1986[a], [b]) argue that voiceless consonants in English and French are marked by an active “glottal closing-and-opening gesture,” gestures which voiced stops lack.

70 A Reference Grammar of Russian

hfpdhfn∫nm ‘dissipate’ [zvr] vs. jndhfn∫nm ‘repel’ [tvr]. In this respect the class W behaves like sonorants.

Russian has two syntagmatic rules of voicing that apply obligatorily and almost exclusively to obstruents: voicing assimilation and word-final devoicing. Within a sequence of obstruents, all obstruents must have the same voicing as the last segment of the sequence; for example, the sound corresponding to ≤;≥ is voiceless [s]‹before voiceless [k] in yj´;rf ‘knife [dim]’ (it surfaces as [z]‹only in the gen pl yj´;tr), while the sounds corresponding to ≤c≥ and ≤nm≥ are voiced in gfcnm,ƒ ‘pasturage’ [z˛(d˛)b]. Viewed in terms of gestures, voicing assimilation is the constraint that no boundary of voicelessness can fall between obstruents;

voicelessness cannot begin between the two obstruents of yj´;rf [z k], nor can

‹

the end of voicelessness fall in the middle of the obstruent interval of gfcnm,ƒ[s˛(t˛) b].

Voicing assimilation is thought to apply without exception within words and at the boundaries of prefixes or prepositions and words: jn,∫k ‘repelled’ [db˛], c ,†htuf ‘from the shore’ [zb˛], gjlgbcƒnm ‘sign’ [tp], l†drf ‘wench’ [fk]. Assimilation is usual before enclitics beginning with voiced obstruents (lj´xm ,s ‘daughter

might’ [Z˛‹b], jn†w ;t ‘father indeed’ [Zz], dj´n ,s ‘well now’ [db]), possible but not

‹

obligatory in compounds (gfhn,bk†n ‘party card’ [tb˛] [db˛]), and occasional between independent words, at least in close syntagms (and with connotations of

colloquial register): yƒi pyfvty∫nsq (r∫tdcrbq nj´hn) ‘our famous (Kiev tort)’ [zz],

‹

rjy†w uj´lf ‘end of the year’ [cg] [Zg], vƒnm c ltnmv∫ ‘mother with children’ [t˛z˛d˛]

[d˛z˛d˛], lj´xm dljdß ‘daughter of a widow’ [c˛vd] [Z˛‹vd], nhélyjcnm pfrk/xƒkfcm

‹

‘difficulty consisted of’ [s˛(t˛)z] [z˛(d˛)z], pé, ,jk∫n ‘tooth hurts’ [pb] [bb], lj´xm

,skƒ ‘daughter was’ [c˛b] [Z˛‹b], jn†w ,ßk ‘father was’ [cb] [Zb].78 When assimi-

‹

lation occurs, it appears that there is neutralization. That is, a lexical [s], when voiced, is identical to a lexical [z], and conversely, a lexical [d˛], when devoiced, is identical to [t˛].79

Final devoicing pushes the beginning of voicelessness as far back into the word from the end of the word as possible. Thus the sound corresponding to ≤lm≥ in ntnhƒlm is voiceless [t˛ì t ra5⁄t˛], and, by voicing assimilation, the onset of voicelessness is pushed back to include both obstruents in udj´plm ‘nail’: [gvo5⁄s˛t˛]. Devoicing occurs without exception in phrase-final position, normally in the first word of a phrase consisting of two independent words (l†l ei=k ‘grampa left’ [t], nhél k/l†q ‘labor of people’ [tl˛]), usually but not always at the end of a word

78Some information is given in Paufoshima and Agaronov 1971.

79There are still questions to be investigated in the phonetics of consonants participating in voicing rules. Drage 1968 noted some occasional exceptions to the rules. Barry (1988) considered the possibility that final devoiced obstruents maintain some properties characteristic of voiced consonants, but does not find consistent evidence of a phonetic difference. Burton and Robblee (1997), examining assimilation, found that consonants neutralize.

Sounds 71

before a clitic beginning with a sonorant or a vowel (l†l e; ‘grampa already’ [t], pé, kb ‘the tooth?’ [pl˛]). Primary prepositions maintain voicing before sonorants and vowels (gjl kƒvgjq ‘under the lamp’ [dl], ,tp vyj´ub[ ‘without many’ [zmn]). However, root and prefixal prepositions have a stressed vowel, marking them as autonomous words (,k∫p ‘near’, crdj´pm ‘through’, ghj´nbd ‘against’, dck†l ‘following’), and their final consonants devoice: crdj´pm k†c ‘through the forest’ [s˛l˛].

