A Computational Phonology of Russian

A Computational Phonology of Russian by Peter A. Chew

ISBN: 1-58112-178-4 DISSERTATION.COM

Parkland, FL • USA • 2003

A Computational Phonology of Russian Copyright © 2000 Peter A. Chew All rights reserved. Dissertation.com USA • 2003 ISBN: 1-58112-178-4 www.Dissertation.com/library/1121784a.htm

A Computational Phonology of Russian Peter Chew Jesus College, University of Oxford D. Phil. dissertation, Michaelmas 1999 Abstract This dissertation provides a coherent, synchronic, broad-coverage, generative phonology of Russian. I test the grammar empirically in a number of ways to determine its goodness of fit to Russian. In taking this approach, I aim to avoid making untested (or even incoherent) generalizations based on only a handful of examples. In most cases, the tests show that there are exceptions to the theory, but at least we know what the exceptions are, a baseline is set against which future theories can be measured, and in most cases the percentage of exceptional cases is reduced to below 5%. The principal theoretical outcomes of the work are as follows. First, I show that all of the phonological or morphophonological processes reviewed can be described by a grammar no more powerful than context-free. Secondly, I exploit probabilistic constraints in the syllable structure grammar to explain why constraints on word-marginal onsets and codas are weaker than on wordinternal onsets and codas. I argue that features such as [!initial] and [!final], and extraprosodicity, are unnecessary for this purpose. Third, I claim that !"! should be lexically unspecified for the feature [!sonorant], and that the syllable structure grammar should fill in the relevant specification based on its distribution. This allows a neat explanation of the voicing assimilation properties of !"!, driven by phonotactics. Fourth, I argue that jers in Russian should be regarded as morphological objects, not segments in the phonological inventory. Testing the grammar suggests that while epenthesis cannot be regarded as a major factor in explaining vowel-zero alternations, it might be used to explain a significant minority of cases. Fifth, I suggest that stress assignment in Russian is essentially context-free, resulting from the intersection of morphological and syllable structure constraints. I show that my account of stress assignment is simpler than, but just as general as, the best of the three existing theories tested. Finally, this dissertation provides new insight into the nature and structure of the Russian morphological lexicon. An appendix of 1,094 morphemes and 1,509 allomorphs is provided, with accentual and jer-related morphological information systematically included.

_______________________________

A Computational Phonology of Russian by Peter Chew

University of Oxford Jesus College Michaelmas 1999

_______________________________ Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, John Coleman, for his help. Without his encouragement and support even before I embarked upon this research, I would doubtless now be a well-paid but bored chartered accountant. Auditing linguistic theories has proved to be more rewarding in many ways than auditing financial statements, and I am confident that the choice of leaving my previous job to pursue this research was the right one. It would not have been possible to complete this D. Phil. without the support of my wife, Lynn. She has always been there to give practical suggestions, as a sounding board for ideas, and simply as a partner in life, sharing encouraging and discouraging times together. God could not have given me a better wife. My parents have also been a great practical help, babysitting almost weekly, having us round for meals, and generally helping reduce the stress in our lives. Although Jonathan, who was born 15 months before I submitted this thesis, has taken time from my studies, we are very grateful for his arrival. I cannot think of a better way of spending my time, and I cannot imagine a better son. A number of people have read drafts of my work or listened to me, giving helpful advice which enabled me to sharpen my thoughts and improve the way in which I expressed them. Thanks (in alphabetical order) to Dunstan Brown, Bob Carpenter, Andrew Hippisley, Mary MacRobert, Stephen Parkinson, Burton Rosner, Irina Sekerina, Andrew Slater, and Ian Watson. Andrew Slater has also provided invaluable technical support. I often feel that he puts the rest of us to shame with his good humour, helpfulness, and a constant willingness to go the extra mile. My friends at the Cherwell Vineyard Christian Fellowship have provided a dependable support network which has kept Lynn and me going through not always easy times. First and foremost, they have encouraged us to keep looking towards the one without whom we can do nothing. However, I know I will also look back on the laughs we have had with Richard and Janet Remmington, Evan and Eowyn Robertson, Judy Irving, and others, on Thursday evenings with fond memories. Finally, I would like to thank my college, Jesus College, for providing very generous financial support throughout my time at Oxford. And without the financial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Board (formerly the British Academy), I would not have undertaken this research project in the first place.

List of abbreviations and symbols General symbols !! () !#c++,#-rn+in! morphs + . / right) !+,#-!rn obliques) " # anter C CFG cons cont coron DCG del_rel init later OT PSG sonor SSG V vfv voc

enclose phonemic representations, e.g. !#$%&'! enclose phonetic representations, e.g. (*$%&') denotes morphological tokenization; subscripts classify individual morpheme boundary syllable boundary denotes word-stress in IPA transcriptions (stress on the vowel to the denotes a single morpheme (classificatory subscript is outside syllable the empty string anterior any consonant context-free grammar consonantal continuant coronal (Prolog) Definite Clause Grammar delayed release initial lateral Optimality Theory phrase structure grammar sonorant Sonority Sequencing Generalization any vowel vocal fold vibration vocalic

Symbols used in morphological tokenization r* s c* i p a n v

root suffix clitic inflectional ending pronominal adjectival substantival verbal

d r* i c*

durative process resultative process iterative process completed process

*No ambiguity arises with respect to the use of non-unique symbols, because the meaning of each symbol is also dependent on its position; full details are given in section 3.2.1.2.

5 Table of contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................3 List of abbreviations and symbols ............................................................................................................4 Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Table of figures.........................................................................................................................................7 List of tables .............................................................................................................................................8 Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................................................................9 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9 1.2 Why ‘computational’ linguistics? ............................................................................................13 1.3 The framework .........................................................................................................................16 1.3.1 Phrase-structure grammar ...............................................................................................16 1.3.2 Context-free grammar.....................................................................................................19 1.4 The methodology .....................................................................................................................24 1.5 The dataset used for the tests....................................................................................................26 1.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................30 Chapter 2: Syllable structure ..................................................................................................................32 2.1 Overview and aims...................................................................................................................32 2.2 The syllable in phonological theory .........................................................................................34 2.2.1 Sonority and syllable structure .......................................................................................37 2.2.2 Morpheme structure constraints or syllable structure constraints? .................................40 2.2.3 Syllable structure assignment ......................................................................................... 43 2.2.3.1 Kahn’s (1976) syllable structure assignment rules .................................................... 45 2.2.3.2 Itô’s (1986) method of syllable structure assignment ................................................49 2.2.3.3 Syllable structure assignment in Optimality Theory..................................................51 2.2.3.4 Phrase-structure analysis of syllable structure ...........................................................54 2.2.3.5 Syllable structure assignment: conclusions................................................................56 2.3 A linear grammar of Russian syllable structure .......................................................................58 2.3.1 The phonological inventory of Russian .......................................................................... 59 2.3.1.1 Preliminaries: controversial issues.............................................................................59 2.3.1.2 The classification system ........................................................................................... 68 2.3.2 The syllable structure rules ............................................................................................. 72 2.4 A heuristic for deciding between multiple syllabifications ......................................................95 2.5 Extensions to the grammar ....................................................................................................... 99 2.5.1 Further phonological features .......................................................................................102 2.5.2 Four phonological processes in Russian .......................................................................105 2.5.2.1 Consonant-vowel interdependencies........................................................................ 105 2.5.2.2 Reduction of unstressed vowels ...............................................................................114 2.5.2.3 Word-final devoicing ............................................................................................... 120 2.5.2.4 Voicing assimilation ................................................................................................127 2.5.3 A test of the extensions to the grammar........................................................................141 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................146 Chapter 3: Morphological structure......................................................................................................149 3.1 Introduction and aims.............................................................................................................149 3.1.1 Generative approaches to word-formation.................................................................... 152 3.1.2 Morphology and context-free grammar ........................................................................158 3.2 A linear grammar of Russian word-formation .......................................................................161 3.2.1 The morphological inventory of Russian......................................................................161 3.2.1.1 Preliminaries: controversial issues...........................................................................164 3.2.1.2 The classification system .........................................................................................165 3.2.2 The word-formation rules .............................................................................................170 3.2.2.1 Words with no internal structure..............................................................................171 3.2.2.2 Nouns.......................................................................................................................172 3.2.2.3 Verbs........................................................................................................................178 3.2.2.4 Prefixation................................................................................................................180 3.3 Vowel-zero alternations in context-free grammar.................................................................. 185 3.4 A heuristic for deciding between multiple morphological analyses....................................... 202 3.4.1 Assigning costs to competing analyses.........................................................................205 3.4.2 Should the cost mechanism be based on hapax legomena?..........................................209

6 3.5 Tests of the word-formation grammar....................................................................................214 3.5.1 Test of coverage of the word-formation grammar ........................................................215 3.5.2 Test of the grammar’s treatment of vowel-zero alternations ........................................218 3.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................222 Chapter 4: Stress assignment: three existing theories...........................................................................224 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 224 4.1.1 Two approaches to stress in Russian: the Slavist and the generative approaches.........224 4.1.2 Aims of this chapter......................................................................................................232 4.2 Three theories of stress assignment........................................................................................ 233 4.2.1 Halle (1997)..................................................................................................................233 4.2.2 Melvold (1989).............................................................................................................237 4.2.3 Zaliznjak (1985) ...........................................................................................................244 4.3 Derivational theories and underdeterminacy..........................................................................248 4.3.1 Computing underlying accentuations by ‘brute force’..................................................251 4.3.2 Backwards phonology and the Accent Learning Algorithm.........................................252 4.3.2.1 A concise encoding of ‘solutions’............................................................................257 4.3.2.2 Formalization of the Accent Learning Algorithm.................................................... 259 4.3.2.3 A small-scale demonstration of the ALA on a non-problem combination...............261 4.3.2.4 Problem words .........................................................................................................271 4.3.2.5 Modifications to the ALA to allow for different theories ........................................274 4.3.2.6 Conclusions from the ALA......................................................................................278 4.3.3 Unique specification of the morpheme inventory by defaults ......................................283 4.4 Tests to ascertain the coverage of the three theories ..............................................................291 4.4.1 Test of Halle’s theory on non-derived nouns................................................................292 4.4.2 Test of Halle’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns ............................................293 4.4.3 Test of Melvold’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns .......................................294 4.4.4 Test of Melvold’s theory on nouns, non-reflexive verbs and adjectives.......................295 4.4.5 Test of Zaliznjak’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns ................................296 4.4.6 Test of Melvold’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns..................................297 4.4.7 Analysis of errors in Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories .............................................298 4.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................307 Chapter 5: Stress assignment: a new analysis.......................................................................................309 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 309 5.2 Context-free phonology and stress in Russian .......................................................................311 5.2.1 Encoding which morpheme determines stress ..............................................................312 5.2.2 Polysyllabic morphemes...............................................................................................318 5.2.3 Post-accentuation..........................................................................................................319 5.2.4 Jer stress retraction ....................................................................................................... 325 5.2.5 Plural stress retraction...................................................................................................329 5.2.6 Dominant unaccented morphemes................................................................................333 5.2.7 Concluding comments about the context-free phonology ............................................336 5.3 A test of the entire grammar...................................................................................................338 5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................343 Appendix 1: Russian syllable structure grammar ................................................................................. 346 Appendix 2: Russian word-formation grammar ...................................................................................355 Appendix 4: Morphological inventory .................................................................................................358 Appendix 5: The computational phonology as a Prolog Definite Clause Grammar.............................392 References ............................................................................................................................................413

7 Table of figures Figure 1. The Chomsky Hierarchy .........................................................................................................20 Figure 2. Classification of analyses of an imperfect grammar ...............................................................25 Figure 3. Tree-structure for !+%+%! .......................................................................................................75 Figure 4. Lattice showing the hierarchy of Russian phoneme classes..................................................110 Figure 5. The Russian vowel system ....................................................................................................115 Figure 6. The Russian vowel system in unstressed positions ...............................................................116 Figure 7. Partial syllabic structure of pretonic !%! after a [$back] consonant .......................................119 Figure 8. Tree-structure for !"#$%& !0'1$'2%! (0'1&'.23)..........................................................................138 Figure 9. Parse tree for '"#()*)+,-.$ !4'1$"',5,+6#&'! ......................................................................158 Figure 10. Examples of subtrees from Figure 9....................................................................................159 Figure 11. Morphological tokenization of '"#()*)+,-.$ !4'1$"',5,+6#&'!.........................................160 Figure 12. Parse tree for '"#()*)+/0 !4'1$"',5,+,7!..........................................................................161 Figure 13. Oliverius’s (1976) tokenization of *"'1)'& !5148&8',4%! ‘woman’....................................175 Figure 14. Parse tree for *"'1)'& !5148&8',4%! ‘woman’..................................................................... 175 Figure 15. Three alternative representations of !906c+&8',&rv+%svi+&'sa!...................................................181 Figure 16. Representation of the morpheme !-%#2!%!-%#62! ‘weasel’ ................................................... 190 Figure 17. Structure of #"'23"% ........................................................................................................... 199 Figure 18. Structure of 4,#,*56& ........................................................................................................200 Figure 19. Structure of 4,#*,5 ............................................................................................................201 Figure 20. Parse tree for -4"7)&6$',-.$ (with log probabilities) ........................................................208 Figure 21. Rank-frequency graph .........................................................................................................213 Figure 22. Analysis of coverage of morphology grammar ...................................................................217 Figure 23. Parse tree for -4"7)&6$',-.$..............................................................................................314 Figure 24. Morphological/phonological structure of #8!&%&: !$;0ra+%2sn+%in3!..................................... 322 Figure 25. The constraint pool.............................................................................................................. 324 Figure 26. Morphological/phonological structure of #8!&:% !$;0ra+%2sn+in1!.........................................327 Figure 27. Morphological/phonological structure of (/-,:./ !",#ra+/6&sn1+,in!..................................... 332 Figure 28. Morphological/phonological structure of 8:!,("'$ //;c+06"'ra+14'sn+in! .............................. 335

8 List of tables Table 1. Types of rules permitted by grammars in the Chomsky Hierarchy ..........................................20 Table 2. Analysis of words in on-line corpus .........................................................................................30 Table 3. Russian morpheme structure constraints on consonant clusters ...............................................41 Table 4. Reanalysis of morpheme-medial clusters using syllable structure ...........................................42 Table 5. Phonological inventories of different scholars .........................................................................65 Table 6. The phonemic inventory of Russian .........................................................................................67 Table 7. Classification of Russian phonemic inventory ......................................................................... 69 Table 8. Distribution of word-initial onsets by type ...............................................................................77 Table 9. Distribution of word-final codas by type..................................................................................88 Table 10. Further coda rules ...................................................................................................................90 Table 11. Exhaustive list of initial clusters not accounted for ................................................................91 Table 12. Exhaustive list of final clusters not accounted for ..................................................................92 Table 13. The twelve most frequently applying onset, nucleus and coda rules......................................97 Table 14. Feature matrix to show classification of Russian phonemes and allophones with respect to all features........................................................................................................................................103 Table 15. Allophonic relationships in consonant-vowel sequences .....................................................107 Table 16. Allophones of !%! and !6! ...................................................................................................... 117 Table 17. Results of phoneme-to-allophone transcription test .............................................................145 Table 18. Classification system for substantival inflectional morphs...................................................169 Table 19. Further categories of morphological tokenization ................................................................173 Table 20. Summary of results of parsing 11,290 words .......................................................................217 Table 21. Derivations of six Russian words in accordance with Halle (1997) .....................................237 Table 22. Derivations of five Russian words in accordance with Melvold (1989)...............................242 Table 23. Possible solutions for -.,6 !#&/6-! ‘table’ (nom. sg.).............................................................254 Table 24. Possible solutions for -.,6&:
9

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1

Introduction This dissertation provides a coherent, synchronic, broad-coverage, generative

account of Russian phonology. By ‘broad-coverage’, I mean that it will cover a number of phonological phenomena (stress assignment, syllabification, vowel-zero alternations, word-final devoicing, voicing assimilation, vowel reduction, and consonant-vowel interdependencies) within a single constrained grammar. While I have not attempted to deal exhaustively with all the phonological problems of interest in Russian (for example, I do not attempt to account for all morphophonological alternations), the current work covers those areas which have attracted the most attention in the literature on Russian phonology. While all these aspects of Russian phonology have been richly documented, generally they have been dealt with in isolation; the one notable exception to this is Halle’s (1959) Sound Pattern of Russian. The following quotation (op. cit., p. 44) serves to show that Halle’s account of Russian phonology is also intended to be broad-coverage in the sense just outlined: When a phonological analysis is presented, the question always arises as to what extent the proposed analysis covers the pertinent data. It is clearly impossible in a description to account for all phonological manifestations in the speech of even a single speaker, since the latter may (and commonly does) use features that are characteristic of different dialects and even foreign languages. (E.g., a speaker of Russian may distinguish between nasalized and nonnasalized vowels in certain [French] phrases which form an integral part of his habitual conversational repertoire.) If such facts were to be included, all hopes for a systematic description would have to be abandoned. It is, therefore, better to regard such instances as deviations to be treated in a separate section and to restrict the main body of the grammar to those manifestations which can be systematically described.

10 The aim of the current work is thus substantially the same as that of Halle (1959). However, in the forty years since then there have been a number of advances, both linguistic and technological, which allow us to take a fresh (and perhaps more rigorous) look at some of the same phenomena which Halle and others attempted to describe. In the late 1950s and early 1960s Chomsky and co-workers pioneered work in developing a formal theory of language (Chomsky 1959, 1963, 1965); this work established clearly-defined links between linguistics, logic and mathematics, and was also foundational in computer science in the sense that the principles it established have also been applied in understanding computer programming languages. These advances make it possible to formulate a theory of Russian phonology, just as Halle did, but to test it empirically by implementing the theory as a computer program and using it to process very large numbers of words. Moreover, since the technological advances which make it possible to do this owe a great deal to Chomsky’s work, the transition from generative grammar to computational grammar can be a comparatively straightforward one. One of the defining features of generative grammar is the emphasis on searching for cross-linguistic patterns. Without denying the value of language-specific grammar, Chomsky and Halle (1968) (to many the canonical work of generative phonology) illustrates this thinking: ...we are not, in this work, concerned exclusively or even primarily with the facts of English as such. We are interested in these facts for the light they shed on linguistic theory (on what, in an earlier period, would have been called “universal grammar”) and for what they suggest about the nature of mental processes in general… We intend no value judgment here; we are not asserting that one should be primarily concerned with universal grammar and take an interest in the particular grammar of English only insofar as it provides insight into universal grammar and psychological theory. We merely want to make it clear that this is our point of departure in the present work; these are the considerations that have determined our choice of topics and the relative importance given to various phenomena. (p. viii)

11

The emphasis on cross-linguistic generalization, characteristic of Chomsky’s work, has characterized generative linguistics ever since: indeed, there is a considerable branch of linguistics (Zwicky 1992 is an example) which abstracts completely away from language-specific data. (This branch deals in what Zwicky 1992: 328 refers to as ‘frameworks’ as opposed to ‘theories’.) While frameworks have their place (indeed, a theory cannot exist without a framework), the difficulty is always that frameworks cannot be verified without theories. In this light, Chomsky and Halle (1968) claimed to establish both a cross-linguistic framework and a theory about English phonology. The focus of this description is on ensuring that the phonology of Russian proposed is both internally consistent and descriptively adequate & that is, that it makes empirically correct predictions about Russian & rather than on attempting to develop any particular linguistic framework. Exciting possibilities are open in this line of research thanks to the existence of computer technology. It is possible to state grammatical rules in a form which has the rigour required of a computer program, and once a program is in place, large corpora can be quickly processed. Thus the phonology of Russian presented here is ‘computational’ simply because of the advantages in speed and coverage that this approach presents. Establishing that a linguistic theory can be implemented as a computer program and verifying its internal consistency in this way is a valuable exercise in itself, but non-computational linguists may be sceptical: some may argue that this kind of approach does not contribute anything to linguistics per se. Whether or not this is criticism is well-founded (and I believe it is not), I hope that this dissertation

12 will satisfy even the more stringent critics by making a number of key contributions to linguistic knowledge. These are as follows. First, I propose that both the distribution of !"! and its behaviour with respect to voicing assimilation can be explained if !"!, unlike all other segments in the phonological inventory of Russian, is lexically unspecified for the feature [!sonorant]. The syllable structure rules determine whether !"! is [+sonorant] or [$sonorant], and this in turn determines how !"! assimilates in voice to adjacent segments. Second, I suggest that the greater latitude allowed in word-marginal onsets and codas, which is a feature of Russian and other languages (cf. Rubach and Booij 1990), can be explained naturally by a probabilistic syllable structure grammar. This approach allows features such as [!initial] and [!final] (cf. Dirksen 1993) to be dispensed with. Third, I show that vowel-zero alternations in Russian cannot fully be explained by a Lexical-Phonology-style account (such as that proposed by Pesetsky ms 1979) alone, nor can they be the result of epenthesis alone. I show empirically that a combination of factors, including (1) the morphophonological principles discovered by Pesetsky, (2) epenthesis, and (3) etymology, governs vowel-zero alternations. Fourth, I show that Russian stress can be accounted for with a high rate of accuracy by existing generative theories such as that of Melvold (1989), but I suggest a simpler theory which accounts for the same data with as good a rate of accuracy. The theory which I propose regards stress assignment as resulting from the interaction of morphological and syllable structure: existing generative theories do not acknowledge syllable structure as playing any role in Russian stress assignment. An integral part of my theory is a comprehensive inventory of morphemes together with

13 the accentual information which is lexically specified for each morpheme. The inventory which I propose, which is arrived at by computational inference, includes 1,094 morphemes and 1,509 allomorphs, while the longest existing list of this type, as far as I am aware, is the index of approximately 250 suffixes in Red’kin (1971). The structure of this dissertation is as follows. In this chapter, I set out in detail the concepts which are foundational to the whole work: the role which computation plays in my work (1.2), the framework which I use (1.3), and the methodology which underlies my work (1.4). Then, I discuss in detail aspects of the syllable structure and morphological structure of Russian in Chapters 2 and 3 respectively, in each case developing a formally explicit grammar module which can be shown to be equivalent to a finite state grammar. Chapter 4 describes in detail three theories of stress assignment in Russian. These are tested computationally to ascertain which is the most promising. Each of Chapters 2-4 begins with a section reviewing the relevant literature. Finally, in Chapter 5, I describe how the principal features of the preferred theory from Chapter 4 can be incorporated into a synthesis of the grammars developed in Chapters 2 and 3. The result is an integrated, internally consistent, empirically well-grounded grammar, which accounts for a variety of different aspects of Russian phonology. 1.2

Why ‘computational’ linguistics? In this dissertation, computation is used as a tool. Any tool has limitations, of

course: a large building cannot be built with a power drill alone, and, to be sure, there are problems in linguistics which computation is ill-suited to solve. On the other hand, anyone who has a power drill will try to find appropriate uses for it. Likewise, I aim to use computation for the purposes for which it is best suited. This, then, is not a

14 dissertation ‘about’ computational linguistics; it is a dissertation that uses computation as a tool in linguistics. What, then, are the strengths of computational tools in linguistics? Shieber (1985: 190-193), noting that the usefulness of computers is often taken for granted by computational linguists, lists three roles that the computer can play in the evaluation of linguistic analyses: the roles of straitjacket (forcing rigorous consistency and explicitness, and clearly delineating the envelope of a theory), touchstone (‘indicating the correctness and completeness of an analysis’), and mirror (‘objectively reflecting everything in its purview’). In short, the process of implementing a grammar computationally forces one to understand in detail the mechanisms by which a grammar assigns structure. Shieber states, for example, that …we have found that among those who have actually attempted to write a computerinterpretable grammar, the experience has been invaluable in revealing real errors that had not been anticipated by the Gedanken-processing typically used by linguists to evaluate their grammars & errors usually due to unforeseen interactions of various rules or principles. (p. 192)

This has also been my experience in developing the current phonology of Russian. In particular, areas such as stress assignment involve the interaction of a number of different grammar modules, and, as Shieber states, ‘decisions in one part of the grammar, while internally consistent, may not cohere with interacting decisions in another part’ (Shieber 1985: 190). Problems of this kind cannot always feasibly be foreseen without actually implementing and testing a theory on a corpus of data. Another perhaps self-evident strength of computers is their ability to process large volumes of data quickly: once a grammar has been implemented, the processing can take place without intensive effort on the part of the researcher. While in principle

15 generative theories can be implemented and tested by hand, the volume of data that typically has to be processed to achieve significant results means that this is an extremely tedious and time-consuming, if not impracticable, task. Clearly, computational techniques shift the burden for the researcher from data processing to the more interesting task of developing theories, identifying exceptions quickly, and debugging the theory as appropriate. Because the discipline of computational linguistics is still relatively young, it is perhaps understandable that many existing theories have neither been implemented nor tested computationally, but now that the means to validate theories are widely available, it is less justifiable for new theories still to be proposed in linguistics without being empirically tested: ‘the widespread practice of testing a few interesting cases is unreliable and is no substitute for an exhaustive check’ (Bird 1995: 14). It seems that at this stage in linguistic research, the efforts of linguists would be better directed towards implementing and testing existing theories rather than proposing new alternatives, since otherwise it cannot be demonstrated that the new alternatives measure up any better to the criteria of coverage, constrainedness and ability to integrate than the theories which they replace. It is also worth noting the limitations of computational analysis (which I set as the limits for this dissertation). Ultimately, computers follow instructions rather than making judgements, and while they are very good at evaluating grammars for consistency and descriptive adequacy, they cannot test for explanatory adequacy unless the programmer supplies the necessary information (that is, a standard against which to measure the accuracy of structures assigned by a grammar to strings). The judgement about the nature of the correct structures is a question of psychology, and

16 therefore I do not claim that the current phrase-structure context-free phonology of Russian is a psychological model. In this, my approach is exactly the same as that of Gazdar, Klein, Pullum and Sag (1985): We make no claims, naturally enough, that our grammatical theory is eo ipso a psychological theory. Our grammar of English is not a theory of how speakers think up things to say and put them into words. Our general linguistic theory is not a theory of how a child abstracts from the surrounding hubbub of linguistic and nonlinguistic noises enough evidence to gain a mental grasp of the structure of a natural language. Nor is it a biological theory of the structure of an as-yet-unidentified mental organ. It is irresponsible to claim otherwise for theories of this general sort… Thus we feel it is possible, and arguably proper, for a linguist (qua linguist) to ignore matters of psychology. But it is hardly possible for a psycholinguist to ignore language… If linguistics is truly a branch of psychology (or even biology), as is often unilaterally asserted by linguists, it is so far the branch with the greatest pretensions and the fewest reliable results… So far, linguistics has not fulfilled its own side of the interdisciplinary bargain. (p. 5)

1.3

The framework

1.3.1

Phrase-structure grammar In this dissertation, phonology and morphology, as modules of grammar, have

the function of enumerating or generating (the words of a) language. This view of grammatical modules is entirely in accordance with traditional generative linguistics (e.g. Chomsky and Miller 1963: 283-285). More precisely, a phonological grammar should be able to generate all and only the phonological words of a natural language; similarly, a word-formation grammar should enumerate all the morphological words (p-forms, in the terminology of Zwicky 1992: 334) of a natural language.1 The same

1

As noted by Booij and Rubach (1984), there may well not be a one-to-one mapping between ‘morphological words’ and ‘phonological words’ & well-known examples from Russian are preposition-noun phrases, all of which have a single stress (e.g. 9&: !8%8 !*/%<0;2;! ‘by the hand’) and are thus considered to function as a single phonological word, but two morphological words.

17 grammar that enumerates the forms of a language should also be able to assign them a structural description (that is, parse them). These functions are clearly fulfilled by phrase-structure grammars (PSGs), since in a PSG each rule can equivalently be thought of as a partial structure, and each derivation can be represented as a directed graph. The ability of a grammar to parse (that is, provide some structural description for the word) does not necessarily imply its ability to parse correctly. As Chomsky and Miller (1963: 297) state, ‘we have no interest, ultimately, in grammars that generate a natural language correctly but fail to generate the correct set of structural descriptions’. A grammar which is able to assign structural descriptions to all relevant well-formed utterances in a language is said to meet the condition of descriptive adequacy, while a grammar which meets the more stringent requirement of assigning correct structural descriptions to all well-formed utterances is said to meet the condition of explanatory adequacy. In general, it is considerably harder to prove or disprove a grammar’s explanatory adequacy than its descriptive adequacy, since the former is a matter not just of linguistic data but of psychology as well (Chomsky 1965: 18-27). Moreover, it is important to realize that a parse should not necessarily be considered incorrect just because it was unanticipated: such a parse may in fact be a possible but unlikely parse. These factors all mean that establishing whether a given grammar assigns correct structural descriptions is not always straightforward, and is often a matter of judgement.

Conversely, English words of the form ‘non-X’ (where X stands for an adjective) are a single morphological word, but two phonological words.

18 Essentially, there are three good reasons for formulating a theory within the framework of PSG. First, PSGs are the standard means of assigning hierarchical constituent structure to strings, which is widely and uncontroversially regarded as an important function of linguistics. The literature on phrase-structure grammar has been developed over approximately 40 years, and owes much to Chomsky’s interest in establishing a formal foundation for linguistics (e.g. Chomsky 1959, Chomsky and Miller 1963, Chomsky 1963). A second strength of the PSG formalism is that it has a straightforward declarative interpretation. Phrase-structure grammar ‘rules’ can equally validly be seen as ‘partial descriptions of surface representations’ or ‘descriptions of information structures’, in Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake’s (1996) terminology. Specifically, context-free phrase-structure rules can be represented graphically as tree structures (Coleman 1998: 99). Third, there is a transparent relationship between PSGs and Definite Clause Grammars (DCGs)2. This is perhaps the greatest advantage of using the PSG formalism, because it means that a PSG can easily be implemented and tested computationally. DCGs are a particular type of formalism available as part of the programming language Prolog. For details of the workings of Prolog and DCGs, the reader is invited to refer to a textbook on Prolog, such as Clocksin and Mellish (1981). Here, it is sufficient to appreciate that DCGs can fulfil the functions of parsing and generation, because Prolog is a declarative programming language. Thus, if a

2

DCGs are capable of defining recursively enumerable languages and CFGs are capable of defining only context-free languages (which are a subset of the set of recursively enumerable languages). Thus, to be more precise, the type of DCG used to implement the theory proposed in this dissertation is a restricted type of DCG.

19 particular grammar is implemented as a DCG, it is possible to test the grammar computationally to determine whether it ‘describe[s] all and only the possible forms of a language’ (Bird, Coleman, Pierrehumbert and Scobbie 1992). Throughout this dissertation, I describe computational tests of this kind to determine whether the different aspects of the grammar are accurate representations of the facts of the language. 1.3.2

Context-free grammar Having established in section 1.3.1 why I use the framework of PSG, I now

move on to explain the significance of my claim that nothing more powerful than a context-free grammar (CFG) is necessary to describe the facts of Russian phonology. The claim that CFG is sufficient is in contrast to McCarthy (1982), for example, who claims that phonology is context-sensitive (p. 201). (Coleman 1998: 81 observes that his phonology is an unrestricted rewriting system, since it is a context-sensitive grammar with deletion: see McCarthy’s (1) on p. 201.) In other respects, however, McCarthy’s aim is comparable to mine: McCarthy aims to provide ‘a fair degree of coverage, particularly in Hebrew phonology and Arabic morphology’ (p. 2), including stress assignment. CFGs are one of a number of types of grammar formalism in the Chomsky Hierarchy (Chomsky 1959), represented in Figure 1. All of these grammar formalisms are members of the family of PSGs. The place of a particular grammar within the hierarchy is determined by the type of rules included in the grammar, as shown in Table 1 (adapted from Coleman 1998: 79).

20

Figure 1. The Chomsky Hierarchy

Unrestricted grammar (type 0)

Context-sensitive grammar (type 1)

Context-free grammar (type 2) Linear grammar (type 3)

Table 1. Types of rules permitted by grammars in the Chomsky Hierarchy3 Type

Grammar

0

Unrestricted

1

Context-sensitive

2

Context-free

A ' B/ C _ D and A'Ø A'B

3

Right linear

A ' aB

3

Left linear

A ' Ba

3

Rule types allowed A'B

Conditions on symbols A ( (VT ) VN)* B ( (VT ) VN)* A ( VN, B ( (VT ) VN)+, C,D ( (VT ) VN)* A ( VN, B ( (VT ) VN)* A ( VN, B ( (VN ) {Ø}), a ( VT A ( VN, B ( (VN ) {Ø}), a ( VT

Note to Table 1: Following Chomsky (1959) and Coleman (1998), VT represents the set of terminal symbols, VN the set of non-terminal symbols, X* a sequence of zero or more Xs, X+ a sequence of one or more Xs, and Ø the empty string.

21 Because there has been a considerable amount of work carried out in phrase-structure grammar, the properties of different types of PSG in the Chomsky Hierarchy are by now well understood. These properties are important to consider when formulating a theory, for reasons which will now be made clear. On a very general level, the more restricted the grammar formalism, the better. This follows, essentially, from the principle of Occam’s razor: as Coleman (1998: 80) points out, ‘the goal… in developing a formal theory of natural-language syntax or phonology, is to use a type of grammar which is as powerful as necessary, but as restrictive as possible.’ It should be acknowledged, however, that context-free grammars can in practice have a cost compared to more powerful types of grammars, in that more powerful grammars may describe the same phenomena more simply (with fewer features or more general rules, for example), and may even be able to parse and generate more efficiently in some cases (Weinberg 1988). However, there are other, perhaps more psychological, arguments in support of choosing a grammar formalism no more powerful than context-free. Bresnan and Kaplan (1982) set out a number of constraints that they suggest linguistic theory should impose on the class of possible grammars, and CFGs adhere to all but one of these constraints. The one constraint which CFG does not adhere to is the ‘universality constraint’, which assumes that ‘the procedure for grammatical interpretation, mG, is the same for all natural language grammars G’ (Bresnan and Kaplan 1982: xlvii). It is significant that Bresnan and Kaplan’s grounds for stating that CFG does not adhere to this constraint come from syntax, not phonology: Bresnan, Kaplan, Peters, and Zaenen 1982 have shown that there is no context-free phrase-structure grammar that can correctly characterize the parse trees of Dutch. The problem lies in Dutch cross-serial constructions, in which the verbs are discontinuous from the verb phrases that contain their arguments… The results of

22 Bresnan, Kaplan, Peters, and Zaenen 1982 show that context-free grammars cannot provide a universal means of representing these phenomena. (p. xlix)

Of the other constraints, one is the creativity constraint. One of the claimed contributions of generative grammar to linguistics was the observation that if a grammar is to be an equally valid model both of linguistic perception and production, it should be able not only to assign structure to strings, but also to generate strings (hence the term ‘generative grammar’). This observation is, for example, one of the foundational tenets of Chomsky (1957). As noted by Matthews (1974: 219), generative linguistics was partly a reaction to structuralist linguistics, which (it was claimed) emphasized assignment of structure at the expense of generation. Despite the emphasis of generative linguists upon the ‘generative’, it is notable that contextsensitive grammars and those more powerful are not necessarily reversible (Bear 1990). However, CFGs do always have the property of reversibility: that is, they can be used either for generation or recognition. Another constraint which CFGs satisfy is Bresnan and Kaplan’s reliability constraint: that is, they can always accept or reject strings in a finite amount of time. One of the properties of context-free (and more restricted) languages is that of decidability (alternatively known as computability, Turing-decidability or recursiveness). A language L*is decidable if there is an algorithm for determining membership in L; in other words, L is decidable if there is a grammar which can decide whether a string is well- or ill-formed (a member of L or not) in a finite amount of time. Languages of type m, where m + 1, are not necessarily decidable, but those of type n, where n > 1, are always decidable. Bresnan and Kaplan argue that natural languages must be decidable, since:

23 It is plausible to suppose that the ideal speaker can decide grammaticality by evaluating whether a candidate string is assigned (well-formed) grammatical relations or not. The syntactic mapping can thus be thought of as reliably computing whether or not any string is a well-formed sentence of a natural language. This motivates the reliability constraint that the syntactic mapping must provide an effectively computable characteristic function for each natural language. (p. xl)

The principal objection which has been raised to this assumption, and one which is noted by Bresnan and Kaplan, is that native speakers often do not do well at parsing ‘garden path’ constructions such as The canoe floated down the river sank and The editor the authors the newspaper hired liked laughed. However, they suggest, plausibly, that these constructions do not disprove their hypothesis. After all, they argue, speaker-hearers can disambiguate these sentences and ‘recover from the garden paths’, given more (but not infinite) time, and possibly a pencil and paper. A third reason for choosing the formalism of CFG is that the ordering of the rules of CFGs will not affect the way in which they function or their end result (although the ordering of application of rules may have an effect on the outcome). All forms and constraints in CFGs are partial descriptions of surface representations, no rules do not ultimately constrain surface forms, all constraints must be compatible and apply equally, and any ordering of constraints will describe the same surface form (Scobbie, Coleman and Bird 1996). The motivation for this Order-free Composition Constraint, as Bresnan and Kaplan (1982: xlv) call it, is ‘the fact that complete representations of local grammatical relations are effortlessly, fluently, and reliably constructed for arbitrary segments of sentences’ (Bresnan and Kaplan 1982: xlv). Again, this does not hold for all types of grammar. There are thus a number of reasons why it is desirable to restrict a grammar so that it is no more powerful than context-free. To summarize, these are as follows:

24 ,

CFGs are a relatively restricted class of grammar, and we would like to choose the most restricted theory which will account for the facts;

,

CFGs have a generative as well as a recognitive interpretation;

,

CFGs are Turing-decidable;

,

the rules of CFGs need not be ordered in any particular way;

,

although CFGs have been shown to be unable to cope with all aspects of syntax, there is no evidence to suggest that they are insufficient as far as phonology is concerned.

1.4

The methodology Generative linguists often claim that linguistics is a ‘science’. This claim is

made for phonology, for example, in Halle (1959: 24). What is meant by this? Sommerstein (1977: 9) answers this question with respect to phonology as follows: In science we frame and test hypotheses. It does not matter in the least how these hypotheses are arrived at in the first place; it is the exception rather than the rule for an interesting hypothesis to be reached by a mechanical procedure, such as phonemic analysis essentially is. Rather, what makes a hypothesis scientific or unscientific is whether it can be stated what kind of empirical evidence will tend to disconfirm it, and what kind will definitely refute it. And there is no reason why this general scientific principle should not be valid for phonological analysis.

Thus any grammar we propose has the status of a scientific theory that attempts to account for observed linguistic data. On a philosophical level, the data exist independent of any grammar; in other words, the existence of sentences, words, etc., in a language does not depend on our ability to formulate grammar rules to account for them. The only way of determining how well a grammar really does fit the data is to test it empirically. One way in which scientific methodology can work is ‘incrementally’: we look at the cases where a theory does not fit the data and modify

25 the theory accordingly. One would hope that the coverage of each successive theory advanced using this kind of methodology would eventually approach 100%. I shall now elucidate what is meant here by the ‘coverage’ of a linguistic theory. As we saw in 1.3.1, a given grammar may be descriptively but not explanatorily adequate, but the converse is not possible. It may also be neither descriptively nor explanatorily adequate, which means that it fails altogether to assign a structural description to some utterances. For an imperfect grammar of this type, the set of correctly parsed utterances will be a subset of the set of parsed utterances, which in turn will be a subset of the set of all utterances, as Figure 2 illustrates. Figure 2. Classification of analyses of an imperfect grammar P: All words

Q: Words assigned some structural description R: Words assigned the correct structural description

There are three measures that we shall be interested in. The first of these is coverage, the number of utterances in Q as a percentage of the number of words in P. The second is correctness or structural coherence, the number of utterances in R as a percentage of the number in P. The third is the number of utterances in R as a percentage of the number in Q. Arguably, the second of these is the best overall

26 measure, but as we do not always have access to data which tell us what the ‘correct’ structures are, in some cases we have to use the first instead. The third measure will be most relevant in Chapter 5, where we need to separate the issues of morphological structure and stress assignment in order to be able to do a like-for-like comparison between the phrase-structure phonology proposed in this dissertation and Melvold’s theory. The methodology that underlies the current work is also ‘incremental’. In subsequent chapters I advance theories about the syllable structure and morphological structure of Russian words which are arrived at by trial and error: see, for example, (91) in 3.2. The process of actually checking the descriptive adequacy of a grammar is straightforward and well-suited to computational processing, since the latter is fast and reliable. 1.5

The dataset used for the tests In order to test a grammar computationally, it is necessary to have some kind

of lexical database which one can use as the dataset for the tests. As a minimum, the database used in the research described here has to give the following information for every word therein: ,

A phonological transcription

,

The position of the word-stress

,

The position of all morpheme boundaries within the word

,

The part of speech Additional information which would have been desirable for each word in the

corpus, but was unobtainable on a systematic basis, was as follows:

27 ,

A phonetic transcription

,

The position of all syllable boundaries within the word Although there are many existing electronic corpora for different languages

(including Russian), the requirements of the research described in this dissertation were such that no existing electronic corpus was adequate for the purpose. Thus part of the preliminary work necessary was to compile a purpose-made lexical database. In this section, I discuss how I did this. Oliverius (1976) contains a list of 2,493 morphologically tokenized words. However, these words are all headwords. There are two major reasons why it is desirable to extend Oliverius’s list to include inflected forms. First, if the dataset is restricted to the words in Oliverius (1976), a large portion of the vocabulary of Russian (all the inflected forms) is missed. This is unacceptable because the current dissertation explicitly deals with the application of phonological theories of Russian to the output of both derivation and inflection. Secondly, the larger the dataset used as the basis for testing theories, the greater the level of significance the results will have. One way of computationally extending the list to include inflected forms would be to compute the inflected forms (with stress) from the head-words and information about their stress patterns. This information can all be found in Zaliznjak (1977), which is available in an electronic version. A program could be written to go through the list of words in Oliverius (1976), matching each to the relevant entry in Zaliznjak (1977), and generating the appropriate inflected forms. Although it could be automated, even this approach would be a large undertaking, primarily because of the thoroughness of Zaliznjak’s description: the key in Zaliznjak which explains the meanings of the tags to each entry takes up a significant amount of space in the

28 dictionary (132 pages). This information is not included in the electronic version, and it would all have somehow to be input manually if the inflected forms of all entries in the dictionary were to be generated computationally. Fortunately, however, this was unnecessary. One of the products of the research carried out by Brown and his colleagues at the University of Surrey (Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake 1996) is a ‘theorem dump’ listing the inflected forms of 1,536 nouns. This file includes comprehensive information about word-stress, but the words are only partly morphologically tokenized (since steminflection but not stem-internal morpheme junctions are given). In order to ensure that all possible forms from the University of Surrey theorem dump were fully morphologically tokenized, each headword from the theorem dump was matched to headwords from Oliverius (1976) and the morphological tokenization of inflected forms was extrapolated from the morphological tokenization of the headword, by the procedure outlined in (1):

(1)

(a)

For each headword (e.g. #8!&% !$;0%2! ‘fool’) in Oliverius (1976), find whether it is a noun by searching through the on-line version of Zaliznjak (1977), which provides part-of-speech information.

(b)

For each (headword) noun identified by (a), search for all related inflected forms in the theorem dump. For #8!&% !$;0%2! ‘fool’, these would be as follows: #8!&%& (gen. sg.) #8!&%8 (dat. sg.) #8!&%,+ (instr. sg.) #8!&%" (loc. sg.)

#8!&%) (nom./acc. pl.) #8!&%,( (gen. pl.) #8!&%&+ (dat. pl.) #8!&%&+) (instr. pl.) #8!&%&: (loc. pl.)

29 (c)

Pair the headword with its morphological tokenization, which is known from the information in Oliverius (1976) (for example, !$;0%2! would be paired with the tokenization !$;0ra+%2sn+in1! 4), and deduce the noun-stem by removing the inflectional ending (in this case, zero). The noun-stem of !$;0%2! would thus be !$;0ra+%2sn!.

(d)

Morphologically parse the inflected forms using the parsing information about the stem from (c), and parsing whatever is to the right of the stem as the inflectional ending. In this example, the inflected forms would be parsed !$;0ra+%2sn+%in!, !$;0ra+%2sn+;in!, !$;0ra+%2sn+6+in!, etc. More detailed information on how inflectional endings are categorized and distinguished is given in section 3.2.1.2.

The procedure in (1) was automated, except in the case of nouns which exhibit a vowel-zero alternation within the stem (such as ,%', !62/46! ‘window’ [nom. sg.], ,%,' !/6264! ‘windows’ [gen. pl.]). The morphological tokenization for these forms was input manually. As it turned out, 967 of the 2,493 words in Oliverius (1976) were nouns; 835 of these were included in the theorem dump. Some of these nouns are identified by the theorem dump as having incomplete paradigms, so the number of inflected forms including head-words identified by step (b) of (1) was 9,633 (slightly less than 12 835 = 10,020).

4

The notation is explained fully in section 3.2.1.2.

30 The morphologically parsed inflected forms were combined with the rest of the morphologically parsed head-words in Oliverius (1976), giving a sample of fully morphologically parsed words as in Table 2. Table 2. Analysis of words in on-line corpus Category

Head-words or inflected forms

In Oliverius (1976)

In theorem dump

Non-nouns Nouns Nouns Nouns

Head-words Head-words Head-words Inflected forms

   -

 

Number of words

Total

1,525 132 835 8,798 11,290

Regrettably, the on-line corpus of 11,290 word-forms does not include any inflected forms for non-nouns, which means that the results presented in this dissertation will have greatest weight in their applicability to nouns. But it would not be fair to say that this dissertation is limited in its scope to nouns, because, as can be seen from Table 2, the number of non-nouns is great enough that statistically significant results can still be achieved. When more comprehensive electronic corpora of Russian become available, it will certainly be interesting to see whether re-running some of my tests on these corpora gives results in line with those I report here; presumably, the null hypothesis would be that this will be the case. 1.6

Summary In this chapter, I have established the approach which I employ in developing

a computational phonology of Russian, and dealt with various issues relating to my perspective. To summarize, the aim in subsequent chapters is to formulate a broad-

31 coverage phonology, which is generative, context-free, coherent, and makes predictions that can be shown empirically to be correct, or at least a good first approximation at correctness. To the extent that this aim succeeds, this work will fill an important gap in the literature to date, as no other work of which I am aware meets all these criteria simultaneously.

32

Chapter 2: Syllable structure 2.1

Overview and aims This chapter presents a sonority-based syllable structure grammar of Russian.

As well as aiming to advance a specific proposal about Russian, I also aim in this chapter to contribute to the general debate on syllabification in two ways. First, because the grammar is implemented as a Prolog DCG and tested for its coverage of a corpus of Russian words, I am able to identify a list of exceptions to the Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG), which is widely accepted in one form or another as the standard means of accounting for phonotactic constraints. The list of exceptions is comprehensive with respect to the dataset tested, so the test allows us to quantify precisely how problematic Russian is for the SSG. Secondly, we shall see further evidence that it is worthwhile to include a formal definition of the term ‘syllable’ in a phonology, as Fudge (1969) suggests: it is not enough to refer to the syllable without explicitly defining it, as in Chomsky and Halle (1968). The syllabification grammar outlined here is put to work in a variety of areas of Russian phonology: it takes on a role as a structure in which to apply phonotactic constraints, a role familiar from Kahn (1976); it is also the structure for the implementation of other phonological constraints, such as assimilation, word-final devoicing, consonant-vowel interdependencies and vowel reduction; and, as will become apparent in Chapter 5, it takes on a novel role in stress assignment (novel, because no other treatment of Russian stress hinges on syllable structure in the way which I suggest).

33 To my knowledge, there are no comprehensive treatments of Russian syllable structure comparable to the one proposed in this chapter. Bondarko (1969) is a proposal, based on experimental measurements of relative durations of consonants and vowels in the speech chain, that all consonants (and consonant clusters) in Russian (except for cluster-initial !7!) syllabify together with the following vowel, meaning that almost all Russian syllables are open. If this is true, this would amount to a comprehensive proposal on Russian syllable structure, but the problem with Bondarko’s proposal is that it says nothing about the kinds of clusters that cannot occur syllable-initially. In other words, the evidence that Bondarko examines excludes evidence about the phonotactic constraints of Russian: for example, Bondarko’s theory does not explain why no Russian words begin with !42!. This kind of consideration is the starting-point of this dissertation; after all, a generative grammar must be able not only to assign syllable structure, but also to generate legal structures and rule out illegal ones. Thus the grammar I propose, contrary to Bondarko (1969), suggests that a number of different types of closed syllable can occur in Russian. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 reviews the literature on syllable theory. Sections 2.3-2.4 describe a phrase-structure sonoritybased theory about Russian syllable structure. This theory is a linear (i.e. Type 3) grammar, with all the advantages this brings (see section 1.3.2). However, the nature of the constraints needed to account for Russian syllable structure is far from obvious. The primary aim of the discussion in sections 2.3-2.4 is to establish what these constraints are, rather than debating the issue of how syllable structure is assigned. I then move on in section 2.5 to select four key aspects of Russian phonology which have attracted attention in the literature: the constraints on the consonant clusters

34 permissible in Russian, assimilation in voicing and palatalization, word-final devoicing and reduction of unstressed vowels. For each of these problem areas, I set out what appear to be the facts as generally accepted: the aim of this section is to show that these facts need not be seen as divorced from syllabification, but an account of them can be integrated into the existing PSG of Russian syllable structure. Indeed, in some cases, there is a clear advantage in this kind of integration. For example, the properties of !"! with respect to voicing assimilation are most simply explained by taking into account the features which the syllable structure grammar assigns to !"!. The result is that a single grammar fulfils a variety of functions, assigning syllable structure, mapping phonemic representations to phonetic representations, and, as we shall see in Chapter 5, acting as an indispensable component in a theory about stress assignment in Russian. 2.2

The syllable in phonological theory The syllable is by no means a recent construct. It was discussed as a unit of

linguistic organization in, for example, Whitney (1865), Sievers (1881), Jespersen (1904), de Saussure (1916), Grammont (1933), Bloomfield (1933) and Hockett (1955). Bloomfield, for example, states that ‘the ups and downs of syllabication play an important part in the phonetic structure of all languages’ (p. 121; Bloomfield’s emphasis). It was in the 1950s and 1960s that the status of the syllable was both implicitly and explicitly questioned in generative phonology: implicitly, by its notable

35 absence in Halle (1959)5 and Chomsky and Halle (1968), and explicitly, in Kohler (1966: 346-348). As Fudge (1969: 261-262) points out: Chomsky and Halle (1968) continually invoke syllables, monosyllables, disyllables, etc. in their less formal discussions (in the text frequently, but sometimes also within the systems of rules proposed), and even postulate a feature Syllabic “which would characterize all segments constituting a syllable peak” (354). Unfortunately, none of these terms are made explicit in the text or in the rules… The term “syllable” does not even figure in the index of Chomsky and Halle (1968). In fact, we may state that it is not satisfactory to deal with the structure of one element in terms of statements designed to deal with the structure of an essentially different and only indirectly related element. If we want to state syllable-structure, we must explicitly introduce the element syllable into our linguistic description, and state its relations to the other elements of the phonological hierarchy; it is precisely this which Chomsky and Halle (1968) fail to do.

From that time, partly as a reaction to Chomsky and Halle’s work, phonological theory has swung back towards endorsing the syllable. Indeed, even before Halle (1959), Haugen (1956: 215-216) writes of the syllable that ‘one would be tempted to deny its existence, or at least its linguistic status, as some have done, were it not for its wide persistence as a feature of most linguistic descriptions… those who attempt to avoid the syllable in their distributional statements are generally left with unmanageable or awkward masses of material’. This shortcoming of Chomsky and Halle’s theory is pointed out not only by Fudge (1969), who argues that the element ‘syllable’ should be made explicit, but also by Hooper (1972) and Vennemann (1972); the latter uses evidence from languages other than English to ‘advocate… the incorporation of syllable boundaries and syllables in phonological descriptions’ (p. 2). Perhaps the best-known work pointing out the inadequacies of Chomsky and Halle (1968), though, is Kahn (1976): Kahn states that in describing productive 5

For further discussion of the absence of the syllable in Halle (1959), see section 2.2.2.

36 phonological processes he was ‘hampered by the absence of a generative theory of syllabification’ (p. 17). Kahn observed, in particular, that the phonotactic constraints of English could be accounted for indirectly but simply by considering syllable structure (pp. 40-41, 57-58). Clements and Keyser (1983), endorsing Kahn’s hierarchical analysis of the syllable, argued however that syllabicity was not a property of segments per se as Kahn suggested (Kahn 1976: 39), ‘but rather involves the relationship between a segment and its neighbors on either side’ (Clements and Keyser 1983: 5): to account for this, they proposed analyzing syllables in terms of three tiers, the syllable tier and segmental tier (as in Kahn 1976) and an additional CV tier. Selkirk (1984) follows Clements and Keyser in rejecting [!syllabic] as a feature of segments. Despite the criticisms of certain aspects of Kahn’s approach, it has generally been acknowledged since Kahn (1976) that the syllable is an indispensable unit of linguistic organization. For example, a contemporary description of Slavic prosody, Bethin (1998), makes the following statement: We find that many prosodic features are restricted to or expressed on syllables, that certain restrictions on permissible consonant and vowel sequences are best described as holding within a syllable, that there are phonological and morphological processes which seem to be conditioned by the syllable, and that many of these processes count syllables but do not, as a rule, count phonemes or segments. (p. 192)

It seems, therefore, that the syllable is here to stay in linguistic theory, and in particular that an account of syllable structure is an essential part of a generative phonology of Russian. One aim of this chapter, therefore, is to put forward a specific grammar of Russian syllable structure as part of the overall phonology proposed in this dissertation. This grammar is explicit about what Russian syllables are; it does

37 ‘state its relations to the other elements of the phonological grammar’, as Fudge puts it, and because the theory is implemented computationally and tested for its coverage, a standard is set against which future proposals can be measured. 2.2.1 Sonority and syllable structure The notion of the syllable is inextricably linked to that of ‘sonority’, which has for more than a century been believed by phonologists to be an important factor in the structure of syllables (Whitney 1865, Sievers 1881: 159-160, Jespersen 1904: 186187, de Saussure 1916: 71ff. and Grammont 1933: 98-104). Essentially, the idea is that segments can be categorized with respect to sonority: those that are more sonorous tend to stand closer to the centre of the syllable, and those that are less sonorous closer to the margin. Clements (1990: 284) notes that ‘this principle… expresses a strong cross-linguistic tendency, and represents one of the highest-order explanatory principles of modern phonological theory’. However, there are a number of questions about sonority which to date have not been answered. Essentially, these have to do with (a) how sonority is defined, and (b) at what linguistic level sonority holds (Clements 1990: 287, Bethin 1998: 19-21). As far as the first of these is concerned, there have been various attempts at defining sonority. Bloomfield (1933: 120-121) equated sonority with the ‘loudness’ of segments (the extent to which some sounds ‘strike the ear more forcibly than others’); another proposal is that sonority can be derived from basic binary categories, identical to the major class features of standard phonological theory (Selkirk 1984, Clements 1990); and some have suggested that sonority does not have any absolute or consistent phonetic properties (e.g. Hooper 1976: 198, 205-206). Even ignoring the question of how sonority is defined phonetically, there is disagreement on what the

38 sonority hierarchy is; and until this issue is resolved, as Selkirk points out, discovering the phonetic correlates of sonority will be difficult. For example, Clements (1990: 292-296) proposes a hierarchy where obstruents are less sonorous than nasals, nasals less sonorous than liquids, and liquids less sonorous than glides. Glides, in turn, are seen as non-syllabic vowels. On the other hand, Selkirk (1984: 112) sets out a more detailed hierarchy, as follows: (2)

Sounds (in order of decreasing sonority) % 1=6 ,=; 0 +=4 # "=*=> ?=@ A=$=B 9=&=2

Whatever the exact classification of sounds by sonority, it seems to be a general rule that for each peak in sonority in a string of phonemes, there will be a syllable (Bloomfield 1933, Selkirk 1984, Clements 1990). Perhaps the best-known formulation of the sonority principle is Selkirk’s (1984: 116) ‘Sonority Sequencing Generalization’ (SSG): In any syllable, there is a segment constituting a sonority peak that is preceded and/or followed by a sequence of segments with progressively decreasing sonority values.

39 In this formulation, the syllabicity of segments depends on their position, rather than on any inherent phonological property of their own (Clements and Keyser 1983: 4-5, Selkirk 1984: 108, Blevins 1995, Bethin 1998): sonority peaks simply align with syllable peaks. This offers an explanation in terms of syllable structure for the fact that glides and approximants can function as either consonants or vowels, a fact that was noted as early as Sievers (1881: 157). Clements (1990: 287) points out, however, that this principle is not without exception: for example, in US English yearn, the liquid (0) is the syllable peak: however, as it is preceded by a glide, it does not constitute a sonority peak. The sonority principle is also used to account for the phonotactic constraints that apply in onsets and codas: sonority must increase during syllable onsets, and decrease during syllable rimes. Thus, according to Clements’s and Selkirk’s formulations of the SSG, !+9! would be ruled out as a syllable onset, but accepted as a coda, because !+! is a nasal and !9! is a (less sonorous) occlusive. Presumably, therefore, languages in which !+9! does occur as an onset are considered exceptional to the SSG. A further refinement to the SSG specifies a ‘minimum sonority difference’ that must obtain between two adjacent positions in a syllable: Harris (1983: 21) suggests that this minimum might vary from language to language. For instance, Spanish requires adjacent consonants in the same syllable to be non-adjacent on the sonority scale Obstruent < Nasal < Liquid < Glide < Vowel; thus, Spanish allows only a subset of the rising-sonority clusters as onsets. The second question, regarding the level at which sonority holds, is addressed by Clements (1990: 323). Clements asks whether the SSG has the status of a violable

40 cross-linguistic default, or whether it is a firm principle at some abstract level. He suggests the latter6. The SSG would certainly be of more phonological interest if it turned out that Clements was right, and a major challenge for a computational phonology of Russian is to find out whether the SSG can be implemented as a ‘firm’ principle. It has been my experience, however, that explaining away all the ‘exceptions’ is extremely hard. One approach may be to acknowledge, as Clements (1990: 290) does, that ‘a hard core of irreducible exceptions will [always] remain’, but this clearly weakens the force of the SSG. I shall return to this point at the end of section 2.3.2. 2.2.2

Morpheme structure constraints or syllable structure constraints? We now take a detailed look at one of the proposals of Halle (1959) in the

light of the SSG: as mentioned earlier, neither Halle (1959) nor Chomsky and Halle (1968) explicitly define the syllable, let alone sonority. According to Halle (1959), the constraints on sequences of segments (phonotactic constraints) apply instead within the domain of the morpheme. (Halle was not the only researcher to suggest the morpheme as a relevant domain for phonotactic constraints: for example, Isa;enko 1970 follows a similar approach, as do philologists: see for example Benveniste 1935). Table 3 shows Halle’s specific constraints on consonant clusters.7 Halle’s analysis could have been simplified by considering syllable structure as well as morpheme structure, as we shall now see.

6

Despite his adherence to sonority as a ‘firm’ principle, Clements is still forced to admit some crosslinguistic variation in the periphery of the syllabification domain. 7 Information on fully-specified versus incompletely-specified morphonemes, which is included by Halle, is omitted in the table as it is not relevant to the present discussion.

41 Table 3. Russian morpheme structure constraints on consonant clusters (adapted from Halle 1959: 57) Type of cluster 4 segments: CCCR RCCC 3 segments: CCR CCC RCR RCC 2 segments: CC RC JC CR RR CJ RJ

Example in morpheme-initial position

Example in morpheme-medial position

Example in morpheme-final position

{fstr’et,i} ‘to meet’ not attested

not attested not attested

not attested {;’orstv} ‘stale’

{skr,ip} ‘squeak’ {stvol} ‘gun barrel’ not attested not attested

{kastr,’ul,} ‘saucepan’ not attested {v,irbl,’ud} ‘camel’ not attested

{z’atxl} ‘musty’ {’opš;} ‘common’ not attested {tolst} ‘fat’

{svet} ‘light’ {rt’ut,} ‘mercury’ not attested {slep} ‘blind’ not attested {djak} ‘clerk’ {rjan} ‘zealous’

{’asp,id} ‘slate’ {alm’az} ‘diamond’ {bajb’ak} ‘marmot’ {utr’ob} ‘womb’ {jArl’ik} ‘label’ {ab,izj’an} ‘monkey’ {burj’an} ‘tall weeds’

{kost,} ‘bone’ {sm’er;} ‘cedar’ {ajv} ‘quince’ {žezl} ‘staff’ {gorl} ‘throat’ not attested not attested

Key to Halle’s symbols used in Table 3 R stands for any liquid, C stands for any consonant, J stands for the glide !7!, A (in {jArl’ik} stands for a ‘further unspecified non-diffuse vowel’, i.e. the archiphoneme representing the set {e,o,a} (ibid., p. 75; the statement on p. 57 that A stands for a diffuse vowel is obviously an error).

