74A Reference Grammar of Russian

sonorant; voicing will not be passed through a sonorant to a preceding voiceless obstruent.86 Thus Jakobson’s factual observations differ from those of other commentators.87

To understand voicing, it is useful to think of voicelessness as a feature with a temporal life. Voicing and voicelessness are not entirely symmetrical. Vocalic domains (vowels themselves, and vowels extended by sonorants) are intrinsically voiced.88 Boundaries of voicelessness are tolerated on the margins of vocalic domains and only there; consonantal intervals are either voiced or voiceless

throughout with no internal change -- no internal beginning of voicelessness ( [VD N V]) and no internal end of voicelessness ( [V N DV]). Whether an inter-

val is voiced or voiceless is determined by the last obstruent. Sonorants adjacent to vowels extend the vocalic domain and therefore tolerate adjacent voicelessness. But sonorants are not completely inert in voicing rules. Complications arise when a sonorant is next to a word boundary or is sandwiched between obstruents. In such contexts, the class of W behaves like an obstruent. Unambiguous sonorants -- liquids and nasals -- can do the same if the following environment imposes voicelessness, but they can also act as an autonomous domain and tolerate the cessation of voicelessness immediately preceding them, in the configuration N RD (Gh;tdfkmcrbq, jn kmlbys).

2.4 Phonological variation

2.4.1 General

Most -- perhaps all -- phonetic processes in Russian exhibit variation in their application. While each process deserves its own description, the processes are governed by analogous factors. The factors can be grouped into three classes: systemic factors (those motivated by intrinsic properties of the sounds involved);

86The assumption that both voicelessness and voicing are passed through sonorants is critical for the theoretical studies of Halle and Vergnaud (1981) and Hayes (1984). Robblee and Burton 1997, examining the duration and amplitude of consonants in clusters in which a sonorant is between two obstruents, could find no instrumental confirmation that voicing is transmitted through sonorants. Kavitskaya (1999), a phonologist from Moscow, states that in her speech there is no assimilation in either context, bp Mw†ycrf ‘from Mtsensk’ or jn kuéymb ‘from a liar’.

87Jakobson claims (1968/1971[a]) that [f f˛] do not assimilate in word-final position before an enclitic

or word beginning with a voiced obstruent: thus uhƒa ;t ‘the graf, though’ remains [fz],‹not [vz]‹. A half century earlier, before any controversy about the status of W had arisen, Cherrnyshev (1908:37) transcribed the phrase rfk∫a ,s´k gj,t;l=y ‘the caliph was defeated’ as rfk∫d ,ßk, indicating voicing assimilation.

88Though voiceless vowels do occur, the optimal environment being unstressed between voiceless obstruents at word end, e.g., i=gjn [ˇsop´üt] (Panov 1967:131). Jones and Ward (1969:191--92) say that a voiceless vowel occurs “not infrequently,” in contexts adjacent to voiceless obstruents, such as dßcnfdrf ‘exhibition’, x†htg ‘skull’, l†deitr ‘girls’ [gen pl].

Sounds 75

factors of idiomaticity (those having to do with the morphological and lexical constraints on processes); and sociostylistic factors.

2.4.2 Phonological variation: idiomaticity

Variation depends in large measure on the extent to which the given combination of sounds is conventionally pronounced together. The more the two sounds that participate in the change are associated and linked in usage, the more likely they are to show the effects of phonetic interaction. This factor might be termed the criterion of i d i o m a t i c i t y .

The most familiar aspect of idiomaticity is the hierarchy of morphological “boundaries.” By measuring the degree of cohesion vs. autonomy of constituent units, boundaries in effect measure syntagmatic idiomaticity. As is familiar, the weaker the boundary, the more likely it is that segments on either side of the boundary will interact. As a consequence, phonological processes apply most readily within morphemes, a little less regularly across boundaries of derivational suffixes, less across inflectional boundaries, and with decreasing willingness across prefix, preposition, and word boundaries.89 Most processes in Russian are sensitive to boundaries, though the cut-off points are different for different processes. Processes are summarized in Table 2.9, in which boundaries are listed from weak to strong along the horizontal axis, and processes are listed along the vertical axis from restricted to general. There is no reason to think that boundaries are becoming more prominent or less prominent over time; there is no single direction of development. Any rule can be sensitive to boundaries, whether it is expanding or receding. The generalization is that, as a rule changes -- whether it expands or recedes -- it will expand or be maintained better when weak rather than strong boundaries intervene between the sounds that interact.