As noted, sonorants (R) and labio-dental approximates (W) are normally voiced. However, they are not completely inert with respect to voicing rules. W is less inert than sonorants. The relevant contexts are these.

<a> V #: In final open position after a vowel, the two members of W devoice and become identical to the voiceless obstruents [f f˛]: rhj´d ‘roof’ [f], rhj´dm ‘blood’ [f˛]. Sonorants, in contrast to W, are expected to remain voiced. Yet devoicing, partial or complete, occurs, [r˛] being the most susceptible: rj´hm ‘measles’ >

[ko5r˛] . . . [ko5r˛r]˛. . . [ko5r]˛. (It is convenient to write the ligature sign to indicate a

⁄ ˇ⁄ü ü⁄

consonant of normal duration over which some feature such as voicing changes its value.) Sonorants may devoice partially after a vowel before a final voiceless obstruent, as in c†hg ‘sickle’ and c†h, ‘Serb’ [rrüˇp].

<b> VC/ #: After a preceding voiceless obstruent at the end of a word, final

sonorants are usually devoiced: ntƒnh ‘theater’ [a trü ].80 After a previous voiced

⁄

obstruent, the sonorant may acquire an anaptyctic vowel (hé,km ‘ruble’ [bəl˛]).81 Or, in less than standard speech, it may devoice, partially ([blˇ3lü˛])˛or completely ([blü]),˛ and then pass on voicelessness to the preceding obstruent (([plü]),),˛ and (in

dialects) even be identified as an obstruent: [zÈs˛t˛] for ;∫pym ‘life’. In this context,

‹

the constraint of final devoicing attempts to move the onset of voicelessness back towards the margin of the previous vocalic domain, in the process potentially affecting a sonorant.

When W follows an obstruent at word end, both the W and the obstruent apparently devoice: [jhéudm ‘banner’ [kf˛], nh†pd ‘sober’, h†pd ‘frisky’, vyj´uj z´pd ‘many sores’ [sf].82

<c> C CV: Internally between obstruents, W behaves as an obstruent. It participates in voicing assimilation: when W precedes a voiced obstruent, a previous obstruent remains voiced (gjl dljdj´q ‘under the widow’ [dvd]) or becomes voiced (r dljd† ‘to the widow’ [gvd]). Before a voiceless obstruent, W devoices and passes

80 Jones and Ward 1969:189, Matusevich 1976:188, 198, SRIa 1.105--6.

81 See Reformatskii 1971, Liubimova 1975, Barry 1989, Flier 1990, 1993, with references.

82 But according to Reformatskii (1975), devoicing is not complete: though the W of vyj´uj z´pd is

devoiced, the preceding /z/ can remain partially voiced ([zsf]) or fully voiced ([zf]). At the same

ˇ

time, a /z/ before an /f/ is said to devoice, in an abbreviation concocted by Reformatskii: ZPA. If

so -- if [zsf], [zf], or [zv] is pronounced in z´pd instead of [sf] -- it would show simply that the behavior

ˇ

of W in this position is not completely that of an obstruent.

72A Reference Grammar of Russian

on voicelessness to a preceding obstruent, which remains voiceless (jn dnjhj´uj ‘from the second’ [tft]) or becomes voiceless (gjl dnjhßv ‘under the second’ [tft]). In this context, W forms part of an extended obstruental interval that does not permit changes in voicing within the interval.

With sonorants between obstruents, it is possible to insert an anaptyctic vowel and make the sonorant syllabic, in which case the sonorant can accept boundaries of voicelessness. The interesting question -- a question on which there is some disagreement -- is what happens if the sonorant does not become syllabic. Four sub-contexts can be distinguished.

<c1> D D: Between voiced obstruents, sonorants remain voiced, and may become syllabic: gjl km;∫dsv ‘under false’ [dl˛(ə)z]‹.

<c2> T D: After a voiceless and before a voiced obstruent, sonorants most probably leave the preceding voiceless obstruent untouched, whether or not

they acquire an anaptyctic vowel: jn kml∫ys ‘from the ice-floe’ [ø t (ə)l˛d˛¸nï],

⁄

Gh;tdƒkmcrbq [ p (ə)rz]‹. There is, however, some uncertainty on this point, discussed below.