First, if every consonant is associated with one or another syllable, then we need no longer consider ‘medial’ clusters, those represented in the second column of Table 3. These clusters will either become syllable-initial or will split so that the first part of the cluster is syllable-final, and the rest of the cluster is syllable-initial (within the following syllable). Table 4 shows how the syllabified versions of the morphemes in the ‘medial cluster’ column would look, assuming that consonants always syllabify with the following nucleus where possible in accordance with the Maximal Onset Principle (see e.g. Kahn 1976, discussed in 2.2.3.1 below). Table 4 also shows how each of the examples can then be related to existing initial and final clusters within

42 Table 3. Once this has been done, there is effectively no need for the middle column in Table 3. Table 4. Reanalysis of morpheme-medial clusters using syllable structure Example from Table 3

Reanalysis after syllabification

{ka . str,’ul,} {v,ir . bl,’ud} {’a . sp,id} {al . m’az} {baj . b’ak} {u . tr’ob} {jAr . l’ik} {a . b,i . zj’an} {bu . rj’an}

Initial CCR, cf. {skr,ip} Final R, initial CR, cf. {slep} Initial CC, cf. {svet} Final R, initial C Final J, initial C Initial CR, cf. {slep} Final R, initial R Initial CJ, cf. {djak} Initial CJ, cf. {djak}

Now consider clusters of the types CJ, RJ, and JC. Table 3 shows that CJ and RJ occur initially but not finally, and JC occurs finally but not initially. The SSG, of course, has an explanation for this: the segment-types C and R are lower in sonority than segment-type J, thus CJ and RJ rise in sonority, while JC falls in sonority. Of course, this is not to suggest that all the examples in Table 3 are explained by the SSG. For example, taking just the liquid R into account, it is not surprising that CCCR should be attested only initially, while RCCC and RCC are attested only finally, but this does not help account for the adjacent C segments. Even more challenging for the SSG are the instances of final CCR as in {z’atxl} (although note that Table 3 lists morphemes, not word-forms, and it might be questioned whether 9&.:6 !*%&C-! ‘musty’ (attributive) really exists as a word-form in Russian), final CR as in {žezl},

43 and initial RC as in {rt’ut,}.8 Although it is not clear that sonority and syllable structure account for all the material presented by Halle, it does seem that they allow some significant simplifications to be made to his analysis. Finally, it should be said that this need not be taken as a denial that some phonotactic constraints are morphologically determined: for example, there is a clear principle in Russian and other Slavic languages that nominal roots always end in a consonant (Isa;enko 1970: 88, Townsend 1975: 15). It probably is the case that there are both morphological and syllabic constraints on phonotactics. However, there is clearly a useful role for the syllable, which Halle (1959) ignores. 2.2.3 Syllable structure assignment With the renewed interest in the syllable in the 1970s came a debate in phonological theory over the mechanism by which syllable structure is assigned. ‘Syllable structure assignment’ does not equate to ‘syllable structure constraints’, although the two are usually intermingled in the debate on syllable structure assignment. For example, Kahn (1976) makes the following statement: The system of rules assigning syllable structure to strings of segments, as envisioned here, does not refer back to some general set of constraints on possible word-initial and -final clusters which is pervasive throughout the phonology. It is rather in the syllable-structure assignment rules themselves that these constraints are found. (p. 45)

8

Although see Rubach and Booij (1990) for arguments that Polish onsets and codas, which contains many clusters similar to those in Russian, are all constrained by the SSG. The application of Rubach and Booij’s analysis to Russian within the current framework is drawn out in more detail below: see pp. 79ff.

44 Blevins (1995: 222) argues that the most basic division between the different ideas on syllable structure assignment is between ‘rule-based’ approaches (Kahn 1976, Steriade 1982, Clements 1990 and Rubach and Booij 1990), and ‘templatematching’ or ‘templatic’ approaches (Selkirk 1984, Itô 1986, Archangeli 1991). Blevins explains the distinction as follows: Template-matching algorithms for syllabification scan the segmental string in a fixed, language-particular direction (left to right, right to left), assigning successive segments to positions in a syllable template, always mapping to as many positions inside a given syllable template as possible. Rule-based algorithms posit an ordered set of structure-building rules which have similar status to that of other phonological rules: such rules may or may not apply directionally and do not require that syllable structure be maximalized in any sense from the start.

In the following two sections, I take a closer look at the mechanisms employed by rule-based and templatic approaches to syllabification, taking Kahn (1976) and Itô (1986) respectively as representative of such approaches. In section 2.2.3.3 I also review the alternative method of syllabification presented in Optimality Theory. Each method of syllable structure assignment claims that the order of application of rules (left-to-right, right-to-left) is crucial; however, this claim not only runs counter to the principles of declarative grammar, but also misses the point of syllable structure. In fact, these methods of syllable structure assignment represent only a small subset of possible methods: as stated in section 1.3.2, context-free rules may be applied in many different orders and ‘directions’ to yield the same structures. This also applies, of course, to rules in more restricted grammar formalisms. For this reason, I shall argue that it is better for phonology to focus on syllable structure itself, and leave syllable structure assignment to be dealt with by one of the various parsing algorithms which have already been developed for this purpose.

45 2.2.3.1 Kahn’s (1976) syllable structure assignment rules Kahn (1976: 39) states that he is ‘concerned with the question of how phonetic syllable structure is derived in English, i.e. with those rules of English phonology which assign syllable membership to segments’. He assumes that these rules take a string of segments as ‘input’, and yield a fully-syllabified structure as output. What follows is a brief recapitulation of the rules which he proposes: the first of these is given in (3): (3)

Rule I: With each [+syllabic] segment of the input string associate one syllable. (Kahn 1976: 39)

Thus, for example, if !+D#D#D9D! is the input string, Rule I will yield (4):

(4)

!

+

D "

#

D "

#

D "

9

D

!

"

(where " represents a syllable node; Kahn uses the less standard symbol $)

The feature [+syllabic] is inherited from Chomsky and Halle (1968). As we have seen, this feature, in its role as an inherent phonological property of segments, was later rejected (e.g. in Selkirk 1984). Selkirk considered [+syllabic] unnecessary on the grounds that syllabicity is better seen as a function of a segment’s environment. Furthermore, Kahn makes no reference at all in these rules to sonority. However, this is perhaps inconsequential, as the wording ‘each [+syllabic] segment’ in (3) could be replaced with, say, ‘each segment whose sonority is at least that of !,=
46 Kahn then proposes that word-initial consonant clusters should be syllabified with the first syllable of the word, and word-final consonant clusters with the last syllable. The syllabification of word-initial and word-final clusters is more straightforward than that of word-medial clusters, because there is an inherent ambiguity with any word-medial cluster as to where one syllable ends and the next begins. As Kahn observes, the split will be determined in part by the rules governing what are possible onsets and codas. He suggests that ‘by studying what types of cluster occur initially and finally in words in English, we can discover at least a subset of the set of possible syllable-initial and -final clusters’ (p. 40). For reasons that will not be recapitulated here, he goes on to conclude that ‘the set of possible syllableinitial (-final) clusters in English is identical to the set of possible word-initial (-final) clusters’ (p. 41). For this reason, Kahn argues, one can deduce the rules about all onsets (or codas), word-initial (-final) or otherwise, by inspection of the set of wordinitial (-final) clusters alone. This assumes, of course, that the list of word-initial (-final) clusters is not a superset of the set of possible onsets (codas). However, Rubach and Booij (1990) suggest, on the basis of facts from Polish, that the constraints on clusters at the edges of words are weaker than those on word-medial clusters. For example, !0&! is a possible word-initial cluster in Polish (as attested in rt!" ‘mercury’), but this ‘does not warrant the syllabification of karty ‘cards’… as karty’ (Rubach and Booij 1990: 122). If this is true, then Kahn’s suggestion is too unconstrained, since Kahn would conclude from rt!" that any !0&! should be syllabified with an immediately following vowel. Even with Kahn’s assumption, there is still ambiguity in cases such as CVCV: since C is both a possible onset and a possible coda, both CV.CV and CVC.V would

47 be possible syllabifications. Kahn then suggests that in such cases there ‘is a strong tendency to syllabify in such a way that initial clusters are of maximal length, consistent with the general constraints on word-initial consonant clusters’ (the socalled Maximal Onset Principle), so the preferred syllabification in this case would be CV.CV. Kahn’s approach is to encode the Maximal Onset Principle as an integral part of the syllabification mechanism, as is clear from his statement quoted on p. 43 above. As Steriade (1982: 75) puts it, ‘Kahn’s algorithm… is partly a specification of certain aspects of the English syllable and partly a parsing device’. The second rule that Kahn proposes for syllable structure assignment is as in (5): (5)

Rule II a.

C1….Ca

V

.

C1….CcCc+1…CaV

"

"

where Cc+1…CaV is a permissible initial cluster but CcCc+1…CaV is not. b.

V "

C1….Ca x……x

.

VC1…CjCj+1…Ca "

where C1…Cj is a permissible final cluster but C1…CjCj+1 is not; x standing below a segment indicates that the segment is not associated with any syllable.

Together, Rules I and II are sufficient to ensure that all segments in a well-formed string, vowels and consonants, are associated with one syllable or another; and as Kahn points out, the formal correlate of the fact that ill-formed strings will be rejected is that not all segments will be associated. Thus from the derivation in (6) it can be

48 seen that !#9D4!, !+D#&! and !AF#&34! are all well-formed because all segments are syllabified, but !2#9D4! and !+D#&2! are ill-formed because, in both cases, no rule acts to assign !2! to any syllable. (6)

Rule I

!#<9
!+
"

"

Rule IIa !#<9
!+
!
"

"

!
"

"

" !+
"

!
!+
" !+
"

"

Kahn’s syllabification algorithm is a bottom-up algorithm, in the sense that it starts with segments and builds up successively higher levels of syllable structure on top of these segments. Indeed, bottom-up syllabification is a general feature of rulebased approaches to syllabification (e.g. Steriade 1982, Rubach and Booij 1990). There is no question that this approach to syllabification works, but it is easy to be left with the impression that bottom-up syllabification is the only possible rule-based method of syllabification. As will be shown in 2.3-2.4, it is quite possible to implement Kahn’s hypotheses about onsets and codas within a framework which assigns syllable structure in a manner which is not bottom-up. This is because Kahn’s syllabification algorithm is in reality a framework in which a particular theory about syllable structure is implemented. The questions of what are possible onsets and codas, whether the sets of word-marginal onsets and codas are, respectively, identical to the sets of all word-medial onsets and codas, and whether syllables really do

49 ‘maximize’ their onsets, are questions of syllable structure rather than syllable structure assignment. 2.2.3.2 Itô’s (1986) method of syllable structure assignment Itô’s (1986) discussion of how syllable structure is assigned is essentially aimed at showing that a template-approach, coupled with a directionality parameter, is a valid and preferable alternative to the rule-based approach advocated earlier in Kahn (1976) and Steriade (1982): valid, because it too fulfils the condition of descriptive adequacy, and preferable, because, according to Itô (1986: 168), the principle of directionality is independently motivated in a number of other areas of Prosodic Phonology such as metrical phonology (Liberman 1975). In other words, Itô views the fact that templatic syllabification is based on directionality as an advantage in itself. Itô (1986: 164) notes that ‘a single intervocalic consonant is always analyzed as an onset’. Itô correctly states that this principle can be encoded in a number of ways: for example, the implementation of this principle in a rule-based approach was shown in (5) above. The rule as stated in the template-approach, on the other hand, is as follows: ‘the sequence CV must belong to a single syllable’ (op. cit., p. 165). Turning then to the question of the syllabification of longer intervocalic consonant clusters, Itô observes that both VC1.C2V and V.C1C2V parsings occur in natural languages. This can be seen if one compares Icelandic !#,B.-%! (Itô 1986: 173) with English al.ge.bra (Kahn 1976: 138): both examples contain a sequence consisting of a voiced stop followed by a liquid, but the English example syllabifies this sequence as an onset and the Icelandic one syllabifies it as a coda followed by an onset. As Itô states, these differences are accounted for in rule-based approaches by different orderings of the onset and coda rules (ordering the onset rule first as in (5),

50 for example, yields the V.C1C2V parsing). In a template-approach, however, the differences are explained by ‘the prosodic principle of Directionality’ (Itô 1986: 167). Thus the V.C1C2V parsing is a result of right-to-left template matching (providing C1C2 is a possible onset), while the VC1.C2V parsing results from left-to-right matching (even if C1C2 is a possible onset), where the directionality of mapping is specified on a language-by-language basis. Itô’s implication is that because the choice of left-to-right or right-to-left parsing is relevant to ‘templatic’ syllabification, and because this choice is relevant in a similar way to, say, metrical theory, this is therefore evidence that syllable structure is assigned ‘templatically’. Itô also adduces other pieces of evidence for templatic syllabification. One of these is epenthesis: she argues that templatic syllabification can provide a simpler explanation of this phenomenon in certain languages than rule-based analyses. For example, a difference between Cairene and Iraqi Arabic is that in the former, triconsonantal clusters are broken up by an epenthetic vowel between the second and third consonant, and in the latter, the epenthetic vowel surfaces between the first and second consonants. In both dialects, four-consonantal clusters are broken by an epenthetic vowel between the second and third consonants. Itô demonstrates that the difference in triconsonantal clusters can be accounted for if both dialects are assumed to have CVC templates, but if the directionality of mapping is left-to-right for Cairene and right-to-left for Iraqi, and that the same model also correctly predicts the location of the epenthetic vowel in four-consonant clusters in both dialects. As noted by Kenstowicz (1994: 273), these facts present more of a problem for rule-driven epenthesis.

51 Thus the advantages which Itô claims for templatic syllabification over rulebased syllabification are that templatic syllabification is more in line with directionality, and that it explains various phonological processes more simply. The facts discussed by Itô do not appear to bear directly upon Russian syllable structure or phonological processes. However, in due course I shall return to one of Itô’s key arguments, questioning whether directionality is really necessary or desirable in an account of syllable structure. 2.2.3.3 Syllable structure assignment in Optimality Theory McCarthy and Prince (ms 1993) present a third method of generating syllable structure within the general framework of Optimality Theory (OT). OT does not fit clearly into either the ‘rule-based’ or ‘templatic’ categories suggested by Blevins (1995). However, Blevins (1995) largely predates formal publications in OT. The following four principles are set out in McCarthy and Prince (ms 1993: 5) as ‘hallmark properties’ of OT: (i)

Violability. Constraints are violable; but violation is minimal.

(ii) Ranking. Constraints are ranked on a language-particular basis; the notion of minimal violation (or best-satisfaction) is defined in terms of this ranking. (iii) Inclusiveness. The candidate analyses, which are evaluated by the constraint hierarchy, are admitted by very general considerations of structural wellformedness; there are no specific rules or repair strategies with specific structural descriptions or structural changes or with connections to specific constraints. (iv) Parallelism. Best-satisfaction of the constraint hierarchy is computed over the whole hierarchy and the whole candidate set.

The application of these principles to syllable structure assignment is outlined in McCarthy and Prince (ms 1993: 13) as follows:

52 Syllable structure is generated under Optimality Theory in the same way as any other grammatical property. The function Gen produces a candidate set of syllabic parses for each unsyllabified input. The output of Gen accords with the most fundamental structural principles, those that define what structures are to be contemplated as possible, enumerating the vocabulary of categories and ensuring, for example, that " dominates / and not vice versa. Under these broad conditions, there will be a large variety of candidate analyses for any given input; Universal Grammar gives a set of well-formedness conditions, which, ranked into a grammar, will select the optimal candidate from among the set of possibilities.

In other words, in OT as in Kahn’s syllable structure assignment rules, syllabification is conceived of as a procedure which takes an unsyllabified string of segments as input, and generates a syllable structure as output. I now turn to some specific examples of OT syllabification. As stated above, languages have a tendency to maximize onsets and minimize codas: this accounts for the fact that the syllabification of CVCV is CV.CV, not CVC.V. A CVCV schema is also used by McCarthy and Prince as the basis for demonstrating syllabification in OT. Of the two forms in (7) (given by McCarthy and Prince as candidate syllabifications of CVCV), (b) will be selected as optimal because (a) violates two constraints, neither of which is violated by (b). The first of these is ‘NOCODA’, which requires that syllables end on vowels, and the second is ‘ONSET’, the constraint that syllables should begin with consonants.

(7)

(a) (b)

CVC.V CV.CV

These are, however, not the only candidate syllabifications which McCarthy and Prince consider for this schema. Further possibilities are listed in (8):

(8)

(a) (b)

C.V.C.V 0CVCV1

53

In (8a), each of the segments is in its own syllable; (8b), on the other hand, is wholly unparsed (indicated by the angle brackets). In other words, it has no syllable structure whatsoever. The former violates NOCODA twice, however, and also has two syllabic consonants, and is therefore rejected; the latter violates the constraint PARSE, which, as McCarthy and Prince state, is nothing other than Itô’s (1986) ‘Prosodic Licensing’ constraint. Candidate (8b) is therefore also rejected. Different rankings of the syllabification constraints will yield different syllable structures. As can be seen from McCarthy and Prince’s Condition (ii) above, this fact is used in OT to account for discrepancies in syllabification between one language and another. For example, if the constraint PARSE is ranked higher than NOCODA (as is presumably the case in English and Russian), then the preferred syllabification of, say, !9%4! will be !.9%4.!, even though this violates the coda constraint; but if, for example, NOCODA were ranked higher than PARSE (as might be the case, for instance, in Mazateco, where codas are unattested, according to Blevins 1995: 217), then the preferred syllabification will be !.9%.041!. In other words, !4! remains unsyllabified. McCarthy and Prince state that in such cases ‘unparsed elements are erased upon exit from the level’, in accordance with the principle of Stray Erasure, discussed earlier in Steriade (1982) and Itô (1986). The principal attraction of OT is that there is believed to be a single universal set of constraints, with language-specific differences explained by different rankings of the constraints. The ordering of constraints in OT fulfils the same function as the ordering of rules in Kahn (1976), or the directionality of mapping in Itô (1986). However, the violability of constraints, one of the ‘hallmark

54 features’ of OT, is the aspect of the framework to which I shall return in section 2.2.3.5. 2.2.3.4 Phrase-structure analysis of syllable structure An alternative approach to syllable structure is in terms of phrase structure (or in pre-generative terms, ‘constituent structure’). This approach is taken, for example, by Harris (1951: 278f.), Hockett (1955: 52, 176), Haugen (1956), Cheng (1966), Fudge (1969), Selkirk (1982a), Church (1983), Coleman (1990, 1996, 1998), Dirksen (1993), Walther (1993), and Bird (1995). Phrase-structure grammar has been more widely used in branches of linguistics other than phonology (see for example Gazdar, Klein, Pullum and Sag 1985 and Pollard and Sag 1987, both phrase-structure analyses of syntax and semantics). The following quotation from Haugen (1956: 217) serves to illustrate the general approach as applied to syllable structure: Analysis of the syllable usually permits us to distinguish an irreducible minimum which we may call the nucleus and an optional remainder which we may call the margin… Each of the constituents of the syllable consists of one or more phonemes, with the vowels usually occupying the peak [read ‘nucleus’ & PC], the consonants the margins; but consonants may also be included in the peak if vowels fail to occur initially or finally. For each constituent one may then establish the number of positions. For example, in Swedish the number of positions is anywhere from zero to three. This we may represent by the formula (CCC).

The rules which Haugen suggests (for Swedish, in this instance) amount to phrase structure rule schemata as follows: (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

syllable margin margin margin nucleus

' ' ' ' '

(margin) nucleus (margin) C CC CCC V

55

A phrase-structure approach to syllabification is independent of, but not necessarily opposed to, an approach based on sonority, since it is possible to incorporate sonority into phrase structure rules: for an example, see Walther (1993). For example, Haugen’s approach, which does not differentiate between the sonority of different consonants, can only stipulate the maximum size of syllable margins (and by extension syllables). For instance, in Haugen’s example, we saw that Swedish onsets consist of up to three segments. This example, however, does not capture the generalization that !90! is a permissible onset whereas !09! is not. However, Haugen’s rule in (11), for example, could be rewritten as the rules in (14)-(15): (14) (15)

onset onset

' '

obstruent obstruent

liquid glide

By changing ‘margin’ to ‘onset’, and ‘C’ to ‘obstruent’, ‘liquid’, and ‘glide’, then adding appropriate definitions to show what the possible instantiations of obstruents, liquids and glides are, it is possible to capture generalizations about sonority within phrase-structure grammar. Phrase-structure analysis of syllable structure has the advantage that it abstracts away from the issue of syllable structure assignment. Phrase-structure analysis essentially involves making statements about the possible shapes of syllables, rather than specifying how syllable structure is built up. The advantage of separating the two is that the nature of syllable structure is a linguistic issue, which linguists should properly focus their attention on, while the problem of how to assign structure on the basis of a phrase-structure grammar is a computational problem which has

56 already been solved (in a number of different ways) by computer scientists. There is the danger, therefore, that linguists who attempt to devise algorithms for assigning syllable (or other linguistic) structure are re-inventing the wheel. This is a point to which I shall return in section 2.2.3.5. As mentioned in section 1.3.1, PSGs also have the advantage over all the theories of syllable structure assignment reviewed in 2.2.3 that they have a transparent relationship to DCGs. This means that a phrase-structure theory can straightforwardly be implemented computationally, tested for coherence and coverage, and debugged if necessary. 2.2.3.5 Syllable structure assignment: conclusions As we have seen in sections 2.2.3.1-2.2.3.3, the critical factor which differentiates alternative theories of syllable structure assignment is the way in which each decides upon the ‘correct’ syllabification in cases where there are multiple possibilities. Kahn (1976) is a bottom-up, left-to-right algorithm; Itô (1986) is a topdown algorithm (which is left-to-right or right-to-left, depending on the language); and McCarthy and Prince (ms 1993) relies on ordering constraints and satisfying first those which are highest-ranked, and then those which are ranked lower if possible. All three theories rely in some way on ordering of rules. The arguments typically advanced for one or another theory rest on their descriptive adequacy & for example, their ability to assign structures to well-formed strings, to place syllable boundaries in appropriate positions, to account correctly for epenthesis & rather than the metalinguistic considerations discussed in section 1.3 (for example, the psychological plausibility or power of one or another syllable structure assignment theory).

57 If we confront these more fundamental considerations, it is apparent that there are problems with each of the syllable structure assignment mechanisms. One might argue that Kahn’s algorithm is psychologically implausible because it involves as many passes through the string as there are steps in the algorithm: it is unrealistic to suppose that syllabification would take place in this way in the brain. We have seen that directionality is a cornerstone of Itô’s theory, yet the very principle of directionality violates the order-free composition constraint discussed in 1.3.2, again calling into question the theory’s psychological plausibility. Finally, two aspects of OT are problematic. The first is that because constraints are violable, it follows that not all constraints are surface-true, and thus the question arises as to whether OT ‘constraints’ really are constraints. The second aspect of OT which is problematic is the ordering of constraints, which again is counter to the order-free composition constraint. The more important point, however, is that it is not clear that there is any advantage in arguing for bottom-up syllabification (as in Kahn 1976) versus top-down syllabification (as in Itô 1986), when there a variety of reliable parsing techniques9 which can assign syllable structure in different directions. It is important to separate the issue of directionality of parsing (or, for that matter, any issue relating to how syllable structure is assigned) from the grammatical constraints themselves. In this chapter, the context-free syllabification grammar proposed for Russian can be applied left-to-right or right-to-left with the same effect, and the same applies to all other

9

There is no need to list all the different available algorithms here, but a number are discussed in Grishman (1986: 27-34). The algorithm used in DCG parsing is a top-down, left-to-right algorithm with backtracking.

58 grammar modules described in this dissertation. It is the grammatical constraints which account for phonological phenomena, not the implementation of the grammatical constraints as a particular procedure. To summarize, the debate on syllable structure assignment misses the main phonological point, when, as is still frequently remarked upon (as in Clements 1990 and Bethin 1998), basic questions about syllable structure (for example, whether the SSG is an adequate theory about syllable structure, and the extent of its adequacy) still remain to be answered. Accordingly, I shall not outline a separate syllable structure assignment algorithm to accompany the linear grammar presented in section 2.3, because this would be unnecessary. The algorithm used to assign syllable structure computationally is simply the built-in DCG parsing algorithm. The grammar itself does not depend on any particular ordering of rules. Because it is a linear grammar, it can be used both to generate legal syllable structures and for parsing. Furthermore, because the linear grammar is not deterministic, it is able to return multiple syllabifications in cases like CVCCVC (which might be syllabified either as CV.CCVC, or as CVC.CVC.) In particular, the deterministic algorithms of Kahn and Itô can return only one solution for each string, which might be regarded as a drawback. The insight that CV.CCVC is, in many cases, preferred to CVC.CVC, can still be modelled within a linear grammar which returns multiple solutions, by incorporating a probabilistic component into the grammar; I shall elaborate upon this in section 2.4. 2.3

A linear grammar of Russian syllable structure This section presents a specific proposal to describe the syllable structure of

Russian in terms of linear grammar. The purpose of this grammar is to parse Russian

59 word-forms exhaustively into syllables10, and the grammar will be subjected to computational testing. In order to build up a grammar of syllabification, two basic elements are needed: the first of these is a ‘lexicon’ of pre-terminal rules, specifying the alphabet of segments which may occur in Russian together with all the segments’ relevant features, and the second is the list of rules which assigns hierarchical structure to these segments. These elements of the grammar will be considered in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 respectively. 2.3.1 The phonological inventory of Russian 2.3.1.1 Preliminaries: controversial issues In order to decide the alphabet of segments available for building up syllable structure in Russian, we need first to take a position on three well-known controversies in Russian phonological classification. These issues continue to be debated: it is not my intention here to provide detailed arguments or computational analysis substantiating one or another position, but it is necessary all the same to consider the ramifications a decision one way or the other will have. The aim of this section is to review the relevant literature and clarify where the current phonology stands in relation to the rest of the field.

10

In the following discussion, I make the assumption that there is no ambisyllabicity in Russian. This assumption may be an oversimplification, although see Selkirk (1982a) for arguments supporting my position. In any case, the issue is not of major significance in what follows, and it would be possible to reformulate the grammar to accommodate ambisyllabicity: Walther (1993) and Bird (1995: 62-63) provide examples of how this can be done in context-free grammar.

60 The first controversy is whether [,) and [,] are allophones of a single phoneme. This has been a matter of long-standing debate between the so-called ‘Moscow and Leningrad phonological schools’: a detailed survey of this debate is given in Reformatskij (1970). The Moscow line (or the ‘allophonic’ view, as I shall call it), which probably represents the majority view in phonological theory, is that [,] is an allophone of !,!; the alternative (the ‘independent phoneme’ view) is to include both !,! and !,! as independent phonemes. Advocates of the allophonic view (for example, Jakobson 1929, Avanesov 1956, Halle 195911, Oliverius 1974, Panov 1979, the most recent Academy Grammar [Švedova et al. 1980, 1: 70], and Rubach 1995) have pointed mainly to the complementary distribution of (,) and (,): the former occurs word-initially, after a palatalized consonant or after a vowel, but (,) generally occurs only after nonpalatalized consonants. Examples are given in (16): (16)


(A,&') (A',&')

‘to be’ ‘to hit’

The ‘independent phoneme’ view, which is held, for example, by Š;erba (1912), Gvozdev (1949), Larin (1959), Bulanin (1970), Lightner (1972), Matusevi; (1976) and Kuhn Plapp (1996), has appealed in part to the articulatory and acoustic differences between [,) and [,]: Š;erba, for example, noted that Russians can easily articulate [,] in isolation, whereas they have more trouble articulating some of the

11

But not apparently Halle (1997), to judge by the entry for the nominative plural in Halle’s Table 1 (op. cit., p. 281): this entry distinguishes the inflectional endings -y !,! and -i !,!.

61 uncontroversial positional variants of vowels such as (G) (the variant of !%! which occurs between palatalized consonants). The ‘independent phoneme’ view also hinges in part on fringe phonological phenomena in Russian. For example, it is argued (e.g. in Bulanin 1970: 80) that forms such as those in (17) are counter-evidence to the proposition that (,)
(a) (b)

)%&.$ /%&.$ =0-,' ='#)'

(,2%&') (,2%&') (,7#64) (,4$',4)

‘to produce the sound (,)’ ‘to produce the sound (,)’ [place-name] [place-name]

It has to be said, however, that such oppositions are rare: in particular, the examples in (17b) are non-native place-names which sound strange to the Russian ear. Forms where (,) appears to take on phonemic status might therefore be explained as exceptions, without incurring a great empirical cost. A more convincing phonological argument for the ‘independent phoneme’ view is put forward by Gvozdev (1949) and Kuhn Plapp (1996). This argument focuses on the alternation of [,] and (,) at the edge of morphemes. Kuhn Plapp notes that while an analysis which classifies [,] as an allophone of !,! is unproblematic morpheme-internally, it is hard to explain, for example, why (B6&6") alternates with (B6&6"') in (18) unless there are two distinct phonemes !,! and !,!. However, the segments (,) and (,) are nonetheless in complementary distribution, a fact which the phonology should explain.

62 (18)

5,.,( 5,.,(/0 5,.,().$

[B6&6") [B6&6"+,7) [B6&6"'+,&')

‘ready’ (predicate, masc.) ‘ready’ (attributive, masc. sg.) ‘to get ready’ (transitive)

I will return to take a position on this point below. The second issue is whether the Russian velars (27, B7, C7) are allophones of !2, B, C! respectively, or whether !27, 2, B7, B, C7,, 2, ? and $. There are no exceptions to the complementary distribution of (27, B7, C7) and (2, B, C)<morpheme-internally in the native vocabulary of Russian. Generally, the rule also holds across morpheme boundaries, as shown by the examples in (19): (19)

#,-%+& @!&9+& #,-%+) @!&9+/

($6#2+%) (?0%*+%) ($6#2'+,) (?0%*+,)

‘blackboard’ (nom. sg.) ‘sentence’ (nom. sg.) ‘blackboards’ (nom. pl.) ‘sentences’ (nom. pl.)

The exceptions which can occur across morpheme boundaries, however, in some cases result in minimal pairs. These are used to argue for the independent phonemicity

63 of !27, 2, B7, B, C7,
(a) (b) (c)

A.,. %,. A., .%+2. -&#%,+ -,.%+2+ <"!"5+& <"!"5+>

(1&3&<26&) (1&3<&2'+6&) (#H&26+) (#H&2'+6+) (A'D0'DB+%) (A'D0'DB'+%)

‘this cat’ ‘this weaves’ ‘animal nursery’ (instr. sg.) ‘we shall weave it together’ ‘banks, shores’ ‘keeping’ (gerund)

Halle (1959) appears to be alone in not treating all the velars alike: his inventory (p. 45) assigns independent phonemic status to !2'! but not !B'=
(a) (b) (c)

1). !"93)% #!,**)

(8'I,&) (0'18'I,2) ($065'I,)

‘shield’ ‘engraver’ ‘yeast’

Although length is not generally phonemic in Russian, Avanesov (1956: 134) treats !8'I=<5'I! as independent phonemes. Thelin’s (1974, 1983) position is that the phoneme !8'I! exists morpheme-internally (as in (21a)), but that (8'I) represents a combination of 12

Only relevant morpheme boundaries are shown.

64 two phonemes elsewhere (see below). Thelin’s argument is that the phonology of Russian is currently being restructured, so that while the grapheme 1 stood for two phonemes previously in Russian, this is not the case in contemporary Russian, since, as noted by Gvozdev (1949: 67), (8'I=<5'I) in Russian are acoustically indivisible. It has also been suggested (e.g. by Bulanin 1970: 83) that the issue of whether !8'I=<5'I! should be included in the inventory has been confused by the existence of the Cyrillic grapheme 1, which stands for (8'I). The more widely held viewpoint is that (8'I) is the phonetic realization of the fricative-affricate sequences !#&8'!, !8&8'!, !5&8'!, and (5'I) the phonetic realization of !55!. This means that !8'I=<5'I! can be excluded from the phonemic inventory. This is the line followed by Gvozdev (1949: 42), Halle (1959: 45), Bulanin (1970: 51), Oliverius (1974: 103) and Coats (1997). Gvozdev and Oliverius point out that if !8'I=<5'I! are phonemes, then cases arise where a single phoneme would have to be split across morpheme boundaries, as in the example in (22).

(22)

- + 3"+

(8'I1+)

‘with what’

This reason for treating !8'I=<5'I! as sequences of phonemes, it might be countered, is more an artefact of the limitations of segmentally-based phonology than of the properties of !8'I=<5'I! in Russian. However, Coats adduces further evidence to suggest that (8'I) is a sequence of two phonemes. He observes that certain morphological phenomena in Russian are sensitive to the number of consonants in certain positions: an example is the ‘two consonant’ rule for the formation of imperatives of i-stem verbs with stressed roots. This rule states that the imperative forms end in !,! if the

65 stem ends in two or more consonants (as in (23a)), but in zero if the stem ends in a single consonant (as in (23b)). (23)

(a) (b)

%,:'3) ,.(/:%')
!264&8'+,! !6&",24+,! !A06#'+! !"#&%4'+!

‘finish!’ ‘get out of the habit!’ ‘throw!’ ‘get up!’

As Coats observes, Zaliznjak (1977: 84) ‘gives a version of the “two consonant” rule which explicitly mentions that 1 and two consonants function the same way in the operation of the rule’ (Coats 1997: 159). The fact that 1 patterns with the forms in (23a) seems to be conclusive evidence that 1 stands for a sequence of two phonemes. A summary of the differences between the phonological inventories advocated in different works is given in Table 5. Table 5. Phonological inventories of different scholars Work

!,!

!2'!

!B'!

!C'!

!8'I! !5'I!

Avanesov (1956) Halle (1959) Bulanin (1970) Gvozdev (1949) Kuhn Plapp (1996) Coats (1997) Oliverius (1974) Panov (1979)

   * -

   *  -

  *  -

  *  -

 * 

 * 

Key to Table 5  *

Phoneme is included in given inventory Phoneme is excluded from given inventory No explicit evidence available from given work

No. of No. of consonantal vowel phonemes in phonemes in inventory inventory 34 5 33 10 35 6 35 6 * * * * 35 5 34 5

66 Most of the arguments set out above boil down to the question of how to reduce the phonological inventory to a minimum, such that the phonological analysis can remain consistent. For each of the three areas mentioned, it is significant that the more minimal view of the phonological inventory generally runs into problems only with word-formation (as Kuhn Plapp makes clear in the case of [i] and [i]). Apparent ‘problems’ for the minimal-inventory view may therefore simply indicate that the rules governing morpheme-internal phonology are not quite the same as those which apply at morpheme boundaries, a fact which Pesetsky observed some time ago, albeit in slightly different terms: A number of rules, like the rule of yer-lowering, have exceptions. Crucially, these rules… can be shown to interact with other rules in a way that shows they must, or can be cyclic. Exceptions to such rules appear both in lexicalized words and in spontaneous coinages… By contrast, rules like palatalization before front vowels, fronting of i to i after velars, or the change of underlying w to v in most dialects show no unmotivated exceptions. These rules do not have to be ordered before any cyclic rules, and, moreover, violate recent formulations of the strict cycle condition… by applying to segments in environments wholly contained by the first cycle of a word. This suggests that the appropriate distinction may be between cyclic and post-cyclic rules. Only cyclic rules, apparently, admit unmotivated exceptions. (Pesetsky ms 1979: 14-15).

The approach followed in this dissertation is to exclude all of !,= 27= B7= C7=<8'I= 5'I! from the phonological inventory, and thus to opt for the more minimal approach in each of the three areas discussed above. This approach is followed not just in this chapter, but also in Chapter 3. My strategy in accounting for Russian morphology is to deal with cases like (B6&6") % (B6&6"') by listing both alternants as separate items in the morpheme inventory rather than by rule. In other words, I accept an enlargement of the morphological inventory for the sake of a reduction in size of the phonological inventory. This is not to say that it would be impossible to formulate an

67 analysis whereby the phonological and morphological inventories are both minimized, and all alternations, phonological and morphological, are accounted for by rule. However, an attempt to deal with this aspect of Russian morphophonology comprehensively and consistently would be the subject of another dissertation. My assumptions reduce the size of the inventory to 37 phonemes (32 consonants and 5 vowels), as follows: Table 6. The phonemic inventory of Russian Vowels: High: Mid: Low:

Front

Back

!,! !1!

!;! !6!

!%!

Consonants: Labial

Dental

Alveolar

Palatal

Velar

Bilabial

stop affricate fricative approximant nasal lateral trill

unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced unvoiced voiced

Labiodental Hard Soft Hard Soft Hard Soft Hard Soft Hard Soft Hard Soft 9 97 & &7 2 7 A A $ $7 B &# &87 ? "

?7 "7

# *

#7 *7

8 5

C

7 +

+7

4

47

-

-7 0

07

68 2.3.1.2 The classification system In the syllable structure grammar which I develop below, the following 9 features are also used. The features and their meanings are substantially the same as in Chomsky and Halle (1968: 298ff). (24)

Features [!del(ayed)_rel(ease)] [!anter(ior)] [!cons(onantal)]

[!coron(al)] [!cont(inuant)] [!nasal]

[!voc(alic)] [!later(al)] [!sonor(ant)]

The classification of the Russian phonemes with respect to these features is shown in the feature matrix in Table 7 on page 69. (This table also shows the relative sonority of the phonemes, following Selkirk’s (1984) schema in (2) above.)

This table lists only those features relevant to the basic syllable structure grammar; Table 14 on page 103 lists further features which will be introduced to account for phonological processes in Russian.

Table 7. Classification of Russian phonemic inventory with respect to Chomsky and Halle’s features

70 Some comments about this classification system are in order. First, the classification of !7! as [+consonantal, +vocalic] departs from Chomsky and Halle (1968), who classify the nearest English segment y as [$consonantal, $vocalic] (op. cit., p. 176). However, under the analysis followed here, !7! and !,! are distinguished only by the feature [!consonantal]. This is in line with the idea that the syllabicity of segments depends solely on their position (see page 39 above), because the function of the feature [!consonantal] here is simply to distinguish those segments which can associate only with nucleus slots (the [$consonantal] segments) from those which may or may not be able to associate with nucleus slots (the [+consonantal] segments). However, the possibility of [+consonantal] segments associating with nucleus slots is never exploited in Russian, unlike in English (cf. bottle (AF&-J)). Secondly, where in Table 7 a phoneme is specified + or $ with respect to any feature, this specification is, in effect, lexical: no specification of this type can later be changed, since feature-changing is not allowed in declarative grammar. This means, for example, that if a phonological rule applies to [+continuant] segments, then we know for certain that the rule will at no stage in the grammar apply to !9!, which is lexically specified [$continuant]. Third, any feature matrix of the type in Table 7 implies the existence of certain phonological natural classes. ‘Natural class’ is used here to mean a set of phonemes which unifies with a particular structural description, and a ‘structural description’ is any feature or combination of features. A phoneme ‘unifies with’ a structural description if, for every feature in the structural description, it meets one of two conditions: either it has a feature with the same specification, or it is unspecified for

71 that feature. An example of the first type is !&#!, which is the only phoneme which unifies with [+consonantal, $vocalic, $sonorant, +delayed_release, +anterior]. The second type is exemplified by !"! and !"'!, which unify with both [+sonorant] and [$sonorant]. (This underspecification of !"! and !"'! will be exploited in the analysis which follows.) In cases of the second type, one may think of the phonological rules as ‘filling in’ the relevant features, together with the + or $ specification. The fourth point is an observation about the notation which will be used. The features listed in Table 7 are used to enrich the linear grammar: each constituent may be associated with a feature, or combination of features. The notation that will be used subscripts the feature or feature-combination beneath the name of the node. (This approach is equivalent to the one followed in Coleman and Pierrehumbert 1997.) Thus in (25) [+consonantal, $sonorant] is subscripted beneath the first ‘segment’ node as a way of denoting any segment which unifies with [+consonantal, $sonorant]. (25)

onset

'

segment [+continuant, $sonorant]

segment [+consonantal, $continuant]

In addition to the 9 features just listed, a further two binary features will be referred to: [!init(ial)] and [!final]. These features do not, however, classify individual phonemes; instead, they classify the constituents weakfoot, strongfoot, syllable, onset and rime. Any of these units can be any combination of [+init], [$init], [+final] or [$final], providing that no unit is both [+init] and [$init], or both [+final] and [$final]. The features [!init] and [!final] are used in essentially the same way in Dirksen (1993).

72 Further features will be introduced in section 2.5.1 to deal with phonological ‘processes’ other than syllabification. 2.3.2

The syllable structure rules With the classification system in place, the formulation of the pre-terminal

rules is straightforward. There will be one rule for each phoneme, and each rule will state the information which is lexically specified for the given phoneme. For example: (26)

segment ' [+consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, +continuant, $coronal, $anterior, $lateral, $nasal, $delayed_release]

!7!

segment ' [+consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, +continuant, +coronal, $anterior, $lateral, $nasal, $delayed_release]

!0!

The remaining rules are where the phonotactic constraints of Russian are stated. In what follows, I shall assume the following basic syllable structure: (27)

syllable rime

' '

(onset) nucleus

rime (coda)

73 The constituents ‘onset’, ‘rime’, ‘nucleus’ and ‘coda’ are adopted as conforming to standard phonological theory (Kenstowicz 1994: 252-253). This kind of syllable structure is defended in Selkirk (1982a), and is also in line with recent computational analyses such as Walther (1993) and Coleman and Pierrehumbert (1997), although Pierrehumbert and Nair (1995) have suggested that syllable structure may be flatter than (27) suggests. However, the position one takes on this matter is not of major significance in what follows. Using the classification system outlined in the previous section, the grammar may be enlarged to define the constituents ‘onset’, ‘nucleus’ and ‘coda’ as follows: (28)

onset

'

segment [+cons]

nucleus

'

segment [$cons]

coda

'

segment [+cons]

Russian, in common with nearly all13 languages, permits CV syllables. Unlike a number of languages (e.g. Fijian, according to Blevins 1995: 219), however, it also permits rimes with codas. One of the grounds for assuming this is that there are many Russian words which end in a consonant. One might, therefore, assume that the rules in (29) are rules of Universal Grammar, while (30) is specific to those languages (including Russian) which permit codas. (Alternatively, one could view (30) as

13

The idea that VCV is cross-linguistically syllabified V.CV, is (in standard phonological theory) held to be an inviolable principle of Universal Grammar (see for example Rubach and Booij 1990: 124, 125, 144). However, see Breen and Pensalfini (1999) for discussion of Arrernte, which (they argue) does not permit CV syllables.

74 universal but parametrical, and activated for Russian but not Fijian, in the style of the analysis proposed in Coleman, Dirksen, Hussain and Waals 1996.) (29) (30)

(a) (b)

syllable rime

' '

onset nucleus

rime

rime

'

nucleus

coda

Russian also permits onsetless syllables, as evidenced by the fact that many Russian words begin with a vowel. Again, this is not a linguistic universal: Blevins (1995: 219) cites Cairene Arabic and Dakota as examples of languages in which all syllables have an obligatory onset. Thus we may assume that (31), like (30), is activated only for certain languages; but since Russian is one of these languages, (31) must be included in the current grammar.

(31)

syllable

'

rime

Now, a realistic syllable structure grammar must be able to define words consisting of any number of syllables. For the current grammar to be able to do this, constituents must be added above the ‘syllable’ node. The rule schemata in (32) represent a first approximation to what might be required. (32)

prosodic_word

'

(weakfoot)

strongfoot

weakfoot

'

syllable [$stress]

(weakfoot)

strongfoot

'

syllable [+stress]

(weakfoot)

75 These rules state that the minimal prosodic_word must consist at least of a single stressed syllable (dominated by the intermediate ‘strongfoot’ node). The fact that the second of these three rules is recursive (refers to itself) means that unstressed syllables can be added to the stressed syllable, theoretically ad infinitum. The feature [!stress] is adopted without discussion here, although the way in which the grammar governs its distribution is examined in detail in Chapter 5. On the basis of these rules, the tree-structure associated with, say, !+%+%! would be as in Figure 3:

Figure 3. Tree-structure for !"#"#!

prosodic_word strongfoot

weakfoot syllable [+stress]

onset

syllable [$stress]

rime

onset

nucleus

!+!

!%!

rime nucleus

!+!

!%!

The rules up to this point form the basis of the syllable structure grammar. To give some idea of the coverage of this ‘skeleton’ grammar, the rules so far assign

76 structure to 7,553 word-forms of a total sample of 11,290 tested (in other words, to around 6629% of the forms tested). Part of the reason that the coverage of the grammar so far is not higher is that Russian also allows complex onsets and codas. Again, this is in contrast to various other languages (e.g. Finnish and Cairene Arabic, according to Blevins 1995: 219). Although one should be cautious about Kahn’s (1976) suggestion that the sets of onsets and codas are identical to the sets of word-marginal onsets and codas respectively, there is no doubt that one can learn a great deal about onsets and codas in general by looking at word-marginal clusters. First of all, therefore, let us consider onsets. Table 8 on page 77 shows the relative frequencies of different types of twosegment onset based on entries in Zaliznjak (1977). (This table abstracts away from the voiced/voiceless and palatalized/unpalatalized distinctions, so for example !"! stands for !"!, !?!, !"'! and !?'!. The total number of word-initial onsets in the sample (19,978) is the number of entries in Zaliznjak’s (1977) dictionary which have initial onsets of exactly two consonants.)

Preceding segment

cons

voc

sonor

cont

coron anter later nasal del_rel Segment Sonority

Table 8. Distribution of word-initial onsets by type (based on data from Zaliznjak 1977)

78 As can be seen from Table 8, the structure of complex onsets in Russian is rather chaotic. If all word-initial onsets in Russian obeyed the SSG, all the numerical counts in the table would be to the left of the bold lines which run from top-left to bottomright. However, this is not the case: one can calculate from Table 8 that 13,520 of the 19,978 onsets (only 6727%) strictly conform to the SSG. Clearly, the SSG is a good start in accounting for the word-initial onsets of Russian, but something more is needed. Ideally, we would like to formulate a grammar which generates all the attested onsets, and no others. However, the scattered nature of the entries in Table 8 means that any such grammar would have to incorporate a large number of rules. Nevertheless, there are a few quite simple generalizations which can be drawn out of Table 8, to provide a good level of coverage (over 95%) of the data. A quick inspection of Table 8 reveals first that most segments, except !&#!, whose sonority does not exceed that of !+! and !4!, can precede !7!, !-! and !0! in initial onsets. (Moreover, there is some indication that the lower the sonority of the initial segment, the more likely the liquids are to be preceded by them; for example, !A0! and !A-! occur with greater frequency than !C0! and !C-!. However, I shall not attempt to model this observation here.) The facts point to the need in the grammar for a rule like the following: (33)

onset

'

segment [+cons, $voc, $del_rel]

segment [+cons, +voc]

79 The vast majority of the exceptions to the SSG are fricative-stop onsets (e.g. !*$!, !#&!, !#2!). In particular, !"=<*! appear to be able to precede virtually any segment; !8!, on the other hand, tends to avoid preceding other fricatives. Complex onsets which are exceptional to the SSG but do not begin with either !"!, !*! or !8! account for only just over 2% of the total number of word-initial onsets. Goldsmith (1990) and Blevins (1995: 211) both note that similar apparently exceptional onsets also occur systematically in English (e.g. stop, skin). One should not automatically assume (as Kahn does) that the existence of any given word-initial onset necessarily implies the existence of the same onset word-medially, because as Blevins and a number of other researchers (for example Rubach and Booij 1990) point out, many such violations of the SSG are often confined to the edge of the syllabification domain. Thus the approach taken here (for the time being) is to distinguish between word-marginal and word-medial onsets and codas, allowing greater latitude in the word-marginal rules. The way in which this is done is to replace the rule schemata in (34) with the rules in (35). (34)

prosodic_word

'

(weakfoot)

strongfoot

weakfoot

'

syllable [$stress]

(weakfoot)

strongfoot

'

syllable [+stress]

(weakfoot)

syllable

'

onset

rime

80 (35)

prosodic_word

'

strongfoot [+init]

prosodic_word

'

weakfoot strongfoot [+init, $final] [$init]

weakfoot [3 init, 4 final]

'

syllable [3 init, 4 final, $stress]

weakfoot [3 init, 4 final]

'

syllable [3 init, $stress]

weakfoot [4 final]

strongfoot [3 init]

'

syllable [3 init, +stress]

weakfoot [+final]

syllable [3 init, 4 final]

'

onset [3 init]

rime [4 final]

rime [3 final]

'

nucleus

coda [3 final]

To express the fact that certain onsets exist only word-initially, we specify [+init] in the rules for those onsets. In all other onset rules, no specification is given for [!init], which effectively means that any word-medial onset can also be a word-initial onset, but not vice versa. Later (in section 2.4), we shall see that the syllable structure rules can be set up in such a way that the features [!init] and [!final] are unnecessary, but such that the rules still model the improbability of finding certain clusters in anything other than word-marginal position. Now, in Russian it seems reasonable to suppose that fricative-stop clusters beginning with !*=<#! may occur not only as initial onsets but as medial ones as well, on the basis of forms such as ,.-.&.$ !6&#&%&'! ‘to lag’. Thus the following rule is warranted.

81 (36)

onset

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter]

segment [$cont]

However, it is less clear that fricative-stop clusters beginning with !8! should be allowed to occur other than as an initial onset: conservatism dictates that one should assume that these clusters are only word-initial, unless there is evidence to the contrary. To license such clusters as word-initial (but not word-medial) onsets, the rule in (37) can be added to the grammar. (37)

onset [+init]

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, $anter]

segment [$cont, $del_rel]

(37) excludes the possibility of !&#! occurring as the stop, explaining the absence of !8&#! onsets. As can be seen from Table 8, !"! and !*! (together with their unvoiced counterparts) can precede any segment. However, it seems that these segments can precede only sonorants word-medially; there are forms such as ,.(!&1&.$ !6&"0%8&8'%&'! ‘to avert’, ,.(6"%&.$ !6&"-'12%&'! ‘to divert’, 4,#-+,.!".$ !96$#+6&0'1&'! ‘to spy on’, 4,#-'"*')% !96$#4'154',2! ‘snowdrop’, ,.-(". !6&#"'1&! ‘reflection’, ,.9(8% !6&*";2! ‘echo’, but no forms beginning in 4,#(--, 4,#(9-, 4,#(B-, 4,#(*-, 4,#-:-, 4,#(:-. Thus the following rules appear to be justified:

82 (38)

(a)

onset [+init]

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, +anter]

segment [+cons]

(b)

onset

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, +anter]

segment [+cons, +sonor]

The rules in (38) exploit the fact that !"! is lexically unspecified for the feature [!sonorant] in the phonological inventory; whether !"! is [+sonorant] or [$sonorant] is determined solely by the syllable structure rules. (38) does no more than express formally a fact which has already been noted by a number of researchers, namely that !"! behaves like an obstruent when it precedes an obstruent, and like a sonorant when it precedes a sonorant (Jakobson 1956: 199, Andersen 1969, Coats and Harshenin 1971, Halle and Vergnaud 1981). Both Andersen (1969) and Halle and Vergnaud (1981) link the behaviour of !"! to its putative phonological status as a glide !K!; for evidence supporting this, see Andersen (1969) and Coats and Harshenin (1971). However, the formal expression of the dual status of !"! by underspecification in the phonological inventory, coupled with the idea that phonotactics determines whether !"! is [+sonorant] or [$sonorant], has not, to my knowledge, been suggested in the literature to date. This analysis also pays a dividend in accounting for voicing assimilation, because the behaviour of !"! with respect to voicing assimilation depends precisely on whether !"! is [+sonorant] or [$sonorant]. If [+sonorant], it patterns with !-=<0=<+=<4!; if [$sonorant], it patterns with other obstruents. This will be discussed in more detail in section 2.5.2.4.

83 The rules in (38) overlap not only with each other, but also with (36). No conflation is possible, however, because (36) and (38b) refer to onsets in general, while (38a) applies to the more specific class of [+init] onsets. Table 8 also shows that a rule is needed to account for nonsonorant-sonorant onsets, which may occur in almost any combination. We have already accounted for those in which the sonorant is also a liquid or !7! (see (33)). Thus we are left with the nasals and !"!. Here, it seems that nonsonorant-nasal onsets (with the exception of those dealt with by (38b)) are confined to word-initial position, whereas nonsonorant!"! onsets may occur in any position, as shown by the following examples: (39)

,.B(/!)(&.$ 4,#:(&.).$ 4,#.("!#).$ ,.%().&.$ ,.7("-.)

!6&8",0',"%&'! !96$C"%&',&'! !96$&"'10$',&'! !6&2"',&%&'! !6&&#"'1#&',!

‘to fling away’ ‘to pick up’ ‘to confirm’ ‘to give as good as one gets’ ‘to finish blossoming’

Additionally, there are no onsets (word-initial or otherwise) in which !&#! is the initial segment and a nasal is the second. Thus the rules proposed here are as follows: (40)

(a)

onset [+init]

'

segment [$sonor, $del_rel]

segment [+cons, $voc, +sonor, +nasal]

(b)

onset

'

segment [$sonor]

segment [+cons, +sonor, $nasal]

84 Again, there is some overlap between these rules and previous ones, but no rule is otiose. Now, we move on to consider onsets consisting of three segments. The segment most commonly found at the beginning of such onsets is !"!. A large number of these then have !#! or !*! as the second segment, with any sonorant possible as the third segment, as the examples in (41) show. (41)

(9C"9*&.$ (9!/( (96,+ (9+&: (9',(9(&6).$

!"*71*5%&'! !"*0,"! !"*-6+! !"*+%C! !"*46#! !"*"%-',&'!

‘to drive up’ ‘explosion’ ‘breaking in’ ‘flapping’ ‘payment’ ‘to load’

I suggest the following rule to account for these: (42)

onset [+init]

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, $coron, +anter]

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter]

segment [+cons, +sonor]

The other major category of three-segment word-initial onset which has !"! as the first segment and !#! or !*! as the second, has one of the stops as the third segment. The following rule can account for these onsets: (43)

onset

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, $coron, +anter]

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter]

segment [$cont, $del_rel]

85 Also common are three-segment word-initial onsets where the second segment is a stop and the third a liquid or !"!. In this case, either !"! or !#! can be the first segment. For example: (44)

(<6)9) ( (#()5&.$ (#!85 (%6&# (%!&.7" (46&($ (4!&(, (.!&().$ -
!"A-',*',! !"A06#',&'! !"B-;A'! !"B0,*%&'#'%! !"$"',B%&'! !"$0;B! !"2-%$! !"20%&
! !"9-%"'! !"90%"6! !"&0%"',&'! !#A06#',&'! !#B-%5,"%&'! !#B0;5%&'! !#$"67,&'! !#$0;5,&'! !#2-%$! !#20,&'! !#9-%"467! !#90%"2%! !#&0%$%&'!

‘nearby’ ‘to throw in’ ‘deep down’ ‘to sink one’s teeth into’ ‘to move into’ ‘suddenly’ ‘contribution’ ‘in short’ ‘swimming’ ‘to the right’ ‘to inveigle’ ‘to throw down’ ‘to smoothe out’ ‘to unload’ ‘to double’ ‘to bring together’ ‘store house’ ‘to hide’ ‘floatable’ ‘information’ ‘to suffer’

These onsets can be accounted for by the following rule: (45)

onset

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, +anter]

segment [$cont, $del_rel]

segment [+cons, +sonor, $nasal]

86 Finally, we need to consider four-consonant onsets. All such onsets in Russian begin with !"#! or !"*!, and the overwhelming majority have a stop and a liquid as the third and fourth segment respectively. Examples are given below: (46)

(9# (95!8-.'8.$ (9#!,5'8.$ (-%6,%,3)(&.$ (-%!/.$ (-46"-% (-4!/-%)(&.$ (-.!,).$

!"*A06#! !"*B-'%$! !"*B0;#&4;&'! !"*$06B4;&'! !"#2-6-6&8',"%&'! !"#20,&'! !"#9-'1#2! !"#90,#2,"%&'! !"#&067,&'!

‘upthrust’ ‘glance’ ‘to feel sad’ ‘to give a start’ ‘to tousle’ ‘to unseal’ ‘splash’ ‘to sprinkle’ ‘to build (into)’

These onsets can be accounted for using the following rule: (47)

onset [+init]

'

segment [$sonor, +cont, $coron, +anter]

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter]

segment [$cont, $del_rel]

segment [+cons, +voc]

The onset rules proposed above account for virtually all occurring initial clusters; I will return to state what the exceptions are below. I now turn to codas. As with onsets, I start by considering word-marginal cases. Table 9 on page 88 shows what codas occur word-finally and with what frequencies (as Table 8 showed for word-initial onsets). Again, the frequencies are based on the entries in Zaliznjak (1977) and the figure abstracts away from voiced/voiceless and palatalized/unpalatalized distinctions. The total number of codas

87 represented in this table is 6,648, which is the number of entries in Zaliznjak’s (1977) dictionary which have final codas of exactly two consonants.14

14

This is significantly lower than the equivalent figure for word-initial onsets (19,978), suggesting that in general Russian is more permissive of complex onsets than complex codas.

Following segment

89

It is clear from Table 9 that the picture is far from straightforward. Although a greater proportion of word-final codas than word-initial onsets conform to the SSG (5,295 of the total 6,648, or 7926%), the SSG clearly needs to be supplemented. Again, the emphasis in the following discussion will be on attaining a good level of coverage (over 95%) rather than on accounting for every fact. First of all, Table 9 shows that most segments less sonorous than !-! can follow the liquids in word-final codas (completely in accordance with the SSG). To account for these codas, I propose the following rule. (48)

coda

'

segment [+cons, +voc]

segment [+cons, $voc]

Table 9 also shows that almost any segment can precede !$! or !&! in a coda; the only exception is !&#!. The following rule can be used to account for these codas. (49)

coda

'

segment [$voc, $del_rel]

segment [$cont, +coron, +anter, $del_rel]

In two-segment codas, a number of segments can occur after !4!. The majority of these are of one of two types: either !*=<#=<8! or noncontinuants. Many such forms are recent loan-words: examples are -"&'- !#'1%4#! ‘show’, 48'B !9;48! ‘punch’, ()'. !"',4&! ‘screw’, and <&'% !A%42! ‘bank’. These can be described by the following rules.

90 (50)

coda

'

consonant [+cons, $voc, +sonor, +nasal]

consonant [$sonor, +cont, +coron]

coda

'

consonant [+cons, $voc, +sonor, +nasal]

consonant [$cont]

I propose five further rules to cover most of the miscellaneous codas still unaccounted for. A number of these codas also occur in comparatively recent loanwords. The rules are shown in Table 10. Table 10. Further coda rules Coda type !9#!, !2#!

Examples of forms with this coda type )'#"%!,4$'12#! ‘postcode’ 5)4!B,9#! ‘plaster’

Rule coda

'

segment [$cont, $coron]

!*B!, !#2!

+,95 ,.48-%

!+6*B! !6&9;#2!

‘brain’ ‘leave’

coda

'

‘thing’

coda

'

!#6&#,7%-',*+! ‘socialism’ !5,*4'! ‘life’ !&0'1*"! ‘sober’ !2-%##! ‘class’

coda

'

!"69-'! !"'190'! !+'1&0! !&#,2-! !0;A-'! !A6A0! !2%$0! !21B-'! !&',B0!

coda

'

segment [+cont, +coron, +anter, $sonor] segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, $anter] segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter] segment [$cont, $del_rel]

!8&8'!

("1$

!"'18&8'!

!*+!, !*4!, !*"!, !##!

-,7)&6)9+ *)9'$ .!"9( %6&--

!9=&=2=A=$=B! + !-=0!