The change whereby [c˛] loses closure in clusters of [s] plus [c˛], resulting in
‹	‹

[ˇs˛], is regular at suffix boundaries, but less regular at prefixes and uncommon with prepositions. Palatalization assimilation has been disappearing. Its retrenchment has been following the hierarchy of boundaries. Assimilation, even for Avanesov, was unlikely between preposition and head word; it was somewhat more likely at prefix boundary, and regular only within morphemes. Palatalization of velars before {i e} applies within words and across inflectional boundaries (between stems and inflectional endings), herƒ ‘hand’ [kƒ], gen sg her∫ [k˛´ı], but normally does not cross preposition or word boundaries: r ∫vtyb ‘to the name’ [k˝!]. The alternation of [i] and [˝!] is less restricted; it crosses prefixes (csuhƒnm ‘play’ [sÈ]) and prepositions (jn ∫vtyb ‘from the name’ [t˝!]) and, not

89 Shapiro 1967.

76 A Reference Grammar of Russian

Table 2.9 Boundaries and variation

			internal	derivation	inflection	prefix	preposition	enclitic	word
CC¸ > ¸C (current)			√	±	?
CC¸ > ¸C (older)			√	√	±	±	?
{Ki} > [Ki]˛			√	√	√	n.a.		n.a.
{	sc˛˛> [s˛]		√	√	n.a.	±	?	n.a.
	‹‹}	‹	√	√			√
{	sc˛> [sc˛˛]				n.a.	√		n.a.
	}‹	‹‹	√	√	√	√	√	√
{s z}{ˇs ˇz} > [ˇs ˇz ]									?
{Coi} > [CoÈ]			√	√	√	√	√	√	±
{ C/ C/ } > [ C/ C/ ]			√	√	√	√	√	√	±
	$ˇ	ˇ ˇ

√= process applies regularly, without restriction

±= process applies less frequently, with some restrictions

? = process applies exceptionally, with significant restrictions= process does not apply

n.a. = not applicable

infrequently, occurs between closely linked words within a phrase (i=k buhƒnm

‘went to play’ [lÈ]). Assimilation of [s z] to [ˇs˛] before [c˛] or to [s z] before root
‹	‹‹

[s z] is regular across prefixes and prepositions and can occur between words in

‹‹

a phrase (vjhj´p ;=cnrbq ‘a harsh frost’ [z ]). Voicing assimilation easily crosses

‹

the boundary between words within phrases.

Variation is affected by other considerations that are, however, difficult to encode as boundaries. Processes apply to words to the extent that the conditions for a process are present in all forms of the paradigm of the word, inflectional and sometimes derivational. Palatalization assimilation is less likely if the trigger consonant is palatalized only in some forms. Palatalization is less likely in d ,∫ndt ‘in battle’ (only [tv˛]), because [v˛] is palatalized only in certain cases, than in uniformly palatalized d†ndb ‘branches’ (possible [t˛v˛]).90

How regularly a process applies may depend on the relationship between a particular form and the rest of the morphological paradigm to which it belongs. The zero ending -- a fecund environment for changes, since consonants are not supported by a following vowel -- exhibits different effects depending on which “zero” it is. For example, geminates are often maintained in the genitive plural (gen pl vƒcc [mƒs ] ‘of the masses’), because the genitive plural is under paradigmatic pressure from other weighty members of the paradigm in which a vowel follows (nom sg vƒccf [mƒsə]). Geminates are often lost in the nominative singular, a more autonomous form which is less subject to pressure from forms with vowels (nom sg rjyuh†cc [s] ‘congress’, not [s ]).

90 Krysin 1974:61 cites 13 percent for d†ndb but an even paltrier 5 percent for d ,∫ndt.

Sounds 77

The paradigm of verbal forms has less cohesion among its forms than the declension of nouns. Palatalized labials are well maintained before the zero ending of the nominative singular of nouns, because in the rest of the paradigm the labial is before a vowel and is palatalized: palatalized [p] in uj´ke,m<nom sg> ‘dove’ is supported by [b˛ə] in uj´ke,z<gen sg>. Palatalized labials are beginning to be lost in the imperative in the substandard register: ghbujnj´dmnt ‘prepare!’ standard [f˛], substandard [f], even despite the fact that there are other forms with palatalized labials in prevocalic position (inf ghbujnj´dbnm, 2sg ghbujnj´dbim). In the masculine singular of the past tense of verbs, [l] was lost after fricatives: nesl(> y=c, vezl(> d=p. Analogous phonological combinations have been maintained in nouns (sometimes by insertion of a vowel): cvßck ‘sense’, éptk ‘knot’ because related forms have following vowels (gen sg cvßckf, gen sg épkf). Again, the zero form of nouns underwent less extreme change than the zero form in verbs because this context in nouns is better integrated in a paradigm of forms.

In many of these processes the target (the segment that is potentially affected) is situated before a boundary in either case; the context is syntagmatically the same. What is different is the paradigmatic context: the allegiance of the particular word form to other word forms. A process is retarded when a word form with the proper phonological context is related to other word forms lacking the phonological context for the process.