<c3> D T: After a voiced obstruent before a voiceless one, a range of variants is possible. In, for example, vélhcndjdfnm: ‘act wise’, both obstruent and sonorant can maintain voice ([dr st v]), or the sonorant can devoice partially ([drˇürst v] or completely ([d üstr v]), or both can devoice, as is not uncommon in jrnΩ,hmcrbq [ prüsk˛˛]. The sonorant may be lost. If the sonorant acquires an anaptyctic vowel, as is possible at preposition boundaries, the obstruent is unaffected: bp K[ƒcs [zəlx].

<c4> T T: Between voiceless obstruents, the sonorant is hemmed in by voicelessness on both sides without the aid of a supporting vowel. The sonorant can insert an anaptyctic vowel, as it does usually at a prefix boundary: jn MXATf

‘from MKhAT’ [ø t əm x a t ´]. Or it can devoice, creating a single extended in-

⁄

terval of voicelessness without internal shifts in voicing (Ceghƒckmcrbq [ slüsk˛˛]). Or it may be lost altogether.

The behavior of W and sonorants, especially in these environments, has generated something of a controversy about the nature of the voicing rules. It is Jakobson who is credited with first observing the unusual behavior of W in particular.83 In his original article in 1956, Jakobson characterized the voicing rule so that the final obstruent in a cluster was held wholly responsible. Assimilation occurs between two obstruents, “regardless of whether one follows directly after the other or v comes between them.” On this view, W is a permeable membrane that transmits voicing from a following obstruent to a preceding one.

83Jakobson 1956/1971[a]. On Jakobson’s treatment of W in this position, see Shapiro 1966. Shapiro 1993 provides an overview of the problem of voicing.

Sounds 73

The subsequent tradition saw in Jakobson’s observation the possibility that W is to be classified as a sonorant. One hypothesis was that W is intrinsically a sonorant that becomes an obstruent in weak environments, when it merges with [f f˛].84 This solution maintains the assumption that active participation in voicing rules is limited exactly to the class of obstruents; true sonorants would have to be excluded on this account.

Another tack was to ask whether true sonorants behave the same as W in the vicinity of obstruents.85 Sheveroshkin, citing Gh;tdfkmcrbq, states that “voicing of p- <...> does not occur <...> It can hardly be suggested that the sonorant [r] is syllabic.” He notes that, in bp K[fcs, devoicing is possible, provided the [l] itself devoices: [slx]. Zalizniak (1975) claims that sonorants generally do not transmit

ˆ

voicing, even if they remain non-syllabic. He states categorically that a voiceless obstruent does not become voiced across an intervening sonorant in assimilation to a voiced obstruent. Thus Tsvetaeva’s line pfcnhf[jdfyyjcnm эnb[ k,jd ‘insurability of these foreheads’ could only be pronounced without assimilation as [ x lb], never with assimilation as [ lb]. If so, sonorants differ from W or obstruents, which would affect a preceding consonant in this combination: …nb[ dlj´d ‘of these widows’ [ vd], …nb[ ly†q ‘of these days’ [ d˛n˛]. Zalizniak mentions that if the following obstruent is voiceless, voicing assimilation -- devoicing -- could occur.

After the appearance of these studies, Jakobson responded by pushing the parallelism between W and sonorants. In his last summary discussion (1978/1985), he insisted that voicing assimilation is passed through sonorants, both when the obstruent after the sonorant is voiceless (bp Vw†ycrf ‘from Mtsensk’ [smc]) and, remarkably, when the obstruent after the sonorant is voiced ([dl˛d˛] in jn kml∫ys). (Jakobson does not explicitly say whether the sonorant itself would have to be devoiced before a voiceless obstruent in order to communicate voicelessness; his transcriptions do not indicate that the intervening sonorant is devoiced.) To judge by his examples, sonorants behave like W: they are also permeable membranes that transmit voicing. In extending this property of permeability from W to all sonorants, Jakobson makes a substantive claim that differs from those made in other sources: his r k;∫dsv ckjdƒv ‘to false words’ [glz]‹and jn kml∫ys [dl˛d˛] seem incompatible with Sheveroshkin’s Gh;tdfkmcrbq [prz]‹and Zalizniak’s …´nb[ k,j´d [xlb]. While Jakobson claims that there is complete parallelism in the context CRC and CWC regardless of whether the second obstruent is voiced or voiceless, other investigators point to the likelihood that there is an asymmetry in contexts: voicelessness may be passed on, but only if it is imposed on the

84The solution proposed by Andersen (1969) and subsequently reinvented in other places.

85Es kova 1971:245, Sheveroshkin 1971 (especially 282).