(,46$ ("4!$ +".! 7)%6 !8<6$ <,
‘shriek’ ‘wild boar’ ‘metre’ ‘cycle’ ‘rouble’ ‘beaver’ ‘sequence’ ‘body-size’ ‘tiger’

segment [$sonor, +cont, +coron, +anter] segment [$cont, $coron, $anter] segment [+coron, $cont, $anter] segment [+cons, $voc, +anter] segment [+cons, +voc, +coron]

91

This now brings us to the syllable structure grammar in its final version. Although not all onset and coda types have been accounted for, the vast majority have: the grammar has a coverage of 11,122 word-forms out of 11,290 (98251%). The full grammar is given in Appendix 1, with cross-references to the text above. A full list of the clusters not accounted for by the syllable structure grammar I propose is given in Table 11 and Table 12 below. The only medial cluster which failed to be parsed by the grammar was !A8&8'! (as in ,<1"-.(, !6A8&8'1#&"6! ‘society’). Table 11. Exhaustive list of initial clusters not accounted for by the syllable structure grammar Initial clusters

Example

!&8'&! !-'$! !B$'! !2&! !-A! !+&8'! !+4'! !+4! !9&'! !0&! !#C"! !&8&8'! !8&8'!

3., 6$#& 5#" %., 6<& +3&.$-> +'"')" +',5, 4.)7& !.& -:(&.).$ .1&."6$', 1"%&

Phonological transcription !&8'&6! !-'$%! !B$'1! !2&6! !-A%! !+&8'%&'#'%! !+4'14',71! !+46B6! !9&',&#%! !0&%! !#C"%&',&'! !&8&8'%&'1-'46! !8&8'62%!

Gloss what ice (gen. sg.) where who forehead (gen. sg.) rush opinion many bird mouth (gen. sg.) seize painstakingly cheek

92

Table 12. Exhaustive list of final clusters not accounted for by the syllable structure grammar Final clusters

Example

!#-'! !&"'! !5A! !-4&#! !--! !0-! !#-! !++! !44! !99! !#&'0! !?0! !4&0! !#&0! !42&! !&8'"! !2"! !#&"! !7#&"! !-'#&"! !$#&"! !4#&"! !0#&"! !##&"! !&#&"! !"#&"!

+/-6$ (".($ #!8*< -,6'7 +".&66 5,!6 -+/-6 ."6"5!&++ .,'' 5!844 +)')-.! 7)@! 7"'.! ,!%"-.! 48'%. 4,3( <8%( -81"-.( :,9>0-.( '&3&6$-.( 4!,)9(,#-.( 4!,-.!&'-.( 5,-8#&!-.( )-%8--.( 6?<,4/.-.( 38(-.(

Phonological transcription !+,#-'! !"'1&"'! !$0;5A! !#6-4&#! !+'1&%--! !B60-! !#+,#-! !&'1-'1B0%++! !&644! !B0;99! !+',4',#&'0! !&#,?0! !&0! !6021#&0! !9;42&! !96&8'"! !A;2"! !#;8&8'1#&"! !C6*'%7#&"! !4%&8'%-'#&"! !906,*"6$#&"! !906#&0%4#&"! !B6#;$%0#&"! !,#2;##&"! !-';A69,&#&"! !&8';"#&"!

Gloss thought branch friendships (gen. pl.) suns (gen. pl.) metal throats (gen. pl.) sense telegram tonnes (gen. pl.) groups (gen. pl.) minister figure centre orchestra point soils (gen. pl.) letters (gen. pl.) beings (gen. pl.) economies (gen. pl.) commands (gen. pl.) productions (gen. pl.) spaces (gen. pl.) states (gen. pl.) arts (gen. pl.) curiosities (gen. pl.) feelings (gen. pl.)

Many of the lexemes in question are of high frequency, and the noun-forming suffix !#&"! is productive. However, it is also true that it would be unusual to find many of these same lexemes in the plural (e.g. ‘economies’, ‘curiosities’), and it is notable that a high proportion of the final clusters unaccounted for arise only in the genitive plural

93 forms. Since the figure of 98251% quoted above as the coverage of the syllable structure grammar does not take token frequency into account, it is likely that a fairer estimate of the grammar’s coverage, weighted by the frequency with which forms actually occur in the language, would be even greater than 98251%. Clearly, some of the rules proposed do not conform to the SSG (for example, the rule in (36)). Now, suppose we add a constraint to the grammar to the effect that all clusters must strictly conform to the SSG, and call the new grammar G1. (This is not to say that G1 contains all possible rules which adhere to the SSG, because some rules of this type were never included. This, in turn, was because the rules in question did not appear to be motivated by the data of Russian.) Suppose also that in G1 we do not allow for ‘edge effects’, as Blevins refers to them (that is, we do not allow violations of the SSG even at the margins of words). It turns out that the coverage of G1 is 10,147 word-forms of the total 11,290 (that is, 89286%). Clearly, this is significantly lower than the coverage of the grammar which I propose. One is forced to conclude that the SSG without edge effects, although perhaps a good first approximation, is too strong a constraint for Russian. It is possible, however, to contemplate an alternative grammar (call it G2) which adheres to the SSG but does allow edge effects. The segments which occur at the left edge of initial onsets and violate the SSG are !"!, !*! and their unvoiced counterparts (see (41)-(46) above). One might postulate two rules in G2, one which allows a single extraprosodic [+consonantal, +continuant, $sonorant, +anterior] segment to be appended to the left edge of a prosodic word, and the second of which allows a pair of extraprosodic segments, both of which are [+consonantal, +continuant, $sonorant, +anterior], with the additional constraints that the former is

94 [$coronal] (!?! or !"!) and the latter [+coronal] (!#! or !*!) (cf. (46) and (47)). A rule to license extraprosodic [+consonantal, +continuant] segments at the right edge of a prosodic word (as in +".! !+'1&0! ‘metre’, (".($ !"'1&"'! ‘branch’, %,!&<6$ !260%A-'! ‘vessel’, %,++8')9+ !26++;4',*+! ‘communism’) could also be included in G2. The coverage of G2 without the rule to license extraprosodic segments at the right edge of the word is 10,839 forms out of 11,290 (96201%), and with the rule is 10,889 forms (96245%). Although significantly better than the coverage of G1, both of these are still lower than the figure of 98251% quoted above, and the difference is highly significant (with p < 3234 - 10$24, in the case of G2 with the rule for extraprosodic segments at the right edge). The main reason that the coverage of G2 is significantly lower is that a grammar which allows edge effects can never account for clusters which violate the SSG and occur word-medially. Rules (42), (43), (45) and (47), while very close to being extraprosodic licensing rules of the type suggested, are not always limited in their applicability to word-initial clusters. The limitation of sonority violations to word edges is also too strong a constraint for Russian, as can be seen from forms such as ,<-.&',(%& !6A#&%46"2%! ‘situation’, 4!"#-.&()."6$ !90'1$#&%"',&'1-'! ‘representative’, and ,.-.!&').$ !6&#&0%4',&'! ‘to set aside’, where !#&! and !#&0! appear to be word-medial onsets. At least 226 (2.00% of the total 11,290) of the words unparsed by G1 are of this type: they clearly do not involve SSG violations at the word margins. Another problem with allowing edge effects is that it weakens the force of the SSG. If edge effects can be allowed, then one must state cross-linguistically first whether any type of segment can be extraprosodic, and secondly, whether is there a

95 limit to the number of extraprosodic segments allowed. Even with these restrictions, there is a danger that the range of consonantal clusters allowed at word edges for any given language will be too wide (in other words, the grammar will over-generate). There is no doubt that the SSG is helpful as a general consideration in formulating syllable structure rules. Perhaps the best way of viewing sonority is as a ‘linguistic universal’ or ‘default’ which provides basic syllabification rules, some of which are more core and apply to all languages (which one might think of as Universal Grammar rules), and others of which are in activated only in certain languages. However, it is difficult to see how the SSG can be incorporated formally into a grammar of Russian without sacrificing some descriptive adequacy: the ideal of a few very general rules to account comprehensively for Russian syllabification is undoubtedly hard to attain. In any case, I would not want to claim that the boundary between Universal Grammar and language-specific grammar is necessarily a very clear one, and perhaps the generality of different syllable structure rules is more a matter of degree than of absolutes. 2.4

A heuristic for deciding between multiple syllabifications In 2.2.3, I reviewed three theories of syllable structure assignment, and

showed that a key distinguishing factor between them is the approach each takes in cases of possible ambiguity: for example, should VCCV be syllabified V.CCV or VC.CV, assuming that either is possible? Because the tests of coverage described in 2.3.2 were tests of the grammar’s descriptive rather than explanatory adequacy, we were able to ignore this question: we were interested only in whether the grammar assigned any structure to strings.

96 However, the importance of assigning the right structure, rather than just any structure, becomes particularly clear in the theory of stress assignment which I propose in Chapter 5: whether a string is syllabified VC.CV or V.CCV may, in some cases, be critical in determining which syllable of the form is stressed. Thus it is important to have some mechanism for choosing one syllabification over other possible syllabifications. Coleman and Pierrehumbert (1997) propose just such a mechanism, a probabilistic syllabification grammar, which lists all possible analyses but assigns to each a probability. The probability of a given analysis applying is established by tabulating the analyses over all parsed words in a training set. The theoretical advantage of this solution is that it adheres to the order-free composition constraint (see 1.3.2), unlike any of the syllable structure assignment theories reviewed in 2.2.3. In this section, a mechanism similar to that used by Coleman and Pierrehumbert is outlined. The training set was the dataset described in 1.5, and the training process followed that of Coleman and Pierrehumbert in two respects. First, every single form in the dictionary was included ‘no matter how foreign or anomalous it might appear to be, because we have the working hypothesis that low probabilities can explain the poor productivity of anomalous patterns’ (Coleman and Pierrehumbert 1997: 54). Secondly, word-medial consonants were syllabified together with the following vowel wherever the grammar allowed, in accordance with standard phonological theory. Table 13 compares the twelve most frequently applying immediately preterminal rules (each rule whose left-hand side is ‘onset’, ‘nucleus’ or ‘coda’).

97 Table 13. The twelve most frequently applying onset, nucleus and coda rules Cross-ref. to text above

Rule

(28)

nucleus '

(28)

onset

'

(28)

coda

'

(36)

onset

'

(33)

onset [+init]

'

(38b)

onset

'

(40b)

onset

'

(45)

onset

'

(38a)

onset [+init]

'

(49)

coda

'

(48)

coda

'

(37)

onset [+init]

'

Others Total

segment [$cons, +voc] segment [+cons] segment [+cons] segment [+cont, $sonor, +coron, +anter] segment [+cons, $voc, $del_rel] segment [+cont, $sonor, +anter] segment [$sonor] segment [+cont, $sonor, +anter] segment [+cont, $sonor, +anter] segment [$voc, $del_rel] segment [+cons, +voc] segment [+cont, $sonor, +coron, $anter]

Times applied

% of total

32,666

44.76%

23,295

31.92%

7,797

10.68%

segment [$cont]

1,643

2.25%

segment [+cons, +voc]

1,252

1.72%

segment [+cons, +sonor]

995

1.36%

segment [+cons, +sonor, $nasal] segment [$cont, $del_rel]

885

1.21%

717

0298%

205

0228%

200

0227%

93

0213%

74

0210%

3,156 72,978

4232% 100200%

segment [+cons]

segment [+cons, +sonor, $nasal]

segment [$cont, +coron, +anter, $del_rel] segment [+cons, $voc] segment [$cont, $del_rel]

Using these results, each of the rules is paired with the figure representing its probability of occurrence: for example, the first rule in Table 13 is assigned the figure 024476, the second is assigned the figure 023192, and so on. The overall figure used as

98 a heuristic to determine the overall likelihood of a given syllabification is the product of the probabilities of occurrence of each relevant constituent in the phonological word. For example, although !+%.+%! and !+%+.%! are both possible analyses, the former will be favoured over the latter because its overall likelihood, measured in the way just described, will be greater than that of !+%+.%!, as shown. (51)

Analysis

Measure of likelihood

!+%.+%! !+%+.%!

023192 - 024476 - 023192 - 024476 = 023192 - 024476 - 021068 - 024476 =

0202041 0200683

This overall measure of the likelihood of a given syllabification favours onsets over codas principally because the probability of any given segment occurring as an onset is greater than the probability of the same segment being a coda: for example, the probability of a [+consonantal] segment occurring as an onset is some three times greater than the corresponding probability for codas. This guarantees that a given consonantal segment will syllabify with the following vowel. However, it is not guaranteed that a given consonantal cluster will be exhaustively syllabified as an onset, even if it is possible for that cluster to syllabify as an onset. For example, the grammar licenses !"#&! as both an initial and a non-initial onset. The probability of the occurrence of this cluster as an onset is 020001233 (this is not shown in Table 13). On the other hand, the probability of the occurrence of !"! as a coda is 021068, and the probability of the occurrence of !#&! as an onset is 0202251. Thus the overall measure for the probability of word-medial !"#&! being syllabified !".#&! is 02002405, which means that the preferred syllabification for word-medial !"#&! will always be !".#&!.

99 In the grammar proposed, some clusters are licensed by the grammar as onsets or codas & that is, such onsets and codas have non-zero probabilities & but only in word-marginal position. It is interesting that in every case, these clusters have a higher probability when analyzed as a coda plus an onset (which, of course, can happen only when the clusters are word-medial). For example, the probability associated with the rule which licenses !"#&0! as a word-initial onset (see (47)) is 020004385, and the overall measure of the probability of !".#&0! word-medially is 023192 - 02009825 = 02003136. This means that the distinction between wordmarginal and word-medial onsets and codas can be dispensed with in the probabilistic grammar, because those rules which are supposedly limited to application in wordmarginal positions will always be disfavoured: there is always a more probable alternative available. I take this as a further advantage of a probabilistic approach to syllabification. 2.5

Extensions to the grammar In this section, I show how four well-known phonological processes in

Russian can be accounted for within the existing syllabification grammar. This is done by enriching the grammar with further features: no separate rule system is needed. Furthermore, while the modifications undoubtedly increase the intricacy of the grammar, they do not increase its formal power: the grammar remains at most linear, and therefore strings can still be generated and recognized by it in a finite amount of time. The four phonological processes I have chosen to examine are the devoicing of word-final consonants and consonant clusters, consonant-vowel interdependencies, assimilation in voice within consonant clusters, and reduction of unstressed vowels.

100 All of these topics have been extensively discussed both in work by Slavists and by Western generative linguists. For example, Avanesov (1956), Bulanin (1970) and Jakobson (1978) and Halle (1959) all include some account of these topics. While the focus of Slavists has been on attaining a high level of descriptive precision, Halle (1959), in common with other generativists, emphasizes the systemic nature of phonology, attempting to show how different phonological processes interrelate. Despite the difference in methodology between the two traditions, there is a striking amount of agreement between them as to the facts. This is largely because Halle drew heavily upon Slavist sources. As mentioned in section 1.1, the emphasis of this dissertation is similar to that of Halle (1959): to show how different phonological facts cohere within a single framework. Although Halle postulated a set of phrase-structure rules within his analysis, Halle’s framework is different from the phrase-structure framework used here in that the former explicitly relies on the ordering of rules. Furthermore, although Halle’s conception of grammar is generative (Halle 1959: 24), it is not clear whether his rules can always be used for both generation and parsing, since his phonological theory includes a transformational component (p. 26), and, as mentioned in 1.3.2, transformational grammars are not necessarily reversible. But even if Halle’s grammar is reversible, Occam’s razor dictates that an entirely linear phrase-structure phonology is preferable to one including a transformational component, since Halle explicitly states that ‘the transformational level… opens the way to effecting changes in the representation that are beyond the power of the Phrase Structure rules’ (p. 26). In other words, it is a weakness of Halle’s account that part of the grammar is

101 expressed in a more powerful formalism if it can be shown (as I do here) that the more restricted formalism of linear grammar is adequate. The aim of this section, therefore, is not just to re-implement old ideas in a new framework; this in itself would not represent any advance in knowledge. However, it is of course important to show that a new framework & PSG in this case & can handle the linguistic facts. Instead, the aim is to show that neither a transformational level nor rule-ordering are needed in a formally explicit account of the four phonological processes which were also dealt with in Halle (1959). Once again, since the phonological processes are implemented within the existing Prolog DCG, the grammar’s predictions can be tested empirically. The results show that the linear grammar can explain exactly the same facts as Halle’s analysis, but in a simpler way, and therefore the current analysis is to be preferred. As stated above, there is broad agreement in the literature on the facts of the four phonological processes under consideration. In each case, I state the areas of agreement, including appropriate references to the literature. The PSG rules developed in 2.5.2.1-2.5.2.4 are generally based on Halle (1959), as this work seems representative in terms of the phonological statements it makes. The aim of each section is to develop linear grammar rules which replicate the predictions of the standard theory. The focus is on phonological rules which are reported to apply obligatorily, rather than those (such as sonorant devoicing) which are optional. Finally, in section 2.5.3, I describe a test to determine whether the complete grammar models the phonological processes under discussion as expected.

102 2.5.1

Further phonological features In section 2.3.1.2, 11 features, 9 of which were used to classify the phonemes

of Russian, were introduced. These features were used in the syllable structure grammar outlined in 2.3. I now introduce a further 10 features. Three of these are binary features which are lexically specified for certain segments, as follows: (52)

[!high] [!back] [!voice]

All of these are also features used in Chomsky and Halle (1968). The feature [!sharp] was proposed in Jakobson, Fant and Halle (1952) as one of the twelve binary oppositions sufficient to distinguish the sounds of the world’s languages; many of the examples which they give to illustrate the distinction between [+sharp] and [$sharp] come from Russian. The feature [!sharped] is used with the same meaning in Halle (1959). However, this feature is replaced here by [!back] (the two features are the converse of one another), since, as I shall show, it is unnecessary to include both features in the phonology in order to account for the relevant phenomena. Table 14 is a feature matrix which shows how each phoneme is specified for all relevant lexical features. A blank means that the phoneme is neither specified + nor $ for the relevant feature.

[-back] [+back] [+back]

[-back] [+back] [+back] [+high] [-high] [+high] [-high]

[-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back]

[-back] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back]

[-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back, -high] [+high] [+back] [-back] [+back]

104 The remaining 7 features are non-lexical. This is because all are initially unspecified for all phonemes; it is the grammar that assigns the + or $ values. The first three of the features are as follows: (53)

[!vocal_fold_vibration] [!peripheral] [!stress]

(abbreviated [!vfv])

The feature [!stress] is self-explanatory: it applies to syllables, [$consonantal] segments dominated by them by association, and the intermediate nodes in the grammar (‘rime’ and ‘nucleus’). The feature [!peripheral] is used to specify the quality of vowels: a centralized vowel is [$peripheral], and a less centralized vowel is [+peripheral]. [!peripheral] applies to the same constituents of the grammar as [!stress]. The feature [!voice] is distinct from [!vfv] in that the former is lexically specified for segments and the latter is assigned by the grammar. Further discussion of these three features is postponed to sections 2.5.2.2-2.5.2.4. Finally, the remaining four features, which are also non-lexical, are complex features. These features are as follows. (54)

[onset:A] [rime:B] [left:C] [right:D]

In (54), A and B both stand for complex feature matrices (e.g. [+high] or [+back, $high]). The feature [onset:A] applies to [$consonantal] segments, the constituent ‘rime’, and the intervening constituent ‘nucleus’. Conversely, the feature [rime:B] applies to [+consonantal] segments and the constituent ‘onset’. These features are

105 used to encode context in processes of harmony between adjacent consonants and vowels, and will be explained in detail in section 2.5.2.1. The features [left:C] and [right:D] are used to encode information about the composition of the left and right edges of all pre-terminal prosodic constituents. Again, C and D stand for complex feature matrices. For example, the left edge of a syllable is the leftmost segment in its onset. Thus, if [left:X] is the specification of the syllable, X will stand for the feature matrix specifying this segment. This information is needed to enforce word-final devoicing and voicing assimilation across syllable boundaries. Again, the use of these features will be explained more fully in sections 2.5.2.3-2.5.2.4. 2.5.2 Four phonological processes in Russian 2.5.2.1 Consonant-vowel interdependencies There are a number of well-known constraints in Russian on consonant-vowel sequences. The features which are relevant to this discussion are [!high], [!back], [onset:X] and [rime:X]. There are two sets of facts which need to be considered. The first is the behaviour of consonantal phonemes under the influence of following vowels. Velar phonemes (those which are [+consonantal, +back, +high]) are unpalatalized before [+back] vowels and palatalized before the [$back] vowels !,! and !1!15. The [+consonantal] segments which are [$back] are always palatalized, regardless of what vowel follows them. The [+consonantal, +back, $high] phonemes

15

Avanesov (1956: 103); Halle (1959: 67; Rule P 6d).

106 are always unpalatalized, except that those other than !5=<8=<&#!16 are palatalized before the [$back, $high] vowel !1!17. There are very few other exceptions to this rule18. The second set of facts is the behaviour of vowel phonemes under the influence of preceding consonants. The facts here are simpler, because in stressed positions, only the [$back, +high] vowel !,! behaves unusually: it is pronounced as the apparently back vowel (,) (in both stressed and unstressed positions) when preceded by a [+back, $high] consonant19, but as the front vowel (,) otherwise. The other vowels !%!, !1!, !6! and !;! are always pronounced as (%), (1), (6) and (;) respectively when stressed; thus, stressed [$back] !1! is always pronounced as a front vowel, and stressed [+back] !%!, !6! and !;! are always pronounced as back vowels. In unstressed positions, the [+back, $high] vowels !%! and !6! are pronounced as an apparently front (D) when they follow a [$back] consonant20, but as back (D) in all other instances. Unstressed !1! and !;! (which are [$back, $high] and [+back, +high] respectively) are always pronounced as front !D! and back !;! respectively, no matter what consonant precedes them. Traditional analyses of Russian phonology (e.g. Avanesov 1956) have treated these facts as allophonic alternations, as shown in Table 15. In the table, each tick mark shows a possible allophonic combination ([+back] versus [$back]), and in each

16

Avanesov (1956: 103); Halle (1959: 66; Rule P 5b). Halle (1959: 63; Rule P 1a). Avanesov (1956: 103) regards sequences of such consonants and !1! as impossible, which implies that he considers the consonant in e.g. !&'1! to be underlyingly [+palatalized]. 18 As Halle notes, the exceptions are generally confined to recent loan-words in Russian, e.g. ."+4 (&1+9) ‘tempo’. 19 Avanesov (1956: 103); Halle (1959: 72; Rule P 12). Halle comments that this rule ‘obviates the necessity for postulating (,) as a separate phonological entity distinct from {*i}’. 20 Avanesov (1956: 110, 118); Halle (1959: 70; Rule P 9a). 17

107 case the principal or default allophone is shaded. I gloss over the difference between the treatment of stressed and unstressed !%=6!. Table 15. Allophonic relationships in consonant-vowel sequences Vowels

Consonants !5=8=&#!

[+back]

[$back, +cons] phonemes [+back, $high, +cons] phonemes except !5=8=&#! [+back, +high, +cons] phonemes

[$back]

allophone allophone

!1! 5$back $high]

[$back]

allophone

[+back] allophone

[+back] allophone











[$back]

allophone









!,! 5$back +high]

5$back] allophone

5$back] allophone





[+back] allophone







[+back]

allophone

!%=<6! [+back $high]

5$back] allophone

[+back]

allophone

!;! [+back +high]





Traditional generative phonology, on the other hand, describes these relationships in terms of ordered and feature-changing rules. For example, Halle (1959: 70) contains the following rule, which clearly involves a [$diffuse] segment ‘becoming’ [+diffuse]: Rule P 7g. In position after {c} {š} and {ž} unaccented noncompact nondiffuse vowels become diffuse and of high tonality.

The challenge here is to encode these facts in the existing grammar, so that (1) there is no feature-changing or rule-ordering, and (2) additional complication is minimized. I shall now describe how this is done.

108 First of all, the domain of any phonological rules to describe these phenomena must be the syllable. This is because the facts described all hold for CV sequences in Russian, and these in turn must always be tautosyllabic if the Maximal Onset Principle holds for Russian. Thus all the relevant constraints can be stated as syllable structure constraints. The constraints appear to involve a kind of harmony between consonants and following vowels, where [$back] consonants tend to prefer to be adjacent to [$back] vowels, and [+back] consonants prefer to be adjacent to [+back] vowels. One might suppose, therefore, that (55) would account for the facts. (55)

syllable

'

onset [3 back]

rime [3 back]

However, this is not the case. (55) would rule out syllables such as !
!, where !&#! does not have a [$back] allophone and !1! does not have a [+back] allophone. It is not possible to resolve this problem by underspecifying one or other of !&#! and !1!: !1! must be underlyingly [$back], because it elicits the non-principal [$back] allophone of underlyingly [+back] preceding consonants such as !$!, and !&#! must be underlyingly [+back], because it elicits the non-principal [+back] allophone of underlyingly [$back] following !,!. We know that !$! is underlyingly [+back], because it elicits the [+back] allophone of following !,!; we know that !,! is underlyingly [$back] because it elicits the [$back] allophone of a preceding velar; and we know that the velars are lexically [+back] because they elicit the [+back] (principal) allophone of following (unstressed) !%! and !6!. The fact that some segments appear to be more susceptible than others to conditioning by neighbouring segments suggests a precedence hierarchy, where

109 phonemes higher in the precedence hierarchy are more ‘assertive’ than those lower down: the more assertive phonemes will show a greater tendency to affect neighbouring phonemes, and a lesser tendency to be affected by them. Figure 4 (which is not a subsumption lattice) is a graphical representation of these relationships.

110

Figure 4. Lattice showing the hierarchy of Russian phoneme classes with respect to sequence structure constraints D

1. [$back, $high, $cons] 3. [$back, +consonantal]

2. 4. [+back, +high, $consonantal]

5.

6. [$back, +high, $consonantal] 7. [$high, +back, $consonantal]

8. [+back, +high, +consonantal]

E Notes to Figure 4 D

stands for the highest-precedence category

E

stands for the lowest-precedence category

Key to classes in Figure 4 No. Features (where applicable) 1. [$back, $high, $consonantal] 2. 3. [$back, +consonantal] 4. [+back, +high, $consonantal] 5. 6. [$back, +high, $consonantal] 7. [$high, +back, $consonantal] 8. [+back, +high, +consonantal]

Segment(s) included !1! !5=8=&#! !7=0'=-'=+'=4'=#'="'=*'=?'=A'=$'=9'=&'=&8'! !;! !0=-=+=4=#=8="=*=5=?=A=$=9=&=&#! !,! !%=6! !2=B=C!

111 For example, the fact that in the lattice [$back, $high, $consonantal] dominates [+back, +high, +consonantal] (that is, a path from the former can be traced directly down to the latter) correlates to the fact that the non-principal [$back] allophones of the velar consonants are elicited by a following !1!. In contrast, the node labelled [$back, +consonantal] neither dominates, nor is dominated by, the node labelled [+back, +high, $consonantal]. This correlates to the fact that [$back] consonants do not elicit the non-principal allophone of following !;!, and neither does !;! elicit the non-principal allophones of [$back] consonants. These relationships can be represented in linear grammar by using a rule like (56), where the onset and the rime have the features [rime:Y] and [onset:X] respectively. These features are a means of encoding the context of the syllable’s constituents: for example, the specification of a rime as onset:[+high, $back] means that the rime follows a [+high, $back] onset. The general rule, then, will be as follows: (56)

syllable

' onset [rime:[6 back, 7 high], 3 high, 4 back]

rime [onset:[3 high, 4 back], 6 back, 7 high]

The values of 3 and 4 are lexically specified for the onset segment, and 6 and 7 are lexically specified for the nucleus segment. When the values are filled in for the features [onset:X] and [rime:Y], what is obtained is effectively the featural specification of an ‘allophone’. The vowels which dominate a given consonant in Figure 4 are specified as the value of Y for the non-principal allophone of that consonant, and (likewise) the consonants which dominate a given vowel are specified

112 as the value of Y for the non-principal allophone of that vowel. Consider for example the sequence !A1!, which is realized (A'1). The fact that the non-principal allophone (A') of !A! is elicited only by !1! is represented in Figure 4 by the fact that the node where !1! is located, [$back, $high], dominates the node where !A! is located (node 5). Where !A! is followed by !1!, it therefore ends up with the specification in (57), which is a kind of phonotactic subcategorization similar to that used in Coleman and Pierrehumbert (1997). (57)

[+consonantal, $vocalic, $sonorant, $continuant, $coronal, $anterior, rime:[$back, $high]]

This representation maps to a sound (or range of sounds) which would traditionally be represented by the symbol (A'). It is important, however, to appreciate that the representation in (57) and (A') are not equivalent to one another, as we shall see below. Similarly, where !,! is pronounced as (,), it would be represented as shown in (58): (58)

[$consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, $back, +high, onset:[$high]]

113 Whether the onset preceding !,! is [+back] or [$back] does not need to be specified in (58), since the redundancy relationship [$high, +consonantal] ' [$back] holds. The cases where the principal allophone (,)<surfaces are simply the complement of those where the non-principal allophone surfaces, since a binary opposition is involved. Thus the representation for the [$back] allophone of !,! will be as in (59): (59)

[$consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, $back, +high, onset:[+high]]

Now let us consider the representation of a phoneme which is unaffected by neighbouring segments, taking !;! as an example. Here, the value of X in onset:X is [] (the empty feature which stands for all segments), meaning that (;) can follow any onset, as shown in (60). (60)

[$consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, +back, +high, onset:[]]

The implications of this analysis are as follows. First, where traditional frameworks have postulated allophones versus phonemes, the current framework treats ‘allophones’ and ‘phonemes’ as essentially the same objects. Secondly, instead of feature-changing, rule-ordering, or context-sensitive rules, we have accounted for

114 the facts using a linear grammar. It may seem that by specifying a context in the rule, the power of the grammar has been increased to context-sensitivity. However, this is not the case: each feature-enriched rule in the grammar can still be rewritten in terms of a number of linear rules without feature enrichment. It must be acknowledged that the addition of extra features to ensure that the grammar remains context-free is a good example of the kind of loss of generality which can result when more powerful grammar formalisms are avoided (see the discussion on page 21 above). Nevertheless, the fact that the grammar is no more powerful than context-free is a guarantee of its ability to parse and generate strings within a finite amount of time, and this is a major computational advantage, as well as a psychological advantage, for all the reasons outlined in 1.3.2. What has been proposed, therefore, is a grammar which can account for the consonant-vowel interdependencies of Russian to yield the same results as traditional analyses. The results of testing this proposal will be discussed in 2.5.3. 2.5.2.2 Reduction of unstressed vowels There is little controversy that Russian unstressed vowels differ from their stressed counterparts in two ways: first, their duration is considerably less, and secondly, they are ‘reduced’ or centralized (Avanesov 1956: 105-106, Bulanin 1970: 102, Bondarko 1977: 110-111). The Russian vowel system is a five-term system, as in Figure 5.

115 Figure 5. The Russian vowel system

;

,

6

1

% However, in unstressed positions the distinctions between !%! and !6! on the one hand and !,! and !1! on the other ‘collapse’ (Avanesov 1956: 106-125): the former are usually represented as (H) or (3)21, while the latter are usually represented as (D)22. Figure 6 demonstrates these neutralizations.

21

Halle (1959: 73; Rule P 14a). ‘In pretonic and in absolute word initial position unaccented (%) becomes more lax. In all other positions (%) is, moreover, heavily reduced, i.e. (3).’ 22 Halle (1959: 70; Rule P 9a).

116

Figure 6. The Russian vowel system in unstressed positions

4

*

5

(2

3 1

,(

"

0 The following examples (from Gvozdev 1949: 13) demonstrate these neutralizations: (61)

!"#$%& !"#'%&

‘I shall illuminate’ ‘I shall boo’

!"#$%!&'&%()*! !"#$%#&'&%()*!

+,#$%"&'&%()*+,#$%"&'&%()*-

()"*) (!"*)

‘she grazed’ ‘ambassador’ (gen. sg.)

!.$#/()0! !.&#/()0!

+.%#/()0+.%#/()0-

In the literature it is generally agreed that the degree of centralization (or conversely, peripherality) of vowels is greater in some positions than in others. This principle is relevant to the choice between +,- and +1-. Effectively, the factors which govern this choice are (a) whether !0! or !"! is word-initial, and (b) whether !0! or !"! are in the pretonic syllable (the syllable immediately preceding the stressed syllable) (Avanesov 1956: 106, 115, 120; Bulanin 1970: 103; Bondarko 1977: 112). Table 16 shows that if !0! or !"! are either word-initial or pretonic, they are pronounced more peripherally than +1-, i.e. as +,-.

117

Table 16. Allophones of !#! and !(! Pretonic syllable (H) (H)

Word-initial syllable Not word-initial syllable

Not pretonic syllable (H) (3)

The rules outlined in 2.5.2.1 have a bearing on the rules in this section: as stated in 2.5.2.1, if !%! and !6! are unstressed and follow a [$back] consonant, they are pronounced as front vowels, or (D) (Avanesov 1956: 110, 118). The way in which Halle (1959) deals with this is to stipulate two ordered rules: the first (P 9a) causes !%! and !6! to become !,! after a [$back] consonant, and the second (P 14b) which states that ‘unaccented diffuse vowels are reduced and lax’. In other words, in Halle’s system the phonetic representation (6#"'D8&8';) for ,-(>18 !6#"'%8&8';! ‘I shall illuminate’, which is homophonous with the first two examples in (61), would be derived as in (62): (62)

!6#"'%8&8';!

Phonological (underlying) representation

Rule 9a

[$accent, ' [+diffuse, / +compact] +high tonality]

Rule 14b

[$accent, +diffuse]

'

[+sharp] ___

[+reduced, +lax]

Phonetic representation (after operation of other rules)

…"',8&8'… …"'D8&8'… (H#'"'D8'8';)

The challenge in declarative grammar is to model this phonological process (i.e. combine vowel reduction and consonant-vowel interdependencies) without the rule-ordering which (62) relies upon. The problem can be solved by using the features

118 [!stress] and [!peripheral] for all vowels. These features are shared by nucleus and syllable nodes dominating the relevant segment. The latter feature, like [onset:X] and [rime:Y], is used as a means of encoding the context of a syllable: a syllable is [+peripheral] if it immediately precedes the [+stress] syllable. Given the facts presented in Table 16, [!peripheral] is redundant except in cases where !%=<6! follow a [+back] consonant. According to the traditional accounts, therefore, it is necessary to know all of the following to determine the quality of a vowel: whether it is stressed, and if not whether it is pretonic or word-initial; and what kind of consonant it follows. This implies that all three features [onset:X], [!stress], and [!peripheral], will be needed at some point in the fully-specified representations for vowels. For example, the representation for a pretonic !%! preceded by a [$back] consonant would be as in (63). In this case, because the preceding onset is [$back], the feature [!peripheral] is redundant. (63)

[$consonantal, +vocalic, +sonorant, +back, $high, $stress, onset:[$back]]

The partial syllable structure associated with this segment (excluding features not directly relevant to this discussion) would be as in Figure 7:

119 Figure 7. Partial syllabic structure of pretonic !#! after a [$back] consonant

syllable [$stress, +peripheral]

onset [$back]

rime

$stress, +peripheral onset:[$back] [$high, $front]

nucleus

$stress, +peripheral onset:[$back] [$high, $front]

!%!

onset:[$back] [$stress]

Again, the vowel in Figure 7 (which is also represented by the feature matrix in (63)) maps to the sound denoted by (D) in traditional Russian phonology textbooks such as Avanesov (1956). Thus, one can think of (D) as an ‘alias’ for the representation in Figure 7. The notation (D) is unimportant in itself; it is simply a convenient way of representing a phonetic event23. Now, where phonological neutralization occurs, it must be the case that two or more distinct fully-specified feature matrices map to the same phonetic event, and correspondingly, two or more feature matrices must map to the single alias denoting that phonetic event. For example, if pretonic !1! and !%! are not distinguished when they follow a [$back] consonant, then this must be expressed

23

More precisely, (D) and other such ‘aliases’ should probably be thought of as standing for a range of phonetic events, owing to facultative variability.

120 by the mapping of the feature matrices for both segments to (D). The ‘alias’ for each fully-specified feature matrix must be specified lexically (as in Table 14), not by context-free rules, since two distinct constituents cannot be merged into a non-distinct constituent without feature-changing or destructive processes. Thus, the use of aliases in this way is an ingenious method of analyzing neutralization without featurechanging. One must acknowledge, however, that the cost of this method is that a new type of phonological object is created. Clearly, the rules of vowel reduction interface directly with those of stress assignment. In section 5.2, we shall see how the grammar supplies the features [!stress] and [!peripheral], based only on the segmental content of a word. In this section, then, we have seen how the judicious use of the features [!stress] and [!peripheral] can be used in conjunction with the consonant-vowel interdependency rules from the previous section to model reported phonetic facts about Russian. This is also done in such a way as to avoid rule-ordering and featurechanging, and ensuring that the grammar remains no more powerful than linear. 2.5.2.3 Word-final devoicing Russian, like German and Polish, undergoes a phonological process whereby word-final obstruents and obstruent clusters are phonetically devoiced (Avanesov 1956: 163-164, Halle 1959: 64). For example, the devoicing of word-final !$! in (64) leads to a situation of homophony between %,. ‘cat’ and %,# ‘code’. (64)

(a) (b)

%,.& %,. %,#& %,#

‘cat’ (gen. sg.) ‘cat’ (nom. sg.) ‘code’ (gen. sg.) ‘code’ (nom. sg.)

(26)3)< (26)) (26*3)< (26))<

!26&%! !26&! !26$%! !26$!

121

An example of the application of the word-final devoicing rule to an obstruent cluster can be seen in (65). (65)

-C"9# -C"-.

‘conference’ ‘he will eat’

(#71+))< (#71+))

!#71*$! !#71#&!

The rule does not apply, however, to sonorants (nasals, liquids, and glides; that is, all non-obstruent consonants) or clusters of sonorants in Russian: in all instances in (66), for example, (-) and (4) (where applicable) are pronounced with vocal fold vibration. (66)

9&6& 9&6 (,6'& (,6'

‘hall’ (gen. sg.) ‘hall’ (nom. sg.) ‘wave’ (nom. sg.) ‘waves’ (gen. pl.)

(*%,3) (*%,) ("H,-%) ("6,-)

!*%-%! !*%-! !"6-4%! !"6-4!

However, in words containing a final consonant cluster consisting of obstruent(s) and a final sonorant, the obstruent(s) are reported to retain their underlying voicedness (a term which I shall explain further below), while the sonorant may assimilate (but not obligatorily) in voice to the obstruent to its left (Gvozdev 1949: 37). These assertions have been corroborated experimentally by Barry (1989). (Barry also suggests that the obstruent may completely, or more likely partially, devoice.) Some examples are shown in (67): (67)

%&#! 6).! !).+

‘sequence’ ‘litre’ ‘rhythm’

(2%*.) (-',)./) (0',)"0)

!2%$0! !-',&0! !0',&+!

122

In a word-final cluster including sonorant(s) where the final segment is an obstruent, the sonorant(s) may assimilate in voice to the (devoiced) obstruent (Avanesov 1956: 169-170). Examples are given in (68): (68)

5,!# 4,!.

‘proud’ ‘port’

(B6./)) (96./))

!B60$! !960&!

Reformatskij (1975: 129-133) suggests that !"! devoices when word-final in exactly the same way as an obstruent. This is uncontroversial, but according to Reformatskij, the behaviour of word-final !"! is unlike that of other obstruents in that the preceding obstruent in the same cluster retains its underlying voicedness or voicelessness (cf (67) above). For example: (69)

.!"9( .!"9(/0 +2!.( +2!.(/0

‘sober’ (predicative) ‘sober’ (attributive) ‘dead’ (predicative) ‘dead’ (attributive)

(&0'112) (&0'113D7) (+'6./)2) (+'6./)3D7)

!&0'1*"! !&0'1*",7! !+'60&"! !+'60&",7!

Reformatskij’s claim is cited (and perpetuated) in a number of subsequent works which attempt to accommodate it within a coherent phonological system (Jakobson 1978, Halle and Vergnaud 1981: 16, Berendsen 1983, Hayes 1984: 319). Yet the claim is not corroborated by Barry’s (1989) experimental study. This study suggests that the obstruent preceding word-final !"! obligatorily devoices, i.e. (&0'1+2). If this is true, !"! behaves in every respect like an obstruent when word-final, as can be seen by comparison with the forms in (70).

123 (70)

+,95 +,95&

‘brain’ (nom. sg.) ‘brain’ (gen. sg.)

(+6+4) (+'6153)

!+6*B! !+6*B%!

Some phonologists (e.g. Lightner 1972: 331-334) have argued for a parallel between word-final devoicing and voicing assimilation (discussed in the next section). The suggestion is that word-final devoicing is really assimilation to the voicelessness of the following word-boundary. As Houlihan (1979) points out, this type of analysis presupposes that phonological boundaries are intrinsically specified for phonological features. Houlihan argues that the reduction of voicing assimilation and word-final devoicing to a single phonological process obscures a key distinction between assimilatory and non-assimilatory phonological rules: the former may apply across phonological boundaries, but the more major the boundary, the less likely they are to apply, whereas exactly the opposite is true for the latter. The approach followed here is to separate word-final devoicing and voicing assimilation: phonological boundaries are represented in the current framework as divisions between phrase-structure constituents rather than as constituents in their own right. Boundaries and constituents are thus fundamentally different, and the idea of assimilation of a constituent to a boundary is nonsensical because boundaries, unlike constituents, cannot be specified for features. Let us now summarize what appear to be the generally accepted facts about word-final devoicing in Russian:

124 (71)

(a) Sonorants are always voiced24. (b) Obstruents are always unvoiced in word-final clusters of which the last phoneme is an obstruent. ‘Obstruent’ here includes !"!. (c) Obstruents retain their underlying specification for voice in word-final clusters of which the last phoneme is a sonorant.

It is comparatively easy to encode these facts in the existing grammar by recourse to the feature [right:X]. Effectively, word-final devoicing means that the right edge of a phonological word must be specified [$vfv]. But since ‘strongfoot’ is always the rightmost constituent of ‘prosodic_word’ (see (35) on page 80), it is sufficient just to state that the rightmost constituent of every ‘strongfoot’ is [$vocal_fold_vibration], as follows: (72)

strongfoot

'

syllable [+stress, right:[$vfv]]

strongfoot

'

syllable [+stress]

weakfoot [right:[$vfv]]

Each constituent dominated by ‘strongfoot’ needs then to inherit and pass on the relevant specification to its subconstituents: some examples are given in (73).

24

Since the evidence about devoicing of sonorants suggests that devoicing is only facultative, I take it that devoicing is governed by a rule whose application is only optional. As such, I consider the inclusion of such a rule in the present grammar not to be a high priority.

125 (73)

weakfoot [right:X]

'

syllable [$stress, right:X]

weakfoot [right:X]

'

syllable [$stress]

weakfoot [right:X]

syllable [right:X]

'

onset

rime [right:X]

rime [right:X]

'

nucleus

coda [right:X]

Clearly, the feature [!vfv], as used in (72), is not the same as the feature [!voice]: for example, !*! is [+voice], but could be [$vfv] depending on the context. [!voice] is a classificatory property of phonemes, whereas [!vfv] denotes whether the vocal folds actually vibrate in production of the segment. We can now be more precise about the meaning of ‘underlying voicedness’. In cases where a segment ‘retains its underlying voicedness’ (as in (71c), for example), the segment is specified as [3 voice, 3 vfv]. In other words, in such cases there is agreement between the features [!voice] and [!vfv]. To give a concrete example, !$! and !&! are [+voice] and [$voice] respectively; in !2%$0! and !-',&0! they are also [+vfv] and [$vfv] respectively, but in !26$! and !26&! they are both [$vfv]. Unless one allows feature-changing, a move which would compromise the declarativeness of the grammar, there is no alternative but to distinguish [!voice] and [!vfv] (although the actual names of these features are of course arbitrary as far as the grammar is concerned). The rules in (72) will assign the feature [$vfv] to any consonantal segment at the right edge of a word, including sonorants. However, the inertness of sonorants (according to the standard theory) with respect to word-final devoicing (and voicing assimilation) is expressed in the fact that the aliases for sonorants are the same

126 whether they are [+vfv] or [$vfv]. In other words, no matter what specification for [!vfv] is assigned to a sonorant, the sonorant is unaffected. We have not yet considered the voicing constraints in obstruent clusters, including those of the type mentioned in (71c). These will be considered in section 2.5.2.4, since it is more convenient to think of the devoicing of a word-final cluster as the interaction of final devoicing and voicing assimilation. This approach allows the correct distinction to be made between the examples given in (65) and (67), where in the former case obstruents devoice before other obstruents, but retain their ‘underlying voice’ before sonorants in the latter case. The analysis in this section has followed the claims of textbooks, namely that word-final devoicing results in neutralization: [+voiced] obstruents become [$voiced] word-finally, merging with their counterparts which are lexically [$voiced]. As mentioned in section 2.5.2.2, neutralization is expressed here in the fact that two feature matrices map to the same alias. However, the idea of word-final devoicing resulting in neutralization has been called into question by both Slowiaczek and Dinnsen (1985) and Burton and Robblee (1997). These studies, which are based on acoustic measurements, suggest that word-final voicing neutralization of the same kind in Polish is not complete. Nevertheless, as Blumstein (1991: 116) points out, such evidence at least ‘confirms a number of critical assumptions made by phonological theory and importantly confirms the reality of a process such as neutralization’ (op. cit., p. 116). In other words, it certainly is the case that word-final voiced obstruents are articulated with less vocal fold vibration than the same obstruents in pre-sonorant position, and the standard theory, that word-final devoicing involves neutralization, is at the very least a good first phonological approximation.

127 And even if it were no more than this, it is only the system of ‘aliases’ mentioned above which would need to be revised: the substance of the grammar would be unaffected. In this section, then, we have considered the voicing constraints on rightmost constituents in Russian. I have shown that the general rule is quite simple: all segments in the rightmost coda of a word are [$vfv]. The feature [!voice] is not referred to in the word-final devoicing rules: reference to [!vfv] is sufficient to make the correct predictions. In the next section, we shall see instances where [!voice] does need to be referred to in the phonological rules, since there is no way of accounting for voicing assimilation without access to information about the ‘lexical’ voicedness of segments. 2.5.2.4 Voicing assimilation In autosegmental theory (Goldsmith 1976), assimilation is seen as the sharing of a feature among adjacent segments. In this section, I present an analysis of Russian voicing assimilation which is in line with this view. In the terms of the current analysis, adjacent segments which undergo voicing assimilation (and this does not include all consonants, let alone segments) are required to ‘agree’ in the feature [!vocal_fold_vibration], or [!vfv]. Although it represents just one small corner of the phonology of Russian, voicing assimilation has attracted a disproportionate amount of attention in phonological literature. Much of this literature stems from the discussions in Jakobson (1956 and 1978) and Halle (1959). Jakobson’s (1978) article was controversial because some of the facts he reported appear to be characteristic of a non-standard dialect of Russian, although his description purports to be of standard Russian. Halle’s

128 treatment of voicing assimilation, on the other hand, was controversial in its claim that an intermediate ‘classical phonemic’ level of representation was unnecessary. Both of these controversies will be discussed in detail below. The main claim of Halle’s which I shall take issue with, however, has been less frequently discussed in the literature. This is the claim that the grammar need be more powerful than linear (as mentioned on page 100, Halle refers to a transformational component in the phonology). Since a grammar’s power is a property which can be objectively established, this claim of Halle’s can easily be refuted if it can be shown that the facts which he accounts for can also be accounted for by a less powerful grammar. The rules which I suggest can account for voicing assimilation (like all other rules in this chapter) are linear rules, and I would claim that nothing more powerful is needed to account for the facts observed in Russian phonology. Generally, existing accounts are inexplicit about the domain of voicing assimilation in Russian, assuming that it occurs in ‘clusters’ (in a manner reminiscent of the way in which Chomsky and Halle 1968 deal with English stress). This implies that voicing assimilation is unaffected by syllable boundaries (cf Halle 1959); however, overall the evidence seems to be conflicting. Some experimental evidence bearing on the subject is available (for example, see Bondarko 1977 for spectrographic analysis, and Burton and Robblee 1997 for evidence that Russian voicing assimilation does occur across prepositional boundaries). Burton and Robblee’s evidence also appears to show indirectly that assimilation appears to take place across syllable boundaries (e.g. in the cluster !$*!), while Halle (1959) and Avanesov (1956) describe a situation in which the voicing of sonorants appears to

129 differ (albeit facultatively) depending on the location of syllable boundaries; for more details, see below. What is clearly needed is a systematic study of the effects of phonological boundaries upon Russian voicing assimilation. Meanwhile, the phonological rules I propose here are tentatively based on the assumption that the domain of Russian voicing assimilation is the phonological word. It would not be surprising if future experimental work pointed to flaws in this assumption, given the existing evidence in linguistics that syllable boundaries have an effect on the operation of similar phonological rules: see for example Kenstowicz (1994: 251). However, it is possible that Russian voicing assimilation is just not as constrained as other assimilation rules in the domain of its operation (cf. Houlihan’s 1979: 21 suggested constraint on assimilatory phonological rules: ‘assimilatory phonological rules originate within the weakest possible phonological boundaries and later spread to apply across progressively stronger phonological boundaries’). The rules of Russian voicing assimilation are as follows. The behaviour of segments with regard to voicing assimilation depends on whether they are obstruents or sonorants (Halle 1959: 63), as is the case in word-final devoicing (see 2.5.2.3). Halle expresses the rule of voicing assimilation as follows: A single obstruent or several consecutive obstruents occurring in sequence regardless of intervening preposition or word boundaries will be termed an obstruent cluster… If an obstruent cluster is followed by a 8 (dash) boundary or by a sonorant, then with regard to voicing the cluster conforms to the last segment; if it is voiced, so are all other segments in the cluster; if it is voiceless, so is the entire cluster. (p. 64)

Avanesov (1956: 163-166) gives essentially the same account. Halle explicitly states that this rule applies across morpheme boundaries (op. cit., p. 61), which, as

130 mentioned earlier, is corroborated in part by Burton and Robblee’s (1997) findings. Examples illustrating the rule of voicing assimilation are given in (74). (74)

(a) (b)

48-% -48-% #&.$ -#&.$

‘setting in motion’ ‘flush’ ‘to give’ ‘to give away’

(9;#2)< (+6;#2) ($%&')< (1*%&') <

!9;#2! !#9;#2! !$%&'! !#$%&'!

Clusters composed entirely of sonorants (including !"!, when it functions as a sonorant; see p. 82 above) are voiced. The examples in (75) illustrate this: (75)

(6&-.$ '!&().$-> (,6'&

‘power’ ‘to please’ ‘wave’

(3,%#'&')< (-.%"'D) ("H,-%)<

!"-%#&'! !40%"',&'#'%! !"6-4%!

In fact, the voicing of sonorants is more or less a general rule (Halle 1959: 44). According to Halle (1959: 44) and Avanesov (1956: 169-170), the only cases where sonorants are (optionally) unvoiced (other than those already mentioned in 2.5.2.3) involve instances where the sonorant precedes [$vfv] obstruents in a cluster, as in the examples in (76): (76)

!.8.$ ‘mercury’ ,%.>
!0&;&'! (0L&;&') !62&'%A0'#267! (62&'%90L'#267)

If syllabification has no effect on voicing assimilation, then it should logically follow that !0! in 4,!.& !960&%! ‘port’ (gen. sg.) may also be optionally devoiced, despite the fact that the syllable boundary in !960&%! falls clearly between !0! and !&! (unlike in !0&;&'!). To my knowledge, this has not been discussed in the literature.

131 Undoubtedly, this is a case where further experimental evidence is called for. Evidence of this kind would show whether syllabification does have an effect on Russian voicing assimilation. On the other hand, Halle and Avanesov do not claim that the cases in (76) are instances where the devoicing of the sonorants is obligatory, so I shall proceed on the assumption that sonorants are voiced by default (i.e. their voicing is unaffected by Russian voicing assimilation), and that the option of devoicing is governed by some minor rule which, following Halle (1959), I shall not describe in detail. Once again, the behaviour of !"! is idiosyncratic (see 2.3.2 and 2.5.2.3 above). Followed by a sonorant, !"! behaves as a sonorant (Avanesov 1956: 162, Halle 1959: 63, Coats and Harshenin 1971, Jakobson 1978, Halle and Vergnaud 1981: 17); in other words, it neither triggers nor undergoes voicing assimilation. As noted above, there are a number of reasons to substantiate the idea that !"! is phonologically a glide in such circumstances (Andersen 1969, Coats and Harshenin 1971). An example is given below:

(77)

F("!$

‘Tver’ (place name) ()37M0')

!&"'10'!

However, when !"! precedes an obstruent, it counts as an obstruent (Jakobson 1956: 199, Andersen 1969: 121-122, Halle 1959: 63, Jakobson 1978: 107, Shapiro 1993: 2). This means that it both assimilates in voice to the following obstruent (78a), and triggers assimilation in the previous obstruent if there is one (78b).

132 (78)

(a)

(b)

(-.!"3& (#!85 4,(.,!).$ % (#,(" )9 (:,#&

‘meeting’ ‘suddenly’ ‘to repeat’ ‘to the widow’ ‘out of the entrance’

(2+).71&8'3)< (3*.;2) (932)H0',&')< (53*H"'1)< [D+286$3)<

!"#&0'1&8'%! !"$0;B! !96"&60',&'! !2"$6"'1! !,*"C6$%!

As we saw on page 82 above, the specification of !"! for the feature [!sonorant] is determined in the current theory by phonotactics. As a result, modelling the behaviour of !"! with regard to voicing assimilation presents no problem in principle; effectively, the rule ‘!"! is an obstruent when followed by an obstruent and a sonorant when followed by an obstruent’ has already been incorporated into the grammar. Now, there has been a long-standing debate about the issue of so-called ‘sonorant voicing transparency’ in Russian. This debate originated with Jakobson (1978), which claimed (based on his own auditory judgements) that while sonorants do not trigger or undergo voicing assimilation, obstruents in CLC clusters (where C represents obstruents and L represents a sonorant) assimilate to one another ‘across’ the intervening sonorant: for example, )9 G7"'-%& !,19")+14#2%! (-#+&#-) ‘out of Mtsensk’. Jakobson’s claims are controversial for a number of reasons. The first of these is that they are at odds with most other analyses of Russian, including Jakobson’s own earlier work (Jakobson 1956), Andersen (1969) and Shapiro (1993). The second is that they imply that Russian voicing assimilation is unusual as a phonological process, in that it occurs between non-adjacent segments (although, as Berendsen 1983 points out, there is a similarity between the process which Jakobson describes and that of vowel harmony in Turkish [Halle and Vergnaud 1981], and such processes do not present a problem for non-linear phonology). An experimental study,

133 Robblee and Burton (1997), which attempts ‘to resolve discrepancies in the various descriptions of Russian phonological voice’ (p. 407), is rather inconclusive, although Robblee and Burton conclude by speculating that if voicing assimilation occurs across sonorants, then this may be with the sonorant as ‘an active participant in voicing assimilation’ (p. 428). In other words, obstruents assimilate in voice across a sonorant only when the sonorant itself assimilates in voice to the following obstruent. Although Jakobson’s article has been, and continues to be influential in mainstream phonology (cf. Hayes 1984: 318, Kenstowicz 1994: 70), it appears on balance that his claims are to be taken with some caution. Given the fact that his observations have not generally been corroborated by other studies, it seems that Shapiro’s (1993) assessment that they may be true for Jakobson’s own idiolect, but not for contemporary standard Russian, is well-founded. If this is so, the facts about standard Russian can be summarized as follows: (79)

(a) !"! and !"'! are sonorants if followed by a sonorant, and obstruents if followed by an obstruent. (b) Sonorants are voiced no matter what precedes or follows them. (c) Obstruents assimilate in voice to following obstruents. Before sonorants, voiced and voiceless obstruents are distinguished.

These facts present us with a twofold challenge. The first is to express the constraints monotonically in linear grammar; the second is to express the voicing assimilation constraints in terms of syllable structure. I start by considering the implementation of voicing assimilation within onsets. Instead of positing two levels of representation, it is necessary to distinguish between ‘underlying’ voice [!voice] and ‘surface’ voice [!vfv], otherwise it is not

134 possible to maintain monotonicity in the grammar. The distinction between ‘underlying’ and ‘surface’ voice may be reminiscent of the distinction considered (but rejected) in Chomsky and Halle (1968: 169) between ‘phonological’ and ‘phonetic’ features: It might be proposed, in the light of the distinction between phonological and phonetic distinctive features, that the two sets be absolutely unrelated & that… the rows be labeled entirely differently in the phonological and phonetic matrices… Only the phonetic features would now be ‘substantive’; the phonological features would be without physical content and would provide an arbitrary categorization. …since all phonological rules would operate on the ‘empty’ categories A, B, etc., gradually filling them in and revising their entries, the grammar would now have to be supplemented with a set of rules operating at the point at which all matrices are fully specified and providing that phonetic features be associated with the categories; for example we would have rules providing that [3 A] ' [3 vocalic], [3 B] ' [3 consonantal]… But every grammar will have to have exactly these rules; hence they do not contribute in any way to the choice among grammars and can just as well be eliminated from all grammars.

However, there is a crucial difference between my distinction and Chomsky and Halle’s. Under Chomsky and Halle’s suggestion, [!voice] would at some stage be rewritten as [!vfv], if [!voice] were a phonological feature and [!vfv] a phonetic one. In the grammar which I propose, [!voice] does not ‘change’ into [!vfv]. Neither category is ‘empty’, and it would not be true to say that [!vfv] and [!voice] are ‘absolutely unrelated’. Instead, [!vfv] is unspecified in the lexical entry of the segments of Russian. It is perfectly legitimate to view both features as simultaneously phonological and phonetic, since both features are present at all stages in the ‘derivation’. In view of this, Chomsky and Halle’s arguments against distinguishing phonological and phonetic features do not carry over to the distinction between [!vfv] and [!voice]. Now we consider how voicing assimilation is enforced in the grammar. This is done by unification of feature structures (see Shieber 1986 for further discussion, and

135 Boyer 1988 for details of how feature structure unification can be performed computationally). To each existing rule, a voicing assimilation constraint is added, as shown in (80). (The voicing assimilation constraint is enclosed in braces, and X and Y stand for any feature structures licensed under the existing ‘onset’ rules.) (80)

onset

'

segment segment X Y {voicing_assim(Y,X)}

The addition of unification-based constraints in this way does not increase the power of the grammar, because each rule can still be compiled out into linear rules without feature structures. There are three voicing assimilation constraints, depending on whether X and Y are [+sonorant] or [$sonorant]. These are as follows: (81)

(a) (b) (c)

voicing_assim(Y,X):Y 9 [+sonorant], X 9 [+sonorant, +vfv]. voicing_assim(Y,X):Y 9 [+sonorant], X 9 [$sonorant, 3 voice, 3 vfv]. voicing_assim(Y,X):Y 9 [$sonorant, 3 vfv], X 9 [3 vfv].

(where ‘P 9 Q’ denotes ‘P unifies with Q’) This meaning of these constraints is as follows. (81a) states that if Y (the segment to the right) unifies with [+sonorant] and X (the segment to the left) unifies with [+sonorant] (i.e., X and Y are both sonorants), then X is [+vfv]. (81b) states that if Y is [+sonorant] but X is [$sonorant], then the specification of X for [!vfv] is the same as the specification of X for [!voice] (in other words, a nonsonorant X retains its

136 underlying voicedness before a sonorant). Finally, (81a) states that if Y is [$sonorant], the specification of X for [!vfv] is the same as the specification of Y for [!vfv], regardless of whether X is a sonorant or not. These constraints can be added to all the onset and coda rules, with the result that the specification of segments for [!vfv] is determined by the grammar rather than lexically: for all consonants this feature is determined by the distribution of the consonant. It is worth considering what changes would need to be made to the voicing assimilation constraints in order to model the facts of Jakobson’s idiolect as described in Jakobson (1978). All that would be required is to replace all three voicing assimilation constraints in (81) with the single constraint in (82): (82)

voicing_assim(Y,X):Y 9 [3 vfv], X 9 [3 vfv].