The principle at work here is the paradigmatic analog of the syntagmatic constraint of boundaries. A word or morpheme will try to remain uniform and not change its shape, even down to the level of the allophonic shape of the segments of which it is composed. To the extent that two otherwise independent units are conventionally pronounced together, their autonomy is overridden. On both the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes, rules apply to the extent that the proper phonological context is regular, conventional, idiomatic.

2.4.3 Phonological variation: systemic factors

Speech results from various articulatory gestures, scripted in time. Though gestures often line up to define segments (for example, [m˛] involves almost simultaneous labial closure, raising of the tongue, and opening of the velum), each articulatory gesture has its own profile in time. Assimilation is just the spread of a gesture across segments.

Speech is evidently composed of alternations of vocalic domains and consonantal interludes. Consonantal interludes require sanctioning from the vocalic domain. As a consonant cluster grows in complexity, the presence of additional consonants reduces the duration available for other adjacent consonants in the same interlude. As noted in the discussion of vowel duration, vowels are shorter before multiple consonants than before single consonants, and shorter before

78A Reference Grammar of Russian

single obstruents than before no obstruent. These facts suggest that consonants have a negative valence -- they remove duration from the vocalic interval. Similarly, voicelessness and stop articulations (both involving energetic and precipitous gestures) remove duration.91

Vowels vary in duration as a function of stress.92 Stress also affects nearby consonants. The general principle is that stress sanctions extra length in the vowels themselves and also extra duration in adjacent consonants, both before and after the vowel.

The variation of [i È] sometimes crosses between words, when one word ends in a hard consonant and the next begins with {i}. Matusevich says explicitly that the pronunciation of [È], which involves assimilation of the vowel to the hard consonant of the preceding word, is more common when the vowel is unstressed (bl=n B´h∫yf ‘there goes Irina’ [tï]) than when the vowel is stressed (bl=n B´hf ‘there goes Ira’ [tí] [t˝!]).

Normally in Russian, consonants are palatalized before {e}, though borrowings allow non-palatalized consonants. The consonant is able to avoid palatalization before {e} in borrowings more readily when the vowel is stressed than when it is unstressed.93 The extra duration of stressed vowels allows more distinctions in the transitions between consonants and vowels, and in particular allows either a palatalizing transition (with raised F2) or a non-palatalizing transition (with low F2); unstressed vowels, with greater cohesion between the vowel and consonant, as a rule allow only the palatalizing transition.

The glide [j] is said to have two allophones, a more consonantal [j] as opposed to a less consonantal [8i]. The more consonantal [j] occurs before stressed vowels, because the glide has more time for elaboration before stressed vowels than before unstressed. Also, [j] tends to be absorbed before the homorganic vowel [i]. It is less likely to be absorbed before a stressed [í], because a stressed vowel allows more time for an elaborate transition: stressed cdbym∫ gen sg ‘pig’ > [n˛jí] ±[n˛i8í] but unstressed kuéymb gen sg ‘liar’ > [n˛ì] ±[n˛i8ì]. Vowels that are stressed permit more elaborated transitions between consonant and vowel.

Stress also affects consonants in post-vocalic position, especially when they are not also prevocalic. Gemination -- maintaining a single articulatory configuration over an extended time -- is permissible to the extent that extra duration is sanctioned by adjacent vowels. Stressed vowels sanction more duration

91Browman and Goldstein (1986[a]) examined duration in C VC complexes (C = a singleton, dou-

bleton, or three-consonant cluster) in English and documented that there is a constant duration measured from the temporal center of the C through the vowel to the onset of the post-vocalic singleton consonant. If the interval from the temporal center of the cluster to the end of the vowel yields a stable value, then as the consonant cluster increases in complexity and duration, it must do so at the expense of the vowel.

92 Bondarko, Verbitskaia, and Zinder 1960.

93 Glovinskaia 1976.

Sounds 79

(rightward) in the following consonantal interlude than do unstressed vowels, and hence ghjbpytc=yysq ‘pronounced’ is more likely to have a geminate [nn] than jnj´hdfyysq ‘torn off’. Palatalized labials, endangered when no vowel follows, are better maintained after stressed vowels: c†vm ‘seven’ [s˛ööm˛† ] but dj´ctvm ‘eight’ [vo5s˛ìm⁄ ]. In palatalization assimilation, palatalization is better preserved after a stressed vowel than otherwise, hence better preserved in gj´lkt ‘alongside of’, in Avanesov’s norm [po5d˛l˛ì⁄ ] [pj´dl˛ì], than in ,jlk∫dsq ‘prone to butting’, only [b dl˛ívÈ8i].

Thus, stressed vowels sanction greater duration both in prevocalic consonants and in post-vocalic consonants. Position preceding a vowel gets more duration than position after.