Now we move on to consider the domain of the voicing assimilation rules. Proceeding on the assumption that syllable structure does not affect voicing assimilation, we see that it is not enough just to apply the constraints in (81) within onsets and codas, because voicing assimilation could occur across the boundary between the coda of one syllable and the onset of the next, as in the following example:

137 (83)

&'"%#,.

!%4'14:*6&!

(H4'D5:*6&)

‘anecdote’25

The domain of voicing assimilation must therefore be some constituent higher in the phrase-structure hierarchy than ‘syllable’. In the current PSG, the voicing assimilation constraints can be enforced by stipulating that the right margin of any constituent must agree in voice with the left margin of the next constituent. This is where the features [left:X] and [right:Y] are needed. Take for example, the third rule from (34), which is repeated here (without the feature [+stress]):

(84)

strongfoot

'

syllable

weakfoot

The following modification to this rule, where the rule in (85) replaces that in (84), will ensure that the voicing of one syllable’s coda always agrees with the voicing of the following syllable’s onset in the relevant cases. (85)

strongfoot ' [left:A, right:D] {voicing_assim(C,B)}

syllable [left:A, right:B]

weakfoot [left:C, right:D]

(where A, B, C, D represent feature matrices as discussed in 2.5.1)

To exemplify these rules, the structure associated with !"#$%& is shown in Figure 8. It is assumed here that the phonetic representation of !"#$%& !0'1$'2%! ‘radish’ is (0'1&'23)

25

If all Russian syllables are open, as suggested by Bondarko 1969, the problem of intersyllabic voicing assimilation does not arise, because every consonant cluster must fall wholly within an onset. Bondarko’s claim that all Russian syllables are open was rejected for other reasons, however; see 2.3 for details.

138 and that a syllable boundary falls between (&') and (2), following Avanesov (1956: 164). (In this structure, only the relevant parts of the feature matrices are shown.) Figure 8. Tree-structure for !"#$%& !.7$*74#! ;.7$)7:4<=

prosodic_word strongfoot

weakfoot

left:[$voice, $vfv, $sonor]

syllable

left:[+sonor], right:[$vfv, $sonor]

syllable left:[ $voice, $vfv, $sonor]

rime

onset

[right:$vfv, $sonor]

nucleus

!0!

[+voice +vfv, +sonor]

!1!

onset

[$vfv, $sonor]

rime

nucleus

coda

[$vfv, $sonor]

!$'!

[+voice, $vfv, $sonor]

!2!

[$voice $"?", $sonor<)

!%!

Finally, let us consider where the proposed analysis stands in relation to Halle’s claim (based on the facts of voicing assimilation) that a ‘morphophonemic’ level of representation, together with the phonological rules which derive the phonetic

139 representations, is sufficient to account for the observed facts of voicing assimilation (Halle 1959: 22-23). Halle’s morphophonemic representations correspond to the ‘phonemic’ representations in obliques (i.e. !!) in this dissertation and in Chomsky and Halle (1968), because the function of both is ‘to account for ambiguities due to homophony’, as Halle puts it. Examples of morphophonemic representations from Halle (1959: 23) are given below: Phrase

Gloss

Morphophonemic representation

(a)

+,% 6) +,%
‘was (he) getting wet?’ ‘were (he) getting wet’

!+62<-',! !+62
(b)

*"3$ 6) *"3$
‘should one burn?’ ‘were one to burn’

!51&8'<-',! !51&8'
(86)

Now, Halle’s discussion was controversial in its claim that there need be no separate intermediate level at which surface contrasts were stated, a level referred to by Christie (1976) as the ‘classical phonemic level’. According to Christie, the ‘classical phonemic’ representations are derived from morphophonemic ones by morphophonemic rules, and allophonic rules then do the work of deriving phonetic representations from ‘classical phonemic’ ones (Christie 1976: 38). For example, the ‘classical phonemic’ representations derived from the morphophonemic representations in (86a) above would be !+62<-',! and !+6B
140 is impossible because !&8'! does not have a voiced counterpart !&8'! in the phonemic inventory of Russian (see Table 7 above). The alternation (&8')%($5') must therefore be treated as allophonic. Halle (1959) argued that recognizing the classical phonemic level thus meant stating the voicing assimilation rules twice, once as morphophonemic rules and once as allophonic rules, resulting in the loss of a generalization. After the publication of Halle’s monograph, however, the ‘level of surface contrast’ continued to be defended, for example by Schane (1971) and Christie (1976). I would argue that Schane’s view of phonology is more unconstrained than is necessary, in that it involves morphophonological rules ‘convert[ing] one segment into another’ (Schane 1971: 517). Rules of this kind must be at least context-sensitive. Christie presented an analysis of Russian voicing assimilation which retains a level of surface contrast but manages to state the generalization about voicing assimilation only once: his solution is to recognize a ‘separate phoneme of voice’ in the phonological inventory, which ‘observes the phonotactic constraint that it can occur only in the position following an obstruent and preceding a non-obstruent segment’ (Christie 1976: 38). The obvious cost of Christie’s analysis, however, is an enlargement of the phonological inventory. The current work stands closer to Halle (1959) than to Christie (1976) since I do not recognize a ‘separate phoneme of voice’. The important lesson to be learnt from Halle (1959) is that the attempt to distinguish levels of representation formally often ends up muddying the waters rather than resulting in a simpler view of phonology. In the current grammar, it is true that all features must become more fullyspecified as the grammar ‘fills in’ information. It is also true that some features, such as [!voice], are redundant in the process of mapping fully-specified representations

141 (‘surface’ representations) to phonetic events, while others, such as [!vfv], are always unspecified in minimally-specified representations (‘underlying’ or phonemic representations). This distinction between [!voice] and [!vfv] may tempt one to establish a general distinction between underlying and surface features. However, in most cases it does not make sense to assign features to an ‘underlying’ or ‘surface’ level, since most features are needed both to distinguish one phoneme from another and in the mapping of fully-specified segments to phonetic events. Thus, establishing a general distinction between ‘underlying’ versus ‘surface’ features or levels of representation is, in my view, unhelpful. 2.5.3

A test of the extensions to the grammar The subject of the test described in this section is the full linear syllable

structure grammar including the enrichments proposed in 2.5.2.1-2.5.2.4. Testing the grammar, in the case of the four phonological processes under consideration, involves a check that the correct phonetic representations are derived from the underlying phonological representation by the grammar. This raises the question of what the ‘correct phonetic representations’ actually are. Unfortunately, there are no dictionaries available, as far as I am aware, which list phonetic representations of Russian words systematically. There is an index in Trofimov and Jones (1923) containing full phonetic transcriptions for a sizeable number of Russian words. Clearly, however, the date of this publication means that the transcriptions may not consistently reflect modern pronunciation. Avanesov and Ožegov (1959) is a comprehensive phonetic dictionary of Russian containing approximately 52,000 words, but it gives the transcriptions of only those parts of each word which do not correspond straightforwardly to orthography (for example, [9$<$] is given as the partial

142 transcription of )9<>',0, indicating the fact that !*! assimilates to !A! in palatalization). Furthermore, as Halle suggests in his discussion of the physical measurement of speech, there is the issue that correct phonetic representations can ultimately be obtained only on the basis of acoustic analysis. And the very process of attempting to formalize a grammar may raise unforeseen but real questions, such as the effect of syllable boundaries on voicing assimilation, as discussed in 2.5.2.12.5.2.4. There are therefore a number of practical problems associated with conducting a full-scale test of the grammar using the whole corpus described in 1.5. The approach taken here is therefore perhaps more modest. Essentially, I aim to determine whether the predictions of the grammar are as expected, i.e. that they are in line with the predictions of traditional works on Russian phonology such as Avanesov (1956) and Halle (1959). We now turn to the details of how the test was conducted. As we have seen, ‘phonetic representations’ in the current grammar are fully-specified terminal symbols, that is, symbols for which all features are specified as + or $. Each fullyspecified terminal symbol, in turn, has an alias such as (D), (A'), etc, which stands for the complex of features which each segment represents. Underspecification in the current framework, on the other hand, is reflected in the fact that the pluses and minuses are not given for all features applicable to a phoneme. For example, the symbol in (87) represents the phoneme !%! in the most underspecified form possible: !%! must have the feature [rime:[$high]], since this feature is lexically specified for the phoneme !%!.

143 (87)

!%! [rime:[$high]]

The symbol in (88), on the other hand, represents one of the possible ways in which !%! can be fully specified. The alias for (88) is the symbol (D), as shown in Table 14 on page 103. (88)

!%! [$stress, +peripheral, onset:[$back] rime:[$high, +low]]

In this framework, therefore, the problem of phoneme-to-allophone transcription reduces to the filling in of missing feature matrices as in Table 14. (Pluses and minuses are themselves [albeit trivial] instances of feature matrices.) If one wishes to represent allophones as phonetic symbols instead of as feature complexes, one then needs to substitute the aliases in each case. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are a number of functions which grammars should be able to fulfil: (a) parsing (assigning a structure to) well-formed strings; (b) generation of well-formed strings; (c) rejecting (completely or incompletely specified) ill-formed strings; and (d) filling in the information missing from incompletely specified (well-formed) strings. Providing the grammar is decidable (see 1.2) these functions will all be fulfilled. And, as we have seen, context-free languages are all decidable. Thus the linear grammar described in this chapter will always be able to fill in the missing information from an underspecified string, or convert phonemic representations into phonetic ones (or vice versa).

144 The sample used for the test was a selection of 1,000 word-forms. These forms were chosen such that all four of the phonological processes discussed above would come into play. Almost all words (providing they contain an onset) activate the consonant-vowel interdependency rules. Reduction of vowels is relevant only in forms of two or more syllables, so monosyllabic words were excluded from the sample. Word-final devoicing is relevant to words whose final segment is an obstruent (including !"!): all words which did not meet this description were therefore also excluded from the sample. Finally, voicing assimilation is relevant to words in which there is an obstruent cluster. However, words which did not include an obstruent cluster were not excluded from the sample: this was to ensure that sonorants did not undergo or trigger voicing assimilation, in accordance with the standard theory. The 1,000 words in the sample were selected randomly from the total set of words which met these criteria. These 1,000 words were stored as entries in a computer file (as underspecified ‘phonological’ representations, with information on stress placement included). Against each entry, a phonetic representation based on the predictions of the standard theory, but deliberately excluding the effects of phonological processes not discussed here (such as assimilation in palatalization and raising of !1! before a palatalized consonant, as in "-.$ !71#&'! (7M#'&')), was entered manually. The grammar was then presented with each entry in the file, and required to parse it. As a result of this, each word-form in the sample became a fully-specified feature matrix. The fully-specified feature matrices were then automatically converted into phonetic representations, based on the aliases given in Table 14. These were then

145 compared (again, automatically) to those which had been entered manually. The results of this operation were as follows: Table 17. Results of phoneme-to-allophone transcription test Correctly transcribed Unparsed Total

No. of words 986 14 1,000

% of total 9826 124 10020

14 forms were unparsed because the grammar was unable to assign a syllable structure to them, for the reasons already discussed at the end of section 2.3.2. The failure of the grammar to assign structure to these forms thus had nothing to do with the phonological processes under discussion. These 14 forms included, for example, '&3&6$-.( !4%&8'%-'#&"! ‘leaderships’ (gen. pl.). As can be seen, no forms were incorrectly transcribed. In other words, whenever the grammar was able to assign structure to a string of phonemes, it invariably filled in the correct missing specifications, resulting in a correct ‘phonetic’ representation. It should be emphasized that this level of success was attained only after several passes through the data, with modifications made to debug the grammar after each pass. The rules given in sections 2.5.2.1-2.5.2.4, of course, reflect the final debugged version of the grammar. To summarize this section, I have shown by means of an empirical test that it is entirely feasible to model four well-known phonological processes within a syllable structure grammar, with essentially the same results as those predicted by ‘classical’, rule-based, generative accounts which rely on rule-ordering, feature changing, and/or transformational rules. The implementation of these phonological processes in a

146 monotonic framework, where structure is built up rather than modified destructively, shows how underspecified versus fully-specified representations can be viewed in linear grammar. In the course of the discussion, I have also raised some questions about the relationship of syllable structure to voicing assimilation; the results of future experimental research addressing these questions will doubtless have implications for the phonological model proposed here. 2.6

Summary This chapter has dealt with issues surrounding Russian syllabification and

segmental phonological processes. I have made a distinction between the constraints and methods of syllabification, corresponding to the distinction between phrasestructure rules and their procedural interpretation. The discussion of the linear implementation of aspects of Russian syllabification served to show that it is helpful to keep constraints and methods distinct, because the same grammar can be implemented procedurally in many different ways. In phonology, however, what we are primarily interested in is the constraints themselves. Three different approaches to syllabification were explored in this chapter. None of these approaches achieve any more than linear grammar does, given a procedure for interpreting the linear grammar. Arguably, however, linear grammar has the advantage in that it keeps the grammar and its procedural interpretation separate. Developing the idea of syllabification within linear grammar, I showed in this chapter that other phonological constraints & word-final devoicing, consonant-vowel interdependencies, voicing assimilation and unstressed vowel reduction & can all be incorporated into the syllabification grammar with minimal extra complication. During this discussion, however, I argued that further acoustic tests should be carried

147 out to determine the validity of many of the phonological constraints which are commonly claimed to hold: most significantly, perhaps, the issues surrounding the interaction of syllable structure with voicing assimilation have not yet been addressed systematically. A key outcome of the discussion of phonological processes in Russian was the establishment of a fundamental distinction between three different types of feature. One type is exemplified by [!voice]: this type of feature is lexically specified for segments. One can think of these features as being ‘phonological’ features, underlyingly specified for each relevant segment in the phonological inventory. The second type, exemplified by [onset:X], is non-lexical for all segments in the phonological inventory: the specification of segments for [onset:X] and other such features is determined by the properties of the segment in question in its particular environment. Features of this type can be thought of as purely ‘phonetic’ or ‘surface’ features. The third type, exemplified by [!sonorant], is lexically specified for some but not all segments in the phonological inventory, and features of this type have some aspects in common with both ‘phonological’ and ‘phonetic’ features. It should be stressed, however, that the phonological features do not change into phonetic features at some stage in the derivation, as envisaged in Chomsky and Halle (1968). Instead, all three types of feature are effectively present at all stages, except that the ‘purely phonetic’ features are redundant in underlying representations. Most important, however, the current analysis has the advantage that it clearly remains within the bounds of linear grammar, although this gain is offset by having to use extra features in the grammar.

148 In Chapter 3, I shall examine the rules of Russian word-formation in a similar manner, developing context-free rules to account for the structure of morphologically complex word-forms. In Chapter 5, the word-formation grammar will be combined with the syllabification grammar from this chapter; with a few modifications, this combined grammar will be demonstrated to account for Russian word-stress, with a good rate of accuracy and in a manner broadly consistent with that proposed in metrical stress theory.

149

Chapter 3: Morphological structure 3.1

Introduction and aims In this chapter, I present a context-free grammar of Russian word-

formation. A quick inspection of the contents of the Academy Grammar (Švedova et al. 1980) reveals that Russian word-formation is a complex area: over 300 pages in the grammar are devoted to the subject. It is therefore hard to do the subject justice in the space of a chapter. For this reason, the scope of this dissertation is necessarily limited in its application to morphology: I do not make any claims about the relationship of morphology to syntax or semantics, and therefore the morphemes given in Appendix 3 as part of the grammar are not associated with morphosyntactic features (although there is of course no reason in principle why such features could not be added). However, the aim here is not so much to contribute to scholarly knowledge about word-formation per se, as to lay the foundations for a formal analysis of vowel-zero alternations (discussed later in this chapter) and stress assignment (discussed in Chapter 5). As is generally acknowledged, morphological analysis is crucial to both these areas (see Oliverius 1976: 60, Garde 1980, Halle 1973, 1997, and Melvold 1989 on morphology and stress assignment; see Pesetsky ms 1979, Gussmann 1980, Rubach 1984, and Booij and Rubach 1984 on morphology and vowel-zero alternations in Russian and related languages). It is therefore essential to make at least a first approximation at a Russian word-formation grammar, which can then be brought together in a coherent manner with other grammatical modules, such as syllable structure.

150 The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.1.1 reviews the relevant literature on morphological theory. In section 3.1.2, I review how context-free grammar can be applied to word-formation, following (for example) Selkirk (1982b) and Lieber (1992). In section 3.2 I then develop a specific context-free grammar of Russian word-formation, showing first how Oliverius’s (1976) comprehensive morphological tokenization of 2,493 Russian words can be utilized to establish a morphological inventory, and then incorporating the observations made in existing scholarly works to account for hierarchical structure in different parts of speech in Russian. In 3.3 I show how an account of vowel-zero alternations can be incorporated into the existing grammar. In section 3.4 I propose a heuristic for deciding between multiple candidate morphological structures assigned by the same grammar, and in 3.5 I describe tests which show that the word-formation grammar has an overall coverage of 66249%, and that it predicts the vocalization and deletion of jers correctly in 90295% of cases. In the latter case, I suggest that the error rate of the theory could be reduced if the theory were modified to take account of epenthesis in a relatively small number of well-delineated cases. The coverage of my grammar (66249%) is comparable to that of existing computationally-implemented grammars (e.g. 73% in Worth, Kozak and Johnson 1970, 63% in Coleman 1993), but is clearly not as high a coverage as that of the syllable structure grammar presented in Chapter 2. Although the higher failure rate of the grammar does feed through to other areas of grammar (for example, if a string cannot be assigned morphological structure, and stress assignment depends on morphological analysis, the string will not be assigned a stress either), there is no reason to believe that the percentage of correctly stressed words would not increase

151 proportionately with the coverage of the word-formation grammar. Thus the fact that the word-formation grammar set out in this chapter is only a first approximation does not affect the main argument in the concluding chapter of this dissertation, which is that Russian stress assignment is context-free and can be reliably predicted on the basis of morphological and syllable structure. Despite the fact that the grammar in this chapter has a comparatively low coverage, this chapter follows essentially the same approach as other chapters. I make no proposals without testing them empirically for consistency and coverage; no rules are more powerful than context-free; and the requirement that the grammar should be able to be implemented computationally ensures that it remains formally explicit. Owing to constraints of time and space, some specific areas are not investigated as fully as might be desirable. For example, morphophonological alternations such as !+6B!%!+65!, as in +,58 !+6B+;! ‘I can’ versus +,*"B$ !+65+18'! ‘you can’, are dealt with by listing the relevant allomorphs (!+6B! and !+65!, in this case) separately in the lexicon. This is not necessarily to imply that I view !+6B!%!+65! as fundamentally different from, say, !$6#2!%!$6#62!, which I do account for by rule. Ideally, one would like to formulate the theory which most simply accounts for all the facts, and it is probably the case that the current theory could be simplified further. A detailed theory of morphophonological alternations in Russian might well be the subject of another dissertation. Nevertheless, I believe that the theory I propose represents an advance on existing knowledge in that no existing generative theories have been tested. The tests of coverage carried out on my own theory supply a valuable measure of accountability, or set a standard, against which any future theories will have to measure up. This is true not just for the

152 morphophonological theory proposed in this chapter, but also for the theories of syllable structure, stress assignment, and so on, developed elsewhere in this thesis. 3.1.1

Generative approaches to word-formation The areas of disagreement in the literature on morphology have principally

related to the division of labour between the lexicon and morphological rules. Some (Jackendoff 1975, Aronoff 1976, Bybee 1988, Zwicky 1992) have played down the importance of derivational rules, arguing that most information is stored in the lexicon and that there is no ‘derivation’ of lexemes from one another as such: on this interpretation, words, not morphemes, are the basic signs of morphology, and derivation is reduced to a set of static relations between items in the lexicon. This type of approach is variously referred to as ‘static-condition’ morphology (Zwicky 1992) and ‘word-based’ morphology (Anderson 1988: 162). Connectionist approaches (e.g. Bybee 1985) and Network Morphology (Corbett and Fraser 1993, Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake 1996), which will be discussed further in the next chapter, are also essentially word-based. A psycholinguistic argument advanced for word-based morphology is that it is psychologically more plausible than the alternative view that lexemes are derived from one another ‘on-line’ (Bybee 1988). At the other end of the spectrum is what Anderson refers to as ‘morphemebased’ morphology (Pesetsky ms 1979, Selkirk 1982b, Lieber 1981, 1992, Scalise 1984, Sproat 1985, and Toman 1998), which emphasizes word-internal hierarchical structure and sees word-formation as the addition of affixes (which have their own independent entries in the lexicon) to stems. It has been noted that there are certain aspects of morphology which cause problems for morpheme-based approaches, notably infixation, reduplication, and ‘subtractive morphology’ (Anderson 1988: 153,

153 Sadock 1991: 26, Beard 1998: 48, Spencer 1998: 140); many of these issues are directly relevant to Russian, and will be touched upon in this chapter. Related to the issue of the lexicon versus morphology is that of how morphophonological processes should be described. This is particularly relevant to Russian and other Slavic languages: as Spencer (1998: 133) notes, there are a number of Slavic suffixes which palatalize the final consonant of their bases, leading to situations of allomorphy. One approach to this phenomenon is to list the different phonological shapes a given morpheme may have as part of its lexical entry, as suggested by Zwicky (1992: 336). The other approach, which tends to be espoused by generative phonology (for example, Chomsky and Halle 1968, and more recently Rubach 1984, Booij and Rubach 1984, Dressler 1985), is to posit a single underlying phonological representation for each morpheme, and derive the appropriate surface morph by ‘quasi-phonological’ means, as Spencer puts it. Booij and Rubach (1984) also include an analysis of vowel-zero alternations in these terms. A third approach attempts to accommodate both word-based and morphemebased morphology under one umbrella. The argument is that the more productive a morphological rule is, the more likely it is to be involved in on-line derivation, but the use of existing items in the mental lexicon is always a possibility, particularly if those items are of high frequency (Pinker and Prince 1988, Baayen and Sproat 1996, Aronoff and Anshen 1998). As Aronoff and Anshen put it, ‘the search for the proper word can be viewed as a race between the mental lexicon and the morphology. Both operate simultaneously, and the faster one wins’ (Aronoff and Anshen 1998: 240).

154 As can be seen, these areas of discussion reduce to decisions between assigning information to the lexicon or encoding it by rules. As Chomsky (1970: 185) notes, there is a trade-off between the two: In general, it is to be expected that enrichment of one component of the grammar will permit simplification in other parts. Thus certain descriptive problems can be handled by enriching the lexicon and simplifying the categorial component of the base, or conversely…

It is important to appreciate that ‘declarative grammar’ in the sense of Scobbie, Coleman and Bird (1996) is not necessarily synonymous with ‘maximallexicon’ grammar: declarativeness does not in itself guarantee that derivational depth (the reliance on the categorial component of the grammar, in Chomsky’s terms) will be reduced. While the current theory of Russian phonology is certainly declarative, it is also one which views language as a system for which we would like to find the simplest possible description, following the general principle of descriptive economy. No claims are made about psychological reality; it may even be that the principle of descriptive economy is irreconcilable with that of psychological reality, and that linguists must choose to adhere to one or the other principle depending upon their individual interests and the way in which they view language. On the other hand, it may be that following the principle of descriptive economy will lead to the discovery that stronger linguistic theories are also psychologically the correct ones; this is clearly what one would hope for. It is important to appreciate, however, that following the ‘descriptive economy’ route as opposed to the ‘psychological’ route need not involve sacrificing declarativeness. Zwicky (1992) advances a number of arguments for word-based morphology; however, some of these arguments are flawed. First, Zwicky argues for word-based

155 morphology, but still proposes a framework in which there are rules to account for regularities (which he describes as ‘default-setting’, ‘functions’, and ‘redundancy predictors’). There is no doubt that lexical redundancy rules must play some role in grammar: Chomsky (1970) provides evidence of this. However, Zwicky claims that ‘derivational frameworks for [inflectional rules and derivational rules] are… inherently more powerful than static-condition frameworks’. But it appears that he measures the power of static-condition frameworks without taking ‘regularity rules’ into consideration. One cannot have it both ways: either the rules are part of the formal theory, or they are not. If they are, whether one calls them ‘default-setting’, ‘functions’, ‘redundancy predictors’, ‘transformations’, or anything else, is of no importance: it is not legitimate to exclude them from consideration when establishing the power of a theory or framework. If the rules are not part of the theory, then the regularities remain unaccounted for. Secondly, Zwicky claims that ‘in derivational frameworks (for any component[s] of grammar), interactions between rules are a matter of applicational sequence, or ordering’ (Zwicky 1992: 344). This need not be true: in this chapter, I propose a grammar of Russian morphology which can be seen as both derivational (in that words are built up by ‘on-line’ rules from morphemes, and the latter are the items in the lexicon) and unordered (because it is no more powerful than context-free). Finally, Zwicky (1992: 340) is dismissive of frameworks which aim to minimize the lexicon: I can find no good place in a morphological framework for a truly minimal list of any sort. And every defense I have seen of a minimal morphicon, right up to Bromberger and Halle (1989), rests not on theoretical observations but on claims about the mental morphicon. Somehow, whenever theorists start talking about the morphicon they end up worrying about what people can keep in their heads.

156

However, as Chomsky (1970: 185-186) states, this kind of argument misses the point, because: The proper balance between various components of the grammar is entirely an empirical issue. We have no a priori insight into the ‘trading relation’ between the various parts. There are no general considerations that settle this matter… It would be pure dogmatism to maintain, without empirical evidence, that the categorial component must be narrowly constrained by universal conditions, the variety and complexity of language being attributed to the other components.

Thus the question of whether a maximal-lexicon theory is better than a minimallexicon theory cannot be answered in the abstract: it is an empirical question which can be answered only by looking at the specific proposals of the two theories and deciding which proposals are right. The most important consideration, clearly, is that strong linguistic generalizations should not be missed. One issue on which there is general agreement among morphologists is that at least the following information needs to be included for each lexical entry: a phonological representation, a grammatical representation (used by the language’s syntax), and a semantic representation (Jackendoff 1975: 642, Sadock 1991, Zwicky 1992, Beard 1998). The morpheme inventory which I propose in Appendix 3 aims to include phonological representations comprehensively. Some syntactic information (such as information about grammatical number) is included where it appears to be relevant to phonology. However, the claims which I make in this dissertation about syntax or semantics are necessarily very limited in scope. It would certainly not be a problem in principle to extend the morpheme inventory to include comprehensive syntactic and semantic information, but all I would claim here is that syntax and semantics can help alleviate problems of overgeneration in the word-formation

157 grammar (see 3.2.2.2), and that semantics can sometimes be helpful in resolving problems connected with the morphological inventory (see 4.3.2.6 for an example). Clearly, to formulate a specific theory about Russian morphology, some position also needs to be taken on the issues on which there is no agreement, otherwise it is impossible to proceed. In the present analysis, I aim in general to reduce the size of the lexicon to a minimum, allowing the morphology to do most of the work in deriving one form from another, for the sake of a maximally explanatory theory. In other words, I follow a morpheme-based approach. While acknowledging that some facts of morphology are hard to explain using this approach, I would argue that the benefit outweighs the cost: the principal advantage of a morpheme-based approach is that it substantially reduces the size of the lexicon. Morpheme-based analysis also lends itself well to phrase-structure analysis, allowing consistency to be maintained with the view of syllable structure advanced in Chapter 2. As we shall see in Chapter 5, this becomes particularly important in stress assignment. A generative context-free account of Russian stress, based on a parametric view of stress assignment (Hayes 1995), can be expressed very neatly as the intersection of a phrasestructure, morpheme-based word-formation grammar, and a phrase-structure syllabification grammar. One area in which I have not pursued minimization of the lexicon to its fullest extent is in the treatment of allomorphs (resulting mainly from consonant palatalizations). For example, the reader will note from Appendix 3 that !82/6-!rn and !82/6-'!rn have independent entries (see page 383). This choice to exclude morphophonological alternations of this type from the current account was made mainly owing to limitations of time, although such an analysis does have the potential

158 to reduce the size of the morpheme inventory further. As we have seen, this approach would be more in the spirit of generative grammar than word-based morphology. It may prove, with future research, that such an analysis of allomorphy is fruitful. 3.1.2

Morphology and context-free grammar As mentioned in section 1.3.1, context-free rules can be represented

graphically as tree structures (parse trees). An example of this was seen on page 75. Naturally, this applies as much to morphological structure as it does to syllable structure. For example, Figure 9 shows a morphological parse tree for '"#()*)+,-.$ !4'1$"',5,+6#&'! ‘immovable property’.

Figure 9. Parse tree for '"#()*)+,-.$ !-7$*37&>&"(+)7!

word-form noun noun-stem

noun-infl.

adj-stem

subst. suffix

verb-stem

adj. suffix

prefix

verb root

-7$

*37&>

&"

(+)7

159 Inspection of the parse tree allows us to identify the subtrees such as the ones listed in Figure 10. Figure 9 is effectively ‘the join (unification) of [these] local graphs, each of which represents a rule’ (Coleman 1998: 165). Each of these subtrees can then be converted in a straightforward manner into the rules in (89). A fully-specified representation such as Figure 9 therefore actually embodies the grammatical rules: there is no distinction between rules and representation.

Figure 10. Examples of subtrees from Figure 9

verb-stem

prefix (89)

subst. suffix

verb root

(+)7

Exhaustive list of CFG rules inferred from parse tree in Figure 9 word-form noun noun-stem adj-stem verb-stem prefix verb-root adj. suffix subst. suffix infl. ending

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

noun noun-stem adj-stem verb-stem prefix !4'1! !$"',5! !,+! !6#&'! !!

noun-inflection subst. suffix adj. suffix verb-root

It should be emphasized that the phrase-structure approach to morphology is not new. This approach is followed, for example, by Selkirk (1982b) and Lieber (1992).

160 Predictably, a context-free word-formation grammar can fulfil the same parsing and generation functions as a context-free (or linear) syllable structure grammar: just as the syllable structure CFG identifies the positions of syllable boundaries within a word, a morphology CFG identifies morpheme boundaries. As we shall see in Chapter 4, this is the minimum requirement for morpheme-based stress assignment in Russian. Clearly, though, a CFG does more than just morphological tokenization (segmenting a word into a string of morphemes), as in Figure 11. It also assigns hierarchical structures to these strings. Figure 11. Morphological tokenization of '"#()*)+,-.$ !-7$*37&>&"(+)7!

-7$

*37&>

&"

(+)7

Morphological tokenization underlies Oliverius (1976) and many other analyses of Russian, including those of Melvold (1989) and Halle (1997). However, tokenization is only part of the picture: some important generalizations are lost if one ignores hierarchical morphological structure, and CFG provides precisely the link needed to make explicit the relationship between tokenizations and parse trees. The type of generalization which can be made by CFG rules but not by tokenization becomes very clear if we compare the parse tree for '"#()*)+,-.$ !4'1$"',5,+6#&'! ‘immovable property’ (already given in Figure 9) with that for '"#()*)+/0 !4'1$"',5,+,7! ‘immovable’, given in Figure 12. The words have a very similar structure: in fact, the only structural difference is that the noun contains the substantival suffix !6#&'!. In order to explain '"#()*)+/0, therefore, we need add only two rules to the CFG in (89): these are given in (90).

161 (90)

adjective inflectional ending

adj-stem !,7!

' '

infl. ending

The rules in (89) and (90) will, moreover, be of use in describing many other words of similar structure even if the words consist of different morphemes, since the higher-level CFG rules describe word-structure in terms of morpheme types, not in terms of the morphemes themselves. Thus, if the non-terminal symbols of the CFG are chosen felicitously, it may be possible to reduce the overall size of the grammar significantly. Figure 12. Parse tree for '"#()*)+/0 !-7$*37&>&"&?!

word-form adjective adj-stem verb-stem

3.2

adj-infl adj. suffix

prefix

verb root

-7$

*37&>

&"

&?

A linear grammar of Russian word-formation

3.2.1 The morphological inventory of Russian In section 1.4 I set out the methodology by which I evaluate different wordformation grammars by reference to criteria of coverage, coherence and scope. As far

162 as coverage is concerned, different grammars (or different versions of grammars) are compared by measuring the percentage of cases where the observed form matches the form predicted by the theory. In this chapter, we are primarily interested in the ability of different versions of a word-formation grammar to assign correct structural morphological descriptions to strings. Some kind of standard against which to measure the output of a word-formation grammar is therefore needed; we need to know what the correct morphological descriptions are in order to tell whether the predicted forms are correct. In the case of morphology, this is not always an easy question to answer, as both the kinds of morphological structure and the morphological inventory we posit will depend on our theory of morphology. There is a risk, therefore, that arguments about which word-formation grammar covers the data better may be circular, as they cannot be resolved by reference to extrinsic data. But this is true only when we consider morphology in isolation: in reality, morphology is interconnected with other aspects of grammar. This means that any position we take about morphology may have implications in other areas; for example, theory X which assumes that the morpheme inventory is reduced to a minimum may yield different stress assignment results to theory Y, in which there is a large morpheme inventory and a minor role for morphological rules. What is important overall is that a generative linguistic theory should be coherent, as well as being able to assign structural descriptions to strings; and coherence is harder (but not necessarily impossible) to achieve, the more a theory relies on rules and the less it relies on the lexicon. The relationship of morphology to other areas of grammar (such as stress assignment) will not be considered until section 5.3. In the meantime, however, we

163 need some kind of foundation upon which to build a specific grammar of Russian morphology. For this, I used the purpose-made lexical database described in 1.5, which is based on Oliverius’s (1976) morphological tokenization. The structures assigned to strings by each version of the word-formation grammar were compared against the structures given in this database, using the procedure in (91). (91)

Procedure to check the output of word-formation grammars (a) Unparse the words from the lexical database, and keep a record of the associated morphological tokenization (as per Oliverius 1976). (b) Use CFG rules in the given version of the grammar to map the unparsed words from (a) to parse trees. (c) Map the parse trees to morphological tokenizations by removing information about hierarchical structure. (d) Compare the CFG-generated morphological tokenization from (c) with that of Oliverius, from (a).

This move means, of course, that I commit myself both to Oliverius’s view of how Russian words are segmented, and to his morpheme inventory. In anticipation of the criticism that this move places undue reliance on a particular view of morphology, I would give the following responses. First, formally explicit, detailed and systematic lexicographical work such as Oliverius (1976) is hard to come by. As Jefremova (1971: 117) states in a review of Worth, Kozak and Johnson (1970), ‘it is always the case that lexicographical works are easy to criticize and very hard to compile’ [my translation]. Secondly, one has to take some kind of position about the morphological structure of a large number of Russian words in order to proceed at all, and as the only such set of judgements which lends itself readily to the type of analysis advanced here, Oliverius’s dataset seemed the only feasible point from which to start.

164 (Tixonov’s 1985-1990 derivational dictionary of Russian is less amenable to use for morphological parsing, because although it has systematic information on the morphological structure of a larger number of Russian words, it does not include a classification of individual morphemes or morphs.) Finally, it should be pointed out that the commitment to Oliverius’s analysis is only provisional; it is after all central to my methodology that any decision can later be retracted on the basis of empirical evidence (see section 1.4). 3.2.1.1 Preliminaries: controversial issues Because Oliverius’s morphological inventory is explicitly formulated, it is easy to identify where it stands on a number of controversial issues. The points of contention fall into two broad areas. The first relates to the phonological inventory implicit in the morpheme inventory. This aspect of Oliverius’s theory will be only briefly considered, as a more detailed discussion has already been given in 2.3.1.1. Oliverius’s analysis of Russian morphology assumes the same phonological inventory as in Oliverius (1974); that is, !,! and !8'I! are not included in the inventory (being represented as !,! and !8'&8'! respectively), but !2'!, !B'! and !C'! are. An important consequence of this is that Oliverius is forced to list many morphemes of which the final segment is a velar as alternating, e.g. !&',C!%!&',C'!. For reasons discussed in 2.3.1.1, the current grammar treats !2'!, !B'! and !C'! as allophones of !2!, !B! and !C! respectively; the tangible benefit of this now is that the morphological inventory can also be simplified, collapsing any alternating ‘allomorphs’ of this type into a single allomorph. However, pairs of allomorphs are still separately listed where one member of the pair ends in a palatalized non-velar consonant and the other in the corresponding non-palatalized non-velar consonant.

165 The second area which is open to discussion also relates to the treatment of allomorphic alternations, but in this case the alternations in question are between forms which differ phonemically, in the terms of the phonological inventory established in Table 7. For example, Oliverius lists !$'14'! as alternating with !$4'!, and these two forms differ most obviously in the number of phonemes each contains: !$'14'! consists of three phonemes, and !$4'! of two. In the light of the fact that certain analyses have attempted to treat alternations such as !$'14'!%!$4'! as phonological alternations, it might appear that the distinction drawn here between !&',C!%!&',C'! and !$'14'!%!$4'! is arbitrary or even wrong, but I shall argue that the distinction is valid and indeed unavoidable. I shall return to discuss this further in section 3.3. 3.2.1.2 The classification system For the grammar proposed here, I based the terminal rules on the morpheme inventory in Oliverius (1976), which consists of 1,759 entries. This approach means that the question ‘what is a morpheme?’ is answered in the current framework simply by stating that it is one of the entries in Appendix 3. (In most cases, these entries correspond in a one-to-one fashion with the entries in Oliverius (1976); the exceptions are those already discussed, such as !&',C!%!&',C'!.) This section gives details of the classification system used for the morpheme inventory (this system essentially follows that of Oliverius 1976), and how the morpheme inventory is represented in context-free grammar. Oliverius labels each of the morphs which he identifies with a classificatory code consisting of one or more characters: each of these characters specifies one of the attributes (or features) of the morph. What follows in this section is essentially a recapitulation of Oliverius’s key (ibid, pp. 65-70), although the characters used have

166 been changed to suggest linguistic terminology in English rather than in Latin (as used by Oliverius). The first character, which is always a letter of the alphabet, specifies whether the morpheme in question is a root, suffix, clitic, or inflectional ending, according to the key in (92): (92)

Key to classification of morpheme types (1) Code

Meaning

r s c

root suffix non-final morpheme which can stand in isolation (i.e. clitic): prefix, preposition, conjunction, interjection or particle inflectional ending

i

If the first character is c, then there are no further letters, implying that clitics need not be classified further. However, if the first character is r, s, or i, there are more letters, each of which specifies further attributes of the morpheme. The next character specifies the morpheme’s ‘fundamental semantic property’ (Oliverius 1976: 65) & whether the morpheme is pronominal, adjectival, substantival or verbal & according to the key in (93): (93)

Key to classification of morpheme types (2) Code

Meaning

p a n v

pronominal adjectival substantival verbal

167 Thus a morpheme labelled rn is a substantival root, a morpheme labelled sv is a verbal suffix, a morpheme labelled ip is a pronominal inflection, etc. If the morpheme is a root or any suffix other than a verbal suffix, Oliverius specifies no further attributes. If the morpheme is a verbal suffix, then there may be one further letter which specifies whether the morpheme connotes durativity, repeated action, or a single completed action (corresponding to various meanings of the imperfective and perfective aspects in Russian), according to the key in (94): (94)

Key to classification of morpheme types (3) Code

Meaning

d

durative process (#8!&.)(',-.$, #6)."6$',-.$, 4!,.>*"'',-.$ 4!,7"--&) resultative process (A@@"%.)(',-.$, #"0-.("'',-.$, !"986$.&.)(',-.$ 4!,7"--&) iterative process ()."!&.)(',-.$, 4,(.,!>"+,-.$, +',5,%!&.',-.$ 4!,7"--&) completed process (4!":,#)+,-.$ 4!,7"--&)

r i c

Finally, the last character in the code may be a digit, irrespective of the morpheme’s attributes specified up to this point. This digit serves to distinguish two ‘homophonemic morphemes’ (morphemes which have the same phonological composition and the same attributes, but nevertheless have distinct meanings). An example where distinction needs to be made in this way is between !$'1-! (as in ,.#"6 !6&$'1-! ‘department’) and !$'1-! (as in #"6&.$ !$'1-%&'! ‘to do’): the former is assigned the label rv1 and has the connotation ‘divide’, the latter is assigned the label rv2 and has the connotation ‘do’. This means of distinguishing homophonemic morphemes is not relevant to the type of morphological analysis described in this chapter, but it

168 becomes relevant in stress assignment, where two morphemes may differ not just in their meaning, but also in their accentuation (see 4.3 and following). For example, !,4!rn1 is specified as a morpheme which does not trigger stress retraction, but !,4!rn2 does trigger stress retraction in the plural: for further discussion, see section 4.3.2.6. Table 18 shows the serial-number classification system which I have adopted to distinguish substantival inflectional morphs. In certain cases, there is homonymy between different cases, and I have followed the analysis of Carstairs (1987: 142143)26 in terms of which features have been collapsed together. (This table is not intended to include all inflectional morphs; it includes only those which occur in the word-list from Oliverius 1976. Thus, for example, the locative singular inflectional morph !;! is excluded.)

26

All the instances of homonymy in Table 18 are described by Carstairs as instances of ‘systematic’ (as opposed to ‘accidental’) homonymy.

169 Table 18. Classification system for substantival inflectional morphs Code in1 in2 in3 in4 in5 in6 in7 in8 in9 in10 in11 in12 in13 in14 in15 in16 in17 in18 in19 in20 in21 in22 in23

Morpheme !! !! !%! !%! !%+',! !%+! !%C! !1! !17! !,! !67! !6"! !7;! !+',! !%! !%! !%! !6! !6+! !,! !;! !;! !1!

Features nom., acc. sg. gen., acc. pl. nom. sg. nom., acc. pl. (neuter nouns) instr. pl. dat. pl. loc. pl. dat., loc. sg. gen., acc. pl. nom., acc. pl. instr. sg. gen., acc. pl. instr. sg. instr. pl. gen., acc. sg. nom. pl. (masc. nouns) 27 nom. sg. (neuter nouns)28 nom., acc. sg. instr. sg. dat., gen., loc. sg. acc. sg. dat. sg. nom. pl.29

Cross-reference to Carstairs (1987)

page 142, no. 21b page 142, no. 22a n/a page 142, no. 20 n/a n/a n/a page 142, no. 23 page 142, no. 22a page 142, no. 21a n/a page 142, no. 22a n/a n/a page 142, no. 22b n/a n/a page 142, no. 20 n/a page 143, no. 25 n/a n/a n/a

Throughout this dissertation, where words are morphologically tokenized (segmented into morphs), morpheme boundaries are shown by the + symbol. The phonological content of each morph is followed by a subscript showing the morpheme type. Thus !#c++,#-rn+in1! denotes a word consisting of three morphs: the prefix !#!, the noun-root !+,#-!, and a noun-inflection with zero phonological content. Individual

27

For example, in 4!,@"--,!& !906c2+?'1#rv+#sa+60sn+%in16! ‘professors’. For example, in )+> !,+'rn+%in17! ‘name’. 29 For example, in 5!&*#&'" !B0%5$rv+%4'sa1+sn1+1in23! ‘citizens’. 28

170 morphs are represented with the subscript outside the obliques, as follows: !#!c, !+,#-!rn, !!in1, etc. The translation of Oliverius’s morpheme inventory into context-free grammar is straightforward: there will be one terminal rule for each entry in the morpheme inventory. (Since the number of morphs in a language is likely to be much greater than the number of ways in which different types of morph may combine together, the morpheme inventory is likely to represent the bulk of the grammar.) For example, where Oliverius lists !26-A%#! as an ‘rn’ morph (a noun-root), we have the linear rule in (88):

(95)

rn

'

!26-A%#!

Clearly, the translation itself raises no theoretical issues, but note again that in using Oliverius’s morpheme inventory I am making a (provisional) commitment to his particular morphological analysis. 3.2.2

The word-formation rules Having established a set of pre-terminal rules, the element of the CFG which

is still lacking is the set of rules which specify the hierarchical structure of morphologically complex words. In the following sections, I set out specific proposals for what these rules should be.

171 3.2.2.1 Words with no internal structure Inspection of Oliverius’s list of morphological tokenizations reveals that there are a number of words consisting of a single morpheme: three examples are given in (96) below. (96)

4"!"# ( 4,%& ,:

!9'10'1$!c !"!c !962%!c !6C!c

‘in front of’ ‘in’ ‘while’ ‘oh!’

These words, which are all prepositions, conjunctions and interjections, can be subsumed under the general term ‘particle’. The first CFG rules which we need are therefore ones to license such words. These rules will be as in (97): (97)

word particle

' '

particle c

The terminal rules of the CFG have already made explicit which morphemes are ‘c’ morphemes. For example, we already have the rules in (98). (98)

c c c c

' ' ' '

!9'10'1$! !"! !962%! !6C!

The CFG rules in (97) and (98) will account for all the 67 single-morpheme words in Oliverius (1976).

172 3.2.2.2 Nouns Having dealt with monomorphemic words, we now turn to nouns. First, we shall consider non-derived nouns (those which do not contain a derivational suffix; cf. Townsend 1975: 149). There are 325 non-derived nouns in Oliverius (1976): three examples are given in (99). (99)

!8%& 3"+,#&' 4,6"

!0;2rn+%in3! !&8'1+6$%4rn+in1! !96-'rn+6in18!

‘hand’ ‘suitcase’ ‘field’

These words can all be accounted for by the context-free rule in (100).

(100) noun

'

rn

in30

To make it clear that nouns are examples of words, the rule in (101) is needed:

(101) word

'

noun

So far, then, the CFG of Russian morphology is as in (102):

30

This rule, of course, incorporates a non-arbitrary relationship between ‘rn’ (noun-root) and ‘in’ (noun-inflection), which could be further generalized (e.g. in terms of agreement of features attaching to each constituent morpheme).

173 (102) word word noun c rn

etc. etc.

in

etc.

' ' ' '

noun c rn !9'10'1$!

'

!0;2!

'

!%!

in

We next turn to derived nouns with a single suffix. Some examples are shown in Table 19. Table 19. Further categories of morphological tokenization Type of tokenization

rv+sn+in (verb-root + noun-suffix + infl.) ra+sn+in (adj-root + noun-suffix + infl.)

Example

Number of words of this type in Oliverius (1976)

*)9'$ !5,rv+*4'sn+in! ‘life’ !&#,-.$ !0%$ra+6#&'sn+in! ‘joy’

100

Total

46

146

The CFG rules in (103) can account for these words, but it is equally possible to license them using the more articulated rules in (104). (103) noun noun

' '

rv ra

sn sn

(104) noun noun-stem noun-stem noun-stem verb-stem adj-stem

' ' ' ' ' '

noun-stem rn verb-stem adj-stem rv ra

in in in sn sn

174

The grammar fragments in (103) and (104) are weakly but not strongly equivalent, as they generate the same set of strings (in Table 19) but do not assign the same structural descriptions (parse trees) to those strings. It is of theoretical importance which grammar we choose, since ‘we have no interest, ultimately, in grammars that generate a natural language correctly but fail to generate the correct set of structural descriptions’ (Chomsky and Miller 1963: 297). Although (103) may appear to be more economical since it embodies fewer rules than (104), (104) has a number of key advantages from a linguistic point of view. First, in (104), the concepts ‘verb-stem’, ‘noun-stem’ and ‘adjective-stem’ have now been formalized and can be used to support further definitions, such as that in (105), which states that an adjective stem can be formed from a noun-stem and an adjectival suffix.

(105) adj-stem

'

noun-stem

sa

More important, however, (104) treats affixation as the appending of a suffix to a unitary morphological object (the base) (cf. Townsend 1975: 26). The rules in (104) cannot look inside a base to determine any facts about its composition other than that it is a noun-stem, adjective-stem, etc. As a result, (104) stems from a constrained but very general hypothesis about affixation. (103), on the other hand, assigns equal importance in the parsing hierarchy to each morpheme in the string: the rules in (103) lack generality, because their applicability is limited to the 146 words with the specific structures listed in Table 19, and a separate rule would be required to account for, say, nouns with the structure rn+sn+in.

175 To give a concrete example which demonstrates the generality of (104), consider the word *"'1)'& !5148&8',4%! ‘woman’, to which Oliverius (1976) attributes the morphological tokenization in Figure 13): Figure 13. Oliverius’s (1976) tokenization of *"'1)'& !>$-@)@7&-#! ‘woman’

>$-rn

@)@7sa

&-sn

#in

Using (104) and (105), this word can be described by the parse tree in Figure 14 (as is apparent, this parse involves nesting of the term ‘noun-stem’). Figure 14. Parse tree for *"'1)'& !>$-@)@7&-#! ‘woman’

word noun noun-stem adj-stem noun-stem

in sn

sa

rn

>$-

@)@7

&-

#

Affixation rules of the type in (104)-(105) allow the categories ‘noun-stem’ and ‘adjective-stem’ to be nested ad infinitum: ‘adjective-stem’ can be defined in terms of ‘noun-stem’, and vice versa. The definition of a constituent in terms of itself

176 is known in the theory of computation as recursion (Chomsky and Miller 1963: 290). Without recursion, only a finite number of strings can be parsed; but if a grammar contains recursive rules, there is no theoretical limit to the length or number of words which can be described by the grammar. The rules in (104)-(105) are formally very neat and do not violate the requirement of context-freeness. But the main objection which can be raised against them is on a linguistic, not a formal level: the rules are too general. Essentially, there is no evidence in Russian to suggest that suffixation really is recursive. If suffixation were truly recursive, that would imply that a given suffix, not just a type of suffix, could appear a limitless number of times in a single word. Stated another way, if the rules in (104)-(105) (plus appropriate pre-terminal rules) can license (106a), then they must also be able to license the words in (106b), (106c), etc: (106) (a) (b) (c)

!#9'1&#rv+,7sn+%-'sa+4sa+6#&'sn+in! !#9'1&#rv+,7sn+%-'sa+,7sn+%-'sa+4sa+6#&'sn+in! !#9'1&#rv+,7sn+%-'sa+,7sn+%-'sa+,7sn+%-'sa+4sa+6#&'sn+in!

Thus a grammar of morphology based on recursive rules is likely both to accept as well-formed, and to generate, a large class of words whose well-formedness is questionable. This, of course, is perhaps a problem only because until this point we have glossed over the semantics of word-formation. It may be, for example, that a truer representation of Russian word-formation rules avoids the problem of recursion because of the way in which semantic features are distributed. For example, (108), which allocates each constituent a multivalued semantic feature, retains some of the generality of (107), but is not a recursive grammar fragment:

177

(107) noun-stem noun-stem noun-stem verb-stem adj-stem adj-stem

' ' ' ' ' '

(108) noun-stem ' [semantics:concrete]

rn verb-stem adj-stem rv ra noun-stem

sn sn sa

rn

noun-stem ' [semantics:deverbal]

verb-stem [semantics:concrete]

sn

noun-stem [semantics:action]

adj-stem [semantics:past_participle]

sn

'

verb-stem ' [semantics:concrete]

rv

adj-stem ' [semantics:concrete]

ra

adj-stem ' [semantics:desubstantival]

noun-stem [semantics:concrete]

sa

adj-stem ' [semantics:desubstantival]

noun-stem [semantics:deverbal]

sa

Again, these rules are probably a first approximation: after all, there is no reason in principle why semantic features should not be combined in any quantity or data structure, including empty data structures, in the style of Unification Grammar. I should emphasize that the nature and identity of semantic features are peripheral to my argument, so I shall not dwell on this point here: it is sufficient just to assume that semantics does play a role in word-formation, and that the distribution of semantic features is such that the grammar is non-recursive. Returning to the formal properties of the grammar so far, it is worth noting that all the rules in the grammar are left-embedding (Chomsky and Miller 1963: 290).

178 In other words, the rightmost branch of each expansion is a pre-terminal symbol, and consequently the parse tree as a whole can acquire ‘depth’ only through the leftmost branches of each expansion, as can be seen graphically in Figure 14.31 The import of this is that the grammar is left-linear, and the language defined by the grammar is a regular language (Chomsky 1963: 394). This means that in their restrictiveness the rules of Russian word-formation set out so far32 surpass the original goal (using a grammar no more powerful than context-free). 3.2.2.3 Verbs There are a number of factors which conspire to make the verbal morphology of Russian more complex than its nominal morphology. First, according to Melvold (1989: 79), the number of non-derived (traditionally referred to as athematic) verbs in Russian is only around 90, which is much less than the number of non-derived nouns, even from the sample of 2,493 words in Oliverius (1976). Thus derivation plays a much more important role in verbal word-formation. Secondly, verbal inflections are not monomorphemic, since they consist of a tense and an agreement suffix. Furthermore, these suffixes are often phonologically ‘invisible’, because suffixation often results synchronically in adjacent vowels which are elided (Townsend 1975: 81). All the verb infinitives in Oliverius have one of the following sequences as their final morphs:

31

This format is what we would expect in a grammar of Russian morphology, given the fact that most affixation in Russian (suffixation and inflection) takes place on the right of the word (i.e. the right is where the pre-terminal symbols are added). The treatment of prefixation proposed in section 3.2.2.4 preserves the left-linearity of the grammar. 32 However, the rules which will be formulated in section 3.3 are context-free, not linear.

179

(109) !+sa+ia! !&'sa+ia! !&',sa+ia!

(example: +,3$ !+6&8'rv+sa+ia! ‘to be able’) (example: 3).&.$ !&8',&rv+%svi+&'sa+ia! ‘to read’) (example: )#.) !,$rv+&',sa+ia! ‘to walk’)

Since all infinitives are assigned a zero-inflection by Oliverius, it is unclear whether this inflection is really a necessary element in the string. Not only does its inclusion mean that the morphological tokenization contains more elements than necessary, but to assert that the structure of )#.) ‘to go’ is !,$rv+&',sa+ia! implies that !,$rv+&',sa+ia! and !,$rv+&',sa! are distinct structural units in the grammar of Russian. Oliverius concedes that the zero-morph has only ‘residual’ meaning which originated in the Slavic opposition between the infinitive and supine (Oliverius 1976: 42). In view of the lack of any strong synchronic justification for this analysis, it seems simpler to disregard the final zero morpheme on all infinitives, and call the final !!, !&'! or !&',!<morpheme in the infinitive a verbal inflectional ending, i.e. !!iv, !&'!iv or !&',!iv. The non-derived infinitives +,3$ ‘to be able’ and )#.) ‘to go’ would thus be described by the rules in (110): (110) word verb

' '

verb verb-stem

iv

To account for derived verbs, we use exactly the same technique as for derived nouns. Thus 3).&.$ !&8',&rv+%svi+&'iv! ‘to read’ could be parsed by the additional rules in (111):

180 (111) verb verb-stem [+derived]

'

verb-stem

iv

'

verb-stem [$derived]

sv

The ‘sv’ element in the second rule of (111) is actually the ‘thematic vowel’, so that this rule essentially says that a verb-stem is obtained by adding a thematic vowel to a verb-root. The addition of just one rule to this grammar will account for reflexive verbs, which in Russian look just like non-reflexive verbs, but have the final morpheme !#'!c or !#'%!c (e.g. 3).&.$-> !&8',&rv+%svi+&'iv+#'%c! ‘to be read’): (112) verb [+reflexive]

'

verb [$reflexive]

!#'(%)!c

3.2.2.4 Prefixation As pointed out in Townsend (1975: 149), ‘prefixation plays a very minor role in formation of nouns’. This is confirmed in Oliverius’s (1976) analysis, where 837 of the 967 prefixed forms include either a verb root or suffix. Most Russian prefixation can thus be dealt with under the heading of verbal word-formation, and it is this which I shall concentrate on in this section. Prefixation in Russian verbal forms is very closely intertwined with verbal aspect. As Townsend states: With certain limited exceptions the addition of a prefix to a simplex imperfective stem perfectivizes that stem. In traditional analysis and most grammar books a prefix is either “nonsemantic” or “semantic”: if the former, it merely perfectivizes the stem and is regarded as the perfective “partner” of the imperfective verb (Townsend 1975: 116).

181 Thus imperfective 3).&.$ !&8',&rv+%svi+&'sa! ‘to read’ can be perfectivized by adding the prefix !906!c (which in this case is non-semantic), forming !906c+&8',&rv+%svi+&'sa!. The question is: what is the correct structural description of !906c+&8',&rv+%svi+&'sa!? The candidates which one might consider are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Three alternative representations of !6.(c+)@7&)rv+#svi+)7sa!

infin

906c

&8',&rv

infin

906c

&8',&rv

infin

906c

&8',&rv

The question of the correct structural analysis of Russian prefixed verbal forms was considered at some length in Pesetsky (ms 1979). Pesetsky suggested that the phonological behaviour of prefixed verbal forms (particularly with respect to vowel-zero alternations; we will return to this in 3.3) could be more easily explained within a framework which allows cyclic rules if the structure of these forms were as shown in the third representation in Figure 15. Yet, as he noted, there is a problem with this structure: While the bracketing [i.e. structure & PC] shown… yields the correct result when the phonological rule of yer-lowering is applied to it, it is at odds with one’s intuitions about the semantic correlates of morphological structure. In most cases, in

182 Russian as in English, the combination of a prefix and a verb root acts semantically like a verb in its own right, often bearing an idiosyncratic meaning not compositional of the usual meanings of the verb and prefix. So, while podH- usually denotes something like “up to” as a prefix, and žIg, unprefixed, is glossed as “burn”, the combination of podH- and žIg acquires the related, but unpredictable meaning “set on fire”. Even less predictable meanings are found in other prefix-verb combinations. For example, we have seen that s-;el/so-;la shows behavior similar to pod-žëg/podožgla, suggesting the same constituent structure. The prefix sH- in other contexts is glossable as “down from”, while the somewhat archaic ;It means “read”. The combination, however, means “consider (x as y)”, or sometimes “tally”. Such idiosyncratic meanings are preserved under the addition of inflectional and derivational suffixes. Thus, while the phonology of words like podožgla and podžëg suggests the bracketing of (27a) below, the semantics seems to suggest the bracketing of (27b): (27)

a. [ prefix b. [[prefix

[[root] [root]]

inflection]] inflection] (Pesetsky ms 1979: 10)

This is therefore a classic example of a bracketing paradox. A better-known example from English, also mentioned in Pesetsky (ms 1979), is the word unhappier. Pesetsky notes that one of the stress rules of English (‘attach the comparative suffix -er only to monosyllabic adjectives and to disyllabic adjectives in orthographic -y’) seems to imply the structure [un[[happy]er]], where un- is added ‘after’ this rule has applied, while the semantics appear to call for the structure [[un[happy]]er], since unhappier means ‘more not happy’ instead of ‘not more happy’. Pesetsky concludes: The problem is formally identical to our problem in Russian, except that the phonological difficulties which would be induced by accepting the semantic bracketing as morphologically real are of a different nature. The fact that we can factor out the same sort of semantic difficulty from the two examples suggests that the semantic problem is the real one, and not the phonological problem, and that the phonologically motivated bracketings of (27a) and (30) should be considered morphologically real. We will need a special rule of semantic interpretation, with some sort of universal status, to yield the correct readings for such forms. (Pesetsky ms 1979: 12)

183 Paradoxes of a very similar type33 in Polish were also considered in Booij and Rubach (1984), who also noted that prefixes have a special status with respect to phonological rules, and concluded that prefixes are best treated as independent phonological words. The contribution of Pesetsky (ms 1979) and Booij and Rubach (1984) is clear: prefixation must be treated with caution in formulating rules (like jer-lowering and deletion) which affect the phonological form of words. However, it is significant that both Pesetsky (ms 1979) and Rubach and Booij (1984) were working within the framework of Lexical Phonology. In Lexical Phonology, cyclic rules are ordered with respect to one another and with respect to postcyclic rules, but in context-free or linear grammar, rule-ordering is not an option. In the next section, I shall show, in any case, that the vowel-zero alternations described by Pesetsky can be modelled in context-free grammar irrespective of the morphological structure of words (and still capturing the generalization about the special status of prefixation). Thus there is no reason to avoid the morphologically-motivated bracketings like [[un[happy]]er], etc. The structure which captures the regularities of word-formation best is the first of the representations in Figure 15. Moreover, this is the only one of the structures suggested which avoids centre-embedding. There are at least two reasons to prefer this structure: not only would this preserve the idiosyncratic meanings of certain prefixed forms under suffixation and inflection, as noted by Pesetsky, but it also allows a straightforward analysis of deverbal nouns such as ,.48-% !6&c+9;#2rv+sn+in! ‘leave’, related to ,.48-%&.$ !6&c+9;#2rv+%svi+&'sa! ‘to let go’. Instead of deriving 33

Booij and Rubach’s data also relate to prefixed forms and the interaction of word-formation rules with vowel-zero alternations. Like Pesetsky, they claim that these are governed by cyclic rules.

184 !6&c+9;#2rv+sn+in! from !6&c+9;#2rv+%svi+&'sa! by some kind of subtractive operation (which presents problems for phrase-structure analysis), both !6&c+9;#2rv+sn+in! and !6&c+9;#2rv+%svi+&'sa! would be derived from the base !6&c+9;#2rv!. The corresponding linear rule schemata would therefore have to be those in (113). (113) (a)

(b)

verb-stem [$derived]

'

(c)

rv

verb-stem [+derived]

'

verb-stem [$derived]

sv

noun-stem

'

verb-stem

sn

(The rule in (113b) accounts for forms such as !6&c+9;#2rv+sn+in!.) Just as prefixes are closely related to verbal roots, explaining the fact that idiosyncratic meanings are preserved under suffixation and inflection, it is presumably also the case that prefixes are closely related to nominal roots: an inflected noun form is almost always compositional of the meaning of the stem (including prefix) and inflection. This suggests the need for the rule schemata in (114): (114) noun-stem [$derived]

'

(c)

rn

noun-stem

'

noun-stem

sn

[+derived]

[$derived]

Because prefixes tend to attach predominantly to verbal structures, the rules proposed above are probably the most important prefixation rules in Russian. These rules are those which Pesetsky (ms 1979) identified as semantically most intuitive.

185 However, Pesetsky did not adopt these rules; instead, both he and Rubach and Booij (1984) suggested a semantically counter-intuitive analysis of prefixation, namely that prefixes must be immediately dominated by the word node in the phrase-structure hierarchy. To understand fully why Pesetsky, Rubach and Booij followed the analysis they did, and why this analysis is rejected here despite their arguments, we will have to look in more detail at vowel-zero alternations in Russian. 3.3

Vowel-zero alternations in context-free grammar Vowel-zero alternations such as that embodied in !$'14'!%!$4'! have been

discussed extensively in the phonological literature under the general heading of ‘jers’. It is generally believed that in Common Slavic jers were non-alternating short vowels !I! and !H! (e.g. Bethin 1998: 104). These jers, it is supposed, underwent a change in Late Common Slavic such that word-final jers and jers in a syllable before a syllable with a non-jer vowel (both known as ‘weak’ jers) were deleted. All other jers (the ‘strong’ jers) developed into full vowels (in Russian, into !1! and !6! respectively). These processes are commonly referred to in Slavic linguistics as Havlík’s Law. As Bethin (1998: 206) states, a key problem is how the jers should be represented synchronically in Slavic languages. The traditional linear generative phonology approach (exemplified by Lightner 1972 and Pesetsky ms 1979 for Russian; Gussmann 1980, Booij and Rubach 1984, Rubach 1984 for Polish) has been to maintain that the jers are a type of vowel. This approach claims that jers are distinct entities in the phonological inventory, distinguished from non-alternating vowels in that the former are [+high, $tense] (as opposed to !,!, !;! which are [+high, +tense] and !1!, !6!, !%! which are [$high,

186 $tense]). This approach was used not only to explain vowel-zero alternations, but also: This representation of jers allowed Lightner to maintain that consonantal palatalization could be derived from the front or back specification on vowels, i.e., [stol] “table” and [stol’e], prep sg; [glupij] “stupid” and [glup’et’] “to become stupid,” just as [d’en’] “day” and [dn’a], gen sg, or [bol’en] “sick,” masc sg and [bol’na], fem sg... have derived palatalized or non-palatalized consonants from the front or back feature of the following jers. This predictability of palatalization before front vowels was relegated to a palatalization rule and it was seen as an advantage for that analysis. (Bethin 1998: 206)

The linear generative phonology approach entails certain problems, however. One of these, on a perhaps trivial level, is that it involves augmenting the phonological inventory. More important, however, it involves (a) postulating phonological entities which never surface in their underlying forms, and (b) absolute neutralization involving these entities (for example, when jers surface as !1! and !6! in Russian, they are phonetically indistinguishable from non-alternating !1! and !6! respectively). This aspect of traditional generative phonology was criticized, notably in Postal (1968), Kiparsky (1973) and in Natural Generative Phonology (Hooper 1976), on the grounds that it allows the range of possible phonological theories to become excessively unconstrained. However, it has since been argued, specifically with reference to vowel-zero alternations (in Polish, although of the same type that occur in Russian), that the most natural analysis in some cases does involve postulating abstract entities which never surface (Gussmann 1980: 83, Szpyra 1992). An alternative approach views jer representation as a function of syllabification, deriving the vowel by epenthesis where consonants cannot otherwise be syllabified (e.g. Piotrowski 1992 for Polish). For example, according to the

187 epenthesis approach, the alternation of !A6A0! with !A6A10! in (115) is explained by the fact that !A0! violates the SSG, and !1! is inserted to remedy this. (115) <,
!A6A0+%! !A6A'10+!

‘beaver fur’ (gen. sg.) ‘beaver fur’ (nom. sg.)

This approach has never been widely accepted since, as pointed out in a number of works (Gussmann 1980, Szpyra 1992, Bethin 1998), there are instances where epenthesis apparently does not occur in environments identical to those in which it does occur, as shown by the examples in (116). (116) <,
!A6A0+%! !A6A0+!

‘beaver’ (gen. sg.) ‘beaver’ (nom. sg.)

Thus, as Szpyra (1992: 281) remarks, ‘the logical conclusion is that the presence vs. absence of yers is largely unpredictable and must therefore be marked in the lexical representation of the relevant items’. (It should be noted, however, that Piotrowski 1992 manages to maintain an epenthesis account of the jers, accounting for (115) versus (116) by stipulating that the !0! in (115) is lexically specified as unsyllabifiable.) The remainder of the works on vowel-zero alternations exploit the descriptive devices of autosegmental phonology in representing jers. Spencer (1986) treats Polish jers as skeletal vowel-slots with no feature melodies attached. Rubach (1986) (for Polish) and Melvold (1989) (for Russian) take the opposite view, assuming that jers are feature melodies with no skeletal slots. Szpyra (1992) assumes that jers are to be represented as ‘empty root nodes devoid of any melodic features such as

188 [consonantal]’ (p. 298), and that their manifestation as vowels (rather than zero) is governed by syllabification principles reminiscent of epenthesis (specifically, they vocalize when adjacent to unsyllabified consonants). Here, however, I shall propose an analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Russian which has the following properties:

,

it accounts for regularities in the morphological inventory and accordingly reduces the size of the inventory;

,

jers are part of the lexical representation of morphemes;

,

it does not postulate additional phonological entities beyond those already mentioned in Table 7, abstract or otherwise;

,

syllabification is not the main factor which determines whether jers vocalize or delete, although the surface ‘results’ of the vowel-zero alternations are of course subject to syllabification;

,

it does not require the postulation of an additional skeletal tier, as in autosegmental phonology;

,

it remains within the framework of context-free grammar.

The analysis of vowel-zero alternations proposed in this section rejects two claims which have previously been made in accounting for the same facts; one of these is specific to the Lexical Phonology framework, and the other is a general assumption which has been made about the representation of the jers, the linguistic objects which underlie the vowel-zero alternations in Slavic languages.

189 The first claim is that prefixes must be immediately dominated by the word node for the correct predictions to be made regarding vocalization and deletion of the jers (Pesetsky ms 1979, Booij and Rubach 1984). Pesetsky, Booij and Rubach are led to make this claim because the framework in which they formulate their theory of jervocalization and deletion relies on rule-ordering and cyclicity: the rules governing ‘jer-lowering’ (when jers surface as vowels as opposed to when they delete) apply to the output of successive ordered word-formation rules (Pesetsky ms 1979: 14-15, Rubach 1984: 31, Booij and Rubach 1984: 5-7, Rubach and Booij 1990: 128-129). The current analysis does not accept rule ordering, and consequently is free to allow morphologically more intuitive structures, yet is still able to account for the unusual behaviour of prefixes with respect to jer-lowering. The second claim is that jers must have their own phonological representations. This assumption, exemplified in Szpyra (1992: 286) (‘Since yers belong to the phonological inventory of Polish...’), appears to be a non-sequitur from the (correct) conclusion, on the basis of examples such as those in (115)-(116), that jers must be present in lexical representations (as opposed to being derived by epenthesis, for example), because their vocalization or deletion cannot be described solely in terms of their environment. Before proceeding, we need to consider the constraints under which we are working. First, since jers may sometimes be deleted altogether, it must be the case (assuming that jers can be represented at all in context-free grammar) that jers are represented as part of the pre-terminal hierarchical structure, since rules of the form A ' Ø are permitted in CFG, but not rules of the form Ø ' A. (Kiparsky 1982: 74 explicitly adopts just such a rule for jer vocalization, where zero rewrites as non-zero;

190 Kiparsky’s solution is unacceptable, since his phonology as a result must be more powerful than context-free.) The second constraint is that jers must be part of the lexical representation, as already mentioned. This means that jers must be given as one of the constituents of the rules for individual entries in the morphological inventory. The only way in which these two constraints can be reconciled is if jers are morphological, rather than phonological, objects. This means that they are not, strictly speaking, vowels; it would be more accurate to say that they are morphological objects which can surface as vowels. (However, it will be convenient in the following discussion to refer to them as vowels, since they sometimes pattern together with the [$consonantal] segments in the phonological inventory. An example is in the specification of the left edge of morphemes in Russian, which will shortly be discussed.) Under the approach followed in this dissertation, the morphology and syllable structure grammars intersect at their terminal elements: this ensures that the language at their intersection is no more powerful than context-free. Thus, if jers are represented pre-terminally and they are to be encoded in the morphological inventory, then they must be pre-terminal in the morphology rather than in syllable structure. What is needed, therefore, is a representation such as the following:

Figure 16. Representation of the morpheme !,#+4!%!,#+(4! ‘weasel’ morpheme

-

%

#

jer

2

191 This structure would represent the root morpheme in 6&-%& !-%#2%! ‘weasel’ (nom. sg.) (cf. 6&-,% !-%#62! ‘weasels’ [gen. pl.]), distinguishing it from that in 6&-%& !-%#2%! ‘caress’ (nom. sg.), which does not alternate in the genitive plural (cf. 6&-% !-%#2!). The constituent ‘jer’ in Figure 16 differs from the constituents !-!, !%!, !#! and !2! in that the latter are terminal symbols which are directly subject to the syllable structure grammar, while ‘jer’ is a pre-terminal symbol in the word-formation grammar. What ‘jer’ means is spelled out by further rules in the word-formation grammar, vocalizing or deleting ‘jer’ as appropriate. The consequence of all this is that jers are represented lexically, but no additional phonemes need be postulated. An important point about this method of representing jers is that it involves centre-embedding context-free (not linear) rules. I use context-free rules because these appear to capture the structure of morphemes including jers most aptly. Linear grammar does not permit centre-embedding, as can be seen from Table 1 on page 20. Indeed, as (Chomsky 1963: 394) shows, any language described by a context-free grammar including centre-embedding rules and recursion cannot be described by a linear grammar. Although I claimed on page 176 above that Russian morphology is not recursive, it is still possible that there is no equivalent linear grammar which could describe the structures necessary to account for vowel-zero alternations. It is for this reason alone that I do not claim that the overall Russian word-formation grammar proposed in this chapter is more restricted than context-free. Now, this analysis is not yet explicit about when jers vocalize and when they delete. The context-free rules governing this will clearly have to be able to tell whether a jer is ‘strong’ or ‘weak’, and this in turn will involve looking at the content of following morphemes.

192 An important insight of Pesetsky (ms 1979) and subsequent followers of Lexical Phonology was that the vocalization or deletion of jers depends on whether they are located in a prefix, suffix, or inflectional ending. In the following discussion, jers will be represented as E and O. (No attempt is made in this dissertation to account for the alternation between front and back jers by rule.) Pesetsky suggested that the following rules (which I shall refer to as the ‘Lexical Phonology theory’) govern the vocalization and deletion of the jers:

(117) (a)

Jers in ‘i’ (inflectional) morphemes always delete, because they must either be followed by a word-boundary (as in the masculine nominative singular inflection !O!) or by a non-alternating vowel (as in the feminine instrumental singular inflection !E7;!). (The evidence that these jers exist is their effect on jers in preceding morphemes.)

(b)

Jers in ‘r’ (root) and ‘s’ (suffix) morphemes always vocalize if followed by a jer, and delete if followed by a (non-jer) vowel.

(c)

Jers in ‘c’ (prefix) morphemes vocalize if followed by a deleted jer, and delete otherwise (i.e. if followed either by a non-alternating vowel or by a vocalized jer).

Instead of modelling this theory using cyclic rules, as suggested by Pesetsky and subsequent researchers in Lexical Phonology, what is proposed here is a contextfree encoding of the Lexical Phonology theory. This entails using four features, [!strong], [!tense], [!high], and [left:X], in the existing word-formation grammar. The third and fourth of these features were used in the syllable structure module:

193 [!high] was introduced on page 102, and [left:X] on page 104. The feature [!strong] follows the terminology traditionally used by Slavists (‘strong’ jers vocalize and ‘weak’ jers delete: cf. Isa;enko 1970), and should not be confused with the strong/weak distinction in metrical phonology (cf. Liberman 1975). The feature [!tense] is introduced to differentiate between jers and non-jer vowels (in conjunction with [!high]), following Gussmann (1980), Rubach (1984), and others. However, this is not to imply that additional segments are to be included in the phonological inventory, as Gussmann and Rubach suggest. First, we shall consider the distribution of [left:X] in the terminal rules. In this case, X stands for the feature matrix [3 tense, 4 high], which unifies with the specifications of the first vowel (whether jer or non-jer) in the morpheme. (It is assumed that these features spread across any intervening consonants.) Thus a morpheme is [left:[+high, $tense] if it contains a jer, and no vowels occur to the left of the jer within that morpheme34. Accordingly, terminal rules of the type shown in (118) are obtained.

34

There are two exceptions to this, which will be dealt with below.

194 ' [+high, $tense]]

!

O

!

(the masc. nom. sg. ending)

in [left:

' ! [$high, $tense]]

%

+

!

(the dat. pl. ending)

rn [left:

' ! [$high, $tense]

-

%

#

O

(118) in [left:

2

!

Next, we turn to the distribution of [!strong]. This is the feature which encodes the actual phonological interpretation of jers (whether they vocalize or delete): a jer in a [+strong] morpheme vocalizes, and one in a [$strong] morpheme deletes. Reflecting the fact that there are three ways in which jers behave (depending on whether they occur in inflectional endings, roots or suffixes, or prefixes), there are three basic distributional possibilities. First, inflectional (‘i’) morphemes must always be [$strong] in accordance with (117a). Thus in these morphemes the only feature which can vary is the feature [left:X]. Secondly, we shall consider the distribution of [!strong] in roots and suffixes. The facts can be captured only if we allow [!strong] to percolate up to pre-terminal symbols in the tree. In other words, not just morphemes, but whole stems need to be specified for [!strong]. We shall stipulate that a stem is [3 strong] if its rightmost constituent is also [3 strong]. (Because the word-formation rules are all leftembedding, this constituent must be a terminal symbol.) The leftmost constituent’s specification for [!strong] is then determined by the specification of the suffix for [left:X]: if the suffix’s leftmost vowel is a jer, then the leftmost constituent is

195 [+strong]. Otherwise, it is [$strong]. These facts are encoded in the rule schemata in (119). (119) stem ' [3 strong]

stem [+strong]

suffix [3 strong, left:[+high, $tense]]

stem ' [3 strong]

stem [$strong]

suffix [3 strong, left:[+tense]]

stem ' [3 strong]

stem [$strong]

suffix [3 strong, left:[$high]]

The distribution of features is exactly the same if the rightmost constituent is an inflectional ending instead of a suffix, except, as already stated, the inflectional ending must be [$strong]: (120) X

'

stem [+strong]

inflection [left:[+high, $tense], $strong]

X

'

stem [$strong]

inflection [left:[$high], $strong]

X

'

stem [$strong]

inflection [left:[+tense], $strong]

We then have to consider the distribution of [!strong] in the prefixation rules, which, as we know from (117c), is different again. As Pesetsky (ms 1979) pointed out, the relevant issue here is not whether there is a jer in the following ‘r’ morpheme, but whether there is a non-vocalized jer. The jer in the prefix !96$O! surfaces as a

196 vowel in !96$O+5EB+-+%! because there is a jer in !5EB!, and it has deleted. It fails to surface in !96$O+5EB+-+O!, however, because the jer in !5EB! has vocalized. I propose that these facts should be accounted for not in the word-formation rules, but in the lexicon as a fact about root morphemes. This is the first of the two exceptions referred to in footnote 34. For root morphemes whose first vowel is a jer, the morpheme’s specification for [left:X] can be made dependent on its specification for [!strong]. Specifically, if the morpheme is [+strong], its jer vocalizes and it is treated as a morpheme whose leftmost vowel is not a jer (with the result that any jer in the prefix to its left will delete). If the morpheme is [$strong], its jer deletes and it is treated as a morpheme whose leftmost vowel is a jer (with the result that any jer in the prefix to its left will vocalize). The following rules for !5EB! exemplify this. (121) rn [left:

'

!

5

E [+strong]

B

!

rn [left:

'

!

5

E [$strong]

B

!

[$high, $tense] +strong]

[+high, $tense] $strong]

Adopting this approach means that the prefixation rule schemata are similar to those in (119) and (121). The actual rule schemata are as follows:

197 (122) stem ' [3 strong]

prefix [+strong]

root [3 strong, left:[+high, $tense]]

stem ' [3 strong]

prefix [$strong]

root [3 strong, left:[+tense]]

stem ' [3 strong]

prefix [$strong]

root [3 strong, left:[$high]]

Finally, we need to consider the other exception referred to in footnote 34. If a morpheme contains neither jers nor non-alternating vowels (for example, the suffix !-! in Pesetsky’s example !96$O+5EB+-+%!), we want the feature [left:X] to spread leftwards from the following morpheme. For example, in !96$O+5EB+-+%!, the reason the jer in !5EB! deletes is that the next vowel is !%!, so !-! should share the feature [left:X] with !%!. This can be modelled if the lexical rule for !-! is as shown in (123). (123) sv [left:

[3 high, $tense], 3 strong]

'

!

-

!

It needs to be underlined that the rules in (119), (120) and (122) are rule schemata: they describe the distribution of [!strong] and [left:X] in the existing CFG morphology rules which match their descriptions, rather than being additional rules in the morphology with an equal status to, say, those in (114).35

35

In Appendix 2, the jer vocalization and deletion constraints are dealt with by defining a separate predicate vowel_zero which is the same for all word-formation rules. This predicate is then defined separately, using unification of feature structures. This is simply an abbreviatory device which makes it possible to avoid stating the constraints in full for each word-formation rule.

198 Because the jers are themselves morphological constituents, the wordformation grammar must contain rules to make explicit when they vocalize and when they delete. These rules are now given in (124).

(124)

O [+strong]

'

[$consonantal, +back, $high, $low]

O [$strong]

'

!!

E [+strong]

'

[$consonantal, $back, $high, $low]

E [$strong]

'

!!

In accordance with these rules, the trees in Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19 respectively show the structures of #"'23"% !$E4'+O&8'+O2+O! (surface form !$14'+6&8'+62+!) ‘day’ (double diminutive), 4,#,*56& !96$O+5EB+-+%! (surface form !96$6+5B+-+%!) ‘she set fire to’ and 4,#*,5 !96$O+5EB+-+O! (surface form !96$+56B+!) ‘he set fire to’ (without accounting for the alternation of !-! with zero in the latter two forms).

199 Figure 17. Structure of #"'23"% noun

n-stem

[+strong]

n-stem

[+strong]

rn

sn

[+strong, left:[$high, $tense]]

[+strong, left: [+high, $tense]]

E

O

[+strong]

$'

1

6

in

[$strong, left: [+high, $tense]]

O

[+strong]

4'

sn

[+strong, left:[+high, $tense]]

O

[+strong]

&8'

6

[$strong]

2

Notes to Figure 17: , , , ,

The jer in the inflectional ending deletes in accordance with (120). The jer in the second suffix vocalizes (is [+strong]), because it is followed by a [left: [+high, $tense]] morpheme. The jer in the first suffix vocalizes (is [+strong]), because it is also followed by a [left: [+high, $tense]] morpheme. The jer in the root vocalizes (is [+strong]), because it is also followed by a [left: [+high, $tense]] morpheme. It is [left:[$high, $tense]] in accordance with (121).

200 Figure 18. Structure of 4,#,*56& verb

v-stem

[$strong]

v-root

[$strong]

c

rv

[+strong, left: [$high, $tense]]

O

6

$

6

[$strong, left: [$high, $tense]]

iv

[$strong, left: [$high, $tense]]

E

[+strong]

9

sv

[$strong, left: [+high, $tense]]

[$strong]

5

B

-

%

Notes to Figure 18: , , , ,

The inflectional ending is [left:[$high, $tense]] because it consists only of !%!. The suffix shares the specification for [left:X] with the following morpheme, because it contains neither jers nor vowels. The jer in the root deletes (is [$strong]), because it is followed by a [left:[$high, $tense]] morpheme. The root is [left: [+high, $tense]] in accordance with (121). The jer in the prefix vocalizes because it is followed by a [left: [+high, $tense]] morpheme.

201 Figure 19. Structure of 4,#*,5 verb

v-stem

[+strong]

v-root

[+strong]

c

rv

O

6

$

[+strong, left: [+high, $tense]]

E

5

6

iv

[$strong, left: [+high, $tense]]

O

[+strong]

[$strong]

9

sv

[+strong, left: [$high, $tense]]

[$strong, left: [$high, $tense]]

[$strong]

B

-

Notes to Figure 19: , , , ,

The jer in the inflectional ending deletes in accordance with (120). The suffix shares the specification for [left:X] with the following morpheme, because it contains neither jers nor vowels. The jer in the root vocalizes (is [+strong]), because it is followed by a [left: [+high, $tense]] morpheme. The root is [left:[$high, $tense]] in accordance with (121). The jer in the prefix deletes because it is followed by a [left:[$high, $tense]] morpheme.

To conclude this section, I have shown that jers cannot have a representation in a context-free syllable structure grammar: instead, they must be morphological objects whose phonological representation is worked out by the word-formation grammar.

202 The different behaviour of jers in prefixes, roots/suffixes and inflectional endings need not be accounted for by ordered cyclic rules, but may instead be encoded in unordered context-free rules. These, like all the other context-free rules in the grammar proposed in this dissertation, can be interpreted both as generative rules and as rules which parse (assign structure to) phonological representations. Although ordered rules and cyclicity are not a feature of the current framework, it was shown that the traditional Lexical Phonology theory of jervocalization and deletion can nevertheless be expressed in the current framework: my grammar makes the same predictions as Pesetsky’s. Most important, the elimination of rule-ordering and cyclicity removes the need for postulating a semantically counter-intuitive structure for prefixed forms, and thereby solves the bracketing paradox identified by Pesetsky. The correct structure for these forms is simply that demanded by the semantics. 3.4

A heuristic for deciding between multiple morphological analyses As more rules are added to the grammar, some strings come increasingly

frequently to have more than one possible parse. This is a common problem in morphological parsing, noted by Church (1986: 156) and Baayen and Sproat (1996). For example, Baayen and Sproat write: Syncretism and related morphological ambiguities present a problem for many NL [natural language & PC] applications where lexical disambiguation is important; cases where the orthographic form is identical but the pronunciations of the various functions differ are particularly important for speech applications, such as text-tospeech, since appropriate word pronunciations must be computed from orthographic forms that underspecify the necessary information. (p. 156)

203 I shall take an example from the current CFG to illustrate this point. For this, we shall return to the rules from (104) and (114) relating to nouns and noun-stems. We also assume pre-terminal rules to account for the morphemes !+%+!rn as in +&+& !+%+%! ‘mummy’, !$6!c as in #,":&.$ !$671C%&'! ‘approach’, and !O!in as in -.,6 !#&6-! ‘table’. The relevant rules are listed in (125). (125) noun noun-stem noun-stem rn c in

' ' ' ' ' '

noun-stem prefix rn !+%+! !$6! !O!

in rn

Now suppose we wish to parse the string #,+&+ !$6+%+! ‘houses’ (dat. pl.) using (125) together with the appropriate pre-terminal rules. Not just one, but two parses will be found: these are shown in (126). (126) (a) (b)

!$6+rn+%+in! !$6c++%+rn+Oin!

‘houses-[dat. pl.]’ ‘to-mothers-[gen. pl.]’

Clearly, multiple parses present a practical obstacle to checking the accuracy of the grammar. Success in parsing a word does not equate with correctness in parsing it, and one would want to avoid a situation where the grammar parses a string in several ways, but only one parse is correct. On the other hand, the fact that the grammar produces multiple parses need not be seen as a weakness. For example, the English word ‘lighter’ can be a deverbal noun denoting an object used for lighting cigarettes, or a comparative adjective

204 meaning ‘less dark’, and in this case it would be a weakness of the grammar if it were not able to parse this string in two different ways. It might be argued that the case of !$6+%+! is unlike that of ‘lighter’: one may object to the parse in (126b) on the grounds that it is spurious. This objection is not unreasonable, but it needs to be supported by a clear statement of why (126b) is not a possible parsing of !$6+%+!. One line of reasoning, for example, might run as follows: the CFG of Russian morphology should include only rules which are productive in modern Russian, since it seems unlikely that the human brain would parse words on the basis of non-productive rules. While !96c+#;$rn! might have been a valid morphological parsing according to word-formation grammar rules which were productive at some previous stage in Russian, in contemporary Russian !96#;$! has now become lexicalized as a single morph. Thus the second rule in (125) should be dispensed with in a grammar of modern Russian morphology. Adopting this theoretical stance would involve dispensing with the commitment to maximum morphological segmentation which underpins Oliverius’s approach; his morpheme inventory would have to be restructured to include, for example, !96#;$! as a morph in its own right. This move would bring the morphology more into line with the ‘word-based’ view that the human brain prefers to store related lexical items separately and in full, rather than storing one item, then deriving other items from it (see for example Bybee 1988). However, one should be careful not to equate morphological parsing with a statement of what occurs when the human brain recognizes words: One should not suppose that all utterances are constructed by speakers on the basis of words and syntactic rules; even less should one suppose that speakers construct utterances on the basis of morphemes and two levels of syntax (one governing the formation of words from morphemes, and one the formation of sentences from

205 words). The speakers of a language can remember not only whole words (cf. the established tradition of dictionaries), but also whole sentences (cf. the tradition of phrase-books). [my translation & PC] (Oliverius 1976: 13).

In any case, there is an alternative to striving to ensure that each string can be parsed only in ‘plausible’ ways. If morphological productivity is a question of degree, then it should follow that the acceptability of different parses is also a question of degree. Therefore, the best approach may be to accept that a word such as !$6+%+! does indeed have more than one possible parse, but the different possible parses should be ranked in terms of their acceptability or ‘lexical prior probability’ (LPP) (Baayen and Sproat 1996: 156), and in the absence of other constraints (such as syntactic constraints) the most probable parse should be chosen as the ‘correct’ one. This is precisely the approach that Church (1986) takes in his morphological parsing system for English: Costs were placed on the arcs to alleviate overgeneration. Note that the grammar produces quite a number of spurious analyses. For example, not only would formally be analyzed as form-al-ly but it would also be analyzed as form-ally and for-mal-ly. The cost mechanism blocks these spurious analyses by assigning compounding a higher cost than suffixation and therefore favoring the desired analysis. (p. 156)

I also implemented a heuristic for assigning costs to competing analyses, but my approach differs somewhat from Church’s: the former assigns costs to affixes, while the latter assigns ‘costs’ to particular rules. 3.4.1

Assigning costs to competing analyses A reasonable assumption might be that a morphological analysis which relies

on low-frequency morphemes should be assigned a higher cost than a competing analysis based on high-frequency forms. Oliverius (1976) provides a ready measure of morpheme frequency (which I shall call Freq(M)): this is defined as the sum of the

206 word-frequencies of all the words in which that morpheme occurs. To be more specific, using Freq(M), we would estimate the probability of a particular morph Mx (i.e. the probability of selecting a particular morph Mx from the complete set of morphs M1, M2, …, Mn) as the expression in (127): (127)

P(Mx) =

Freq(Mx) &&&&&&&& Freq(M1)+Freq(M2)+…+Freq(Mn)

For a given corpus, the denominator of the fraction in (127) will be a constant: it will simply be the number of tokens (morphs) in the word-list. For the word-list in Oliverius (1976), this constant is 1,318,181. In order to manage very low values of P(Mx), the log of P(Mx) can be used instead. Continuing this reasoning further, we would define the cost of a given parse as the product of P(Mx) for each of the morphs represented in the parse, or alternatively :(log P(Mx)). Because P(Mx) is a measure of probability, it is always between 0 and 1. A number of facts follow from this. First, log(P(Mx)) must be a negative number; secondly, so must :(log P(Mx)); and third, the greater the likelihood of the overall parse, the closer the value of :(log P(Mx)) associated with that parse will be to zero. Of all the competing parses, the one with the lowest cost is chosen as the one most likely to be correct. This approach is exactly the same as that used for deciding between multiple syllabifications, as described in 2.4: the only difference is that in 2.4 it was necessary to calculate the relative frequencies of application of pre-terminal rules in the syllable structure grammar from first principles, whereas with the preterminal rules of the word-formation grammar this information is already given in Oliverius (1976).

207 As an example, I have given the parse tree for -4"7)&6$',-.$ !#9'1&#+,7+%-'+4+6#&'+! ‘speciality’ and included the appropriate values of log(P(Mx)) (see Figure 20). As can be seen in Figure 20, just as each symbol within the parse tree describes a partial grammatical structure, each partial grammatical structure can be said to have its own value of log(P(Mx)). Returning to (126), we can now evaluate which of the two alternative parses is more probable. This is done in (128), where we see that basing acceptability on morpheme frequency in this case yields the result we had hoped for. (128) Parse !$6+rn+%+in! !$6c++%+rn+øin!

Log probability (J32232) + (J12412) (J22959) + (J32665) + (J12365)

= (J42645) = (J72989)

Using this heuristic to choose between parses, we have in principle resolved the issue raised above, that of checking the grammar when multiple parses arise. Of all the possible parses, that with the lowest cost is chosen. It is extremely unlikely that two possible analyses would have the same likelihood when measured in this way, but if this were the case, either parse could be chosen. The fact that the cost of a parse is a function of the product of the probabilities of the individual morphs means both that simpler (shorter) parses will be favoured, and that parses with more frequentlyoccurring morphs will be favoured.

208

Figure 20. Parse tree for -4"7)&6$',-.$ (with log probabilities)

noun -162810

noun-stem

infl. ending

-152445

-12365

adj-stem

sn

-122109

-32336

adj-stem

sa

-102110

noun-stem -62575

rv

sa

-32535

sn

-42009

-22566

+67$)+

&?

-42009

-12999

-22566

#,7

-32535

-

-12999

(+)7

-32336

-12365

209

3.4.2 Should the cost mechanism be based on hapax legomena? Baayen and Sproat (1996) discuss morphological disambiguation of a type similar to that described above: For a common form such as [Dutch] lopen ‘walk’ a reasonable estimate of the lexical prior probabilities is the MLE36, computed over all occurrences of the form. So, in the UdB [Uit den Boogaart & PC] corpus, lopen occurs 92 times as an infinitive and 43 times as a finite plural, so the MLE estimate of the probability of the infinitive is 0.68. For low-frequency forms such as aanlokken or bedraden, one might consider basing the MLE on the aggregate counts of all ambiguous forms in the corpus. In the UdB corpus, there are 21,703 infinitive tokens, and 9,922 finite plural tokens, so the MLE for aanlokken being an infinitive would be 0.69. Note, however, that the application of this overall MLE presupposes that the relative frequencies of the various functions of a particular form are independent of the frequency of the form itself [my emphasis & PC]. For the Dutch example at hand, this presupposition predicts that if we were to classify -en forms according to their frequency, and then for each frequency class thus defined, plot the relative frequency of infinitives and finite plurals, the regression line should have a slope of approximately zero (pp. 156157)

Baayen and Sproat go on to show that this is not the case: analysis of the data from the UdB corpus shows that given a Dutch form in –en, the more frequent the word, the more likely the form is to be a finite plural. Further, they show that a disambiguation system designed to predict whether a previously unseen –en form is an infinitive or a finite plural gives considerably more accurate results if it is based on tagging just the forms of lowest frequency (specifically, the forms which occur just once, or the hapax legomena) in a corpus, than if the entire corpus is tagged to give an overall measure of the MLE. The reason for this is that ‘idiosyncratic lexical

36

Maximum Likelihood Estimate: this is computed by ‘counting the number of times a form occurs in each of its various functions and dividing by the total number of instances of the form (in any function)’ (Baayen and Sproat, 1996: 156).

210 properties of high-frequency words dominate the statistical properties of the highfrequency ranges, thus making the overall MLE a less reliable predictor of the properties of the low-frequency and unseen cases’ (p. 163). Baayen and Sproat’s conclusion is well-supported both theoretically and empirically. Although the disambiguation problems described above are not entirely analogous to the disambiguation problems discussed by Baayen and Sproat (mainly because they are not systematic ambiguities in the lexicon like that between finite plurals and infinitives in Dutch), their findings appear to suggest that P(Mx) may not be the best basis on which to compute the cost of a given parse. This is because P(Mx) is computed from the entire lexicon, not just low-frequency words. In other words, Baayen and Sproat’s results might lead us to believe that a parser based on P(Mx) would give wrong analyses for low-frequency words because it has a tendency to use too many unproductive, high-frequency morphs. This effect would be exacerbated by the fact that most higher-frequency morphs consist of few phonemes, meaning that the combinatorial possibilities of using them in parsing would increase. To take an example, in Oliverius (1976) A.,. !1&6&! ‘this’ is tokenized as !1c+&rp+6&ip!, and A.,. !1&6&! has a word token frequency of 4,554. (The total corpus lists 313,564 word tokens, a figure which is arrived at by summating the frequencies of all words in Oliverius 1976.) 4,554 is a high word token frequency: in fact, A.,. is ranked the ninth most frequent word in Oliverius (1976). The morph !1!c does not appear in any other word in the corpus, and therefore its morpheme token frequency is also 4,554: log P(!1!c) is thus log (4,554 / 1,318,181) ; J22462. This is also comparatively high (as stated above, the closer the log value is to zero, the higher the LPP); for example, log P(!1!svr) is J22554. (!1!svr is a highly productive morph

211 occurring in 40 of the words in Oliverius 1976, many of which have a low frequency: for example, ()#'".$-> !"',$rv+4'sa+1svr+&'sa+ia+#'%c! ‘to become visible’ has a frequency of 15, and the least frequent word listed in Oliverius has a frequency of 14, both also out of 313,564. Because !1!c consists of a single phoneme, this morph can be used to parse any word where there is an !1! (subject to the appropriate phrase structure constraints being met), and the high value of log P(!1!c) will tend to make it more profligate in such circumstances. Surprisingly, perhaps, inspection of the words parsed incorrectly by the grammar using P(Mx) to measure the LPPs of competing parses does not appear to bear out Baayen and Sproat’s results: I found no clear examples of wrong parses of low-frequency words which were attributable to the inclusion of morphs with high P(Mx) but low productivity. In fact, the opposite appeared to be the case: highfrequency words were parsed incorrectly using productive affixation rules which generally apply to low-frequency words. For example, +/ !+,! ‘we’ is the 16th most frequent word in Oliverius. It is parsed by Oliverius as !+rp+,ip!, but by my grammar as !+,rv+sn+in! (cf. #"6 !$'1-rv+sn+in! ‘affairs’ [gen. pl.] and +/.$ !+,rv+&'sa+ia! ‘wash’ [infin.]). There is in fact a straightforward explanation for the apparent lack of agreement between Baayen and Sproat’s results and my own. My approach to Russian word-formation has been underpinned by the use of ‘number of correctly parsed words’ as one of the performance indicators by which a grammar should be evaluated. Consequently, I have focused on determining those rules which apply productively (i.e. to large numbers of words). As all the preceding discussion has shown, this has effectively meant focusing on low-frequency words, instead of attempting to write

212 rules to explain the morphological structure of high-frequency words. Thus I have factored out the effect of high-frequency rules, but in a different way to that proposed by Baayen and Sproat. I believe that my approach & listing morphological exceptions, which tend to be high-frequency words & can be justified both cognitively and computationally. In cognitive terms, the more frequent and familiar a word is, the more likely it is to be stored as an integral, unparsed, object in the mental lexicon (in line with the suggestions of Aronoff and Anshen 1998). On this approach, the ‘irregularities’ characteristic of high-frequency words do not need to be analyzed; they are simply listed. Moreover, in computational terms, the memory cost of storing the ‘idiosyncratic’ high-frequency lexical items as ‘exceptions’ is likely to be immaterial. This is because the proportion of the lexicon which is high-frequency is very low, as can be seen from Figure 21 (on page 213), where the frequencies of the words in Oliverius (1976) are plotted in rank order. (Distributions of this shape are very characteristic of lexical frequency distributions: see Miller and Chomsky 1963: 456ff and Baayen 1992 for further discussion.)

Frequency

(The x-axis of the graph shows only every 19th lexeme.)

214

To summarize, the reason that the CFG based on P(Mx) is able to give generally satisfactory results is that the use of lexical prior probabilities to evaluate competing analyses is not the only way of blocking spurious parses; it is also possible to do so by writing the CFG in a way such that it includes only the more productive rules within the language. This is, in fact, in the spirit of Church’s (1986: 156) suggestion that ‘although the cost mechanism handles a large number of cases, it would be better to aim toward a tighter grammar of morphology which did not overgenerate so badly’. The only disadvantage of this approach is that no analysis can be found for high-frequency words whose idiosyncratic morphological structures are not described by the grammar. However, I have questioned whether it is really necessary to analyze such words, suggesting that a more appropriate approach is simply to list these words as integral items in the lexicon, without highly articulated structure. This concludes the discussion of multiple parses and their evaluation. In the next section, I shall present and discuss empirical results demonstrating the coverage and accuracy of the grammar developed so far. 3.5

Tests of the word-formation grammar In the text up to this point, I have presented and discussed fragments of the

overall context-free grammar. The full context-free grammar which I have developed is given in Appendix 2. This section describes two tests which were carried out on the word-formation grammar. The first of these is a test of the grammar’s coverage in general (that is, an evaluation of its ability to assign correct morphological structure to strings of

215 phonemes), and the second is a test specifically of the grammar’s ability to vocalize and delete jers in the appropriate places. 3.5.1

Test of coverage of the word-formation grammar The grammar, excluding the modifications proposed in 3.3, was implemented

as a Prolog DCG and used to process the 11,290 forms in Table 2 on page 30. The DCG was used to compute all possible parses (and associated morphological tokenizations) for each word in this list, then a separate procedure selected the parse with the lowest cost using the method outlined in 3.4.1. The corresponding tokenization was then compared to that given by Oliverius. For each word processed, there were four possible results: (129) (a) (b) (c) (d)

The grammar was unable to assign any parse to the word The grammar’s morphological tokenization did not match Oliverius’s morphological tokenization The grammar’s morphological tokenization was not significantly different from Oliverius’s morphological tokenization The grammar’s morphological tokenization matched Oliverius’s morphological tokenization

Two morphological tokenizations were deemed to be ‘not significantly different’ if the only differences between the two were either morphs with zero phonological content, or homophonous morphs of the same type, or both. Thus !0;2rn+,in10! does not significantly differ from !0;2rn+,in20!, and !B6#96$rn+sn+%+in6! does not significantly differ from !B6#96$rn+%+in6!. Of the first pair just mentioned, the two members are, respectively, the genitive singular and nominative plural of !8%& !0;2%! ‘hand’. Moreover, the two forms are distinguished in terms of their stress placement. There is no way in which

216 the morphological parser can be expected to disambiguate these without any contextual information (such as information about syntactic function in the absence of stress placement, or vice versa), and thus we should not be at all concerned if the parser fails to find a morphological tokenization exactly matching the original. Note also that extra or missing zero morphs (as in the second pair) do not adversely affect the grammar’s descriptive adequacy unless so-called zero morphs can have phonological content which is invisible in certain surface forms. In this case, the inclusion or exclusion of these morphs by the grammar could potentially be of some consequence. This is relevant here because the morphology proposed in this chapter will form the basis for a stress assignment grammar (see Chapter 5). One could conceive of a situation, for example, where the morphology assigns morphological structure but omits a zero morpheme with some distinctive accentual property, and on this basis an incorrect stress assignment is predicted. However, none of the aspects of the phonology of Russian which I look at in this dissertation suggests that ‘invisible’ morphs are phonologically necessary. In particular, the stress assignment analysis which I propose in Chapter 5 excludes the possibility that zero morphemes may have any effect on stress assignment, so it seems that as far as the phonology of Russian is concerned there is no difference between !B6#96$rn+sn+%+in6! and !B6#96$rn+%+in6!. To summarize the results of parsing the 11,290 words, the percentage of words which fell into each of the four categories in (129) was calculated. The summary of these results is given in tabular format in Table 20, and graphically in Figure 22.

217 Table 20. Summary of results of parsing 11,290 words using grammar in Appendix 2 No of words

%

Parsed words Parse was the same as Oliverius's Parse was not significantly different from Oliverius's Subtotal Parse did not match Oliverius's Parsed words: total

5,216 2,291 7,507 1,978 9,485

46220 20229 66249 17252 84201

Unparsed words

1,805

15299

11,290

100200

TOTAL

Figure 22. Analysis of coverage of morphology grammar

Unparsed 16%

Parse did not match Oliverius's 18%

Parse was not significantly different from Oliverius's 20%

Parse was the same as Oliverius's 46%

218 The performance of the parser could be improved by redefining the morpheme inventory, reinterpreting complex stems as single morphemes, particularly for highfrequency stems. A consequence of this move would be an enlargement of the morpheme inventory. However, it is worth noting that even the existing wordformation grammar has significantly reduced the amount of memory required to store the 11,290 words. The size of the computer file listing the parsed forms was 540,837 bytes; this compares to the size of the morpheme inventory, plus the size of the grammar, plus the size of the list of exceptions (wrongly parsed and unparsed words) (181,231 bytes, 17,097 bytes and 158,125 bytes respectively), totalling 356,453 bytes. This represents a 34% reduction in storage space. Moreover, the reduction in storage space will be greater if one takes into account the fact that the grammar and morpheme inventory will generalize to out-of-vocabulary words (i.e. those not included in the 11,290-word dataset). This gives some indication of the benefits of adopting a morpheme-based approach to word-formation. 3.5.2

Test of the grammar’s treatment of vowel-zero alternations The Prolog DCG was then modified in accordance with the proposals in 3.3 to

account for vowel-zero alternations. This, of course, also involved modifying the morpheme inventory appropriately. Oliverius’s morpheme inventory simply lists allomorphs, including pairs which exhibit a vowel-zero alternation. With a ‘jer theory’ in place, each of these pairs can be collapsed into a single entry in the morpheme inventory (I shall refer to such entries as ‘jer-morphemes’), resulting in an overall reduction in the amount of information which has to be listed lexically. It has to be said, however, that this reduction was not great: the size of the inventory was reduced by only about 4%.

219 Since the objective of this test was to determine the grammar’s ability to vocalize and delete jers correctly, the sample for the test included only word-forms containing at least one jer-morpheme. Of the 11,290 words in Table 2, 3,403 words met this description. Although the vocalization and deletion of jers is presented in traditional generative phonology and Lexical Phonology as a process with ordered rules, it in fact turns into a parsing and generation problem in the current framework. The grammar should generate only those forms in which the jers vocalize and delete in the correct places, if the theory which it embodies is correct. At the same time, the grammar should parse (or accept) only those forms which have vocalized and deleted jers in the correct places, and reject all other forms. Thus one way of testing the grammar is to present it with a list of forms grouped as follows: each entry in the list consists of both the well-formed and ill-formed versions of a given word (e.g. #'> ‘day’ !$4'%! (gen. sg.) versus *#"'> !$'14'%!; #"'$ !$'14'! ‘day’ (nom. sg.) versus *#'$ !$4'! and *#'" !$4'1!). (Here, the latter examples in each case are ‘ill-formed’ only in that jers are vocalized or deleted in the wrong places.) If the grammar is accurate, it should accept all words in the former category and reject all words in the latter category. In designing the experiment, we wish to disregard cases where well-formed words are rejected not because the vocalization or deletion of the jers is incorrect, but because the grammar cannot assign structure to these forms anyway (for example, because they were within the 15299% of unparsed words in Table 20). We also wish to disregard cases where well- or ill-formed words are accepted, but assigned the wrong morphological tokenization. Thus we count only those entries in the list where either a well-formed or ill-formed alternative was accepted and assigned the correct

220 morphological tokenization. Of the 3,403 entries in the list, only 2,618 met this criterion. The results of the test were as follows. In 2,381 cases (90295% of the total), the form with jers correctly vocalized and deleted was accepted and all ill-formed alternatives were rejected. In the remaining 237 cases (9205%), the correct form was rejected and one of the ill-formed alternatives was accepted. In no cases was more than one alternative of the same form accepted, because in any given position (according to the grammar as formulated in 3.3) there is no optionality as to whether a jer deletes or vocalizes. These results show that the theory advanced by Lexical Phonology makes broadly the correct predictions (since the grammar tested does no more than implement the existing theory proposed by Pesetsky in context-free grammar). It is interesting to look more closely at the 9205% of cases that represent exceptions to Pesetsky’s theory, to see if there are any common factors which might enable these exceptions to be explained. Of these 237 forms, 88 have jers which have been incorrectly deleted in prefixes. For example: (130) Actual form Predicted form -,("-.$ -,<)!&.$-> -,(". -,
*-("-.$ *-<)!&.$-> *-(". *-
Lexical form

Gloss

!#O+"'1#&'+! !#O+A',0+%+&'+#'%! !#O+"'1&'+! !#O+A,&'+,7+1! !"O*+0%#&'+! !"O*+2-',2+4;+&'!

‘conscience’ ‘to gather’ ‘council’ ‘event’ ‘age’ ‘to exclaim’

All of the starred forms in (130) with a deleted jer are historically attested in Russian (Barxudarov et al. 1975), and in one case the predicted form still exists, but with a

221 different meaning (-(". ‘society’). In contemporary Russian, doublets of the -,("./-(". type are quite common: in each case, the member of the pair which exhibits ‘exceptional’ jer-vocalization is historically a borrowing from Old Church Slavonic (OCS), a South Slavic dialect, while the other member of the pair is a native Russian (East Slavic) word. Usually, the two will also be distinguished semantically, with the former more likely to relate to abstract concepts (e.g. -,
*,<1-.(, *+',*-.(, *-81-.(,

Lexical form

Gloss

!6A8&8'+E#&"+6! !+465+E#&"+6! !#;8&8'+E#&"+6!

‘society’ ‘multitude’ ‘being’

What these examples suggest is that it would be wrong to rule epenthesis out entirely as playing a role in jer vocalization. Although the Lexical Phonology theory

222 of the jers accounts correctly for 90295% of cases, its coverage of the data would be increased to at least 93270%37 if a rule were included to vocalize jers where an unsyllabifiable cluster would otherwise result. Clearly, though, these figures demonstrate that epenthesis is not as significant a factor in explaining jer deletion and vocalization as the Lexical Phonology theory. 3.6

Conclusion In this chapter I have applied the methodology set out in 1.4 to develop a

morphology of Russian which accounts for the formation of particles, non-derived nouns, derived nouns, verbs (non-reflexive and reflexive) and prefixation. I have not discussed the formation of adjectives or adverbs, although rules governing these are presented in the final form of the grammar in Appendix 2. The grammar was equipped to deal with morphophonological alternations between vowels and zero by incorporating the features [left:X], [!strong], [!tense] and [!high] into the wordformation grammar. The grammar, in its final form, meets the original objective of employing a grammar formalism no more powerful than context-free. In section 3.4, I introduced the problem of morphological ambiguity and suggested a heuristic for choosing among competing parses based on the frequency with which morphs used in competing analyses occur. Finally, in section 3.5 I presented the results of testing the grammar in Appendix 2 for its ability to assign correct morphological structures to 11,290 Russian words. The grammar was also tested to determine whether it correctly predicted the vocalization and deletion of jers, and it was found that the Lexical 37

The increase in coverage could be even greater, because some forms like -,9'&')" !#6*4%4,71! ‘conscience’ could be accounted for either by epenthesis or by the [!OCS] modification to the grammar proposed above.

223 Phonology theory was, by and large, accurate, although I suggested that the grammar should also incorporate a separate mechanism to deal with borrowings from OCS and a small number of cases of epenthesis which the Lexical Phonology account could not accommodate.

224

Chapter 4: Stress assignment: three existing theories 4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

Two approaches to stress in Russian: the Slavist and the generative

approaches Russian is traditionally described by textbooks as a language with ‘free wordstress’ (e.g. Avanesov 1956). The reason that stress in Russian has been described this way is that stress may be attached to any syllable of the word, and may surface on virtually any type of morpheme. However, it is not clear that Russian stress really is ‘free’ rather than ‘fixed’ in the sense used by Tornow (1984: 46ff) and Hayes (1995: 31). Although, as Shapiro (1986) says frankly, ‘Russian stress is a puzzle’, it is not completely arbitrary: Slavist and Western linguists have suspected for a long time that stress system of Russian appears to be governed by morphological principles, which places Russian clearly within Hayes’s (1995: 30-31) typology, but not as a truly ‘freestress’ language. The work done by Slavists on synchronic and diachronic Russian accentology is a long-established strand of research in this field. It is impossible to give a comprehensive list of citations, owing to the proliferation of work in the field; however, some of the principal landmarks are Stang (1957), Illi;-Svity; (1963), Garde (1976) and Dybo (1981), historical accounts; Zaliznjak (1967 and 1977), Red’kin (1971), Fedjanina (1976) and Afaneseva (1984), classifications of modern Russian lexemes according to their stress pattern; and Zaliznjak (1985), a historical and synchronic account. Concurrently, the attention of mainstream generative linguists

225 following in the tradition of Chomsky and Halle (1968) has also turned to this perennial problem (Halle 1973, 1975 and 1997, Halle and Kiparsky 1979, Pesetsky ms 1979, Melvold 1989 and Gladney 1995). It is clear from Halle and Kiparsky (1981) that this line of research has been influenced in particular by Garde’s work. Finally, in the last few years, Nesset (1994) and Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake (1996) have produced work which can be seen as a recasting of Slavist ideas on Russian stress in a declarative framework. The basic approach of this work is similar to that of most of the synchronic work by Slavists: lexemes, rather than morphemes, are classified by their accentual features. It is unfortunate in particular that the tradition of mainstream generative linguistics is somewhat apart from the rest of the work mentioned, since each tradition has produced substantial contributions which have been neglected by the other, to the detriment of the overall state of research in the field. The primary strength of the Slavists’ work rests in its commitment to a thoroughgoing coverage of the data of Russian: generally, this tradition has produced more substantial treatments of Russian stress than the generative tradition. Examples of this are the comprehensive dictionary of Zaliznjak (1977) and his monograph giving a detailed synchronic and diachronic account of stress in Russian (Zaliznjak 1985); Fedjanina’s (1976) account, which classifies approximately 1,500 modern Russian lexemes with mobile stress by accentual type; and Red’kin’s (1971) account, which has one index, like Fedjanina’s, with a classification of approximately 3,000 non-derived words and another index listing approximately 250 suffixes with their accentual properties (Red’kin 1971: 216-221). Typically, this work has been aimed at least partially at students of Russian, so an important goal has been to enable the

226 reader to discover facts about the stress of a particular word in which he or she is interested. Zaliznjak’s (1977) dictionary goes the furthest in achieving this, reliably indicating the stress of approximately 100,000 Russian words plus their inflected forms. The introduction to the dictionary contains detailed and extensive notes to complement the information given for each lexical entry, enabling the user to determine & without ambiguity & the precise form of any inflection of any headword, together with its stress. Indeed, this dictionary is a standard source of information about stress in Russian. In general, it is a reflection of Zaliznjak’s encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject that references to his work appear almost de rigueur in the bibliography of any work on Russian stress, including the work of generative linguists such as Halle and Melvold. A strength of the generative work, on the other hand, is that it makes more general linguistic claims: an important objective for generative linguists has been to develop not just language-specific rules which apply to Russian (or any one other language), but universal rules which apply to all (or as wide as possible a range of) languages. Thus, in his (1997) account of Russian stress, Halle argues that the stress system of modern Russian, along with that of Lithuanian and Sanskrit, survives more or less unchanged from Indo-European. On an even broader level, both Halle’s and Melvold’s accounts are grounded in parametric metrical theory (Booij 1983, Hayes 1995, and see Dresher and Kaye 1990 for a discussion of a computational learning algorithm based on parametric metrical theory), which conceives of stress assignment as being governed by a universal set of parameters whose settings are selected according to language.

227 While the coverage of Russian generally by the Slavist accounts has been excellent, they have a number of weaknesses. First, synchronic Slavist accounts have given little, if any, consideration to the ways in which the stress system of Russian might be similar to that of other languages. As mentioned above, there is a tendency in this work to list accentual properties as lexical features of whole lexemes (e.g. Red’kin 1971, Zaliznjak 1977, 1985): however, by definition this kind of approach cannot be easily transferred to other languages, since many languages do not have inflection at all, and even if they do, the categories for which lexemes inflect may be radically different from those of Russian. Secondly, Slavists have often glossed over the question of how different modules of grammar integrate. In particular, where the focus has been on classifying lexemes by accentual types, there has tended to be an impression that aspects of Russian grammar such as morphological composition are either irrelevant or bear no relation to stress assignment. To a lesser extent, this criticism can be levelled against those who have considered the relationship between stress and affixation in Russian (e.g. Red’kin 1971, Zaliznjak 1985, Lagerberg 1992), since by definition such an approach is morpheme-based and thus requires some consideration of how the morphological structure of a word affects its stress. However, Zaliznjak (1985: 22) states that the stress of non-derived words, in contradistinction to that of derived words, is a ‘lexical idiosyncrasy of each word’ and ‘cannot be predicted formally from any other characteristic of the given word’. This is clearly opposed to Halle’s (1997: 275) view that in modern Russian, as in Indo-European, stress is determined by morphological structure, even in non-derived words. Zaliznjak therefore limits the

228 role for grammatical integration between morphology and stress assignment in a way which Halle does not; in this chapter I shall show that Halle was right in this instance. A third weakness of many Slavist accounts is that little thought is given to the formal properties of the grammars proposed. For example, one obvious formal disadvantage of Zaliznjak’s (1977) listing stress on a word-by-word basis is that the size of the lexicon required is much greater than it would have been if accentuation had been listed on a morpheme-by-morpheme basis, since the number of morphemes in Russian must be considerably less than the number of words in the language. A second problem is that Slavists ignore the question of the power of grammar rules. The potential pitfall here is that theories which are proposed may in fact be unrestricted rewriting systems, and, as Chomsky (1963: 360) states, ‘if all we can say about a grammar of a natural language is that it is an unrestricted rewriting system, we have said nothing of any interest.’ A shortcoming of generative accounts, on the other hand, is that they often rely on only a few illustrative examples to justify grammar rules: unlike, for example, Zaliznjak (1977) they tend to be neither comprehensive nor detailed in their treatment of Russian (or any other language). It hardly needs to be said that their treatment of language-groups or, for that matter, language universals, is even less comprehensive and detailed. Thus the coverage of generative theories, that is, the extent to which they account for the data without exceptions, is often very much open to question. In particular, there is no way of determining the coverage of Halle’s (1997) or Melvold’s (1989) theories of Russian stress without first knowing the accentuation of all entries in the morpheme inventory; however, this information is not provided in either of the two accounts. Clearly, the analyses which list the accentual properties of lexical items

229 on a word-by-word basis, such as Red’kin (1971), Zaliznjak (1977), and Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake (1996), do not have this weakness, since by definition their coverage, in percentage terms, is the number of words listed divided by the number of words in the entire lexicon, multiplied by 100. As far as Russian stress is concerned, a consequence of the generative theories’ lack of coverage is that they are of little practical use in determining the stress placement in a particular word, since the likelihood is that the word in question will not be listed in the lexicon. Thus the interest of generative theories remains on a theoretical level; as a practical tool for stress assignment, they fall short of the standard set by Slavists. To date, the goal of synthesizing the best features of the two approaches & coverage, constrainedness, and grammatical integration & has been elusive. In my view, only one analysis of Russian stress comes close to achieving it: this is Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake’s (1996) Network Morphology account. In many ways, this research is similar to that of Red’kin, Zaliznjak and other Slavists: it achieves 100% correct coverage of 1,536 high-frequency nouns. Although it lists the accentual properties of words on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis, it achieves economies of description by identifying correlations between inflectional classes. Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake’s theory is implemented computationally in DATR (Evans and Gazdar 1989a, 1989b and 1995). While the theory accounts only for stress in inflection, Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake state that it could be extended to account for stress in derived words also. However, the account relies on a stem-by-stem (or lexeme-by-lexeme) instead of a morpheme-by-morpheme listing of accentual properties. The theory thus makes firm predictions only about those lexemes it lists, with a default mechanism predicting the most likely stress pattern of

230 previously unencountered lexemes. However, like Gladney (1995), I would argue that an approach which classifies stems rather than morphemes in fact treats the ‘explicandum as the explicans’. The advantage of morpheme-based accounts such as those of Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989) is that any word analyzable in terms of the entries in the morpheme inventory can be covered by the theory. Furthermore, with a morpheme-based account the amount of information which needs to be listed lexically is substantially reduced. For example, the 2,493 commonly-occurring Russian words given by Oliverius (1976) can be morphologically parsed using an inventory of approximately 1,600 constituent morphemes. These figures suggest that for a realistically-sized lexicon, a stress assignment program which listed the lexical accent for each morpheme would need at most 64% (1600/2500) of the memory space required by another program which listed the lexical accent for each word. For these reasons one would generally wish to base a theory on the smallest possible linguistic units. The reason that it has proved so difficult to formulate satisfactory generative accounts of stress assignment in Russian is that stress assignment involves the interaction of many different grammatical constraints. But this is precisely the kind of area that computational linguistics is well-placed to deal with. As noted by Shieber (1985: 190-193), Grishman (1986: 5) and Bird (1995: 14), computational linguistics offers a solution to the problems both of lexical data management and of determining whether complex linguistic theories actually work in the way they are intended to. A list of morphemes can easily be stored, added to and updated as necessary, even if it contains thousands of items. Each time the grammar or lexicon is updated, it is a

231 simple matter to re-test the theory. Without the aid of computer technology, however, this would be impracticable. The lack of comprehensive lexical information is perhaps the most significant omission of generative theories to date: indeed, Gladney (1995) remarks upon the fact that one cannot ‘realistically’ list the accentual properties of a large number of morphemes. However, such statements do not take into account the fact that systematic compilation of this kind of information is greatly facilitated by computational tools. In this chapter, computation allows us not only to establish the coverage of the selected theories empirically, but also to provide exactly the kind of comprehensive list of morphemes together with accentual properties which eluded Gladney. Theoretically, this could be done for an unlimited number of morphemes: in Appendix 3, I suggest accentual specifications for 1,094 morphemes and 1,509 allomorphs of Russian which, together with a stress assignment theory based on Melvold (1989), can account correctly for the stress of 95207% of 9,512 nouns (see section 5.3). A measure of the extent to which this list is a contribution to Slavic linguistics is the fact that the longest existing list of this type of which I am aware is Red’kin’s (1971) index of suffixes: this list contains approximately 250 items. It is not my intention to defend Melvold (1989) & or the accentual specifications I suggest & as the definitive statement of Russian accentology, or to claim that this theory explains every problem, but I observe that of the existing theories tested, Melvold’s appears preferable on the grounds that it provides the best coverage of the data with the minimum theoretical complexity. I anticipate that the results which I have obtained will at least clarify for accentologists which data are problematic, and set a standard against which future theories can be measured.