It might appear that these effects could be described by appealing to syllables. There is more than one algorithm for determining syllable structure. The major point of difference concerns what to do with multiple consonants between vowels, which may be assigned all to the following vowel or split between the preceding and the following syllable according to some principle. Avanesov 1956, for example, allows closed syllables only when a sonorant precedes an obstruent: compare closed rƒhnf [r.t] ‘map’, ljycrj´q [n.sk] ‘of the Don’, but open kj´,pbr ‘fret-saw’ [.bz˛], rjulƒ [.gd] ‘when’, jnlƒnm [.dd] ‘gave away’, cjyk∫dsq [.nl˛] ‘drowsy’, lkbyyƒ [.nn] ‘long’ [fem sg]. This approach has the result of minimizing closed syllables. Other approaches, not specific to Russian, might be more tolerant of internal closed syllables of the type VCi .CjV.

Whatever algorithm is invoked, syllable structure does not account for the variation described above. Palatalized labials in the imperative are more likely to be lost in the plural, when a consonant follows (эrjyj´vmnt), than in the singular, when no consonant follows (эrjyj´vm). The palatalized labial (here [m˛]) would be in syllable-coda position in both instances according to any algorithm of syllable structure. If the behavior of sounds were based strictly on the position in syllable structure, [m˛] should behave the same in both forms; the presence of another obstruent after the syllable-final [m˛] should be irrelevant.

Palatalized consonants cause a preceding vowel to become more front; they do so whether they belong to the following syllable (gen sg uj´hz ‘grief’ [go5.⁄r˛ə]) or form the coda of the syllable (e.g., uj´hmrj ‘bitterly’ [go5r˛⁄.kə]). Similarly, consonants are labialized in the vicinity of labialized vowels, and this process does not respect syllable boundaries.94 Nor does voicing assimilation. These processes, then, pay no attention to syllable boundaries.

Finally, we might consider the algorithm for syllable structure of L. V. Shcherba. According to Shcherba, a syllable coda is possible only after a stressed

94 Bondarko 1977:130--37.

80A Reference Grammar of Russian

vowel, as in cdƒlm,f [sva5d˛⁄.bə] ‘wedding’ but not ujym,ƒ [g .n˛bƒ] ‘pursuit’. Shcherba’s algorithm, because it refers to stress, might seem relevant to the processes discussed above. Shcherba’s algorithm leads to an odd result with respect to assimilations that affect post-vocalic consonants. In palatalization assimilation, for example, if syllable structure were assigned according to Shcherba’s principle, one would expect assimilation to be less regular after stressed vowels, because the post-vocalic consonant would be assigned to the same syllable as the vowel, and not to the following syllable that contains the consonant that is the source of palatalization. Thus one would expect less palatalization in gj´lkt [po5d⁄.l˛ì] ‘alongside’ than in ,jlk∫dsq [b dl˛ívï8i] ‘prone to butting’. In fact, Avanesov observed the opposite. Also, Shcherba’s algorithm has nothing to say about consonants in the position before vowels, since preceding consonants would be treated as syllable onsets regardless of whether that vowel is stressed. As noted, stress allows more elaboration in consonants preceding vowels.

Thus models that rely on syllable structure do not describe the variation that relates to the stress of vowels. We might attempt to describe these facts directly in a temporal model of phonetic interaction. Speech is an alternation of vocalic and consonantal domains. Consonants can be understood as a kind of negative space between the positive articulatory intervals of vowels. Vowels have positive valence proportional to their own duration (at least insofar as duration is a function of stress). The longer the vowel, the more duration is granted to the adjacent consonantal interludes. Consonantal domains are not self-sufficient; they require the support of vocalic domains; they consume duration supplied by vowels. Asymmetrically, consonants get more support from following than from preceding vowels.

Consonants have negative valence: they limit the duration available in the context (in adjacent, especially preceding, vowels and in adjacent consonants in either direction). The longer the consonantal interlude, the less duration is available for neighboring vowels. The systemic (phonological) factors that govern

variable processes can be formulated in terms of durational valence.

Sonorants seem neutral or, possibly, variable. In prevocalic position, sonorants

´

behave as an extension of the vocalic domain: in Ci RV(Cj V) contexts, the initial

´

stressed vowel is nearly as long as the corresponding first vowel in Ci V(CjV) contexts. Further, sonorants in the position before vowels have the same behavior as vowels with respect to voicing -- they tolerate the cessation of voicelessness on their margins. In post-vocalic position, sonorants do not shorten a preceding vowel and they permit a following [ˇs˛] more elaboration (j,vƒyobr [n˛s˛ˇ ]) than an obstruent in the same position would (ufhlthj´,obr [pˇs˛]). Sonorants after vowels, then, extend the vocalic domain.