232 In Chapter 5, I show that the essential features of Melvold’s theory can be recast within a declarative context-free grammar consisting of two modules operating in parallel, a morphological module (as described in Chapter 3) and a syllable structure module (as described in Chapter 2). The fact that Melvold’s theory can be readily implemented within the framework described leads to an important result for general (rather than Slavic) linguistics: it is shown that there is no difficulty in principle in integrating an account of Russian stress assignment into a general account of syllable structure and word-formation. 4.1.2

Aims of this chapter My aim in this chapter is to select three existing theories of Russian stress and

to conduct an independent and critical examination of them on equal bases to determine which of them best fits the data of Russian. In all three cases, it is not clear at the outset what the theory’s coverage is. The theories selected are those of Zaliznjak (1985), Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989). From the results of the computational tests, I shall conclude that Melvold’s theory is superior to the others in three ways: (a) its stronger claims (Melvold’s theory claims to account for a broader range of words) are empirically justified, (b) it is a simpler theory, and (c) it fits the data slightly better than Zaliznjak’s theory, as the percentage of words for which it accounts correctly is higher. As will be shown in 4.3, there are numerous obstacles which must be overcome before we can even attempt to answer the question of the theories’ coverage. In short, a problem with all three theories is that they are insufficiently explicit to be tested. This does not mean that the theories do not fit the data; it simply means that unless we substantially add to the theories, they are of little practical use as

233 a means of assigning stress. In particular, the lack of explicitness is manifested in a failure to specify the accentuation of every relevant morpheme in the morpheme inventory. Thus an important subsidiary aim of this chapter is to establish what the accentuations of a sizeable number of Russian morphemes are. Until this aim has been achieved, we are not interested in identifying exceptions to any of the three theories piecemeal: this approach could mislead us into modifying a particular theory in ways which actually decrease its overall coverage. In order to ensure that we are in a position to make fully-justified modifications to any of the derivational theories under consideration, we need first to obtain a systematic and comprehensive list of words which each theory fails to account for. This is where computational tools come into their own. Once these obstacles are overcome, however, the results of the tests carried out suggest that the ideas in Halle (1997), as well as those of Melvold (1989), are fundamentally sound. Melvold’s theory, however, is broader in scope. The ideas from Melvold (1989) are therefore incorporated into the overall context-free phonology set out in this thesis: Chapter 5 describes in detail how this is done. 4.2

Three theories of stress assignment

4.2.1

Halle (1997) Halle’s (1997) theory, which is a simple derivational, morpheme-based

account of Russian stress, is briefly summarized in (132):

234 (132) Accentual categories Every morpheme in Russian is lexically specified to be either ‘accented’ or ‘unaccented’ (Halle 1997: 278). The accent of an ‘accented’ morpheme is either borne by one of the morpheme’s constituent vowel segments, or the ‘accented’ morpheme is ‘post-accented’ (in other words, ‘post-accented’ is a subcategory of ‘accented’). Every stem in Russian is categorized as either ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ with respect to stress assignment.

Phonological constituency of morphemes Every morpheme in Russian consists phonologically of segments (phonemes) which are drawn from a limited stock of vowels and consonants. Most of these segments are uncontroversial and are thus not listed exhaustively by Halle. The one (controversial) segment which is explicitly mentioned in Halle (1997) is the jer. Halle views jers as a type of vowel, in accordance with standard generative phonology (see section 3.3).

Stress assignment rules Stress assignment in a given word is determined by (1) the accentual specification and phonological constituency of the word’s morphemes, and (2) the accentual specification of the word’s stem. The following procedure, according to Halle, is sufficient to determine the stress of a word:

235 Rule 1:If a word contains no accented morphemes, it is stressed on the first syllable and no further rules apply; otherwise, the leftmost accented morpheme determines the word-stress38. Rule 2:If the morpheme which determines the word-stress is accented but not post-accented, then stress is on the constituent segment which bears the accent; otherwise (if the morpheme is post-accented), stress is on the first vowel to the right of the morpheme. Rule 3: If, following the application of rule 2, stress is on a jer, then it is retracted (moved left) to the first available vowel which is not a jer. Rule 4: Following the application of rule 3, if the word is plural and its stem is ‘marked’, then the stress is retracted (moved left) by one syllable.

Scope of theory Halle (1997) does not specify whether the theory is limited in its scope (for example, he does not state whether the theory applies only to non-derived nouns).

There are some similarities between the analysis in Halle (1997) and that in Halle (1973): the ideas that stress is morphological, surfaces on the leftmost lexically accented vowel or otherwise on the leftmost syllable of a word, and is retracted to prejer position when the stressed jer is deleted are not new as far as Halle is concerned.

38

This is the Basic Accentuation Principle from Kiparsky and Halle (1977: 209).

236 The principal differences (apart from the fact that Halle in the more recent article is arguing from modern Russian back to a putative origin in Indo-European) are as follows. First, in Halle (1973) nouns with stress on the ending in all inflected forms are considered to be accentless. Their final stress is accounted for by the ‘Oxytone’ rule which assigns stress to the inflection in words with accentless stems. Thus Halle (1973) categorizes as ‘unaccented’ the same stems that are ‘post-accented’ in Halle (1997). For nouns where stress alternates between the inflection and the stem, Halle suggests in the earlier article that the Oxytone rule applies in all cases where the stress is on the inflection, and that it is ‘blocked’ in all other case forms: he states (p. 317) that ‘which case forms are marked [$Oxy], if any, is an idiosyncratic property of each noun’. This analysis would require the listing of a sizeable amount of information in the lexicon; perhaps it is because of this that Halle (1997) abandons the rather arbitrary ‘Blocking’ rule. Instead, these are the nouns which in Halle (1997) are considered to have ‘unaccented’ stems. Indeed, if one resorts to listing the case forms where stress is or is not retracted as part of the lexical entries of stems, it seems that there is little advantage in proposing a morpheme-based account of Russian stress at all: after all, the account of Brown, Corbett, Fraser, Hippisley and Timberlake (1996) achieves this objective in a much neater way. Some example derivations are given in Table 21 to demonstrate the operation of the rules in Halle (1997):

237 Table 21. Derivations of six Russian words in accordance with Halle (1997) Word Meaning Underlying forms39 Rule 140 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Other rules Surface forms

5,:!,#8 ‘town’ (dat. sg.) !B606$+;! !B/606$+;! n/a n/a n/a n/a !B/606$+;!

Word %,!,:6$ ‘king’ (nom. sg.) Meaning Underlying forms41 !2606-'/+O! Rule 1 !2606-'/+O! Rule 2 !2606-'+/O! Rule 3 !260/6-'+O! n/a Rule 4 Other rules !260/6-'+! Surface forms !260/6-'+!

4.2.2

5,!,#&:+) ‘towns’ (instr. pl.) !B606$+/%+',! !B606$+/%+',! !B606$+/%+',! n/a n/a n/a !B606$+/%+',!

%,!,6?: ‘king’ (dat. sg.) !2606-'/+;! !2606-'/+;! !2606-'+/;! n/a n/a n/a !2606-'+/;!

%,6<&-8: ‘sausage’ (acc. sg.) !4(,A#+B+;! !4(,A#+B+;!

%,6<&:-&+) ‘sausage’ (instr. pl.) !4(,A#+B+/%+',! !4(,A#+B+/%+',!

!4(,A#++/;! n/a n/a n/a !26-A%#+/;!

!4(,A#++/%+',! n/a !26-A/%#+%+',! n/a

!26-A/%#+%+',!

Melvold (1989) Melvold’s (1989) theory about stress in Russian is more detailed than Halle

(1997). Part of her theory is summarized in (133), which is in the same format as used in (132).

39

Accentuation is represented by the symbol / ; where this symbol immediately precedes a segment, that segment is accent-bearing; where it is placed in morpheme-final position, the morpheme is postaccented. 40 The morpheme which ‘determines’ stress is underlined. 41 Jers are represented by the symbols O and E. ‘Marked’ stems are shown in bold.

238 (133) Accentual categories As far as the categorization of Russian morpheme is concerned, Melvold’s analysis is exactly the same as Halle’s, except that she introduces the additional lexical distinction of ‘dominant’ versus ‘recessive’ which applies only to suffixes. This distinction is independent of the ‘accented’ versus ‘unaccented’ distinction. As in Halle (1997), every stem in Russian is categorized as either ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ with respect to stress assignment.

Phonological constituency of morphemes Melvold’s analysis is the same as that in Halle (1997). In particular, she also acknowledges the existence of jers.

Stress assignment rules Stress assignment in a given word is determined by the same kind of considerations as in Halle (1997). In Melvold’s theory, however, stress is cyclic. This means that in derived words stress is first assigned to the ‘innermost’ stem; the output of this stress assignment is the input to the next cycle, and so on. Thus in the following rules ‘stem’ appears where ‘word’ would have appeared in Halle (1997):

Rule 1:If a stem contains no accented or dominant morphemes, it is initially stressed and no further rules apply; otherwise, if it contains no dominant morphemes, the leftmost accented morpheme determines the

239 stem-stress; otherwise, the rightmost dominant morpheme determines the stem-stress. Rule 2:If the morpheme which determines the stem-stress is unaccented, then stress is on the initial syllable of the stem and no further rules apply; otherwise, if the morpheme is accented but not post-accented, then stress is on the constituent segment which bears the accent; otherwise (if the morpheme is post-accented), stress is on the first vowel to the right of the morpheme. Rule 3: If, following the application of rule 2, stress is on a jer, then it is retracted (moved left) to the first available vowel which is not a jer; otherwise, the stress remains where it is. Rule 4: Following the application of rule 3, if the stem is plural or belongs to certain other grammatical categories (Melvold 1989: 26) and its stem is ‘marked’, then the stress is retracted (moved left) by one syllable.

Scope of theory Nouns (derived and non-derived, in direct and oblique cases).

Comparison of (132) and (133) makes clear that Melvold (1989), in a sense, can be seen as an extension to Halle (1997): all the rules in (132) are represented in (133), but not vice versa. In particular, the introduction of the dominant/recessive distinction and associated rules, as well as the fact that Melvold’s rules can apply cyclically, means that Melvold’s theory has means of explaining surface stress which are not available in Halle (1997). Halle does not explicitly state the scope of the rules

240 given in his 1997 article, but if we are to believe Melvold (1989), these rules are limited in their application to words which contain at most one derivational suffix; this is because in words which contain two or more derivational suffixes, the accentual properties of the root would always be obscured by the effects of cyclicity. Furthermore, where words contain exactly one derivational suffix, Halle’s theory could apply only if the suffix were recessive. If these proposals are correct and Melvold’s extra ‘machinery’ is genuinely needed to account for words containing derivational suffixes, then one would in general expect Halle’s theory to cope less well with derived words than Melvold’s theory. In section 4.4, I shall present evidence which confirms this expectation. Some further miscellaneous differences between Melvold (1989) and Halle (1997) are as follows:

(a)

Stress retraction can occur in grammatical categories other than the plural (Melvold 1989: 26)

(b)

Melvold explicitly allows for the possibility that stress retraction may occur even when the stem is not post-accented (ibid., pp. 26-27). Halle (1997) does not allow for this possibility (op. cit., p. 283).

(c)

Melvold accounts for facultative variants of stress in plural short form adjectives such as +)6/ ‘kind’, phonologically either !+',-/,! or !+'/,-,!, by stipulating that there are two alternants of the plural inflection and that only

241 some lexically marked adjective stems take the accented alternant. Halle (1997) makes no reference to facultative variants.

(d)

Melvold accounts for short form adjectives where there are facultative variants in both the plural and the neuter singular, such as <"6, ‘white’ (neuter sg.), <"6/ ‘white’ (pl.), phonologically either !A'1-/6!, !A'1-/,! or !A'/1-6!, !A'/1-,!, by stipulating that certain lexically marked post-accenting adjective stems have optional stress retraction in the neuter singular and plural.

(e)

All long-form adjectival inflections are assumed to be accented by Melvold.

(f)

Patterns such as :,!,B,: !C6068+/6! ‘good’ (neut short form), :,!,:B)0 !C60/68+,7! ‘good’ (nom. masc. sg. long form) are accounted for by stipulating that some lexically marked adjective stems undergo stress retraction in the long form.

It follows from the observations made above that all the words in Table 21 would be derived in exactly the same way by Melvold as by Halle. Table 22, however, gives examples of words whose derivation is possible only by virtue of Melvold’s rules:

242 Table 22.42 Derivations of five Russian words in accordance with Melvold (1989) Word Meaning Underlying forms Cycle 1 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Cycle 2 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Other rules Surface forms

8')("!-).":.8 ‘university’ (dat. sg.) !;4',"'/10#'+!"#$%"+;! !;4',"'10#'+,&'/1&! !;4',"'10#'+,&'/1&! n/a n/a !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+;! !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+;! n/a n/a n/a !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+;!

8')("!-).":.-&+) ‘universities’ (instr. pl.) !;4',"'/10#'+!"#$%"+/%+',! !;4',"'10#'+,&'/1&! !;4',"'10#'+,&'/1&! n/a n/a !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+/%+',! !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+%+',! n/a n/a n/a !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+%+',!

Word Meaning Underlying forms Cycle 1 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Cycle 2 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Other rules Surface forms

+,:6,#,-.>+) ‘youth’ (instr. pl.) !+6-6$+6#&'+/%+',! !+/6-6$+6#&'! n/a n/a n/a !+/6-6$6#&'+/%+',! !+/6-6$6#&'+%+',! n/a n/a n/a

,:<,!,."'$ ‘werewolf’ (nom. sg.) !6A60/6&'+%&#+O! !6A60/6&'+14'! !/6A606&'+14'! n/a n/a !/6A606&'14'+O! !/6A606&'14'+O! n/a n/a !/6A606&'14'+! !/6A606&'14'+!

!+/6-6$6#&'+%+',!

#8!&%8: ‘fool’ (dat. sg.) !$;0+%2/+;! !$;0+%2/! !$;0+%2/! n/a n/a !$;0%2/+;! !$;0%2+/;! n/a n/a n/a !$;0%2+/;!

As Melvold (1989: 48) notes, the cyclicity of the rules is the device which guarantees that the stress of derived words (words which include a derivational suffix) will, in most cases, be on the same syllable for all inflected forms (see also Zaliznjak 1985: 30, Lagerberg 1992: 11), even if the stem contains only unaccented morphemes

42

Symbols are as in Table 21; additionally, dominant suffixes are italicized.

243 and the inflectional ending is inherently accented (cf +,:6,#,-.$ !+/6-6$+6#&'+! ‘youth’ [nom. sg.], +,:6,#,-.>+) !+/6-6$+6#&'+%+',! ‘youths’ [instr. pl.]). Essentially, Melvold’s use of cyclicity develops the framework of Halle and Vergnaud (1987). One of the postulates of this framework is the Stress Erasure Convention (SEC), which states that cyclic affixes obliterate stresses assigned on earlier passes through the cyclic rules. Halle and Vergnaud (1987: 97-98) assume that examples such as !;4',"'10#',&'/1&+%+',!, where !%+',! is assumed to be a cyclic affix, indicate that Russian is exceptional to the SEC; if it were not, the accented inflectional affix !%+',! would obliterate the stress assigned in Cycle 1 to !;4',"'10#',&'/1&!). Halle and Vergnaud attribute the exceptionality of Russian to the existence of a special ‘stress copy’ rule in the language. However, as they admit, this does not explain the behaviour of suffixes such as !14'! in !/6A606&'14'+!. The difference between Melvold’s account and Halle and Vergnaud’s is that according to Melvold, dominant (rather than cyclic) suffixes erase stress assigned on previous cycles. This allows Melvold to account for all the examples above, including the ones which are problematic for Halle and Vergnaud. It should be noted that Harris (1989) criticizes Halle and Vergnaud’s use of the SEC on the basis of the way in which they apply it to explain cyclic stress deletion in Spanish words: The account proposed in H&V (1987) attributes [the stress deletion step] to the SEC, whereas the one proposed here assigns it to the Main Stress Rule. The present account thus makes it possible to sustain H&V’s claim that an independent rule…, whose sole function is to delete stress, is unnecessary in the grammar of Spanish. On the other hand, this analysis renders the SEC totally otiose; stress deletion in Spanish words is tied directly to the basic idea in H&V (1987) that stress contours are manifestations of the organization of metrical entities into headed constituents: reapplication of the Main Stress Rule results in the merger of two such constituents into one, with the concomitant loss of one head & that is, automatic erasure of one of two stresses. (p. 360)

244

For now, we shall do no more than note Harris’s objections to the SEC. In Chapter 5, however, I shall return to the issue of stress ‘erasure’ (which might appear to be problematic for declarative grammar in any case, since it involves destructive modification) and show how the basic idea of stress erasure by dominant affixes can be implemented in context-free grammar non-destructively and in a way very reminiscent of ‘the organization of metrical entities into headed constituents’. 4.2.3

Zaliznjak (1985) Zaliznjak’s (1985) theory about stress for derived nouns has many of the same

characteristics as that of Halle’s and Melvold’s theories: not only are the rules themselves similar, but his theory involves lexically determined accentual specifications for morphemes. Furthermore, Zaliznjak’s basic rules are at a similar level of detail to those of Halle and Melvold. Zaliznjak’s (1985: 37-38) ‘basic rules’ are set out in (134), again in the same format as (132) and (133).

(134) Accentual categories Every morpheme falls into one of the following categories: < (recessive pre-accented) = (recessive accented) ' (recessive post-accented)
As in Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989), if a morpheme is accented (classified =), then the accent is borne by a particular vowel in the morpheme.

245 Zaliznjak does not restrict ‘dominance’ to suffixes, as Melvold (1989) does: A strong stem in which the root has acquired the property of dominance is itself dominant… The following are examples of dominant stems: #$%&''- !4%0/6$! “people”, #$%&''#-() !4%0/6$4+,7! “national”, #$%&''#*+,-./-& !4%0/6$4,&8'1#&"+6! “populism”, &0#$%&''&/$-.1 !6A4%0/6$6"%+&'! “promulgate”, 0,2/%,''#-() !A'1*"0'/1$4+,7! “harmless”, &0,2/%,''*-.1 !6A'1*"0'/1$',+&'! “to render harmless”, 3#$/&'2*-.1 !;4%"/6*',+&'! “to manure”, #$4%&5$'2*-.1 !4%9062/%*',+&'! “to play pranks”. [my translation & PC] (Zaliznjak 1985: 53)

Finally, in Zaliznjak (1985), there is no accentual categorization of stems as there is in Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989).

Phonological constituency of morphemes Zaliznjak (1985) does not acknowledge the existence of jers. Otherwise, his theory is similar in terms of the phonological constituency of morphemes to that of Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989).

Stress assignment rules Rule 1:If a word contains one or more dominant morphemes, stress is determined by the rightmost dominant morpheme; otherwise, if the word contains one or more morphemes classified as < or =, stress is determined by the leftmost of these morphemes; otherwise, stress is determined by the rightmost morpheme (which must be post-accented). Rule 2: If the morpheme which determines stress is classified ', then stress is ‘attached’ to the following morpheme; if the morpheme which determines stress is classified <, then stress is ‘attached’ to the

246 preceding morpheme. (Although Zaliznjak does not say so, we may assume that if the morpheme which determines stress is classified =, then stress is ‘attached’ to that morpheme.) Rule 3:If the morpheme to which stress is ‘attached’ is classified =, then stress falls on the vowel which bears the accent; if the morpheme to which stress is ‘attached’ is classified <, then stress falls on the syllable immediately to the left of the morpheme; if the morpheme to which stress is ‘attached’ is classified ', the stress falls on the syllable immediately to the right of the morpheme.

Scope of theory Derived words in the nominative singular only (Zaliznjak 1985: 29).

The following differences between Zaliznjak’s theory and Melvold’s theory thus emerge. First, Zaliznjak does not allow for the possibility that morphemes are unaccented, while Melvold and Halle do. Secondly, the category ‘pre-accented’ which is included by Zaliznjak, is not recognized by either Halle or Melvold. However, the difference between the theories which is the most significant is the distinction between the morpheme which ‘determines’ stress and the morpheme to which stress is ‘attached’, a distinction which does not exist in either Halle (1997) or Melvold (1989). The importance of this difference can be seen by considering the following example given by Zaliznjak. He claims that the explanation for the stress in 3"!.2*)% !&8'10&'+/65+,2! ‘small sketch’ is that !&8'10&'! is post-accented, !65! is dominant post-accented, and !,2! is pre-accented, as in (135).

247

(135) &8'10&' '

65 'D

,2 <

Because !65! is the rightmost dominant morpheme, it determines the stress placement. But because it is also post-accented, stress is ‘attached’ to the following morpheme. According to Halle and Melvold, the accentuation of !,2! at this point would be irrelevant: stress would simply surface on the first vowel to the right of !65!. But because of Zaliznjak’s final rule, stress surfaces on the syllable to the left of !,2!, since !,2! is pre-accented. In other words, the stress ‘returns’ to !65!. As an aside, it is worth noting that the analysis of !&8'10&'+/65+,2! is problematic for Melvold’s theory. The basis on which Zaliznjak (1985) classifies !65! as dominant post-accented is presumably the existence of forms such as 3"!.2* !&8'10&+/65! ‘sketch’, where stress is on the initial syllable of the inflection for all inflected forms, e.g. 3"!."*&: !&8'10&+65+/%! ‘sketch’ (gen. sg.), 3"!."*8: !&8'10&+65+/;! ‘sketch’ (dat. sg.). The only possible analysis of !&8'10&+/65!, !&8'10&+65+/%!, and !&8'10&+65+/;! within Melvold’s theory would be to stipulate, as Zaliznjak does, that !65! is dominant post-accented. However, the rules in (133) then cannot provide an analysis of !&8'10&'+/65+,2!. This, however, is not the place to pursue this point further: as stated above, we are not interested in identifying exceptions to any of the three theories piecemeal. The fact that Zaliznjak’s theory is unnecessarily complex is the main objection which can be raised against it. An additional point, as we have seen, is that Zaliznjak states that his theory is applicable only to derived words and Melvold’s theory claims to account for both derived and non-derived words. Thus Melvold’s theory makes the

248 stronger claim. Of course, this is a shortcoming of Zaliznjak’s theory only if it does not hold for both derived and non-derived words, whatever Zaliznjak claims. We shall see in 4.4.3-4.4.5 that Melvold’s claim is generally borne out by the data, but I do not present any results which confirm or refute Zaliznjak’s statement about the scope of his theory. Thus the question of whether Melvold’s theory does have a greater scope remains open, and the principal proven advantage that Melvold’s theory has over Zaliznjak’s is its greater simplicity. 4.3

Derivational theories and underdeterminacy Derivational grammar rules are usually thought of as subjecting underlying

forms to various rewrite operations which result in generation of a surface form. Both the rules and the underlying representations are integral elements in a grammar, since the existence of any surface form relies on both a corresponding underlying representation and the rules which link the two together; with both the rules and the underlying representations it should be possible to test a derivational theory empirically. However, generative grammar often glosses over the question of what the underlying forms are. Rules are often developed in considerable detail, but typically only a few illustrative underlying representations are given as ‘proof’ of the rules’ validity. No doubt this is because the process of compiling such lists is more tedious than the formulation of general rules, which can be done comparatively quickly. Indeed, for a realistically-sized morpheme inventory, compiling comprehensive lists of underlying representations by hand may well be impracticable. Yet if a list of underlying representations does not accompany the rules, the grammar can never be properly tested: the grammar is underdetermined.

249 Although Zaliznjak’s account gives the most detail, listing over a hundred morphemes in an appendix, all three theories presented in 4.2 have this shortcoming: stress assignment rules are discussed in some detail, but the underlying forms of comparatively few morphemes are specified. Thus these theories cannot be tested on a large corpus as they stand: the question of how well they fit the data on a large scale therefore remains open. Since we are interested in obtaining an answer to the question of the respective coverage of different theories of Russian stress assignment, we need somehow to obtain, for each theory and dataset to be tested, the underlying form for each morpheme represented in the given dataset. In other words, we need to build up a morpheme inventory with fully-specified underlying forms which best fits both the theory and the data. It goes without saying that the specification of each underlying form must be consistent with the given theory. In sections 4.3.1-4.3.3 I consider whether there is any principled way of obtaining this information. The first method, ‘brute force’, involves specification of the morpheme inventory in every possible way to determine which specification is optimal. This method, however, has to be rejected: the solution space is so large that solution of the problem in this way is not computationally feasible. However, the discussion in 4.3.1 serves at least to demonstrate the scale of the problem. The second, computational ‘learning’ (or inference) of underlying accentuations, is feasible and well-founded in logic. It is also useful in that it can provide conclusive evidence that a given theory is problematic (i.e., inconsistent). However, as soon as a theory is shown to be problematic, one can no longer obtain reliable information about underlying forms for that theory by logical inference. In

250 any case, even if the theories under consideration were unproblematic, it is highly unlikely that any of them would be sufficiently constrained such that logical inference would allow the accentuations of all the entries in the morpheme inventory to be uniquely determined. In summary, for the theories under review, all that logical inference can reliably tell us is when their coverage is less than 100%. The third method involves the stipulation of defaults to achieve full specification of the morpheme inventory. When the inventory is specified in this way, one at least has a basis on which to test a given derivational theory and thus measure its coverage. The stipulation of defaults effectively involves adopting an additional hypothesis, and is thus more than just a method of obtaining underlying forms. Indeed, it might well be argued that the (unspoken) hypothesis of Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989), and possibly also of Zaliznjak (1985), is that certain default accentuations are stipulated. However, to say this runs the risk of attributing to these theories ideas which Halle, Melvold or Zaliznjak might wish to disown. However, it turns out (as I shall show in 4.3.3) that the adoption of this hypothesis as a firm principle means that the fit of the theory to the data is suboptimal: a better fit can be obtained if one effectively abandons the hypothesis and determines the optimal accentual specification of the morpheme inventory for a given theory by trial and error. In a sense it is immaterial how we obtain the underlying forms which fit a given initial set of rules. However, the different methods of establishing the accentual properties of the morpheme inventory are of interest not just because their output is a more fully-determined theory. They are also of interest because they shed light on other aspects of the theories: first, the scale of their underdetermination; secondly,

251 cases which are problematic for all three theories; and thirdly, that while the hypothesis of default underlying forms can be adopted to solve the problem of underdeterminacy, it will not solve this problem optimally. 4.3.1

Computing underlying accentuations by ‘brute force’ In this section, I use the term ‘morpheme inventory’ to mean a set of

morphemes with underlying forms which are accentually fully-specified. The ‘length’ of the morpheme inventory is defined as being the number of entries in the morpheme inventory, and the ‘lexical solution space’ (LSS) is defined as the number of possible morpheme inventories, given a list of accentually unspecified morphemes. Thus the lists in (136) and (137) are both of length 2, and, moreover, contain the same morphemes, but are distinct ‘morpheme inventories’, because the accentual specifications differ in at least one morpheme: !$"60/!rn in (136) versus !$"60!rn in (137). (136) !$"60/!rn !$/6&8'!rn (137) !$"60!rn !$/6&8'!rn

Assuming any morpheme can be either accented, unaccented or postaccented, the LSS of the list consisting of the (accentually unspecified) morphemes !$"60!rn and
252 available in the universe), and for this reason it is computationally impossible to compare the results of using every possible morpheme inventory when large datasets are involved. 4.3.2

Backwards phonology and the Accent Learning Algorithm Instead of attempting to compute the underlying representations for the

morphological inventory by brute force, one could, in principle, use a given theory’s rules to reconstruct or ‘learn’ all the possible underlying accentuations from the surface forms, a process described by Bear (1990) as ‘backwards’ phonology (cf. also Leben and Robinson 1976): I shall start by making explicit what it means to apply a phonological rule in the backwards direction. The basic idea is straightforward and will be, I think, uncontroversial. a'b/%_4

(1)

A rule like the one in (1) transforms the string !%a4! into the string !%b4!. Here % and 4 are strings of characters over some alphabet, e.g., the phonemes of a language. I take it that such a rule can also be interpreted as mapping the string !%b4! into the string !%a4!, when it is applied backwards. To take a more linguistically realistic rule, let us consider the simple rule in (2). 4'N/_B

(2)

… The rule in (2) says nothing about whether it is optional or obligatory in the backwards direction. Optionality in the backwards direction is entirely independent of optionality in the forward direction. (p. 2)

In other words, we know from (2) in the quotation above that any underlying !4B! must surface as (NB), but, without further information, we cannot assume that any surface (NB) results from an underlying !4B!: all we know is that a surface (NB) could be the reflex of an underlying !4B!. Indeed, it would be unusual for a generative

253 grammar to state explicitly whether its rules were obligatory or optional in the backwards direction. Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985) are no exceptions: under any given theory, any given underlying form can map to one and only one surface form, but we do not know whether the rules of the theories are optional or obligatory in the backwards direction. Thus we need to consider all possible ways in which underlying forms can map to surface forms. Table 23 illustrates, for a simple example, the multiplicity of ways in which a surface form may map to underlying forms, assuming the rules of Halle’s theory hold. In this example, O represents an underlying jer and O a zero-morpheme which does not contain an underlying jer. Throughout this chapter, it is assumed that we have no a priori knowledge of where jers occur in the lexical representations of morphemes.

254 Table 23. Possible solutions for -.,6 !+)B(,! ‘table’ (nom. sg.) Surface form43 !#&/6-!

43

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) (v) (w) (x) (y) (z) (aa) (ab) (ac) (ad)

Underlying forms

Rules applied

#&6-<+
For (a-h): !#&6-! is unaccented and the inflection is unaccented or postaccented, so stress is on the initial (and only) syllable. (NB O/ = postaccented O; O/ = postaccented O.) For (i-l): !#&6-! is post-accented, but no vowel or jer follows so stress on initial (and only) syllable For (m-v): The first full vowel is lexically accented.

For (w-ab): !#&6-! is post-accented, but stress is retracted as a jer follows

For (ac-ad): A lexically accented jer causes stress to be retracted

NB !stol! has a nominative singular inflectional morpheme, which is a zero-morpheme.

255 Thus, for this word which consists of only two morphemes, there are a total of 30 underlying forms, all of which can be mapped to the surface form in a way which is consistent with Halle’s rules. For longer words, the number of possible underlying forms will be much greater. This will apply particularly in cases where the stress surfaces in an early morpheme, since the rule which states that the leftmost accented morpheme surfaces as stressed means that & without further information & one cannot know whether morphemes to the right of the morpheme which surfaces as stressed are unaccented, accented or post-accented. The number of possible underlying forms for a word in which n morphemes follow the morpheme stressed in the surface form is likely to be at least 3n, since any combination of these n morphemes can be unaccented, accented or post-accented. For some words, therefore, there may be hundreds of possible underlying forms. However, what has been said is not the whole truth about Halle’s theory: the number of underlying forms for each word will in fact be less than suggested above, since one word may provide evidence about the underlying form of another. It is in fact a feature of all the theories under consideration that underlying representations for one word may have to be ruled out if they are ‘disproved’ by other words containing the same morphemes. To take an example, the morpheme !#&6-! appears in both !#&/6-! (nominative singular) and !#&6-/%! (genitive singular). Assuming Halle’s theory holds, the possible underlying forms for !#&6/-%! are listed in Table 24:

256 Table 24. Possible solutions for -.,6&C9!+)(, + B#! ‘table’ (gen. sg.) Surface form

Underlying forms

!#&6- + /%!

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

#&6-<+
Rules applied For (a-b): !#&6-! is unaccented and the inflectional ending is accented For (c-h): !#&6-! is post-accented, so stress is on the following vowel

None of the possibilities for !#&6-/%! includes accented !#&/6-!: the morpheme !#&6-! must be either unaccented or post-accented, or any inflected form of !#&6-! would always be stressed on the stem. Since the underlying accentuation of such morphemes must be the same no matter which words they occur in, there will be many such cases where one word provides additional constraints on the admissibility of accentuations for another. In the general case, if some word W contains some morpheme M for which Mu is a candidate accentuation, but if Mu is not included at least once in the candidate underlying solutions for W, we can say that Mu must be eliminated as a possible underlying representation of M. Accordingly, on the basis of the possible accentuations listed for !#&6-/%!, one can go back to !#&6-! and eliminate possibilities (m-v) in Table 23 (all those which include !#&/6-!, an underlying form which is now known to be untenable). Following this logic further, %,!,6>: !2606-'/%! ‘king’ (gen. sg.) and %,!,:6$ !260/6-'! (nom. sg.) both exert constraints on the morpheme !2606-'!: the only accentuation of this morpheme allowed by Halle’s theory which would be consistent with these forms is !2606-'/! (post-accented), which in turn implies that the nominative

257 singular inflectional morpheme contains a jer. This now enables further solutions for !#&6-! in Table 23 (a-b, e-f, i-l) to be eliminated. 4.3.2.1 A concise encoding of ‘solutions’ It was shown in Table 23 and the discussion following it that even with only five rules in the grammar, the number of backwards solutions for some words can be very great (in some cases, hundreds or even thousands for a single word). Listing solutions as we did in Table 23 and Table 24 thus tends to be very cumbersome. However, there is a more concise way of listing the solutions. Once again, I use Halle’s theory to illustrate this. Suppose we have a word W with four morphemes M1, M2, M3 and M4, which have the respective structures: CVC, V, CV, and CVCV. Suppose further that W is stressed on its second syllable, i.e. on the only vowel of M2. The following is an exhaustive list of the valid possibilities within the constraints of Halle’s theory:

(138) (a)

M1 is inherently unaccented and M2 is inherently accented: there are no constraints on the underlying forms of M3 or M4.

(b)

M1 is inherently post-accented, M2 does not contain an initial jer, and there are no constraints on the underlying forms of M3 or M4.

(c)

M1 is inherently unaccented, M2 is inherently post-accented, M3 contains an initial jer, and there are no constraints on the underlying form of M4.

258 From (138) we know that W cannot provide any information which will enable any underlying representations for M3 or M4 to be eliminated44: the lack of constraints on M3 and M4 means that all the possible underlying representations for these morphemes will be listed among the solutions for W. W provides no more information about M3 and M4 than a word which contains neither M3 nor M4: this word implies no constraints on these morphemes, and listing all their possible underlying forms is thus redundant. In the list of solutions, we can therefore omit morphemes on which there are no constraints. Omission thus encodes the fact that all candidate forms for the morpheme are possible. Using this scheme, the solutions for W can be represented as follows: (139) Accentuations (a) M1: CVC, M2: /V (b) M1: CVC/ (c) M1: CVC, M2: V/

Jers no constraints M2: V (no initial jer) M3: JCV (initial jer)

To give a ‘real-life’ example (again assuming Halle’s rules hold, for the purpose of illustration), Table 25 repeats the information of Table 23 (which represented all the solutions for !#&/6-! ) in abbreviated form:

44

However, if it can be shown by some other word(s) that (a) and (b) of (138) are not valid possibilities, then the constraint that M3 must contain an initial jer will come into operation.

259 Table 25. List of solutions for !+)B(,! (revised) Grammar rule Initial syllable stress Inherent accent< Inherent post-accent with following jer< Inherently accented jer<

Possible accentuations M1:<#&6-
Possible jers M2: no jer < M2: O M2: /O

In this case, then, the omission of M2 in the second solution encodes the fact that if !#&/6-! is the underlying representation of M1, then we know nothing about either the accentuation of M2, or whether it contains a jer. 4.3.2.2 Formalization of the Accent Learning Algorithm At this point, we can formalize a method by which underlying accentuations can be ‘learnt’ from the surface forms, given a particular theory about stress, as follows: (140) The Accent Learning Algorithm (ALA) (a) For each morpheme in the dataset, compute all the candidate underlying representations allowed by the given theory; (b) For each word in the dataset: (i) compute the list of solutions possible in the given theory using backwards phonology; (ii) eliminate from the list computed in (b) (i) any solutions which contain an underlying representation not currently included in (a) (NB: the list in (a) is continuously updated; see (b) (iii) below); (iii) from the output of (b) (ii) make all possible inferences about which representations from (a) should be eliminated (i.e. check that each underlying representation from the relevant morphemes in (a) is either included at least once in the output of (b) (ii), or omitted altogether in at least one of the solutions), and update (a) accordingly. (c) Repeat (b) until no further eliminations are possible.

260 The ALA goes through the corpus of words, making all possible inferences from each word in turn. After considering each word, it updates the database of possible underlying morpheme representations. Now, suppose that there are two words in the sample, W1 and W2, and W1 is processed by the ALA before W2. Suppose further that both W1 and W2 contain some morpheme M on which W2, but not W1, introduces some constraints. While the underlying representations for M will be updated by the ALA when W2 is considered, the possible solutions for W1 will not. However, it is important that the relevant solutions for W1 should be ruled out, since this may allow further constraints relating to other morphemes in W1 to come into effect. A simple method of ensuring that all constraints are eventually applied is to stipulate that once all words have been considered, the ALA returns to the beginning of the word-list and re-evaluates all the words. Once the second iteration is complete, it starts a third iteration, and so on. On each successive iteration, the number of candidate accentuations per morpheme will shrink. As soon as an entire iteration passes with no further changes being made, we know that no further inferences can be made, at which point the ALA can be terminated. The ALA is no more than a procedure by which all possible deductions can be made, given a particular theory and dataset. The procedure itself is theory-neutral, and it is not necessarily the only possible algorithm which could be used to yield the same results. As the ALA proceeds, there will be convergence of two (related) types: first, convergence of the number of solutions possible for each word, and secondly, convergence of the number of possible underlying forms for each morpheme. Thus, even though Halle, Melvold and Zaliznjak are not explicit in specifying the

261 accentuation of items in the morpheme inventory, we find that for each theory we can apply logic and use the theory itself to deduce the accentual specification of items in the morpheme inventory. Another way of looking at this is to say that morphemes start as being accentually underspecified, but can become more fully specified depending on the surface stress of words in which they appear: each new word can imply new constraints on the underlying forms of its constituent morphemes. In view of this, it is reasonable to wonder whether the theories themselves are sufficient to imply one underlying form per morpheme, given a large enough corpus of words. If they are, then the criticism that they are under-determined would not hold. This is the key question which we would like to answer by implementing the ALA and using it to process a large sample of words. However, we cannot reliably obtain an answer to this question where there are cases which are problematic for a theory, as will become clear in section 4.3.2.4. Moreover, even for Zaliznjak’s theory (which, as will be shown in section 4.3.2.6, need not encounter problematic cases), logical inference is not sufficient as a means of obtaining a full accentual specification of the morpheme inventory. The objection that the theories omit an explicit specification of the accentual properties of the morphemes of Russian is therefore sustained in all three cases. 4.3.2.3 A small-scale demonstration of the ALA on a non-problem combination In this section, I demonstrate the use of the ALA on a dataset of 9 words, which are listed in (141). For the purposes of this demonstration, we again assume that Halle’s rules hold. One aim of this section is to show that the ALA makes the correct inferences in accordance with Halle’s theory: on a dataset of this size it can readily be seen that the ALA is producing the desired results.

262

(141)45

#("!":0 #(":!) 5,!,#,:( 5,:!,#" %,!,:6$ %,!,6?: )5!/: )5!8: ):5!/

!$"'10'rn+/17in9! !$"'/10'rn+,in20! !B606$rv+sn1+/6"in12! !B/606$rv+sn1+1 in8! !260/6-'rn+in1! !2606-'rn+/;in22! !,B0rn+/,in20! !,B0rn+/;in21! !/,B0rn+,in10!

‘door’ (genitive plural) ‘door’ (genitive singular) ‘town’ (genitive plural) ‘town’ (locative singular) ‘king’ (nominative singular) ‘king’ (dative singular) ‘game’ (genitive singular) ‘game’ (accusative singular) ‘game’ (nominative plural)

As each word is considered by the ALA, it is possible to record the reasoning by which certain candidate accentuations are eliminated in the form of an output log. The output log records the surface form of each word under consideration, counts the word’s possible underlying solutions and records this number. The underlying solutions are then listed in columnar format as in (139) above (with an extra column for the constraints on stem markedness; this is relevant only to plural forms, since according to Halle stress retraction occurs only in the plural for marked stems). As the ALA processes the word #("!":0 !$"'10'/17! ‘doors’ (gen. pl.), therefore, it gives the output log shown in (142): (142) !$"'10'rn+/17 in9! 2 Accentuations !$"'10'!rn, !/17!in9 !$"'10'/!rn

45

Jers !17!in9: no jer

Stem unmarked unmarked

It is assumed in (141) that the genitive singular inflectional morpheme is identical in #(":!) !$"'/10',! ‘door’ and )5!/: !,B0/,! ‘game’, with the )// orthographic alternation reflecting the allophonic alternation between [,] and [,] conditioned by the palatalization or lack thereof of the preceding consonant, and therefore that this morpheme must be assigned the same underlying form !,! in both #(":!) !$"'/10',! and )5!/: !,B0/,!.

263

In other words, there are two ways in which the surface stress of !$"'10'/17! could be explained: either (a) !17!in9 is underlyingly accented (shown in column 1 of solution 1) in which case !$"'10'!rn must be unaccented (this constraint is also shown in column 1 of solution 1) and nothing can be deduced about the placement of jers (shown by the fact that column 2 is empty), or (b) !$"'10'!rn must be post-accented (shown in column 1 of solution 2), nothing is known about the accentuation of !17!in9 (this lack of a constraint is reflected by the absence of !17!in9 in column 1 of solution 2), and !17!in9 must have no initial jer. Both solutions rely on the constraint that the stem !$"'10'rn! must be unmarked, since, for stress to have been retracted, there would have to be a syllable to the right of the one which received surface stress. Since in this case the final syllable of the word is surface stressed, stress retraction cannot have taken place. Having listed all the possible solutions, the ALA now deduces anything that can be deduced about the underlying forms of the relevant morphemes and stems. For example, without any information about how !$"'10'!rn influences word-stress, we know that there are three candidate accentuations for the morpheme: !$"'/10'!, !$"'10'/! and !$"'10'!. However, from (142) we know that !$"'/10'! must now be eliminated as a possibility, because this accentuation would not be consistent with either solution in (142). As already mentioned, we also know that !$"'10'rn! cannot be a marked stem. The output log records these inferences as in (143): (143) . !$"'/10'!rn is not a possible accentuation. . !$"'10'!rn is not a marked stem

264 Now the ALA moves on to consider #(":!) !$"'/10',! ‘door’ (gen. sg.). As the continuation of the output log shows in (144), two solutions are listed: both of these rely upon the operation of the rule which stresses the word’s initial syllable when no other rules can operate. If no other information were available about how !$"'10'!rn influences word-stress, one might suppose that a possible explanation of the surface stress is that !$"'10'!rn is underlyingly accented. None of the solutions listed for !$"'/10',! includes this possibility, however, as this accentuation has already been ruled out in (143). Effectively, the ALA has learnt from (143) that it need not consider underlying solutions for !$"'/10',! which are already known to be impossible. Now, further inferences can be drawn: first, that !$"'10'!rn must not be post-accented, and secondly, that !,!in20 must not be accented. (144) !$"'/10'rn+,in20! 2 Accentuations

Jers

!$"'10'!rn, !,!in20 !$"'10'!rn, !,/!in20

Stem

. !$"'10'/!rn is not a possible accentuation. . !/,!in20 is not a possible accentuation.

The output log continues in a similar fashion for the rest of the words under consideration, making inferences as appropriate, as in (145). (145) !B606$rv+sn1+/6"in12! Accentuations

!B606$!rv, !!sn1, !/6"!in12 !B606$!rv, !/!sn1 !B606$/!rv

3

Jers

Stem

unmarked !6"!in12: no jer unmarked !!sn1: no jer; !6"!in12: no jer unmarked

. !B/606$!rv is not a possible accentuation. . !B60/6$!rv is not a possible accentuation. . !B606$rv+sn1! is not a marked stem

265 !B/606$rv+sn1+1in8! 2 Accentuations !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1!in8 !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1/!in8

Jers

Stem

. !B606$/!rv is not a possible accentuation. . !/!sn1 is not a possible accentuation. . !/1!in8 is not a possible accentuation. !260/6-'rn+in1! 2 Accentuations !260/6-'!rn !2606-'/!rn

Jers

Stem

!O!in146

. !2/606-' rn! is not a possible accentuation. . !2606-' rn! is not a possible accentuation. !2606-'rn+/;in22! 1 Accentuations !2606-'/!rn

Jers

!;!in22: no jer

Stem

. !260/6-'!rn is not a possible accentuation. !,B0rv+sn1+/,in20! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

Jers

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in20: no jer

Stem

. !/,B0!rv is not a possible accentuation. . !,B0!rv is not a possible accentuation. . !!sn1 does not contain a jer. !,B0rv+sn1+/;in21! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

!/,B0rv+sn1+,in10! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

. !,B0rv+sn1! is a marked stem

46

Jers are represented by the symbol O.

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

!!sn1: no jer; !;!in21: no jer

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in10: no jer

marked

266

This is the end of the first iteration of the ALA. In accordance with (140) (c), the ALA now returns to the beginning of the dataset for the second iteration, the output log for which is shown in (146). Note in particular that only one solution is listed in (146) for !$"'10'/17!, compared with two in the first iteration. This is because the ALA deduced in (144) that !$"'10'!rn could not be post-accented, but this inference was made only after !$"'10'/17! was last considered. (146) !$"'10'rn+/17in9! 1 Accentuations

Jers

!$"'10'!rn, !/17in9!

Stem

unmarked

. !17!in9 is not a possible accentuation. . !17/!in9 is not a possible accentuation. !$"'/10'rn+,in20! 2 Accentuations !$"'10'!rn, !,!in20 !$"'10'!rn, !,/!in20

!B606$rv+sn1+/6"in12! Accentuations

!B606$!rv, !!sn1, !/6"!in12

1

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

unmarked

. !6"!in12 is not a possible accentuation. . !6"/!in12 is not a possible accentuation. !B/606$rv+sn1+1in8! 2 Accentuations !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1!in8 !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1/!in8

!260/6-'rn+in1! 1 Accentuations !2606-'/!rn

. !O!in1 contains a jer.

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

!O!in1

267 !2606-'rn+/;in22! 1 Accentuations !2606-'/!rn

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

!;in22!: no jer

!,B0rv+sn1+/,in20! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in20: no jer

!,B0rv+sn1+/;in21! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

!!sn1: no jer; !;!in21: no jer

!/,B0rv+sn1+,in10! 1 Accentuations

Jers

!,B0/!rv

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in10: no jer

Stem

marked

As can be seen, the ALA was able to make a total of 5 further inferences on the second iteration. In (147), on the third iteration, however, no further inferences are made, which means that the learning is complete and the ALA is terminated. (147) !$"'10'rn+/17in9! 1 Accentuations

Jers

!$"'/10'rn+,in20! 2 Accentuations

Jers

!$"'10'!rn, !/17!in9

!$"'10'!rn, !,!in20 !$"'10'!rn, !,/!in20

!B606$rv+sn1+/6"in12! Accentuations

!B606$!rv, !!sn1, !/6"!in12

!B/606$rv+sn1+1in8! 2 Accentuations !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1!in8 !B606$!rv, !!sn1, !1/!in8

!260/6-'rn+in1! 1 Accentuations !2606-'/!rn

1

Jers

Stem

unmarked

Stem

Stem

unmarked

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

!O!in1

268 !2606-'rn+/;in22! 1 Accentuations !2606-'/!rn

!,B0rv+sn1+/,in20! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

!,B0rv+sn1+/;in21! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

!/,B0rv+sn1+,in10! 1 Accentuations !,B0/!rv

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

Jers

Stem

!;!in22: no jer

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in20: no jer

!!sn1: no jer; !;!in21: no jer

Jers

!!sn1: no jer; !,!in10: no jer

Stem

marked

What, then, has the ALA learnt from this dataset? It has managed to eliminate some of the candidate underlying forms; for some, but not all, morphemes it has succeeded in eliminating all but one underlying form; and for some morphemes, none of the candidate underlying forms have been eliminated. The specific results for candidate accentuations are shown in Table 26.

269 Table 26. Candidate accentuations before and after operation of the ALA Morpheme

Candidate accentuations before ALA operation

Candidate accentuations after ALA operation

!$"'10'!rn

!$"'10'! !$"'/10'! !$"'10'/! !17! !/17! !17/! !,! !/,! !,/! !B606$! !B/606$! !B60/6$! !B606$/! !! !/! !6"! !/6"! !6"/! !1! !/1! !1/! !2606-'! !2/606-'! !260/6-'! !2606-'/! !! !/!

!$"'10'!

!17!in9

!,!in20

!B606$!rv

!!sn1 !6"!in12

!1!in8

!2606-'!rn

!!in1 !;!in22

!,B0!rv

!;!in21

!,!in10

!;! !/;! !;/! !,B0! !/,B0! !,B0/! !;! !/;! !;/! !,! !/,! !,/!

!/17! !,! !,/! !B606$!

!! !/6"! !1! !1/!

!2606-'/! !! !/! !;! !/;! !;/!

!,B0/! !;! !/;! !;/! !,! !/,! !,/!

270 This simple example suffices to show that even with logical inference, Halle’s theory is underdetermined: after all constraints have been considered, it is not the case that all morphemes have exactly one underlying form. In section 4.3.1, the LSS was defined as the number of morpheme inventories which are possible within the constraints of a given theory, and 3x (where x is the number of entries in the morpheme inventory) was quoted as an approximation to the LSS. Thus, for the list of morphemes in Table 26, the approximate size of the LSS should be 313, or 1259 - 106. More precisely, for a morpheme inventory where the number of morphemes with x underlying forms is nx, the exact size S of the overall LSS will be given by (148):

(148)

S

>

0 n0

-

1n1

-

...

-

x nx

Clearly S will be zero when n0 > 0: this is a situation which arises when the theory is invalidated by problem words (see 4.3.2.4), and some surface forms can no longer be paired with any underlying forms. It also follows that for the ‘ideal’ theory where every morpheme in the inventory has one and only one underlying form, S will be 1. Using the information from Table 26, we can now compute the exact size of the LSS for Halle’s theory and the dataset in (141), before applying logical inference and without taking into account whether stems are marked or not. The actual figure, which is not too far from the original estimate of 1259 - 106, is given in (149):

(149) 00 - 10 - 22 - 39 - 42 ;

1226 - 106

271 Likewise, the size of the LSS for the same theory and dataset after applying logical inference, again without taking into account whether stems are marked or not, is given in (150):

(150) 00 - 17 - 23 - 33

=

2216 - 102

The fact that logical inference reduces the LSS size from 1,259,712 to 216 (which is a reduction by a power of approximately 226) is indicative that logical inference can be an extremely powerful heuristic for determining the underlying forms for a derivational theory. The measure of LSS after application of logical inference, rather than before, is also useful to give an idea of the true scale of underdeterminacy of a given theory. Logical inference, after all, does not represent the addition of extra constraints to a theory: it simply involves taking a theory to its natural conclusions. 4.3.2.4 Problem words In some cases the constraints of a theory may never be satisfiable. I illustrate this, again using Halle’s (1997) theory, with the following words: (151) -,7)&:6$'/0

!#6&# + ,7 + /%-' + 4 + ,7!

(152) -,7)&6)-.):3"-%)0

!#6&# + ,7 + %-' + ,#&' + /,&8' + 1#2 + ,7! ‘socialist’

For both of these words the three initial morphemes are the same:

‘social’

272

(153) ! #6&# + ,7 + %-'
On the basis of (151), a backwards application of Halle’s theory would lead one to conclude that at least one of the following propositions must be true: (154) (a) (b) (c)

!%-'! is accented !%-'! is post-accented, and there is a following jer !,7! is post-accented

However, none of the solutions for (152) is consistent with any of the possibilities in (154). In other words, once (152) comes under consideration by the ALA, one is forced to eliminate all the possible solutions for (151), leading to the paradoxical situation where a surface form cannot be paired with any underlying forms. Henceforth, I shall refer to the words which have zero underlying forms as ‘problem words’. The question which then arises is: what conclusions should be drawn from problem words? Clearly, in a naïve sense, the existence of problem words for a given theory disproves the theory: it reduces the LSS for a theory to zero, and shows that the rules of the theory are not sufficient to account for 100% of the data, no matter what accentual specification is chosen for the morpheme inventory. Yet there would be problem words even for a theory with a coverage of 9929%, and one would surely not

47

This morphological parse is in accordance with Oliverius (1976). It is debatable whether !#6&#,7%-! might better be considered to be a single morpheme, but either possibility serves to illustrate the point being made above.

273 wish to reject such a theory. If it could be shown that a given theory accounted for all but 021% of the words in Russian, that would clearly be a result of great importance in itself. This point is made in Chomsky and Halle (1968: ix): We see no reason to give up rules of great generality because they are not of even greater generality, to sacrifice generality where it can be attained. It seems hardly necessary to stress that if we are faced with the choice between a grammar G1 that contains a general rule along with certain special rules governing exceptions and a grammar G2 that gives up the general rule and lists everything as an exception, then we will prefer G1. For this reason, citation of exceptions is in itself of very little interest. Counterexamples to a grammatical rule are of interest only if they lead to the construction of a new grammar of even greater generality or if they show some underlying principle is fallacious or misformulated. Otherwise, citation of counterexamples is beside the point.

In other words, a theory can be of interest even if it does not account for all cases, and it would therefore be ill-advised to dismiss Halle’s (or any other) theory & or even to add extra rules to account for problem words & before determining exactly what the exceptions to the theory are. There are also other issues which problem words raise. The first of these is as follows. Suppose we have some word W for which the last remaining solutions have just been eliminated through the operation of step (b) (ii) of (140). The output of (b) (ii) is now fed into step (b) (iii). Since (b) (iii) states that we ‘eliminate all relevant underlying morpheme representations not included at least once in the output of (b) (ii)’, if follows that on the basis of W, all the morphemes included in W will have their remaining underlying forms eliminated. At this point, of course, the size of the LSS is reduced to zero, as we saw in the previous section. Furthermore, when other words containing any of these morphemes undergo step (b) (ii), they too will have all their solutions eliminated, and so on. The cumulative effects may well eventually cause all the underlying forms for virtually the whole morpheme inventory to be eliminated.

274 Thus, as soon as we determine that a theory encounters problems, we find that it is no longer possible to use logical inference to obtain information about the underlying forms of entries in the morpheme inventory. The second issue is that we cannot isolate a list of exceptions to a theory by logical inference (i.e. by using the ALA): identifying exceptions is not simply a matter of listing all problem words. The reason for is that in reality it is ‘problem combinations’ (i.e. combinations of words such as !#6&#,7/%-'4,7, #6&#,7%-',#&'/,&8'1#2,7!, for which no consistent underlying representations can be found), rather than problem words, which challenge a theory. When a ‘problem word’ is encountered during the running of the ALA, it might be that the word in question is an exception to the theory. On the other hand, it might be that the word is not exceptional, but simply could not be analyzed given previous inferences. This could happen if there were a morpheme common to the word in question and a previously considered ‘exceptional’ word. Exceptional words should presumably not be used to infer anything about the underlying forms of their constituent morphemes, as, by definition, an exceptional word would lead one to draw the wrong conclusions. However, there is no means of knowing whether a given word is exceptional, and therefore no means of tracking where unfounded inferences might have previously been made. For this reason, logical inference is of little use in identifying a comprehensive list of exceptions to a given derivational theory. 4.3.2.5 Modifications to the ALA to allow for different theories The descriptions of the ALA, and the processes of logical inference which it incorporates, have up to this point been on as general a level as possible: although illustrations primarily made reference to Halle (1997), the observations in these

275 sections are true of the whole family of derivational theories which includes Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985). On the other hand, the initial set of candidate underlying forms will vary from theory to theory, as will the specific backwards grammar rules which the ALA uses to rule candidate forms out. This is made clear in (140), where we stated that the ALA computes what is allowed by the given theory. In section 4.2, we have already seen that Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985) all operate with different accentual categories. These differences are recapitulated in Table 27. Table 27. Differences between accentual and other categories posited by Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985) Accented morphemes are possible Post-accented morphemes are possible Unaccented morphemes are possible Pre-accented morphemes are possible Dominant morphemes are possible Jers can affect stress Features of stem can affect stress

Halle (1997)

Melvold (1989)

Zaliznjak (1985)

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

yes

no (all morphemes are effectively recessive) yes

yes (suffixes only)

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

no

Since Melvold (1989) incorporates all the accentual categories and rules that Halle (1997) does, as well as additional ones, it must be the case that for any given word, the number of ways in which the surface stress can be explained by Halle’s theory is smaller than the number of ways it can be explained by Melvold’s theory. This is because the addition of rules to a theory implies that there are additional ways

276 in which a surface form may be explained by underlying forms. Thus, in a sense, Halle’s theory can be said to be more constrained than Melvold’s theory (although, as we shall see in 4.4, the price which is paid for this is that Halle’s theory is not as well equipped to deal with derived words). For instance, with Halle’s theory, we know that any morphemes to the left of the stressed syllable must be unaccented (the only exception being if the morpheme immediately to the left is post-accented), and in general we know nothing about the accentuation of morphemes to the right of the stress. But in Melvold’s theory, we cannot be sure that morphemes to the left of the stress are unaccented: according to her theory, it could be that the stressed syllable is part of a dominant accented morpheme, in which case the morphemes to the left might or might not be accented, and furthermore, they might be either dominant or recessive. In Melvold’s theory, we can be sure only that none of the morphemes to the right of the stressed syllable (if it is not word-initial) is dominant, although these morphemes could still be accented. A word-initial stress could be explained in the same ways that Halle explains it (i.e. by the presence of an accented morpheme, or by the absence of any accented morphemes48), but it could also be explained by the presence of a dominant unaccented suffix (Melvold 1989: 75-78), as long as all the following suffixes are recessive.

48

Halle could explain an initial stress by stipulating that all morphemes in the word are unaccented. Because Melvold states that accentuation is cyclic, however, not all morphemes in a word need to be unaccented for there to be initial stress: just the prefix (if any), root, and first suffix to the right of the root need to be unaccented, as we saw with +,:6,#,-.$, +,:6,#,-.>+ (see section 4.2.2). In Melvold’s theory all suffixes would nevertheless need to be recessive in such cases.

277 Comparison between Halle (1997) or Melvold (1989) on the one hand, and Zaliznjak (1985) on the other, is less straightforward. As indicated in 4.2.3, the mechanisms of Zaliznjak’s theory are somewhat different from those of the other theories: in order to assign stress in Zaliznjak’s theory, it is necessary to consider which morpheme stress ‘attaches’ to (see (134) and (135)). Table 28 compares the procedures which must be followed in order to assign stress under the two theories. Table 28. Procedural comparison of Melvold and Zaliznjak Melvold

Zaliznjak

Find which morpheme determines stress

Find which morpheme determines stress Find which morpheme stress is attached to Find which vowel is stressed

Find which vowel is stressed

The extra stage in derivation required by Zaliznjak’s theory has the consequence that surface stress in a given word will, on average, have many more possible explanations in Zaliznjak’s theory than in Melvold’s theory, even though the number of accentual oppositions in the two theories is comparable. This can be illustrated using the same example as in (135), 3"!.2*)% !&8'10&'/65,2! ‘small sketch’: if we assume that the morphological tokenization of this word is !&8'10&'rn+/65sn+,2sn+in1!, it turns out that in Zaliznjak’s theory there are 324 possible accentual specifications for the word, all of which would yield the correct stress assignment, compared with the 63 possible accentual specifications which Melvold’s theory implies49. Thus two related facts about Zaliznjak’s theory become clear: first, that Zaliznjak’s final rule will in general

49

In both cases, the ‘number of accentual specifications’ is computed without taking into account the abbreviatory notation introduced in 4.3.2.1. Computed on the same basis, therefore, the ‘number of accentual specifications’ implied by Halle’s theory for !#&6-! would be 30 (see Table 23).

278 reduce the extent to which logical inferences can be made, and secondly, that Zaliznjak’s theory is considerably less constrained than Melvold’s. 4.3.2.6 Conclusions from the ALA We have already seen in 4.3.2.4 that the ALA is able to show whether a given theory will encounter problems: however, if it is found that a theory is problematic, then this is all that the ALA will indicate. Thus the ALA will give no indication of the scale of the problems associated with a theory, nor will it give reliable results regarding the optimal specification of the morpheme inventory. Since Halle’s theory was used to illustrate this, we clearly also have the specific result from 4.3.2.4 that Halle’s theory is problematic, as it was unable to account for both -,7)&:6$'/0 !#6&#,7%-'4,7! ‘social’ and -,7)&6)-.):3"-%)0 !#6&#,7%-',#&',&8'1#2,7! ‘socialist’. In other words, we know that the coverage of Halle’s theory must be less than 100%. When I applied the ALA to Melvold’s theory using a dataset of 9,512 nouns as the basis for drawing logical inferences50, I obtained the result that this theory is also problematic. The following example will suffice to demonstrate this. If we assume Melvold’s theory holds, we are led to make the following chain of inferences:

50

For information on the compilation of the large datasets used for computational tests, see 1.5.

279 Table 29. Demonstration that Melvold’s theory is problematic Word Morphological Inferences tokenization, following Oliverius (1976) !-!sn1 is not dominant 51 '&3&:6, ‘beginning’ !4%c+&8/%rv+-sn1+6in18! If !,!svr is dominant, it must also 4!&:()6, ‘rule’ !90/%"'rv+,svr+-sn1+6in18! !,#):."6$ ‘parent’

!06$'rv+/,svr+&'1-'sn+in1!

!,:#)'& ‘homeland’

!0/6$'rv+,4sn1+%in3!

568<)'&: ‘depth’

!B-;A'ra+,4sn1+/%in3!

be unaccented !,!svr cannot be dominant unaccented, so !06$'!rv must be post-accented !in!sn1 must be dominant unaccented 568<)'&: is a problem word, as there is no possible analysis given the previous inferences.

Thus '&3&:6,, 4!&:()6,, !,#):."6$, !,:#)'& and 568<)'&: collectively represent a combination which is problematic for Melvold’s theory, and we have therefore proved that the coverage of Melvold’s theory must be less than 100%. In the case of Zaliznjak’s theory, the result is not so clear. Again, the ALA was applied, this time using a dataset of 524 nominative singular derived nouns (nouns containing at least one suffix) as the basis for drawing inferences. The reason for restricting the dataset to nominative singular derived nouns is that this is the stated scope of Zaliznjak’s theory (see 4.2.3). In this case, more explanation is given for each inference, as the theory is more complex. Assuming Zaliznjak’s theory holds, then the following chain of inferences would be made:

51

If !-!rn1 were dominant post-accented, the stress would be '&3&6,:; if it were dominant unaccented the stress would be '&:3&6,; and it cannot be dominant accented as it does not contain a vowel.

Table 30. Demonstration that Zaliznjak’s theory is problematic

281

The reason that this chain of inferences does not conclusively show that Zaliznjak’s theory is problematic is that it hinges on inferences about the suffixes !,4!sn1 and !6&!sn1, whose accentual properties, as Zaliznjak (1985: 67, 73) points out, vary depending on whether they function as deadjectival suffixes (as in %!&-,.&: !20%#+6&+%! ‘beauty’) or deverbal suffixes (as in !&<,:.& !0%A+6&+%! ‘work’). In effect, this is tantamount to claiming that there are two !6&!sn1 suffixes, which are distinguished from one another both by meaning and accentuation; this is a claim which is in opposition to the analysis of Oliverius (1976). Indeed, it turns out that if we distinguish the two suffixes & for example, by relabelling !6&!sn1 as !6&!sn2 in all the cases where !6&!sn1 has a deadjectival meaning & and re-run the ALA on Zaliznjak’s theory, no problem words are found for this dataset. Thus the existence of problem words, in the case of Zaliznjak’s theory, could be attributed to an invalid morphological tokenization in Oliverius (1976). For the sake of argument, let us assume this is the case, and move on to consider the extent to which logical inference helps draw conclusions about the underlying forms of morphemes which would be consistent with Zaliznjak’s theory. Table 31 shows how many underlying forms were ruled out as a result of using the ALA:

282 Table 31. Number of candidate accentuations against number of morphemes before and after operation of ALA Number of candidate Number of morphemes Number of morphemes accentuations x before operation of ALA after operation of ALA 0 0 0 1 0 15 2 0 62 3 0 44 4 72 119 5 0 90 6 463 237 7 0 0 8 54 24 9 0 0 10 3 1 Total number of morphemes

592

592

The LSS before and after application of logical inference, therefore, is given in (155) and (156) respectively.

(155) 472 - 6463 - 854 - 103

;

22507 -10455

(156) 115 - 262 - 344 - 4119 - 590 - 6237 - 824 - 101

;

22021 -10390

The conclusion to be drawn from these figures is that even if the ALA does not disprove Zaliznjak’s theory, the scale of underdeterminacy which remains after all logical inferences have been drawn is so great that the theory is effectively unverifiable. Note, also, that in this case logical inference has reduced the LSS size by a power of approximately 122. The corresponding figure derived for Halle’s theory from Table 26 was 226 (see page 271). Although the dataset in (141) is different from the 524-word dataset from which inferences about Zaliznjak’s theory were drawn, and

283 one should therefore be cautious about directly comparing Halle’s and Zaliznjak’s theories based on figures from Table 26 and Table 31, it is nonetheless interesting that this comparison appears to provide yet more evidence confirming the hypothesis that Zaliznjak’s theory is significantly less constrained than that of Halle. To summarize the principal conclusions which have been obtained about Halle’s, Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories by using the ALA, then, we have the following two results:

,

The coverage of both Halle’s and Melvold’s theories must be less than 100%.

,

The coverage of Zaliznjak’s theory could be 100%, but there is no way of proving this as the theory is too underdetermined.

4.3.3 Unique specification of the morpheme inventory by defaults In previous sections, I have argued that the theories under consideration are under-determined. Up to this point, we have implicitly assumed that in each case where there are many candidate underlying forms which map to a single surface form, the candidates are all equally likely. In a sense, this is a neutral assumption: it allows the ALA to make inferences which are as generous as possible, given a particular theory. However, we now need to consider the possible counter-argument that a stronger and thus more constrained assumption would be more in the spirit of Halle, Melvold or Zaliznjak. It is a generally accepted principle in generative phonology that an underlying form should be the same as the corresponding surface form unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. This general constraint on phonological analysis is embodied in Kiparsky’s (1973) ‘alternation condition’ (hereafter referred to as the AC).

284 Summarizing the discussion in Kiparsky (1973: 18), Cole (1995: 74) explains the force of the AC as follows: The Alternation Condition constrains underlying representation in several ways. It requires the lexical representation of a nonalternating form to be identical to its surface form (with low-level, automatic phonetic processes factored out); it requires a single underlying representation for distinct morphemes which are always identical in surface form; and it requires morphemes which are always distinct in surface form to have distinct underlying phonological representations.

While neither Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) nor Zaliznjak (1985) makes any reference to the AC, we need to consider the possibility that their theories assume these constraints, albeit implicitly. First, the AC cannot be ‘built in’ to the ALA, since the whole point of the ALA is to define an initial LSS large enough that it must include the optimal morpheme inventory for a given theory (and then, of course, to reduce this solution space by considering the evidence furnished by words in the language). In the case of the ALA, the constraints are no more than those which are already integral to Halle’s, Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories. The constraints of the AC, on the other hand, are additional to those stated in Halle (1997), Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985). The ALA and the AC should therefore be seen as separate: they address similar issues of abstractness and unconstrainedness in underlying representations, but the ALA, as we know, (a) highlights when a theory is problematic and (b) (when a theory is unproblematic) provides a measure of the extent to which a theory is underdetermined, while the AC ‘constrains the abstractness of phonological analysis’, as Cole (1995: 73) puts it. It should also be noted that the AC is clearly inapplicable in practice where the size of the LSS is zero, as is the case for theories which encounter problem words. As

285 we have seen, the fact that the size of the LSS is zero does not in itself mean that a theory should be abandoned, as the theory could still have a very high coverage. Herein is a paradox: if a theory has any coverage at all, there must be underlying forms to complement the theory, yet if we say that a given theory has an LSS of size zero, we are saying that there are no underlying forms which complement the theory. To reconcile these alternatives, we need to acknowledge that for a theory with problem words logic (as in the ALA) may not be the most appropriate means of testing the theory; yet logic is needed to ascertain whether the theory has problem words in the first place. For a ‘problematic’ theory, we are led to the conclusion that the AC should be adopted as an alternative to the ALA as the best heuristic for determining underlying forms. Where the final LSS is not zero, some form of the AC might be used in addition to the ALA. For example, it might not be possible to infer anything about a particular morpheme which is stressed in all instances (in other words, it is nonalternating) using the ALA, but in this case the AC would presumably lead one to conclude that the morpheme is underlyingly accented. To take a real-life example, consider again the information in Table 26. The right-hand column of this table shows that after the application of logical inference, there are still two candidate underlying forms for !,!in20, !1!in8, and !!in1. In all three cases, the morphemes are either unaccented or post-accented. In these cases, it might be argued that the underlying specification ‘unaccented’ is more faithful to the AC, since the other option, ‘post-accented’, involves the addition of accentual content to the morpheme. In the same way, it is reasonable to suppose that the AC would discriminate against allocating jers to morphemes, and against marked stems. The AC could therefore be used as a basis for

286 eliminating all but one candidate underlying form in every case, reducing the size of the LSS for any dataset to 1. However, even assuming the possibility of ranking different candidate underlying forms in terms of their divergence from the surface form52, there are practical difficulties in deciding how to implement the AC with respect to theories such as Halle’s, Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s and within the current framework, as I shall now show. First, suppose we adopt the following as an implementation of the AC. We consider the first morpheme in the inventory, M1; all words W containing M1 are listed. We check whether the underlying form U1 most closely related to the surface form would give the correct stress assignment in all W. If U1 ‘fits’, we will then in general be led to make inferences about the underlying forms of many other morphemes in W, and there is no guarantee that these underlying forms will be the ‘least divergent’ candidates for their respective surface forms. Effectively, the list of morphemes is like a network, and a decision about the underlying form of one morpheme will have effects in other parts of the network. If we had considered a morpheme other than M1 first, the results for the network might have been different. Since the number of ways in which we can order a list of morphemes of length L is L!, we are once again faced with a huge number of different possible results for a

52

In the case of Russian accentology, there are clearly factors other than the AC which constrain underlying forms. For example, the argument that ‘unaccented’ is the default underlying form for every morpheme appears to be refuted by the fact that most (9126%, according to Halle 1997: 281) nouns in Russian have fixed stem stress. If root morphemes were unaccented by default, one would, for example, expect the majority of feminine non-derived nouns to have mobile stress, as in the inflected forms of !8%&:. These facts lead to the conclusion that there is an overriding lexical principle in Russian, independent of the AC, which states that roots are accented.

287 large morpheme inventory: in summary, the result of applying this procedure will differ depending on the order in which we consider the entries in the morpheme inventory. This is surely not what Kiparsky, Halle, Melvold or Zaliznjak would have envisaged: by a process of reductio ad absurdum we are therefore led to the conclusion that this is not a viable implementation of the AC. It is also possible to contemplate applying a similar procedure on a word-byword basis: using this method, we might suppose that where there is a choice of rules in a theory which could have explained a given word’s surface form, one rule is more likely than another to be used. For example, returning to the example in Table 25, we could postulate that the surface stress of !#&/6-! is most likely to be explained by the second rule, the inherent accent rule. But again this decision will force us to make inferences about the underlying form of the morpheme !#&6-!, which may in turn constrain the underlying forms of other words. Again, this may happen in such a way that the least ‘marked’ rule which could have applied to the other words is ruled out. This brings us back to exactly the same problem that we faced above: the results of applying the procedure will depend on the order in which we consider words in the dataset. Consider now a third possibility, where we disregard the logical consequences of each decision about underlying forms. For each morpheme which has multiple candidate underlying forms after the application of the ALA, we select the underlying form most faithful to the surface form (and/or lexical principles such as that which states that roots are accented); this is done without reference to the surface forms of words which include the morpheme, in order to avoid the ‘network’ effect referred to above. However, the effect of disregarding the logical consequences of each decision

288 is that the morpheme inventory obtained will not necessarily be the optimal inventory for a given set of stress assignment rules (the inventory which gives the rules the greatest coverage). I shall now provide evidence of this by an illustration. In section 4.3.2.6, a 524-word dataset was the basis on which logical inference was applied to Zaliznjak’s theory. As we know from Table 31, a morpheme inventory of length 592 is required to account for this dataset; as shown above, Zaliznjak’s theory is not problematic when applied to this dataset. Having subjected Zaliznjak’s theory to the process of logical inference, we can now apply the set of preferences in Table 32 to the outcome.53 Table 32. Ranking of underlying morpheme forms Morpheme type prefix root suffix inflection

1st preference ' = on final syllable = on final syllable = on final syllable

Accentuation* 2nd 3rd preference preference = on final = syllable = '

4th preference <

Dominance* 1st 2nd preference preference not D D

<

not D

D

=

'

<

not D

D

=

<

'

not D

D

*It is assumed that dominance preferences take precedence over accentuation preferences, so for example it is deemed more likely that a prefix is < than 'D. When these defaults are applied to the morpheme inventory, it turns out that the theory’s coverage of the 524-word dataset is 64289%: 340 of the words are 53

I assume this particular set of defaults as it appears to accord with Zaliznjak’s stated preferences (e.g. regarding the accentuation of prefixes & see Zaliznjak (1985: 58) and with the observations I have already made about the proclivity of nouns to fixed stem stress. Unfortunately, the number of permutations of default ranking in this system is so great that it is impossible to test all potential rankings: the number of permutations is (8!)4 ; 2264 - 1018.

289 correctly stressed (i.e. 184 were incorrectly stressed). Yet it will be shown in 4.4 that a different specification of the morpheme inventory results in a much greater coverage of 91298% (482 words). We must therefore conclude that if the procedure just outlined is a faithful implementation of the AC, then one of the following four propositions must be true: (a) the AC must be a suboptimal principle, or (b) we need to consider a different set of defaults, or (c) the coverage of Zaliznjak’s theory is really only 64289%, or (d) the AC must be incompatible with Zaliznjak’s theory. The fourth and final possible implementation of the AC which we shall consider is as follows. Suppose we apply defaults to the morpheme inventory as outlined above to obtain a situation where the LSS is 1. This can be done after using the ALA, to eliminate residual indeterminacy. This then enables us to test the given theory, including the accompanying morpheme inventory, to determine its coverage (which may well be suboptimal). So far, the implementation is exactly the same as that outlined in the previous paragraph. The difference is that we now inspect the list of exceptions to the theory & the 184 words which were incorrectly stressed, in the case of Zaliznjak’s theory & to determine whether there are morphemes which occur repeatedly in incorrectly stressed words. If we suspect that the incorrect stress of these words is attributable to an incorrect accentual specification of the morpheme common to them, we can override the common morpheme’s accentual specification. Each such modification of the morpheme inventory may mean that some words in the corpus which were previously incorrectly stressed now become correctly stressed, although it is equally possible that some other words which were previously correctly stressed may now be incorrectly stressed. However, providing the number of words in the former category exceeds the number in the latter, the modification will result in an

290 increase in coverage. A point will eventually be reached where no further increases in coverage are possible: at this point, the coverage of the theory will approximate to the optimal coverage possible for the given theory. This is in fact the method which I used to specify the morpheme inventory for the tests described in 4.4; it seems that for the theories under consideration and within the current framework of ‘backwards phonology’, there is in practice no other way of obtaining the morpheme inventory which best fits a given theory and dataset. It should be noted, however, that & for purely mathematical rather than linguistic reasons & the method is almost guaranteed to succeed, since it is based on a reanalysis of previous failures. As such, the method is of no linguistic interest in itself. In a sense this does not matter (cf. Halle’s 1959: 12 statement that ‘the methods by which a scientific description is discovered are not of essential concern to the science in question’). However, given that the procedure outlined is a procedure driven by mathematics rather than linguistics, we need to be careful to acknowledge that the procedure is not a straightforward implementation of the AC (although it may embody aspects of the AC): after all, if we were to claim otherwise, we would be saying that the AC is also of no linguistic interest. Note also that the underlying forms derived in this way will not necessarily correspond to those one might expect on the basis of (for example) historical data from Russian. I conclude this section by stating that none of the possible implementations of the AC within the current framework appears to yield a morpheme inventory which is empirically correct (or even close to correct): the only method which was found to achieve this result relies on an extragrammatical statistical procedure. It seems, therefore, that in this particular case the AC is not sufficient to provide an optimal

291 solution to the problem of under-determinacy, and that the optimal solution is in fact non-linguistic. While the AC might well be an appropriate criterion by which to build a theory & rules and morpheme inventory & from scratch, the aim of the current study is slightly different. In order to establish the morpheme inventory in conjunction with which Halle’s, Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories are tested, we are forced to take their rules as read. The only changes which we are permitted to make are to the morpheme inventory. It is thus perhaps unsurprising that the AC turns out not to be appropriate within the framework of backwards phonology. 4.4

Tests to ascertain the coverage of the three theories All the tests documented in sections 4.4.1-4.4.3 involved the following

procedures. An appropriate subset of the complete dataset was chosen as the sample for the test. (For details of the composition of the ‘complete dataset’, see 1.5.) What was ‘appropriate’ was determined by reference to the scope of the theory or theories being tested: thus, for the comparison of Zaliznjak’s theory and Melvold’s theory, only nominative singular derived nouns in Sample A were used as the dataset: this is because Zaliznjak states that his theory applies only to derived non-inflected words, and the relevant part of Melvold’s theory applies to nouns but not other parts of speech. In order to ensure that each entry in the morpheme inventory had one and only one underlying form, under-determinacy was eliminated using the extralinguistic procedure described in 4.3.3. The Stress Checking Algorithm was then run. This essentially involves the straightforward subprocedures in (157):

292 (157) The Stress Checking Algorithm (SCA) (a) For each morphologically-tokenized stressed word, remove the stress and look up the underlying forms of the constituent morphemes in the morpheme inventory. (b) Assign stress to the word (how this is done clearly depends on which theory is being tested). (c) Compare the stress computed in (b) with the actual stress from (a). Keep count of the number of words correctly stressed and the number of words incorrectly stressed.

Once the SCA has processed all words in the dataset, we will have the total number of words incorrectly stressed and the total number correctly stressed. Determining how many words fall into each category clearly gives a good measure of the theory’s accuracy. 4.4.1 Test of Halle’s theory on non-derived nouns This section sets out the results of testing Halle’s theory on 3,234 non-derived words. The results of running this test, given in Table 33, show that the coverage of Halle’s theory is extremely high (almost 98%): it seems that this conclusively disproves two of Zaliznjak’s (1985) claims: As far as nonderived words are concerned, the only way of approaching the task [of predicting the stress of word-forms of a given lexeme] is to list [the stress-pattern of every lexeme]. In other words, the stress-pattern and the placement of the stress within the stem are effectively lexical idiosyncrasies of each word: this information cannot be predicted formally from any other characteristics of the word. [my translation & PC] (p. 22) …the stress-pattern and placement of stress within the stem for derived words differs from that of nonderived words in that it can be determined from a word’s morphological composition… [my translation & PC] (p. 29).

293 Table 33. Results of testing Halle’s theory on non-derived words No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

3,163 71 3,234

% of total 97280% 2220% 100200%

The results above show that the stress of non-derived words can generally be determined by looking at their morphological composition; and this approach involves listing far less information lexically, since what is listed is morphemes rather than words. This is perhaps unsurprising; one reason that Halle’s theory achieves such high coverage is that the vast majority of non-derived nouns have either fixed stem stress (accounted for in Halle’s theory by stipulating that the root is accented) or fixed ending stress (accounted for by stipulating that the root is post-accented). The real question is whether the theory still holds as well when applied to word-categories other than non-derived nouns; will the same accentual specification of the morpheme inventory and the same theory fit these words too, when many of the non-inflectional morphemes in non-derived nouns will be common to other word-categories? The test in the next section provides an answer to this question. 4.4.2 Test of Halle’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns To determine whether Halle’s theory is able to explain stress assignment for derived nouns as successfully as for non-derived nouns, the test in 4.4.1 was repeated on a dataset consisting of both derived and non-derived nouns. This dataset included a total of 9,512 words: the 3,234 nouns from Table 33 plus 6,278 derived nouns. The results of this test are shown in Table 34.

294 Table 34. Results of testing Halle’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

% of total

8,416 1,096 9,512

88248% 11252% 100200%

It is clear from these results that Halle’s theory is less adequate at explaining stress assignment for derived nouns than for non-derived nouns. The coverage is still quite high, but as we shall see in the next section, Melvold’s theory succeeds significantly better at accounting for the same dataset. 4.4.3 Test of Melvold’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns This section sets out the results of testing Melvold’s theory on derived and non-derived nouns (both headwords and inflected forms), the same dataset as used in 4.4.2. The test in 4.4.1 was again repeated, this time with the appropriate modifications to the SCA to reflect Melvold’s rules of stress assignment. The results of this test were that Melvold’s theory accounted correctly for over 95% of the dataset tested, as Table 35 shows. Table 35. Results of testing Melvold’s theory on non-derived and derived nouns No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

9,069 443 9,512

% of total 95234% 4266% 100200%

295 4.4.4

Test of Melvold’s theory on nouns, non-reflexive verbs and adjectives A re-test of Melvold’s theory on a dataset including not just nouns, but also

non-reflexive verbs and adjectives, yielded the results in Table 36: Table 36. Results of testing Melvold’s theory on nouns, adjectives and non-reflexive verbs No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

9,914 771 10,685

% of total 92278% 7222% 100200%

Comparing Table 35 and Table 36, we see that the error rate increases when we attempt to apply Melvold’s theory to all parts of speech, rather than just nouns. I believe that this can be attributed largely to the fact that Melvold’s theory, as it stands, does not account adequately for stress in the infinitives of verbs, since many of the 771 exceptions are verbal infinitives. (The corpus used does not include anything other than infinitives for verbs; thus, we cannot draw any conclusions about stress in verbal conjugation from the tests carried out.) The difficulty in accounting for stress in verbs can be explained as follows. The suffixes !,!svr and !%!svi are frequently found in nouns, and they are almost always stressed54. This suggests that these suffixes are dominant and accented. Two examples are given below:

54

There is a single class of counter-examples to this consisting of nouns derived from participial stems, e.g. ,<>:9&'',-.$ !6A'c+/%*rv+%rvc+4ra1+4ra1+6#&'rn+in1! ‘duty’. These forms, including the participles from which they are derived, tend to be stressed one syllable earlier than the suffix !%!rvc, and this implies that they can be explained by a retraction rule. Thus these exceptions are not a serious

296

(158) 4!"#-"#&:."6$ 83):6)1"

!90'1$c+#'1$rv+/%svi+&'1-'sn+in1! !;&8rv+/,svr+-'sn1+,8&8sn+6in18!

‘president’ ‘college’

However, numerous infinitives containing these suffixes are stressed on a syllable before the suffix, a fact which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that !,!svr and !%!svi are dominant and accented. A whole class of such infinitives is represented by derived imperfective verbs, which end in !,"sa+%svi+&'sa2! (–/(&.$ / –)(&.$). In these verbs, the stress falls on the syllable preceding !,"!sa. Two other examples outside this class are given below: (159) 46&:%&.$ 8#&:!).$

!9-/%2rv+%svi+&'sa2! !;c+$/%0'rv+,svr+&'sa2!

‘cry’ ‘hit’

If Melvold’s theory could be modified to account for cases such as these, the overall error rate for nouns, adjectives and verbs would be much more satisfactory. I leave this as a goal for future research. 4.4.5 Test of Zaliznjak’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns This section sets out the results of testing Zaliznjak’s theory on 524 nominative singular derived words. Once again, the test in 4.4.1 was repeated with appropriate modifications to the SCA to reflect the fact that Zaliznjak’s stress assignment rules were being tested.

challenge to the hypothesis that !%!rvc is dominant accented. Two other counter-examples which do not fall into this category and are thus perhaps ‘true’ exceptions are .!":<,(&')" !&0'/1Arv+6"ra+%rvc+4'ra1+,7rn1+6in18! ‘demand’ and 9":!%&6, !*'/10rv+2ra+%rvc+-rn1+6in18! ‘mirror’.

297 The results of this test were that the coverage of Zaliznjak’s theory is approximately 92% of the dataset tested, as Table 37 shows. Table 37. Results of testing Zaliznjak’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

% of total 482 42 524

91298% 8202% 100200%

Of course, these figures are not directly comparable with those in 4.4.1-4.4.4, because the dataset used for the test is different. For the purpose of direct comparison, therefore, we need to know how Melvold’s theory deals with the same dataset. This test was performed and the results are set out in the next section. 4.4.6 Test of Melvold’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns The test in 4.4.3 was repeated (using the same morpheme inventory), but this time using exactly the same dataset which was used in 4.4.5. The results are presented in Table 38. Table 38. Results of testing Melvold’s theory on nominative singular derived nouns No of words Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

% of total 498 26 524

95204% 4296% 100200%

298 Comparison of Table 37 and Table 38 thus reveals that the coverage of the two theories was not radically different, although one is led to conclude on the basis of this sample of relatively high-frequency words that the coverage of Zaliznjak’s theory is not as high. The difference between the two theories’ coverage is fairly significant (with p < 02045). Furthermore, it appears that as far as Melvold’s theory is concerned, nominative singular derived nouns are a representative subset of the dataset used in 4.4.5, since the coverage of 95204% is comparable to the equivalent figure from Table 35. 4.4.7

Analysis of errors in Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories The two lists of words not correctly accounted for by Melvold’s and

Zaliznjak’s theories are given in Table 39 and Table 40 respectively.

299 Key to Table 39 and Table 40

 D

O and E ! > <

Word common to Table 39 and Table 40 denotes that a morpheme is dominant denote underlying jers denotes accentuation/post-accentuation (depending on position in morpheme) in Table 39 denotes accentuation/post-accentuation (depending on position in morpheme) in Table 40 denotes pre-accentuation

Table 39. Analysis of words incorrectly stressed by Melvold’s theory

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

  

   

   

Actual stress Computed stress

Gloss

Underlying form

!"#$%&'()*"" *"+'," -&./"0)". 1,*""1,"',*/( 1,"2,3 1,2&"(0, 1/".0,#" 0.,(")," ',.""'/"4/5 "!".6"-"*,'&/ ")*/")()*/''"()$ 2"-.6"7, 2""/12""4"8$ 2.,"*&#" 2.&.""-, 2."9/"((&: 2."9/"((". (*/"-/'&/ (#6";,+ (2""("! (),)$:" )./"!"*,'&/ 6;/'&"0

‘majority’ ‘war’ ‘director’ ‘factory’ ‘curtain’ ‘smell’ ‘note’ ‘mirror’ ‘beauty’ ‘people’ ‘German’ ‘equipment’ ‘responsibility’ ‘girlfriend’ ‘train’ ‘help’ ‘rule’ ‘nature’ ‘profession’ ‘professor’ ‘information’ ‘case’ ‘means’ ‘article’ ‘demand’ ‘pupil’

#$!%&'ra+D(sa+!)*ra2+E+,-!rn+%in18# #-%.rv+E*ra1+rn2+/in3# #0')1'23rv+,ra2+%1rn+Oin1# #4/c+-%0rv+rn1+Oin1# #4/c+*/c+-'!2+rv1+rn1+Oin1# #4/c+5!/6rv+rn1+Oin1# #4/c+5')+rv+O3!rn1+/in3# #4'21rv+3ra+D!/rvc+&rn1+%in18# #31/+!ra+%,!rn1+/in3# #*/c+1%0rv+rn1+Oin1# #*'27'ra+!2,+sn+Oin1# #%$c1+%1!80rn+%-ra+D!/rvc+E*'ra1+!).rn1+%in18# #%,c+-'!2,rv+E+,-'rn+D!2*ra+E*ra1+%+,'rn+Oin1# #5%c+0189ra+rn2+/in3# #5%c+.240!rv+rn1+O in1# #5%c+7%(,('!rv+rn2+O in1# #51/-'rv+D!)rvr+&rn1+%in18# #51')c+1%0rv+rn1+/in3# #51%c2+:'2+rv++'ra+!).rn2+/in3# #51%c2+:'2+rv++ra+%1rn+Oin1# #+c+-'!20'rv1+D!2rvs+E*'ra1+!).rn1+%in18# #+c+&!8,('rv+D!/.sn+Oin1# #+c+5%c++!%$rp+rn2+Oin1# #+,/rv1+E,'ra1+.rn1+/in3# #,1'!2$ rv+%-ra+D!/rvc+E*'ra1+!).rn1+%in18# #!8,('rv+rvr+D!2*'ra+)3!sn+Oin1#

*!""#$%&'()*" **""+', *-&"./0)". *1,"*"*1,',*/"( *1,2,"3 *1,2&(0," *1/.0,"#" *0.,(""), *',"."*'/4/"5 *"!".6-"*,"'&/ *")*/)()*/"''"()$ *2""-.67, *2"/"1*2"4""8$ *2.,*&"#" *2.&"."-, *2."9/((&": *2.""9/((". *(*/-/"'&/ *(#6;,"+ *(2"(""! *(),")$: *)./!"*,"'&/ *6;/"'&0

300 Table 40. Analysis of words incorrectly stressed by Zaliznjak’s theory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

  





 

Actual stress

Computed stress Gloss

!"#$'&"5, *""1-63 *""1.,() 7#6!&'," 7"(2"-&"' 1,!""), 1,"',*/( 1,"2,3 1/".0,#" 0,.)&"', 4&'&()/".()*" 46<;&"', '/-"(),")"0 ""!#,0" ""!#,()$ "!".6"-"*,'&/ ""!.,1 "!:"1,''"()$ ""2=) "")-=3 "")26(0 "";/./-$ 2""*"2""-*&7 2""/12""&(0 2"#"*&"', 2""#$1, 2""4"8$ 2"":( 2.,"*&#" .,!""), ./!>'"0

*!""#$'&5, **"1-6"3 **"1.,"() *7#6"!&', *7"(2""-&' *1,!")," *1,',*/"( *1,2,"3 *1/.0,"#" *0,".)&', *4&'&"()/.()*" *46"<;&', *'/-"(),)""0 *"!#,"0" *"!#,"()$ *"!".6-"*,"'&/ *"!.,"1 *"!:1,"''"()$ *"2=") *")-="3 *")26"(0 *";/./"-$ *2"*""*2"-*&"7 *2"/"1*2"&"(0 *2""#"*&', *2"#$1," *2"4""8$ *2":"( *2.,*&"#" *.,!")," *./!/'""0 *(*/-/"'&/ *(/./"-&', *("*/"()$ *(2"(""! *)&"%&', *)./!"*,"'&/ *6<,"( *6.""*/'$ *6;/"'&0

 (*/"-/'&/   

(/./-&"', (""*/()$ (2""("! )&%&'," )./"!"*,'&/ 6"<,( 6"."*/'$ 6;/'&"0

‘hospital’ ‘air’ ‘age’ ‘depth’ ‘gentleman’ ‘worry’ ‘curtain’ ‘smell’ ‘mirror’ ‘picture’ ‘ministry’ ‘man’ ‘lack’ ‘cloud’ ‘region’ ‘equipment’ ‘shape’ ‘duty’ ‘experience’ ‘rest’ ‘leave’ ‘queue’ ‘cause’ ‘exploit’ ‘train’ ‘search’ ‘half’ ‘use’ ‘help’ ‘belt’ ‘rule’ ‘work’ ‘child’ ‘information’ ‘middle’ ‘conscience’ ‘means’ ‘silence’ ‘demand’ ‘terror’ ‘level’ ‘pupil’

Underlying form #$>%&'rv+<*'ra1+>),+rn1+>/in3# #-%4>c+0>86rv+>rn1+c+1>/+,rv+>rn1+8$'ra+)*>rn1+>/in3# #9%+5>%0'rn+)*>rn1+/$rv+D%,>rn1+>/in3# #4/>c+*/>c+-'>2+rv1+>rn1+c+<5/6rv+>rn1+21rv+3>ra+D>/rvc+D<&rn1+<%in18# #3>/1,'rn+)*>rn1+>/in3# #7')*'>)+ra+,'>21rn++,->rn+<%in18# #7>8;rn+,('>ra3+)*>rn1+>/in3# #*'2>c+0%>c++,/>rv1+,>ra1+>%3rn1+c1+&>/3rv+>rn1+<% in18# #%$>c1+&>/+rv+,'>rn1+c1+%1>80rn+%->ra+D>/rvc+<*'ra1+<).rn1+<2in18# #%$>c+1>/4rv+>rn1+c+>/4rv+D>/rvc+*>ra1+*>ra1+>%+,'rn+c+5),>rv+>rn1+c+0)6>rv+>rn1+c+5>8+3rv+>rn1+c1+,('21'>20'ra+>rn+c+->%0rv+>rn1+c+<0-')9rv+>rn1+c+.>240 rv+>rn1+c+<.)+3rv+>rn1+%&ra+>%-'ra+)*>rn1+>/in3# #5%>c+<&'4ra+>rn3+>/in3# #5%>c+7>%(,('rv+>rn2+c+<./+rv+>rn1+/-'rv+D>)rvr+D<&rn1+<%in18# #1>/$rv+D%,>rn1+>/in3# #1'>2$'rn+D>%*rn1+D%3>sn+c+-'>20'rv1+D>2rvs+<*'ra1+<).rn1+<2in18# #+'21'>20'rn+)*>rn1+>/in3# #+%>c+-'>2+rv3+,'>rn1+c+5%>c++>%$rp+>rn2+)(ra+)*>rn1+>/in3# #,1'>2$rv+%->ra+D>/rvc+<*'ra1+<).rn1+<2in18# #8>c+;>/+rv+>rn1+c+1>%-'ra+>2*'rn3+8,('rv+>rvr+D>2*'ra+>)3sn+
301 It should be stated at the outset that it is impossible to give explanations for all the items in these lists, since in each case an incorrect stress could either be attributed to an incorrect accentual specification of some morpheme(s) within a word, or it could be attributed to a deficiency in the overall stress assignment rules proposed. We are more interested in the latter, since identification of deficiencies in the rules is likely to facilitate the positing of better rules. Yet there is never any way of being sure that an incorrect stress is caused by a deficiency in the rules rather than some incorrect accentual specification, since, as was shown in 4.3, the coverage of a particular set of rules depends crucially on the accentual specification of the accompanying morpheme inventory, and there are so many ways in which a realistically-sized inventory can be specified that it is impossible to deduce the optimal way by trying every possibility. However, two general observations emerge from the data. First, over 40% of the words (11 out of the total 26) incorrectly stressed by Melvold’s theory are also incorrectly stressed by Zaliznjak’s theory, and, furthermore, they are without exception assigned the same incorrect stress. The fact that neither theory accounted correctly for these words strongly implies that their stress assignment would be exceptional, no matter which theory we adopted. The 11 words are given in Table 41:

302 Table 41. Exceptions common to Zaliznjak’s and Melvold’s theories

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Actual stress

Incorrect stress Gloss

9&:'&("9&:4&: 9":!%&6, ,<,!8:#,(&')" 4,:"9# 4,:+,1$ 4!&:()6, -(":#"')" -4,:-,< .!":<,(&')" 83"'):%

*9&'&(":*9&4&:: *9"!%&:6, *,<,!8#,(&:')" *4,":9# *4,+,:1$ *4!&():6, *-("#":')" *-4,-,:< *.!"<,(&:')" *83":')%

curtain smell mirror equipment train help rule information means demand pupil

Morphological string !*%c+4%c+"'1#rv1+sn1+in1! !*%c+9%Crv+sn1+in1! !*'10rv+2sa+%svi+-sn1+6in18! !6Ac1+60;$rn+6"sa+%svi+4'sa1+,7sn1+6in18! !96c+71*$ rv+sn1+in1! !96c++68&8'rv+sn2+in1! !90%"'rv+,svr+-sn1+6in18! !#c+"1$'rv+1svd+4'sa1+,7sn1+6in18! !#c+96c+#6Arp+sn2+in1! !&0'1Arv+6"sa+%svi+4'sa1+,7sn1+6In18! !;&8'rv+svr+14' sa+,2sn+in1!

The reason that stress was incorrectly assigned in 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 is that the suffixes !%!svi, !,!svr,
303 Table 42. Prefixed nouns stressed incorrectly by Zaliznjak

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Actual stress

Incorrect stress Gloss

(,:9#8: (,:9!&-. 9&:'&("9&:4&: ,:<6&%, ,:<6&-.$ ,:-,:("-.$ -4,:-,< 8:*&8:!,("'$

*(,9#8:: *(,9!&:-. *9&'&(":*9&4&:: *,<6&:%, *,<6&:-.$ *,:*-,(":-.$ *-4,-,:< *8*&:*8!,:("'$

‘air’ ‘age’ ‘curtain’ ‘smell’ ‘cloud’ ‘region’ ‘shape’ ‘experience’ ‘rest’ ‘leave’ ‘queue’ ‘cause’ ‘exploit’ ‘train’ ‘search’ ‘use’ ‘help’ ‘belt’ ‘conscience’ ‘means’ ‘horror’ ‘level’

Morphological string !"6*>c+$>;Crv+> sn1+c+0>%#&rv+> sn1+c+4%>c+"'>1#rv1+>sn1+c+<9%Crv+>sn1+c1+->%2rv+>sn1+<6in18! !6A>c1+->%#rv+&'>sn1+< in1! !6A>c+0>%*rv+>sn1+c+9,&>rv+>sn1+c+$,C>rv+> sn1+c+9>;#2rv+> sn1+c1+&8'10'>1$'ra+>sn+c+">6$rv+>sn1+c+<$"',Brv+>sn1+c+7>1*$rv+>sn1+c+<7,#2rv+>sn1+c+<-'*ra+>sn3+>%in1! !96>c++>68&8'rv+>sn2+c+<7%#rv+>sn1+c+"'>1#rv3+&'>sn1+c+<96>c+#>6Arp+>sn2+c+5>%#rv+>sn1+c+0>6"'ra+>14'sn3+
There is a relatively large class of words of this kind in Russian: many of these words appear to be deverbal nouns with zero suffixes of the type discussed on pages 183184, as can be seen from Table 42. The fact that they are all stressed on the initial syllable is key: Melvold’s theory, of course, is able to account correctly for most of them because in the morpheme inventory complementing the theory, prefixes are unaccented and the roots in question are also usually unaccented for the words in

304 question55, and the ‘default’ rule (stress the leftmost syllable) thus applies. The basic rules of Zaliznjak’s theory can never account for words of this type since he stipulates (p. 58) that prefixes (apart from !",!,
55

In the sample tested, incorrect assignment of stress by Melvold’s theory in these cases was in fact always attributable to the fact that the root was not unaccented.

305 Table 43. Words derived from prefixed stems Noun from Table 42 Word(s) with same stem and different stress (,:9#8: ‘air’ (,9#8:B'/0 !"6*$;84,7! ‘air’ (adj.) (,:9!&-. ‘age’ (,9!&-.&:.$ !"6*0%#&%&'! ‘to grow up’ ,:<6&-.$ ‘region’ ,<6&-.',:0 !6A-%#&467! ‘pertaining to a region’ ,:‘belt’ 4,>-',:0 !967%#467! ‘pertaining to a belt’ -4,:-,< ‘means’ -4,-,:<-.(,(&.$ !#96#6A#&"6"%&'! ‘to facilitate’ 8:*&‘horror’ 8*&:-'/0 !;5%#4,7! ‘terrible’ 8:!,("'$ ‘level’ 8!,('>:.$ !;06"4'%&'! ‘to level’

However, note also some counterexamples (which are rarer) in Table 44: Table 44. Further words derived from prefixed stems Noun from Table 42 Word with same stem and same stress ,:4/. ‘experience’ ,:4/.'/0 !69,&4,7! ‘experienced’ 4,:+,1$ ‘help’ <"-4,:+,1'/0 !A'1*96+68&8'4,7! ‘helpless’ -,:("-.$ ‘conscience’ -,:("-.).$ !#6"'1#&',&'! ‘to be ashamed’

One might suppose on the basis of the examples above that the rules of stress assignment in nouns differ from those in other parts of speech. This analysis is implied by Zaliznjak (1985: 39-43) (one of the examples he adduces is in fact ,:.48-% from Table 43 above), who states that for verbs stress to the right of the root is ‘more characteristic’ whereas in suffixless deverbal nouns stress is ‘usually’ on the root, or ‘in a significant minority of cases a different stress placement is found, usually on the prefix’.

306 In order to account for the examples in Table 43 within Melvold’s theory, one way forward would be to reclassify all the noun-forming suffixes !!sn, !!sn1, !!sn2, !&'!sn1 and !14'!sn3 as dominant and unaccented: their effect would therefore be to obviate any accentual effects of the preceding morphemes and assert the ‘default’ initial-syllable accentuation. This would be entirely consistent with Melvold (1989) and Zaliznjak (1985), who both adduce the word ,:<,!,."'$ !/6A606&'+14'! ‘werewolf’ (cf. ,<,!,:. !6A60/6&! ‘turn’) as evidence that !14'! should be classified as dominant and unaccented (
307 column do not have dominant unaccented noun-forming suffixes as part of their morphological structure. For those words with zero noun-forming suffixes, this stipulation seems entirely justified on semantic grounds, since noun-forming suffixes would not be needed to form the non-nouns in the right column. In the case of 8!,('>:.$, the suffix !14'!sn3 is still present in the form of the allomorph !4'!, but here the following morpheme (the verbal suffix !%!) is dominant: since it is to the right of !4'!, it is the morpheme which determines the word-stress instead of !4'!. I conclude this section by stating that Zaliznjak’s ‘basic rules’ appear to be inferior to Melvold’s theory in three ways: first, their scope is more limited than that of Melvold’s theory, since they apply only to derived nouns (and even then, Zaliznjak states that they do not apply in the inflection of derived nouns). In the sections above, I showed that it is entirely reasonable to suppose that ‘morpheme-based’ rules can account for the stress of non-derived words. Secondly, as we saw in 4.2.3, careful examination of Zaliznjak’s theory shows that it can objectively be said to be less elegant than Melvold’s, since it contains more rules. These two reasons are the principal reasons for rating Zaliznjak’s theory less highly. The third reason is that the coverage of Melvold’s theory appears to be (marginally) better, for which we saw evidence in 4.4.5-4.4.6. 4.5

Summary The results which have been obtained in this chapter can be summarized as

follows. Essentially, the rule ‘stress the rightmost dominant suffix if there is one, otherwise stress the leftmost accented morpheme if there is one, otherwise stress the initial syllable of the word’, which I have referred to as Melvold’s theory, is sufficient to account for 95234% of a corpus of 9,512 nouns, derived and non-derived, given the

308 right accentual specification of the morpheme inventory. However, the ‘right accentual specification’ needs to be supplied in addition to the theory: all three theories, including Melvold’s, were under-determined in that they did not include enough information for them to be tested as they were. Aside from the limitations in coverage already discussed, I have also shown that Melvold’s rules are less good at predicting the stress of verbal infinitives and adjectives. It therefore seems to me that this rule is limited in its applicability to nouns, and I believe that an important avenue for future research will be to formulate and test better rules for parts of speech other than nouns.

309

Chapter 5: Stress assignment: a new analysis 5.1

Introduction In Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, I developed detailed context-free grammars of

Russian syllable structure and word-formation. Chapter 4 compared three alternative theories of Russian stress assignment: the evidence presented in that chapter suggested that of the three theories, Melvold’s provides the most promising startingpoint in formulating a broad-coverage account of stress in Russian words. In this chapter, I show how the two grammars already proposed can be integrated into a single ‘phonology’ which is able to solve diverse grammatical problems. I also take the principal ideas of Melvold’s theory and show how they can be implemented within this phonology of Russian. This re-implementation demonstrates that although Melvold’s theory is couched in ‘procedural’ terms, its most important features also have a declarative implementation. This is no surprise: Coleman (1998: 9) demonstrates that a typical ‘imperative’ phonological analysis can be re-expressed declaratively, and shows (Coleman 1998: 97ff.) that any phrasestructure grammar (even one more powerful than context-free) can be viewed nonderivationally. The grammar in this chapter formalizes the salient aspects of Melvold’s theory, but is no more powerful than context-free. The result of this is that the theory is shown to have all the advantages outlined in section 1.3.2. We shall see in this chapter how stress assignment fits in with the rest of the grammar (the morphological and syllable structure modules). This has not always been clear in mainstream generative phonology, which has often treated stress assignment and syllabification as somewhat separate mechanisms. Throughout this

310 dissertation, I have emphasized the importance of ensuring that a complex grammar is coherent. It will become clear in this chapter not only that a morpheme-based account of Russian stress can cohere with other generally-accepted principles of linguistic theory (such as the analysis of morphological and syllable structure), but that coherence is desirable: without it, the theory is more complicated than it need be. The analysis which will be proposed is not a straight re-implementation of Melvold’s theory. In certain respects, I depart from, or add to, the theory. For one thing, Melvold’s theory does not tell us how to parse strings morphologically; it assumes that this information is given. The omission of a formal description of Russian morphology in effect leaves Melvold’s theory under-determined, as we saw in section 4.3. It is possible to conceive of a different grammar of morphology which would yield different stress assignments in conjunction with the same (Melvold’s) theory about Russian stress assignment. It is important to appreciate, however, that Melvold’s theory cannot assign stress at all without some kind of word-formation grammar. Thus I would argue that the addition of a word-formation grammar is not a ‘departure’ from Melvold’s theory; it is better seen as the unavoidable filling in of a gap. But there are other tangible differences between the theory I propose and Melvold’s theory, in the sense that the two theories can (at least, potentially) make different predictions about the stress assignment of particular words. I shall argue that post-accentuation and ‘jer stress retraction’ are more simply viewed as functions of syllabification in modern Russian, rather than (for example) looking at postaccentuation as the ‘projection of a left bracket’ (Idsardi 1992, Halle 1997). In other words, Melvold’s rules are more powerful than they need be: a simpler and more

311 general theory can account for virtually all of the cases explained by Melvold’s theory. But this chapter does more than just provide a new account of stress in Russian. It also presents a computational phonology of Russian which synthesizes the proposals advanced up to this point; using this phonology, one can find answers to any of the following questions:

,

What is a word’s syllable structure?

,

What is a word’s morphological structure?

,

When do jers vocalize, and when do they delete?

,

Which syllable of a word is stressed?

,

Is a word well-formed or ill-formed?

,

What are the possible words of the language?

It goes without saying that imperfections in the model may give rise to incorrect solutions to these problems, but at least these can be identified, and the model then improved upon. In other words, once again a standard is set against which future proposals can be measured. 5.2

Context-free phonology and stress in Russian In Chapter 4, I showed that Melvold’s theory cannot be implemented and

tested without two elements which are missing from her account: (a) a grammar which shows the location of morpheme boundaries within words (a word-formation grammar) and (b) an extensive morpheme inventory (a list showing how morphemes are ‘underlyingly’ specified for accentuation and dominance).

312 The word-formation grammar presented in Chapter 3 fills the first of these two ‘gaps’ in the theory. Because this grammar can be used for parsing, it is able, given only the sequence of phonemes in a word, to deduce that word’s morphological structure (not just where the morpheme boundaries are within the word, but also its hierarchical structure). The second of the gaps, the absence of a complete morpheme inventory, is filled by Appendix 3: the basic entries in this appendix come from Oliverius (1976), and the accentual tagging of the entries was obtained by using the ALA and trial and error as described in 4.3.3. With all the necessary elements in place, I show in sections 5.2.1-5.2.6 how the principal ideas from Melvold’s theory can be implemented as a simple extension to the word-formation grammar (including the morpheme inventory) by enriching the word-formation grammar with appropriate features. Although the word-formation grammar is context-free, and therefore the enriched grammar is also context-free, it is possible to ensure that the enriched grammar makes exactly the same predictions as the equivalent parts of Melvold’s ‘procedural’ grammar. If one chooses to view the overall grammar in a declarative light, then, for each structure presented to it, this grammar is able to ‘fill in’ all unspecified features (such as stress), or reject the structure if there is no possible way of filling in the underspecified features consistent with those that are pre-specified. 5.2.1 Encoding which morpheme determines stress In order to encode which morpheme determines stress, I suggest that the feature [!stress] should be included in the word-formation grammar as well as in the syllable structure grammar. A morpheme which ‘determines’ the stress of a word is [+stress]; any other morpheme is [$stress]. This means that one and only one

313 morpheme in each word can be [+stress]. Thus, for example, a word’s [+stress] morpheme would be its rightmost dominant morpheme, or its leftmost (post-)accented morpheme if the word contains no dominant morphemes. The feature [+stress] (in the word-formation component of the grammar) corresponds to the leftmost asterisk in Melvold (1989), and to the left parenthesis of Idsardi (1992) and Halle (1997) (to be precise, the left parenthesis is to the left of the [+stress] morpheme). However, a morpheme which is [+stress] in one word need not be [+stress] in another word, so clearly [+stress] is not a feature which is specified as part of the lexical entry of each morpheme in the inventory. Thus the constraints which ensure that [+stress] and [$stress] are distributed as they should be, with one and only one [+stress] morpheme per word, must be part of the word-formation grammar. According to Melvold’s theory, the distribution of [+stress] and [$stress] will be determined solely by the lexical accentual features of morphemes in a word and their positions. We saw in 4.2.2 that these features are (a) dominant versus recessive (which can alternatively be thought of as [!dominant], with [$dominant] being simply another name for recessive), and (b) (post-)accented versus unaccented. I shall leave aside post-accentuation for now, and start by considering the simple case where morphemes are [!accented]. As observed in section 4.2.2, stem ‘markedness’ is also a lexically-specified accentual feature; I return to this later as well. Suppose now that we stipulate that the feature [!stress] is possessed not just by the terminal symbols in a word’s morphological structure (that is, by the morphemes themselves), but also by all the non-terminal symbols in the tree. We shall say that any symbol which dominates exactly one [+stress] terminal symbol is also [+stress], and any symbol which dominates no [+stress] terminal symbols is [$stress].

314 (The stipulation above that one and only one morpheme can be [+stress] is equivalent to stipulating that no symbol may dominate more than one [+stress] terminal symbol.) For example, the constituent structure of -4"7)&6$',-.$ !#9'1&#+,7+%-'+4+6#&'+! ‘speciality’ (excluding the information on parse probability given in Figure 20 in Chapter 3), in which we assume that !%-'! is [+dominant] and that no [+dominant] morphemes stand to its right, could be represented as in Figure 23. Figure 23. Parse tree for -4"7)&6$',-.$

noun [+stress]

noun-stem

infl. ending

[+stress]

[$stress]

adj-stem

sn

[+stress]

[$stress]

adj-stem

sa

[+stress]

[$stress]

noun-stem

sa

[+stress]

[$stress]

rv

sn

[$stress]

[$stress]

+67$)+

&?

[$stress]

[$stress]

#,7

[+stress]

-

[$stress]

(+)7

[$stress]

315 In this grammar, it is equally valid to think of the value of [!stress] as being inherited by small morphological units from larger morphological units, or the reverse. It is, of course, one of the key features of a declarative grammar that the ordering of processing does not matter. It also follows from the stipulations above that the start symbol of the grammar (representing a whole word) must always be [+stress], since it will always dominate exactly one terminal symbol (morpheme) which is [+stress]. As we have seen, the word-formation grammar (apart from the jer deletion and vocalization rules) consists entirely of left-embedding context-free rules. Each rule in the grammar is of one of the following four forms: (160) (a) (b) (c) (d)

X stem stem stem

' ' ' '

stem stem root prefix

inflection suffix root

(where X stands for noun, verb, adjective, adverb etc)

There is, in fact, a general way of enriching each of these four rule schemata so as to capture the four basic ideas from Melvold’s theory, namely: (161) a) b) c) d)

A dominant suffix always ‘wins’ the stress from a stem to its left. An accented left-hand constituent always ‘wins’ the stress from its [$dominant] sister. A [+accented] right-hand constituent always ‘wins’ the stress from its [$accented] sister. If no stress is assigned (e.g. because no morphemes in the word are accented), the word is stressed on its leftmost syllable by default.

316 We shall consider these in order. First, to capture the idea that a dominant suffix always determines the stress, regardless of what is to its left, we need to map the following feature structures onto all four of the rule schemata in (160): (162) [+accented, 3 stress]

'

[$stress]

[+dominant, 3 stress]

Thus, for example, (160b) becomes (163): (163) stem [X] {X Y Z

stem suffix [Y] [Z] [+accented, 3 stress], [$stress], [+dominant, 3 stress]} '

9 9 9

The reason that the stem in (163) is specified as [+accented] is that, as Melvold puts it, the newly formed stem enters the next ‘cycle’ accented. If it were not specified in this way, the new stem would lose the stress to a [+accented, $dominant] suffix added to its right, which would be incorrect. Now, according to Melvold’s theory, only suffixes can be [+dominant]. But if non-suffixes are left lexically unspecified for the feature [!dominant], the wrong predictions will be made. For example, in a ‘simple’ stem consisting of a [+accented] prefix and a [$accented] root, the root will unify with [+dominant, 3 stress], causing stress to be incorrectly assigned to the root. Thus the principle that only suffixes can be [+dominant] does need to be encoded in the grammar somehow. One possible way of doing this is to specify every non-suffix lexically as [$dominant]; however, this clearly misses an important generalization. A preferable alternative is to modify (160d) to read as follows:

317

(164) stem ' [X] {Y, Z 9

prefix root [Y] [Z] [$dominant]}

We now move on to consider how (161b) can be encoded in the grammar. This can be done by adding the constraints in (165). These state that a [+accented] left-hand constituent inherits the value of [!stress] of the mother node, providing its sister is [$dominant]. It does not matter whether the left-hand constituent is assigned the feature [+accented] lexically, or by the grammar. Again, the mother node is [+accented] for the same reason as in (162)-(163). (165) [+accented, 3 stress]

'

[+accented, 3 stress]

[$dominant]

This rule will apply if the left-hand constituent is a prefix and the right-hand constituent a root. In this case, it does not matter, because we want a [+accented] prefix to be assigned the stress, regardless of the accentual properties of the root to its right. Third, we consider the constraints necessary to ensure that a [+accented] righthand constituent inherits the mother node’s specification for [!stress] if its sister is [$accented]. The necessary constraints are as follows: (166) [+accented, 3 stress]

'

[$accented]

[+accented, 3 stress]

Finally, we need constraints to allow for the possibility that both of the subconstituents are [$accented]. These constraints are as follows:

318

(167) []

'

[$accented]

[$accented, $dominant]

This set of constraints will apply to words consisting entirely of unaccented morphemes (e.g. 5,:!,#8 !B606$rn+;in22! ‘town’ [dat. sg.]; cf. Table 21 on page 237), or those consisting of a stem, the root and innermost suffix of which are both unaccented (e.g. +,:6,#,-.>+) !+6-6$+6#&'+/%+',!<‘youths’ [instr. pl.]; cf. Table 22 on page 242). In conjunction with the other constraints, its effect will be to assign the feature [+stress] to none of the morphemes in the word. The syllable structure grammar will then do the work of assigning stress to the initial syllable of a word consisting entirely of [$stress] segments; how this is done will be discussed in more detail in section 5.2.6 (see page 334). This section, then, has provided an outline of how the constraints in Melvold’s theory on which morpheme determines the word-stress can be incorporated into the context-free rules: effectively, the values for [!stress] are ‘blanks’ in the lexical entries for each morpheme which are filled in by the relevant CFG rules. 5.2.2 Polysyllabic morphemes In some cases, we need to mark the association of stress with a particular segment to avoid ambiguity. Without this information, for instance, there is no way of knowing which vowel in a polysyllabic morpheme (such as !2606"!rn) is [+stress] if the morpheme itself is [+stress]. (In the case of !2606"!rn, the stress always falls on the second !6! if !2606"!rn is stressed.) This information therefore needs to be lexically specified in the morpheme inventory. Perhaps the most obvious way of doing this is

319 to allow the feature [!stress] to apply to individual segments. Thus the terminal rule which lists !2606"!rn in the morpheme inventory would be as in (168): (168)

rn [3 stress]

'

!<<<<2 <<<<<6 <<<<<0

<<<<<6 <<<<<"<<<
This rule states that the second vowel is the one which has the special status as far as stress is concerned. 5.2.3

Post-accentuation None of the three theories of stress surveyed in 4.2 states explicitly what the

role of the syllable is in stress assignment: in particular, Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989) associate stress with individual phonemes or syllabic nuclei (cf Halle 1997: 276), rather than with whole syllables. The treatment of stress assignment as if it were independent of syllabification is in fact typical of much work in mainstream generative grammar (as mentioned in 2.1, Chomsky and Halle 1968 is a prime example of this). Yet in this, Halle and Melvold go against the grain of metrical stress theory: The general relevance of syllables to rules of stress assignment has long been clear (see for instance… Kahn 1976). A theory in which stress rules refer only to the structural properties of syllables is far more constrained than a theory (such as that of SPE) in which stress rules refer directly to segments… Following earlier work (e.g. Jakobson 1931), I adopt the view that in stress languages, the stress-bearing unit is the syllable… Halle and Vergnaud’s view on stress-bearing units is quite different: they argue that stress rules may include statements of the form “the stress-bearing elements are X,” where X can be for example vowels… I suggest that this proposal states as part of language-particular grammars what arguably should be part of universal grammar. It seems unlikely that we would ever find a language in which the stress-bearing units are consonants, or nasals, or coronals, and so on. The phenomena that lead HV to suppose that segments can be stress-bearing can be better accounted for by adopting an explicit theory of syllable structure and syllable weight. (Hayes 1995: 48-49)

320 Up to this point, syllabification has played no role in the context-free account of stress assignment either. However, I shall show in this section that referring to syllabification explicitly in stress assignment not only brings it into line with metrical stress theory and reconciles two important ‘modules’ of generative grammar which have often been thought of separately, it also simplifies the way in which we can think of post-accentuation and stress retraction. The current analysis therefore is fully in support of Hayes’s proposition that the syllable cannot be ignored in stress assignment. Yet, I also propose, contrary to Hayes (1995), that in Russian, stress is also borne by individual segments of morphemes, which may even in some cases be consonants.56 One of the important contributions of my proposal, therefore, is to show how Hayes’s viewpoint can be reconciled with that of Halle and Vergnaud. In all the post-accented morphemes identified by Halle and Melvold, the final segment is a consonant. This, in fact, is not surprising, since only roots and derivational suffixes may be post-accented57, and Slavic roots and derivational suffixes generally have to end in consonants (Isa;enko 1970: 88) (although some verbal roots may end in vowels). In most cases, the final consonant of a post-accented morpheme will syllabify with the initial segments of the following morpheme, as in !26-!A%!"#+%!. In view of this, there are good grounds to see post-accentuation as being in some way determined by the final consonant of the [+stress] morpheme: if the first vowel in the following morpheme is stressed, then this is simply because it and the

56

This analysis finds a number of parallels with Piotrowski, Roca and Spencer’s (1992) treatment of lexical syllabicity in Polish, which aims to explain the reflexes of jers in Polish, a phenomenon closely related to those under discussion here. 57 Prefixes are usually unaccented (or occasionally accented, e.g. !",!c, !9%!c), and it does not make sense to speak of post-accented inflectional endings, since by definition no morpheme may ever follow an inflectional ending.

321 consonant in question reside together within the same syllable. To represent this fact in the grammar, two adaptations need to be made. First, in each post-accented morpheme, we need to mark the final consonant as having the special status for stress assignment, just as we marked the second vowel of !2606"!rn in (168). Thus the final consonant of post-accenting morphemes can be lexically marked [3 stress]. For example, the terminal rule for !26-A%#!rn would be as in (169). (169)

rn ' [3 stress]

!<<<<2 <<<<<6 <<<<<<- <<<<<
If we then stipulate in the syllabification grammar, by rules such as those in (170), that [+stress] spreads to all segments within the same syllable, the correct syllable will always be stressed. (170) syllable [X] {

rime [X]

'

X 9 [3 stress], Y 9 [3 stress], Z 9 [3 stress] } '

{

onset [Y]

rime [Z]

nucleus [Y]

X 9 [3 stress], Y 9 [3 stress] }

…etc

Using rules of this type, #8!&%&: !$;0ra+%2sn+%in3! ‘fool’ (gen. sg.), in which the suffix !%2sn! is dominant post-accented, will have a dual morphological/phonological structure as in Figure 24.

322 Figure 24. Morphological/phonological structure of #8!&%&C !*D.ra+#4sn+#in3!

noun [+stress]

noun-stem

infl. ending

[+stress]

[$stress]

adj-stem

sn

[+stress]

[$stress]

$

;

0

%

nucl.

onset

rime

2

[+stress]

syllable

rime

[?stress]

nucl.

nucl.

onset

%

[+stress]

onset

[+stress]

syllable

weakfoot

rime

[+stress]

syllable [+stress]

strongfoot phonological word

323 In certain identifiable respects, the ‘syllabification’ interpretation of postaccentuation differs in its predictions from Melvold’s theory. First, it is conceivable in Melvold’s theory that a morpheme with a final vowel could be post-accented, but such a morpheme could not exist in the proposal which I make. Secondly, it is also conceivable in Melvold’s theory that there might be a case of the type !…V1C1+C2V2…!, where the morpheme ending in C1 is post-accented, but C1C2 is not a possible onset. According to Melvold’s theory, V2 would be stressed, but according to the ‘syllabification’ view V1 would be stressed. Where two theories differ in their predictions as here, it clearly cannot be the case that both theories are right. The question therefore arises as to whether the ‘syllabification’ interpretation of post-accentuation is really justified as a simplification to Melvold’s theory: perhaps the syllabification interpretation fails to cover certain words in Russian which are covered by Melvold’s theory. This is an empirical question which can be resolved only by comparing the overall coverage of the two theories; I shall return to address this question in 5.3. If the ‘syllabification’ interpretation of Russian stress assignment is correct, however, we see clearly from Figure 24 how it is possible for stress to be borne both by syllables, and by segments, and, indeed, by morphological constituents. Each of the grammar modules, word-formation and syllable structure, simultaneously places constraints on the surface form, filling in the specification for [!stress] as appropriate. This is entirely in accordance with the standard constraint-based view of language (cf. Figure 25, modified from Bird 1995: 30):

324 Figure 25. The constraint pool syntax

phonology

utterance

semantics

morphology

The force of Figure 25 is essentially that each grammatical module constrains utterances, and an utterance which is well-formed must not violate any of these constraints. Because the modules operate in parallel, not in series, the output of one module cannot be said to be the ‘input’ for any other: instead, the utterance is the simultaneous output of all the modules. Now, if a language L is constrained by two grammars G1 and G2, which define languages L1 and L2 respectively, then L must be at the intersection of L1 and L2: the strings of L must comply with the constraints of both grammars in order to be wellformed. Thus stress assignment in Russian can be seen as a function of the intersection of morphology and syllable structure. Chomsky (1963: 380) shows that the union or intersection of a context-free and linear grammar is a context-free grammar; and since the current word-formation grammar is context-free and the syllable structure grammar is linear, it follows that Russian stress assignment itself is context-free.

325 5.2.4

Jer stress retraction The next issue which needs to be examined is that of ‘accented jer’ stress

retraction as described in Melvold’s theory. Just like post-accentuation, this type of stress retraction can be seen as a function of syllabification. Indeed, I shall argue that the theory of stress assignment need make no explicit reference to jers per se. This is because if jers are morphological objects which manifest themselves phonologically sometimes as a vowel and sometimes as zero (as argued in 3.3), then, as we shall see, ‘jer stress retraction’ will fall out naturally as a result of syllabification. The majority, if not all, the cases of ‘accented jer’ stress retraction cited by Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989) involve inflectional endings consisting of a jer (nominative singular or genitive plural) added to nouns with post-accented stems. For example, !2606-'rn+/;in! ‘king’ (dat. sg.) is stressed on the inflection because !2606-'!rn is post-accented; in !260/6-'rn+in!, the stress is supposedly retracted to the first available syllable before the end of !2606-'!rn because the inflectional ending contains a jer. However, this kind of stress retraction can also be viewed as a function of how the final consonant of !2606-'!rn syllabifies, just as was the case in 5.2.3. After all, the feature which !2606-'rn+/;in! and !260/6-'rn+in! have in common is that in both cases the !-'! in stem-final position is in the stressed syllable. The rule of jer stress retraction can be formulated as follows. We stipulate, using the rules in the syllable structure grammar, that a syllable is [+stress] if its coda is [+stress]. (Using previous rules, a syllable could be [+stress] only if either its nucleus or its onset were [+stress].) We are now stating, then, that [+stress] spreads throughout a syllable to all of its constituents, onset, nucleus and coda. In other words, the rule of stress ‘retraction’ is not retraction

326 at all, but is no different in kind from the post-accentuation rule formulated in (170) above. (171) rime [X] {

'

nucleus [Y]

X 9 [3 stress], Y 9 [3 stress], Z 9 [3 stress] }

coda [Z]

To see how this works, consider the constituent structure of #8!&:% !$;0ra+%2sn+in1! ‘fool’ (nom. sg.), shown in Figure 26.

327 Figure 26. Morphological/phonological structure of #8!&C% !*D.ra+#4sn+in1!

noun [+stress]

noun-stem

infl. ending

[+stress]

[$stress]

adj-stem

sn

[+stress]

[$stress]

$

;

0

%

[+stress]

[+stress]

rime

[+stress]

nucl.

nucl.

onset

2

coda

[+stress]

onset

[+stress]

rime

[+stress]

[?stress]

syllable

syllable

weakfoot

strongfoot

[+stress]

phonological word

328 As in the previous section, it is important to clarify exactly how the ‘syllabification’ interpretation of ‘accented jer’ stress retraction differs in its predictions from Melvold’s theory, if at all. The answer, again, is that there are cases where the predictions could potentially differ. One such case is as follows. In Melvold’s theory it is possible to conceive of morphemes with an inherently accented jer. A morpheme of this type, if it were [+stress], would always cast stress onto the previous syllable; effectively, it would be a pre-accented morpheme. In the context-free account which I am proposing, it is also possible to conceive of a morpheme where [+stress] is lexically required to associate with the jer (cf. (169)). However, if the morpheme were [+stress] and the jer were deleted, a situation would arise where no terminal symbols would be able to associate with the feature [+stress], resulting in default stress assignment to the initial syllable (the mechanism for which will be described in 5.2.6). Of course, the initial syllable might not be the same as the syllable immediately preceding the morpheme with the deleted jer. The only other case where the two theories differ in their predictions is in words of the type !…V1C1+JC2V2…!, where …V1C1 is a post-accented morpheme, C1C2 is a possible onset, J is a jer and V1, V2 are vowels. In this case, Melvold’s theory would predict that stress surfaces on V1, whereas the ‘syllabification’ interpretation predicts that stress will be on V2. Since the two alternative theories make different predictions, we have to decide once again which of the two sets of predictions matches the observed data better. Just as in 5.2.3, this question can be resolved only by empirical analysis, and again I leave discussion of this until section 5.3.

329 5.2.5

Plural stress retraction We now turn to the rule of stress retraction in certain plural forms. According

to Halle and Melvold, in plural nouns with a marked stem, stress surfaces one syllable to the left of where it would have surfaced had the stem been unmarked. The reason that implementation of this rule is at first sight not straightforward is that the grammar somehow needs to be able to recognize marked stems so that stress can be retracted in those words and no others. As stated in section 4.3.2.1, a stem is not necessarily the same as a morpheme, but may consist of more than one morpheme. This suggests that ‘markedness’ would have to be included as a feature of pre-terminal, not terminal, symbols in the morphological representation. The reason that this is problematic is that morphemes, the terminal symbols of the word-formation grammar, are the only level at which markedness can be ‘lexical’, since the morpheme inventory is effectively the list of terminal symbols in the word-formation grammar. However, as noted by Lagerberg (1992: 11), ‘derived words in Russian in the overwhelming majority of cases have fixed stress’. It follows from this that stress retraction should occur only in stems where the root morpheme immediately precedes the inflectional ending. This suggests that ‘stem markedness’ arises from a lexical property of the last morpheme in a stem (which will be the root in the case of a nonderived word).58 If this is true, then each morpheme in the inventory can be lexically assigned a feature which we might call [!pl(ural)_retr(action)]. Thus, for example, !*',+!rn is [+plural_retraction] (cf. 9)+&: !*',+rn+/%in3! ‘winter’ (nom. sg.), 9):+&+)

58

This proposal would, moreover, be consistent with Siegel’s (1977) Adjacency Constraint. See Pesetsky (1979) for detailed arguments for the applicability of the Adjacency Constraint to Russian.

330 !*'/,+rn+%+',in5! ‘winters’ (instr. pl.)). The fact that all derived words purportedly have fixed stress is then explained by a lexical principle that all suffixal morphemes are [$plural_retraction]. In fact, not all derived words do have fixed stress, since deadjectival abstract nouns whose stem end in -)'- !,4sn1! and -,.- !6&sn1! (e.g. 568<)'&: !B-;A'ra+,4sn1+%:in3! ‘depth’, (/-,.&: !",#ra+6&sn1+%:in3! ‘height’) all exhibit stress retraction in the plural. While this refutes the proposition that all derived words have fixed stress, it is not a problem as far as the context-free implementation is concerned: we simply stipulate that !,4!sn1 and !6&!sn1, the stem-final morphemes in these cases, are also examples of [+plural_retraction] morphemes. All word-formation rules of the type in (172) would then be subject to the ‘plural_retraction’ constraints in (173). (172) noun [Y]

'

noun_stem [X]

in [Y]

(173) plural_retraction(X,Y):X 9 [+plural_retraction], Y 9 [3 plural, 3 plural_retraction]. plural_retraction(X,Y):X 9 [$plural_retraction], Y 9 [$plural_retraction]. (where X represents the features of the stem, and Y represents the features of the inflectional ending and noun as a whole)

Now, in order to encapsulate the idea of stress retraction within the phonological module of the grammar, the only module which incorporates the concept of the syllable, we need to stipulate a new feature, which might be called [!actual_stress]. (Again, the use of an extra feature is necessitated by the restriction that the grammar must be no more powerful than context-free.) For forms which

331 exhibit stress retraction, the syllable which is [+actual_stress] must immediately precede the [+stress] syllable, as in (174): (174) strongfoot [+pl_retr]

'

syllable [+actual_stress]

syllable [+stress]

(weakfoot)

In other words, stress retraction could be considered as a misalignment of [+actual_stress] and [+stress] syllables. The [+actual_stress] syllable is always at the beginning of a strongfoot; the [+stress] syllable is the second constituent of a strongfoot in [+plural_retraction] forms. (In all other cases mentioned so far, [+actual_stress] will of course align with [+stress].) Plural stress retraction is therefore more justifiably a case of ‘retraction’ than the rule of jer stress retraction as formulated in (171). To illustrate the application of these rules, Figure 27 gives the structure of the word (/-,:./ !",#ra+/6&sn1+,in! ‘heights’ which exhibits plural stress retraction.

332 Figure 27. Morphological/phonological structure of (/-,C./ !3&+ra+B()sn1+&in!

noun

[+stress, +pl_retr,+plural]

noun-stem

infl. ending

[+stress, +pl_retr]

[$stress, +plural]

adj-stem

sn

[+stress, +pl_retr]

[$stress]

"

,

#

rime

syllable

[+actual_ stress]

&

[+stress]

nucl.

nucl.

onset

6

[+actual_ stress]

nucl.

[+actual_stress]

onset

[+actual_ stress]

rime

[+actual_ stress]

[?stress]

onset

[+stress]

syllable

syllable

[+actual_stress]

[?stress]

strongfoot

weakfoot

[+plural_retraction]

phonological word [+plural_retraction]

,

[?stress]

rime

[?stress]

333 Again, how does this interpretation differ in its predictions from Melvold’s theory, if at all? The only difference is that in Melvold’s theory, it is theoretically possible that there could be two stems with, say, different roots but ending in the same morpheme, with one stem ‘marked’ and the other ‘unmarked’. In the theory I propose, this is impossible, because the markedness of a stem depends only on the markedness of the stem-final morpheme, and this is a fixed lexical property of the morpheme. Again, we shall see in section 5.3 whether my analysis or Melvold’s accounts better for the data. 5.2.6

Dominant unaccented morphemes The final problem is to encode in context-free grammar the idea that where a

dominant unaccented morpheme is [+stress], the word is stressed on the initial syllable (which may be far removed from the [+stress] morpheme). This problem can be solved as follows. If we use terminal rules like the one in (175) for dominant unaccented morphemes, then it will be possible for a morphological word & and a dominant unaccented morpheme & to be [+stress], but for all its constituent segments to be [$stress], a special case which up to now has been excluded. (175)

sn ' [3 stress] [+dominant]

!<<<<1 <<< [$stress]

<4' ! [$stress]

The phonological grammar as it currently stands cannot syllabify a string consisting entirely of [$stress] segments, so we need to add the extra rule in (176), which can be thought of as a ‘default’ rule to cover this special case. The effect of this rule is that any word which contains no [+stress] segments consists of an initial

334 stressed syllable and then a weakfoot (consisting entirely of unstressed syllables). (This rule will also be used for cases like 5,:!,#8 !B606$rn+;in22! ‘town’ [dat. sg.] and +,:6,#,-.>+) !+6-6$+6#&'+/%+',!<‘youths’ [instr. pl.], discussed on page 318, where stress is assigned to the initial syllable ‘by default’). (176) prosodic_word

'

syllable [+actual_stress] [$stress]

weakfoot

As far as the behaviour of dominant unaccented morphemes is concerned, the predictions of the context-free grammar are exactly the same as the predictions of Melvold’s grammar. An example of an instance where rules (175)-(176) are used is illustrated in Figure 28.

335 Figure 28. Morphological/phonological structure of 8C!,("'$ /BDc+.(37ra+$-7sn+in!

noun [+stress]

noun-stem

infl. ending

[+stress]

[$stress]

adj-stem

sn

[+stress]

[$stress]

c

ra

[$stress]

;

[$stress]

[$stress]

0

6

[$stress]

[$stress]

nucl.

rime

syllable

[?actual_stress]

[$stress]

nucl.

[+actual_stress]

[?actual_ stress]

"'

onset

rime

[$actual_ stress]

[$stress]

[$stress]

[$actual_stress]

onset [$actual stress]

syllable

[$actual_stress]

weakfoot

phonological word

4'

nucl.

[$actual_stress]

[$actual_ stress]

1

rime

[$actual_ stress]

syllable

[$actual_stress]

coda

[$actual_stress]

336 5.2.7

Concluding comments about the context-free phonology We saw in 5.2.3-5.2.6 that the context-free analysis which I suggest accounts

for Russian stress, although modelled closely on Melvold (1989), differs from it in only a limited number of respects in the predictions it makes. As mentioned in 4.2.2, Melvold’s theory explains Russian stress assignment in cyclic terms, following Halle and Vergnaud (1987). Her theory includes a form of the Stress Erasure Convention, in that dominant suffixes delete stress assigned on previous cycles. Although it might seem that structure-changing of this type would be problematic for context-free grammar, the present analysis offers an interpretation of cyclicity which avoids structure-changing by stating the distribution of the feature [!stress] in the wordformation grammar solely as a function of the placement of the features [!dominant] and [!accented]. However, some comparatively minor (but real) modifications were made to the theory: some of the time, the context-free grammar can potentially make different predictions from Melvold’s theory, and therefore the two theories cannot be said to be entirely equivalent. These modifications were introduced for two reasons: first, they simplify the overall theory, and secondly, they bring it more into line with mainstream generative phonology, emphasizing the role of syllabification in stress assignment. It is important to emphasize that the modifications were not made because Melvold’s theory cannot be implemented unmodified as a context-free grammar. The modifications to Melvold’s theory have three important implications for the lexicon: in all cases, the effect of the modifications is to reduce the amount of information which needs to be stored therein. These implications are as follows:

337 ,

Jers are not regarded as significant in themselves with respect to stress assignment.

,

Stems (as opposed to morphemes) are not regarded as significant in determining whether stress is retracted in the plural. Instead, plural stress retraction is ultimately a function of the lexical properties of individual morphemes.

,

Accentuation and post-accentuation are not distinct features of morphemes in the context-free lexicon, although one might surmise the opposite from Halle (1997) and Melvold (1989). Instead, whether a morpheme is ‘post-accented’ or ‘accented’ (and, one might add, which vowel of a polysyllabic morpheme is accented) is encoded by the association of the single feature [!stress] with a particular segment in the morpheme.

The consequences of these simplifications are that certain types of word can, at least in theory, be explained by Melvold’s theory but not the context-free theory. (Whether there are in fact any such words will be discussed below.) Specifically, the words of this type fall into the following categories:

(177) (a) A word containing the sequence of morphs M1xM2, where M1 is a postaccented morpheme which determines the stress, the final segment of M1 is C1, x represents a sequence of zero or more morphemes composed entirely of consonantal phonemes C2…Cn, the initial segments of M2 are Cn+1V1…, and C1C2…CnCn+1 is not a possible onset.

338 (b) A word containing the sequence of morphs M1xM2, where M1 is a postaccented morpheme which determines the stress, the final segment of M1 is C1, x represents a sequence of zero or more morphemes composed entirely of consonantal phonemes C2…Cn, the initial segments of M2 are JCn+1V1… (where J is a jer), and C1C2…CnCn+1 is a possible onset. (c) A noun whose behaviour in the singular suggests that its stem-final morpheme M is post-accented, and whose behaviour in the plural suggests that it has a ‘marked’ stem, where M also occurs as the stem-final morpheme in another noun whose behaviour in the singular and plural suggests that the other noun cannot have a ‘marked’ stem.

In the next section, we move on to consider whether there is an empirical price to be paid for the simplifications to Melvold’s theory. There are two possibilities: either Melvold’s theory over-generates, in which case the simplifications are desirable, or the simplifications ‘damage’ Melvold’s theory, in which case a reduction in coverage will result. I shall argue that the former is the case, since, as I shall show, the simplifications result in no significant loss of coverage. 5.3

A test of the entire grammar In Chapters 2-3, two grammar modules were presented and discussed, a

syllable structure grammar and a word-formation grammar. These two modules are both enriched as discussed in 2.5, 3.3, and 5.2.1-5.2.6 in order to account for stress assignment and various other phonological processes. The two grammars are summarized in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively, and my claim is that Russian words are described by the intersection of these two grammars. Of course, much of

339 the inspiration for this overall grammar comes from established, more or less mainstream, theories. We saw that the syllable structure grammar is based as much as possible on the SSG; the word-formation grammar is indebted in many ways to Oliverius (1976); the phonological process enrichments model the observations of Avanesov (1956), Halle (1959), and various other Russian phonologists; and the stress assignment ‘enrichments’ are based on Melvold (1989). In this section, I describe a test of the entire grammar in its final form. The test has two aims: first of all, to show that the grammar is coherent, and secondly, to show that my theory about Russian stress assignment is preferable to Melvold’s. This is not because my theory has a greater coverage than Melvold’s; instead, it is because my theory’s coverage is the same as Melvold’s, but is a simpler theory. The subject of the test is stress assignment. Because my claim is that both word-formation and syllable structure are involved in Russian stress assignment, stress assignment represents an excellent testing-ground for the overall grammar, since if either of the modules fails to function, or makes wrong predictions, then the ability of the grammar to assign stress correctly may be compromised. By testing the grammar’s ability to assign stress, we test both its coherence and its coverage in comparison to Melvold (1989), meeting both of the objectives described in the previous paragraph. The actual results of testing the overall grammar for its ability to assign stress to nouns yielded the following results:

340 Table 45. Results of testing the overall phonology for its ability to assign stress Context-free phonology

Correct stress assigned Incorrect stress assigned Subtotal No syllable-structure parse No morphological parse Total

No of nounforms 7,188 986 8,174 184 1,154 9,512

% of subtotal

% of total

87294% 12206% 100200%

75257% 10237% 85293% 1293% 12213% 100200%

Comparative figures for Melvold’s theory No of % of nountotal forms 9,069 95237% 443 4266% 9,512 100200% 9,512 100200%

It is important to appreciate that this test is a much more stringent test than those described in 4.4. Effectively, Halle’s, Melvold’s and Zaliznjak’s theories were fed with correct morphological parses. After all, none of these theories has any mechanism for assigning morphological (or syllable) structure. My grammar, on the other hand, assigns stress on the basis of syllable and morphological structure which it computes itself, and if either of these are wrong, the stress assignment may be wrong. To illustrate this, we consider again the alternative structures in (126), which are repeated here for the reader’s convenience: (178) (a) (b)

!$6+rn+%+in! !$6c++%+rn+Oin!

‘houses-[dat. pl.]’ ‘to-mothers-[gen. pl.]’

If it were the case that !$6+!rn, !$6!c, and !+%+!rn were unaccented, and !%+!in were accented, then stress would be assigned in (178a) to the second syllable and in (178b) to the first syllable. In fact, there is an extremely high degree of correlation between

341 the CFG’s ability to assign morphological structure correctly (in accordance with Oliverius 1976), and its ability to assign stress correctly59 (p < 5252 - 10-68). For true comparability, therefore, we need to test Melvold’s theory on the same 4,416 nouns to which my grammar assigned correct morphological structure. The results of this test are shown in Table 46. Table 46. Results of testing Melvold’s theory on 4,416 nouns Melvold’s theory

Correctly stressed Incorrectly stressed TOTAL

The CFG

No of nounforms

% of total

No of nounforms

% of total

4,218 205 4,423

95237% 4263% 100200%

4,205 218 4,423

95207% 4293% 100200%

It would sidetrack the discussion to list the words incorrectly stressed by the CFG but correctly stressed by Melvold’s theory, then explain the discrepancies painstakingly. The reason for this, as pointed out in section 4.2.3, is that evaluating stress assignment theories of this type cannot be done ‘piecemeal’. Each theory is tested together with the morphological ‘lexicon’ which best fits that theory (since we have no a priori knowledge of the lexicon’s accentual specification). As a consequence, there is not necessarily a simple mapping between the lexicon used in conjunction with Melvold’s theory, and that used in conjunction with the CFG, and therefore the factors which

59

Of the 7,188 words correctly stressed, 4,139 were morphologically parsed in accordance with Oliverius (1976), and of the 986 words incorrectly stressed, 709 were incorrectly morphologically parsed.

342 cause a word to be incorrectly stressed under one theory but not under another are complex. However, it is possible to extract the generalization that the slight loss of coverage caused by adopting the CFG appeared to be entirely attributable to the existence of cases of the type mentioned in (177a). For example, Melvold’s theory explains the stress of !$"60rn+&#sn+,in10! by assigning !$"60!rn the lexical specification [+post-accented], while !&#!sn is [$accented]. The equivalent in the CFG would be to stipulate that !$"60!rn is [+accented], with [!stress] associating with !0!, and !&#!sn is [$accented]. However, !$"60rn+&#sn+,in10! would then be stressed on the first syllable: !0&#! is not a possible onset, so !0! must syllabify as the coda of !$"60!. In my opinion, it is more revealing to focus on the fact that the coverage of my grammar is only very slightly less than that of Melvold’s theory. I would argue that the benefits of adopting the CFG outweigh the small cost in three major ways. First, the CFG is simpler: by using syllable structure, I dispense both with the feature [!post-accented] and with the idea that jers have unusual accentual properties. The CFG is also simpler in that it interprets plural stress retraction as resulting from a lexical property of morphemes rather than stems, which means there is no need to list stems separately in the lexicon: morphemes, of course, have to be listed anyway. The second major advantage of the CFG is that it is arguably more in line with general linguistic theory, because as we saw in section 2.2, the phonological significance of syllable structure is independently motivated by a host of crosslinguistic evidence, whereas it is less obvious what the cross-linguistic basis is for assuming the existence of post-accentuation and jer stress retraction. The third advantage of the CFG is that it fulfils functions above and beyond those fulfilled by Melvold’s theory: it not only assigns stress, but also assigns syllable

343 structure, morphological structure, enforces phonological constraints such as voicing assimilation, and vocalizes and deletes jers, all within a single grammar. 5.4

Conclusions In Chapter 1, I emphasized the fact that computer technology makes it

possible to test linguistic theories in a way which could not have been done before. The merits of adopting a computational approach will by now be clear. In this dissertation, I have tested a number of theories, compiled an extensive accentual morphological lexicon, and built up coherent two-module grammar. None of this would have been possible without computational tools. I hope that other (noncomputational) linguists may see what can be achieved, and be encouraged to use the computational facilities which exist to subject their own theories to closer scrutiny in the same way. But this is a linguistics dissertation rather than an advertisement for computational linguistics, and I hope that the results which I have achieved will be of linguistic interest whether or not the reader is interested in computation. I have examined a number of different approaches to a variety of areas of Russian phonology (syllable structure and phonotactics; consonant-vowel interdependencies; vowel reduction; word-final devoicing; voicing assimilation; word-formation; vowel-zero alternations; and stress assignment), and drawn these together into a single contextfree grammar. Because all these areas are integrated into a single phonology, the grammar is able to deal with situations where one area interacts with another. In this, I would argue, the theory I propose is of more interest than the majority of theories which deal with only a single aspect of Russian phonology. The grammar follows in the spirit of generative linguistics, being formally explicit and aiming to capture

344 generalizations by rule where possible. However, this does not compromise the grammar’s declarativeness: there is no rule-ordering, no feature- or structurechanging, and the grammar is clearly reversible (that is, it models both the creative and parsing aspects of language). This, of course, all follows from the fact that the grammar is context-free. In a number of areas, my computational phonology achieves high levels of coverage in areas in which theories have not previously been tested:

,

The CFG assigns syllable structure in 98251% of cases. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a level of coverage has been measured in this way for Russian syllabification.

,

The CFG assigns correct allophonic representations (within the limitations of the grammar’s scope, and on the basis of comparison with phonetic representations reported by Halle 1959) to all the cases tested.

,

The CFG assigns morphological structure to 84201% of cases tested. It assigns correct or nearly-correct morphological structure (on the basis of comparison with morphological representations given in Oliverius 1976) to 66249% of the same sample.

,

The CFG assigns correct stress to 95207% of Russian word-forms to which a correct morphological analysis had been assigned. There is a negligible difference between this and the coverage of 95234% measured for my implementation of Melvold’s theory.

345 The key results of this dissertation are in the area of stress assignment. The existing theories of stress assignment examined in Chapter 4 clearly make interesting and non-trivial predictions about stress assignment in Russian, but the problem with these theories is that they do not give all the information which is needed in order to be able to evaluate them properly. I hope that it will no longer be regarded as acceptable to assume a morphological lexicon and word-formation grammar, now that I have produced a grammar which makes this information explicit. I would argue that the other weakness of existing theories of stress assignment in Russian is that they ignore the role of syllable structure. The lack of a formal means of accounting for syllable structure has been a weakness of many generative analyses, a fact which was first demonstrated thirty years ago in critiques of Chomsky and Halle (1968). But it seems both that this weakness of generative linguistics still persists, and that there are major areas of linguistics where the importance of syllable structure has not yet been fully exploited (or in some cases even considered), Russian stress assignment being a case in point. Contrary to the impression given by most existing accounts of the subject, I have shown that syllabification plays an integral role in Russian stress assignment, since the latter is best seen as a function of the intersection of morphology and syllable structure. Not only is this analysis simpler than that of the existing accounts, but it is shown to be just as general.

346 Appendix 1: Russian syllable structure grammar Notes Phrase-structure rules are in bold type. Feature matrices attached to a node are shown below the node, in non-bold, non-italic type and enclosed in square brackets. Auxiliary constraints are shown in italics and enclosed in braces. The notation is based on Prolog DCG notation, but has been modified to be easily read by a linguist not familiar with Prolog. Cross-ref. to text above (32), (34)-(35) (32), (34)-(35) (32), (34)-(35), (73) (32), (34)-(35), (73) (32), (34), (72) (32), (34), (35), (72), (84)-(85) (174)

(174)

Rule prosodic_word

'

{R 9 [peripheral:+], voicing_assim(L,R)} prosodic_word '

weakfoot [right:R]

strongfoot [left:L]

strongfoot

weakfoot ' syllable [left:LL,right:RR] [left:LL, right:LR] {LR 9 [actual_stress:$, stress:$, peripheral:$], voicing_assim(RL,LR)} weakfoot ' syllable [left:L,right:R] [left:L, right:R] {R 9 [actual_stress:$,stress:$]}

weakfoot left:RL,right:RR]

strongfoot ' syllable [left:L,right:R] [left:L, right:R] {R 9 [actual_stress:+,stress:+,pl_retr:$,vfv:$]} strongfoot ' syllable weakfoot [left:LL, right:RR] [left:LL, right:LR] [left:RL,right:RR] {LR 9 [actual_stress:+,stress:+], RR 9 [pl_retr:$,peripheral:$,vfv:$], voicing_assim(RL,LR)} strongfoot ' syllable syllable [left:LL,right:RR] [left:LL, right:LR] [left:RL, right:RR] {LR 9 [stress:$,actual_stress:+], RR 9 [stress:+,actual_stress:$,pl_retr:+,vfv:$], voicing_assim(RL,LR)} strongfoot ' syllable syllable weakfoot [left:LLL, [left:LLL, [left:LRL, [left:RRL, right:RRR] right:LLR] right:LRR] right:RRR] {LLR 9 [stress:$,actual_stress:+], LRR 9 [stress:+,actual_stress:$], RRR 9 [peripheral:$,pl_retr:+,vfv:$], voicing_assim(RRL,LRR), voicing_assim(LRL,LLR)}

347

(27), (29), (34), (55)-(56), (73) (27), (31), (35) (47)

syllable ' onset [left:LL, [left:LL, right:RR] right:LR] {LR 9 [stress:H2,peripheral:H3], RL 9 [stress:H2,peripheral:H3], cv_interdependency(RL,LR)} syllable ' rime [left:L, left:L, right:R] right:R] {L 9 [onset:[]]} onset ' segment segment [left:P1, [P1] [P2] right:P4] {P6 9 [sonor:$, cont:+, coron:$, anter:+], P2 9 [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:+, anter:+], P3 9 [cont:$, del_rel:$], P4 9 [cons:+, voc:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P4), voicing_assim(P4,P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P4,P3), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6 9 [stress:H], P2 9 [stress:H], P3 9 [stress:H], P4 9 [stress:H]}

rime [left:RL, right:RR]

segment [P3]

segment [P4]

348

(42)

(43)

onset [left:P1, right:P3]

'

segment [P1]

[cont:+, sonor:$@ coron:$@ anter:+], P2 9 [cont:+, sonor:$, anter:+], P3 9 [cons:+, sonor:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6 9 [stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H] , P3*9*[stress:H]} onset ' segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P3] {P6*9 [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:$, anter:+], PA*9* [cont:+, sonor:$, anter:+, coron:+], PB*9* [cont:$, del_rel:$], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H], P3*9*[stress:H]}

segment [P2]

segment [P3]

segment [P2]

segment [P3]

{P6 9

349

(45), Table 13

(36), Table 13

(37), Table 13

onset [left:P1, right:P3]

'

segment [P1],

[cont:+, sonor:$, anter:+], PA*9* [cont:$, del_rel:$], PB*9* [cons:+, sonor:+, nasal:$], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H], P3*9*[stress:H]} onset ' segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P2] {PC*9 * [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:+, anter:+], PA*9* [cont:$], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} onset ' segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P2], {PC*9* [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:+, anter:$], P2*9* [cont:$, del_rel:$], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]}

segment [P2]

{PC*9*

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

segment [P3]

350

(38), Table 13

(33), Table 13

(40a)

(40b), Table 13

(28), Table 13

onset [left:P1, right:P2]

'

segment [P1]

[cont:+, sonor:$, anter:+], PA*9* [cons:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} onset '* segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P2] {PC*9* [cons:+, voc:$, del_rel:$], PA*9* [cons:+, voc:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} onset '* segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P2] {PC*9* [sonor:$, del_rel:$], PA*9* [cons:+, voc:$, sonor:+, nasal:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} onset '* segment [left:P1, [P1] right:P2] {PC*9* [sonor:$], PA*9* [cons:+, sonor:+, nasal:$], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P6), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} onset '* segment [left:P, [P] right:P] {P*9* [cons:+], voicing_assim([sonor:+],P)}

segment [P2]

{PC*9*

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

351 (27), (29) (27), (30), (35), (73) (28), Table 13 (48), Table 13

(49), Table 13

rime ' nucleus [left:L, right:L] [left:L] rime ' nucleus [left:L, right:R] [left:L] DR*9*[stress:H6,stress:H2,peripheral:H3], L*9*[stress:H6,stress:H2,peripheral:H3]} coda ' segment [right:P] [P] {P*9*[cons:+], voicing_assim(P,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P)} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {PC*9* [cons:+, voc:+], PA*9* [cons:+, voc:$], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {PC*9* [voc:$, del_rel:$], PA*9* [cont:$, coron:+, anter:+, del_rel:$], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]}

coda [right:R]

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

352

(50)

(50)

Table 10

coda [right:P2] {PC*9*

'

segment [P1]

[cons:+, voc:$, sonor:+, nasal:+], PA*9* [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:+], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {P6*9 [cons:+, voc:$, sonor:+, nasal:+], PA*9* [cont:$], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {PC*9 * [cont:$, coron:$], PA*9* [cont:+, sonor:$, coron:+, anter:+], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]}

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

353

Table 10

Table 10

Table 10

coda [right:P2] {PC*9*

segment [P1] [sonor:$, cont:+, coron:+, anter:+], PA*9* [cont:$, coron:$, anter:$], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {PC*9 * [sonor:$, cont:+, coron:+, anter:$], PA*9* [cont:$, coron:+, anter:$], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} coda ' segment [right:P2] [P1] {PC*9 * [sonor:$, cont:+, coron:+, anter:+], PA*9* [cons:+, voc:$, anter:+], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} '

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

segment [P2]

354

Table 10

(28), Table 13

(81)

coda [right:P2] {PC*9

'

segment [P1]

[cont:$, del_rel:$E, PA*9* [cons:+, voc:+, coron:+], voicing_assim(P2,P6), voicing_assim(P6,[sonor:+], cv_interdependency([cons:+],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P6), P6*9*[stress:H], P2*9*[stress:H]} nucleus ' segment [left:P] [P] {P*9 [cons:$, voc:+]} segment ' phoneme [F] [F1] {F*9*F6)} /*Definition of voicing assimilation constraints*/ *

segment [P2]

voicing_assim(X,Y):X*9*[sonor:+], Y*9*[sonor:+,vfv:+]. voicing_assim(X,Y):X*9*[sonor:+], Y*9*[sonor:$,voice:V,vfv:V].

(56)

voicing_assim(X,Y):X*9*[sonor:$,vfv:V], Y*9*[vfv:V]. /*Definition of consonant-vowel interdependency constraints*/ cv_interdependency(X,Y):X9 [cons:$, back:Vowel_back, high:Vowel_high, onset: [back:Cons_back, high:Cons_high]], Y*9 [cons:+, high:Cons_high, back:Cons_back, rime: [high:Vowel_high, back:Vowel_back]]. /*The following rule makes the simplifying assumption that a consonant is always [rime:[+back]] when followed by another consonant.*/ cv_interdependency(X,Y):X*9 [cons:+], Y*9 [cons:+, rime: [back:+]].

355 Appendix 2: Russian word-formation grammar The notation is as in Appendix 1. It is assumed that each node contains semantic features such that the grammar is non-recursive, but the identity of these features is unimportant in this dissertation. Cross-ref. to text above (by analogy with (110)) (110) (by analogy with (110)) (by analogy with (110)) (97) (104)

(111)

(113)

(by analogy with (104)) (by analogy with (104)) (97) (104) (114)

Rule word [M]

'

noun [M]

word word

' '

verb adj

word

'

adv

word noun [F1]

' '

part noun_stem [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3), pl_retr(F6,F2,F3)} verb ' verb_stem [F1] [F2] {F6 9 [stress:+], F2 9 [reflexive:$], vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} verb ' verb [F1] [F2] {F6 9 [reflexive:?], F2 9 [reflexive:$], F3 9 [reflexive:+]} adj ' adj_stem [F1] [F2] {F6 9 [stress:+], vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} adv ' adj_stem [F1] [F2] {F6 9 [stress:+], vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} part ' c noun_stem ' rn [F] [F] noun_stem ' c [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)}

in [F3]

iv [F3]

!+7#!c [F3]

ia [F3] iau [F3]

rn [F3]

356

(114) (104) (104) (104) (by analogy with (114)) (by analogy with (104)) (105) (by analogy with (104)) (104), (113a) (113a) (111), (113a) (by analogy with (104))

noun_stem ' noun_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} noun_stem ' adj_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} noun_stem ' verb_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} adj_stem ' ra [F] [F] adj_stem ' c [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} adj_stem ' adj_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} adj_stem ' noun_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} adj_stem ' verb_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} verb_stem ' rv [F] [F] verb_stem ' c [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} verb_stem ' verb_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} verb_stem ' adj_stem [F1] [F2] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)}

sn [F3] sn [F3] sn [F3]

ra [F3] sa [F3] sa [F3] sa [F3]

rv [F3] sv [F3] sv [F3]

357 (by analogy verb_stem with (105)) [F1] (124) (124) (124) (124) (162)

(165)

(166)

(167) (119), (120), (122) (119), (120), (122) (173) (173)

noun_stem sv [F2] [F3] {assign_stress(F6,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F6,F2,F3)} !E! ' !$! [strong:+] !E! ' !! [strong:$] !O! ' !(! [strong:+] !O! ' !! [strong:$] assign_stress(X,Y,Z):X 9 [acc:+,stress:S], Y 9 [stress:$], Z 9 [dom:+,stress:S]. assign_stress(X,Y,Z):X 9 [acc:+,stress:S], Y 9 [acc:+,stress:S], Z 9 [dom:$]. assign_stress(X,Y,Z):X 9 [acc:+,stress:S], Y 9 [acc:$], Z 9 [acc:+,stress:S]. assign_stress(_,Y,Z):Y 9 [acc:$], Z 9 [acc:$, dom:$]. vowel_zero(X,Y,Z): X 9 [strong:P] Y 9 [strong:Q], Z 9 [strong:P, left:[high:Q,tense:$]]. vowel_zero(X,Y,Z):X 9 [strong:P], Y 9 [strong:$], Z 9 [strong:P, left:[tense:+]]. pl_retr(X,Y,Z):X 9 [pl_retr:+], Y 9 Z 9 [plural:P, pl_retr:P]. pl_retr(X,Y,Z):X 9 [pl_retr:$], Y 9 Z 9 [pl_retr:$]. '

358 Appendix 3: Morphological inventory Key to symbols: The symbol / means that the next segment is [+stress] if the morpheme is [+stress]. The symbols O and E denote jers. Morpheme !!ip !!ipu !!ia1 !!ia2 !!in1 !!sp !EA!sn !E$!sn !E4'!sn3 !E4!sa1

!E#2!sa

!E#&"!sn !E&#!sn !O2!sn1

!O-!sa !O"'!sn !%!ip !%!ipu !%!in15 !%!c1 !%!svd !%!svi

Morpheme Allomorph frequency 8,738 !! 12,467 !! 443 !%! 47,481 !! 56,855 !! 37,973 !! 447 !6A'! !E/A! 236 !5$! !E$! 102 !E4'! 15,097 !,4! !E4! !E4'! 2,676 !8&8'! !&8'! !E#2! 2,519 !E#&/"! !E#&"'! 1,894 !E/&#! !E&8'! 12,860 !! !O&8'! !O/2! 1,008 !-'! !O-! 134 !"! !O/"'! 7,483 !%! 732 !/%! 39,763 !%! 4,020 !%! 2,753 !%! 17,907 !! !/%! !/%7! !/%"! !,"!

Allomorph frequency 8,738 12,467 443 47,481 56,855 37,973 14 433 44 44 102 55 12,621 2,421 163 46 2,467 1,792 727 962 932 10,316 463 2,081 275 733 49 85 7,483 732 39,763 4,020 2,753 843 16,539 73 28 424

Accented

Dominant

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

Plural stress retraction

$ $ +

$ + +

$ + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ + $ $ $ + $ $ $ +

$ $ $ + + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

$ + $ $ +

+

$ + + +

$ + + +

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

359 !%$!c !%$!sn3 !%$0'1#!rn !%B%!c !%B6B!ra !%B0!rn !%7!sn !%78!sa !%2!rv !%2!sn !%2!sp !%2%$'1+'!rn !%-!sa !%+'10',2!rn !%+',!In5 !%+!in6 !%+!sp !%4!sa1 !%4!sa2 !%0!rn !%0!sa !%0!sn !%0+'!rn !%0&'!rn !%8!sn

!%8!sa2 !%8&8'!sa !%&!sa !%&!sn

!%&8'!sa !%"!sn !%"B;#&!rn !%"&!ra1 !%"&!ra2

48 !%2! !%9! 122 !/%$! !%/$'! 37 !%$0'1#! 25 !%B%! 22 !%B/6B! 36 !%B0! 212 !/%7! 47 !/178! 96 !/%2! 120 !%/2! 6,742 !%2! !/%&8'! 23 !%2%$'/1+'! 615 !/%-! !/%-'! 85 !%+'10'/,2! 50,920 !/%+',! 50,989 !/%+! 471 !%+! 125 !%4! 268 !/%4! !7/%4'! 99 !/%0! 130 !%/0'! 212 !/%0! !/%0'! 97 !/%0+'! 45 !/%0&'! 165 !/%8! !/,8! !/68! 99 !18! !%8! 541 !/%8&8'! !;8&8'! 108 !/%&! 966 !/%&! !/%&8'! !/64! 121 !%/&8'! !/;&8'! 27 !%/"! 32 !/%"B;#&! 93 !%"&! 57 !/%"&!

22 26 67 55 37 25 22 36 212 47 96 120 6,626 116 23 230 385 85 50,920 50,989 471 96 231 37 99 130 124 88 97 45 27 42 96 26 73 303 238 108 847 17 102 100 21 27 32 93 57

$ $ + +

+ $

$ $ + $ + + + +

$ + +

$ + + + + + + +

$ $

$ $ + + + + + + + + + + +

$ $ + +

$ $ + $ + + + + + + + + $ +

+ +

+ + +

+ + $ $ $ + $ + + + + + + +

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

360 !%C!in7 !%C!c !%5!sn !%5$!sp1 !%5$!sp2 !A'1$!rn !A'1$!rv !A'1B!rv !A'1-!ra !A'10'1B!rn !A'10'1&8'!rv !A'1#'1$!rn !A'1*O!c !A',!rv

!A',A-',7!rn !A',-'!rn !A',-'!sa !A',4!ra !A';0!rn !AO0!rv !A%A!rn !A%-&'!rn !A%"'!rv !A%*!rn !A,!c !A,#&0!ra !A-'1$!ra !A-'1#&'!rv !A-',*!ra !A-';$!rv !A6B!rn

!A67!rv !A62!rn !A6-'!ra !A6-'!rv !A6-!rn !A6-6&!rn

50,989 !%C! 56 !/%C! 31 !/%5! 587 !/%5$! 84 !/%5$! 63 !A'1/$! 123 !A'/1$!

!A'1$'! 295 !A'/15! !A'/1B! 193 !A'/1-! 141 !A'10'1B! 19 !A'10'/1&8'! 91 !A'1#'/1$! 412 !A'1*O! 332 !A'/,! !A'/,"! !A/67! 35 !A'/,A-',7! 45 !A'/,-'! 28 !A'/,-'! 128 !A'/,4! !A/%74! 43 !A';/0! 1,023 !A'/,0! !AO0! 90 !A/%A! 31 !A/%-&'! 47 !A/%"'! 39 !A/%*! 1,820 !A,! 265 !A/,#&0! !A/,#&0'! 23 !A-'/1$! 49 !A-'/1#&'! 156 !A-'/,5! !A-'/,*! 31 !A-'/;$! 211 !A6! !A65! !A6B! 131 !A67! 37 !A62! 1,362 !A/6-'! 214 !A6-'! 30 !A6-! 46 !A6-/6&!

50,989 56 31 587 84 63 70 53 247 48 193 141 19 91 412 164 19 149 35 45 28 68 60 43 210 813 90 31 47 39 1,820 220 45 23 49 67 89 31 76 22 113 131 37 1,362 214 30 46

+ $ + + + + +

$ $ + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + + + $ + + $ + + + + + + + + + + $ + + + + $ + + + + + + + $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ +

$ $ $ +

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

361 !A60'!rv !A606$!rn !A60&!rn !A6&'!rn !A0',B!rv !A0%&!rn !A06$'!rv !A06#!rv !A06"'!rn !A;$!rv

!A;?'1&!rn !A;2"!rn !A;+%B!rn !A;0!rv !A;05!rn !A;#!rn !A;&,-!rn !$'!sp !$'E4'!rn !$'%$'!rn !$'14'EB!rn !$'1!rv

!$'1!c !$'1$!rn !$'1-!rv1 !$'1-!rv2 !$'1+!rn !$'10'1"!rn

!$'105!rv !$'1#'%&!rn

156 !A60'! !A60/6! 15 !A60/6$! 45 !A60&! 21 !A6&'! 260 !A0'/,B! 129 !A0/%&! !A0/%&7! 28 !A0/6$'! 170 !A0/6#! !A0/6#'! 30 !A06"'! 5,224 !A/,! !A/,"! !A/;$! !A/;$'! 16 !A;?'/1&! 41 !A/;2"! 153 !A;+/%5! !A;+/%B! 15 !A/;0! 29 !A/;05! 35 !A;#! 31 !A;&,-! 1,222 !$'! 1,197 !$'E4'! 100 !$'/%$'! 96 !$'14'EB! 394 !$'/1! !$'1/7! !$'/1"! 115 !$'1! 24 !$'/1$! 1,687 !$'1-! !$'/1-'! 205 !$'/1-! !$'/1-'! 29 !$'1+! 288 !$'10'1/"! !$'10'1/"'! !$'10'/1"7! !$06"! 189 !$'/105! 1,330 !$'1#'/%&! !$'1#'/%&'! !$&#/%&! !$&#/%&'!

113 43 15 45 21 260 64 65 28 42 128 30 4,451 252 304 217 16 41 51 102 15 29 35 31 1,222 1,197 100 96 91 289 14 115 24 1,598 89 75 130 29 194 46 288 48 189 443 153 31 703

$ + + $ $ + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + + + + $ $ + $ + + + $ + $ + + + $ + + + $ + + + + +

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

362 !$'1&!rn !$'1"'%&!rn

!$'1"!rn !$'15;0!ra !$',0'12!rv !$',#&#,9-',4!rn !$',"'!rv !$',"%4!rn !$%!rv !$%!c !$%-'!ra !$%0!rn !$%0!rv !$%"!ra !$,+!rn !$-'%!c !$4!rn !$6!c !$6A!rv !$62!rv !$6-'!ra2 !$6-'!rv !$6-B!ra !$6-B!rn !$6+!rn !$606B!ra !$606B!rn !$6#O2!rn !$6&8'!rn !$65$'!rn !$0'1"!ra !$06A!rv !$06B!rv

318 !$'/1&! !$'1&'! 358 !$'1"'/%! !$'1"'/%&! !$'1"'/%&'! 585 !$'/1"! 73 !$'15/;0! !$'15/;0'! 109 !$',0'12! 19 !$',#&#,9-'/,4! 185 !$'/,"'! !$'/,"-'! 26 !$',"/%4! 1,279 !$/%! !$/%"! 1,328 !$%! 572 !$%-'! 150 !$/%0! !$/%0'! 120 !$/%0! !$/%0'! 228 !$/%"! 25 !$,+! 967 !$-'%! 21 !$4! !$/64'7! 1,450 !$6! 153 !$/6A! 115 !$62! 19 !$/6-'! 21 !$6-'! 331 !$/6-5! !$/6-B! 355 !$/6-5! !$6-B! 820 !$6+! !$/6+'! 117 !$60/6B! 282 !$60/65! !$60/6B! 89 !$6#O/2! 58 !$/6&8'! !$6&8'10'! 70 !$65/$'! 19 !$0'/1"! 18 !$0/6A! 17 !$0/6B!

128 190 28 66 264 585 49 24 109 19 106 79 26 824 455 1,328 428 101 49 45 75 228 25 967 11 10 1,450 153 115 19 21 148 183 329 26 772 48 117 48 234 89 29 29 70 19 18 17

+ $ + + + + + + $ + + + + + + $ $ + + + + + $ $ $ + $ + $ + $ + + + $ $ + + + + + + $ + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

363 !$0;B!ra

!$0;5!rv !$;!rv !$;2!rv !$;+!rv !$;0!ra !$;8!rn !$;C!rv

!$"'10'!rn !$"',B!rv !$"!rp !$"60!rn !1!ipu !1!in8 !1!c !1!svd !17!in9 !17!c !17!sa

!12!rn !12#!c !12*%+'14!rn !1-'12&0!rn !1-!rp !14'!sa !14'10B!ra !19'10'!sp !10!sn

!1#!rp !1&',7!sp !1&!sn

1,881 !$0/;5!

!$0;B! !$0;*'! !$0;*'7! 25 !$0/;5! 18 !$/;! 79 !$/;2! 736 !$/;+! !$/;+'! 20 !$/;0! 185 !$;/8! 512 !$/,8! !$,C! !$/6C! !$;/8! !$;C! 320 !$"'10'! 168 !$"',5! !$"',B! 1,197 !$"! !$"'! 190 !$"60! !$"6/0'! 2,438 !/1! 65,320 !1! 4,719 !1! 3,685 !/1! 8,255 !/17! 16 !17! 2,791 !17! !8! !&8'! 24 !12! 25 !12#! 45 !12*/%+'14! 64 !1-'/12&0! !1-'/12&0'! 36 !1-! 1,528 !14'! 21 !14'/10B! 545 !19'/10'! 1,003 !/10! !10'! !/,0! 230 !1#! 207 !1&',7! 149 !/1&!

220 554 554 553 25 18 79 717 19 20 185 29 87 71 185 140 320 112 56 1,054 143 145 45 2,438 65,320 4,719 3,685 8,255 16 429 1,980 57 24 25 45 35 29 36 1,528 21 545 619 98 286 230 207 149

+

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

$ $ $ + + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + + $ $ + + $ $ $ $ $ $ + + + $ + + + +

+

$

$ +

$ $ $ $

$

+ $ +

$ +

$ +

$ $ +

$ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

364 !1&%5!rn !1C!c !?'10+!rn !?'1#!rv !?'1"0%-'!rn !?',B!rv !?',&#!rv !?',*'!rn !?%A0'!rn !?%2!rv !?%2;-'!ra !?%+',-'!rn !?%8!rn !?-%B!rn !?-6&!rn !?64!rn !?64%0'!rn !?60+!rn !?6&!rn !?0%4&#!rn !?0%*!rn !?064&!rn !?;&!rn !B%$!rv !B%-#&;2!rn !B%*'1&!rn !B1!rn !B12&!rn !B14'10!rn !B1067!rn !B,A!rv !B,B%4&!rn !B-'%$!rv

58 53 55 99 29 29 46 45 111 45 32 48 47 22 26 68 33 89 41 31 26 75 30 27 38 186 16 99 50 109 47 19 476

!B-%*!rn !B-;A!ra

458 90

!B-;9!ra !B-;C!ra !B6$!rn !B6$!rv

23 32 840 65

!B6-!ra

26

!1&%/5! !1C! !?'/10+! !?'1#! !?'1"0%/-'! !?'/,B! !?'/,&#! !?'/,*'! !?/%A0'! !?/%2! !?%2;-'! !?%+'/,-'! !?/%8! !?-/%B! !?-/6&! !?/64! !?64%/0'! !?/60+! !?6&! !?0/%4&#! !?0/%*! !?064/&! !?;&! !B/%$! !B/%-#&;2! !B%*'/1&! !B1! !B12&! !B14'/10! !B/1067! !B/,A! !B,B/%4&! !B-'/%! !B-'/%$! !B-'/%$'! !B-%*! !B-;A! !B-;A'! !B-/;9! !B-;C! !B6$! !B/6$! !B/6$'! !B/6-!

58 53 55 99 29 29 46 45 111 45 32 48 47 22 26 68 33 89 41 31 26 75 30 27 38 186 16 99 50 109 47 19 151 155 170 458 66 24 23 32 840 45 20 26

+ $ + $ + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + $ + + + $ + + + $ $ + + + + + + + $ $ $ + $ $ + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

365 !B6-6#!rn

!B6-6"!rn !B6-;A!rn !B60'!rv !B60',*64&!rn !B60!rn !B60%*$!ra !B60$!ra !B60-!rn !B606$!rv

!B6#96$'!rn !B6#&'!rn !B6#;$!rn !B6&6"!ra !B6"60!rv

!B0'%*!rv !B0%?'!rv !B0%+!rv !B0%4'!rn !B06+!ra !B06+!rv !B0;A!ra !B0;$'!rn !B0;99!rn !B0;#&!ra !B0;*!ra !B;A!rn !B;-'!rv !B;#&!ra !,!ip !,!ipu !,!in10 !,!c

381 !B-/%8! !B-/%#! !B-/%#'! !B6-6#! 513 !B-%/"! !B6-6/"! 104 !B6-;A! !B6-;A'! 206 !5/%0! !B/60'! 20 !B60',*/64&! 97 !B6/0! 37 !B60/%*$! 50 !B/60$! !B/60$'! 20 !B/60-! 670 !B606$! !B0/%5$! !B0/%$! 58 !B6#96/$! !B6#96/$'! 174 !B6#&'! 124 !B6#/;$! 288 !B6&/6"! !B6&/6"'! 1,505 !B6"/%0'! !B6"/60! !B6"/60'! 52 !B0'/%*! !B0'/%*'! 57 !B0/%?'! 121 !B0/%+! 22 !B0%4'! 132 !B0/6+! 99 !B0/6+! 20 !B0/;A! 60 !B0;$'! 140 !B0/;99! 30 !B0/;#&! 18 !B0/;*! 54 !B;/A! 19 !B/;-'! 43 !B;#&! 10,534 !,! 352 !,! 69,487 !,! 14,596 !,!

30 27 98 226 220 293 45 59 32 174 20 97 37 31 19 20 591 55 24 29 29 174 124 125 163 80 146 1,279 27 25 57 121 22 132 99 20 60 140 30 18 54 19 43 10,534 352 69,487 14,596

+ + + $ + + $ $ + + + + + + + + $ + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + + $ + + + $ + + + + + $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

366 !,!svr !,A6!c !,$'17!rn !,$!rv !,B0!rn !,B0!rv !,7!ip !,7!sn2 !,764!sn !,7;-'!rn !,7;4'!rn !,2!sn !,2!sn !,2!sa1 !,2!sa2 !,-',!c !,+'!rv

!,+'64!rn !,+!sa

!,4'!sn4 !,4!rp !,4!c !,4!sn1 !,4!sn2 !,4&'10'1#!rn !,4514'!rn !,#2!rv !,#&!sa !,#&60'!rn !,8!c !,8&8'!sn !,&'!sn2

16,365 !/,! 26 !,A6! 35 !,$'/17! 3,048 !/,$! !7! 262 !,B/0! 262 !,B/0! 22,332 !/,7! 1,829 !/17!

!/,7! 110 !,764! 64 !,7/;-'! 42 !,7/;4'! 1,408 !,/2!

!,&8'! 355 !,2! 127 !,2! 1,168 !/,2! !/,&8'! 493 !,-',! 2,587 !/%! !/,+'! !7/%! !7/6+! !4'/%! !4'/,+! 286 !/,+'! !,+'64! 393 !/,+! !/6+! !/6+'! 22 !/,4'! 286 !,4! 183 !,4! !,4'! 1,022 !/,4! 74 !,/4! 321 !,4&'10'/1#! 107 !,45/14'! 95 !/,#2! !7,#2! 16 !/,#&! 154 !,#&/60'! 16 !,8! 67 !/,8&8'! 32 !,&'!

11,967 26 35 633 2,415 262 262 22,332 32 1,797 110 64 42 1,379 29 355 127 645 523 493 378 208 186 54 957 804 176 110 167 149 77 22 286 151 32 1,022 74 321 107 75 20 16 154 16 67 32

+

+

$ + + $ + + + + + $ + + + $ $ $ + +

$ $ $ + $ + $ $

$ $ + $ $ +

$ + + + + + + + $ + + + +

+ + +

$ $ $ + + + + +

$ $

$ + +

+

$ + $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

367 !,&'1&!sn !,&!sa !,&#!rv !,&#!sn1 !,&8'!sn !,"!sa1 !,"!sa2 !,*!sv !,*O!c !7!sa

!7!sn !7%!rp !7%A-!rn !7%0!ra !7%#!ra !7%#!rv !7%8&8'!ra !7%"'!rv !7%*,2!rn !71$',4!rp

!71$"%!c !712!rv !71-'1!c !71#!rv1 !71#!rv2 !718&8'6!c !71*$!rv

!7151!c !7;!in13 !7;B!rn !7;4!ra !7;*!rv

113 !,&'/1&! !&'/1&! 57 !,/&! 32 !/,&#! 524 !/,&#! 18 !/,&8'! 244 !/,"! 287 !/,"! 860 !/,*! 3,090 !,*O! 4,265 !17! !%8! !67! 3,823 !/,7! !/7! 5,242 !7/%! 43 !7/%A-! 85 !7/%0! 176 !7/%#! 18 !7%#! 77 !7/%8&8'! 370 !7/%"'! !7/%"-'! 125 !7%*,/2! 1,667 !71$'/,4! !6$'/,4! !/6$4! 57 !71$"/%! 27 !7/12! 29 !71-'1! 1,103 !7/1#! !7/1#! 199 !/1$! !7/1#! 1,117 !718&8'/6! 717 !7/1C! !7/1*5! !71*/$! !7/1*$'! 19 !7151! 3,797 !7;! 47 !7/;5! !7/;B! 278 !7/;4! 181 !7/;*!

81 32 57 32 524 18 244 287 860 3,090 36 1,483 2,746 3,584 239 5,242 43 85 176 18 77 210 160 125 69 1,386 212 57 27 29 1,103 1,103 78 121 1,117 445 54 180 38 19 3,797 29 18 278 181

+ + + + + + + + + $ $ $ $ + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + $ $ + + + +

+ + + $ + + + + $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

368 !2!rp

!2!c !2!sa !2!sp !2!sn2 !2%!rp !2%!c !2%A',4!rn !2%$0!rn !2%+'14!rn

!2%4$',$!ra !2%9'E-'!rn !2%9',&!rn !2%0%4$%8!rn !2%0+%4!rn !2%0&'!rn !2%#!rv !2%&8'!rv !2%*!rv !2,!rv !2,-!rn !2,4!rn !2,09',&8'!rn !2,"!rv !2-'1&!rn !2-',2!rv !2-';&8'!rv !2-%$!rv !2-%##!rn !2-;A!rn !24',B!rn !26-'14!rn !26-'6#!rn

16,327 !B!

!2! !2&! !&8'! !&8'&! 2,370 !2! 354 !2! 1,729 !/,&8'! !2! 199 !/,&#! !2! 104 !2%! 41 !2%! 97 !2%A'/,4! !2%A'/,4'! 22 !2/%$0! 85 !2/%+'14! !2/%+'14'! !2%+4'! 25 !2%4$'/,$! 18 !2/%9'E-'! 114 !2%9'/,&! 38 !2%0%4$%/8! 76 !2%0+/%4! 203 !2/%0&! !2%0/&'! 32 !2%#! 22 !2/%&8'! 2,912 !2/%*! 19 !2/,! 129 !2,-! 50 !2,/4! 22 !2,09',/&8'! 39 !2/,"! 42 !2-'/1&! 27 !2-'/,2! 59 !2-';/&8'! 183 !2-/%$! !2-/%#! 410 !2-/%##! 87 !2-/;A! 295 !24'/,5! !24'/,B! 61 !26-'/14! !26-'/14'! 149 !26-! !26-'6/#!

615 7,660 990 750 6,312 2,370 354 38 1,691 136 63 104 41 24 73 22 29 56 29 25 18 114 38 76 53 150 32 22 2,912 19 129 50 22 39 42 27 59 154 29 410 87 66 229 31 30 109 40

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ + $$ $ $ + + + + + $ + + + + + + + $ + + + $ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + $ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

369 !26-!rp !26+!rp !26+!rn !26+!c

518 650 47 680

!26++;4'!ra !26+4%&!rn !264'!rn !264!ra

246 309 34 831

!264&60!rn !264&06-'!rn !264 &!rn !260'!rn !260',$!rv !260%A-'!rn !260+!rn

23 25 56 18 57 54 43

!2606&!ra !2606"!rn !2609;#!rn !26#&'O0!rn !26#&';+!rn !265!rn !20'1!rv !20'19!ra !20'1#'!rv !20'1#-!rn !20'1#&'!rn !20',2!rv

75 56 40 62 42 16 155 108 17 46 37 262

!20%7!rv !20%#!ra

89 456

!20%&'!ra !20,!rv

29 493

!20,-!rn

67

!206+'!rn !206+!ra !206"'!rn !206"%&'!rn

88 17 33 56

!26-! !26+! !2/6+! !26! !2/6-! !26+! !2/60! !26++/;4'! !2/6+4%&! !264'! !2/%4! !264! !264'! !264&/60! !264&0/6-'! !264&#/10&! !2/60'! !260',/$! !260%A/-'! !2/60+! !2/60+'! !2606&! !260/6"! !2/609;#! !26#&'O/0! !26#&'/;+! !2/65! !20'/1! !20'/19! !20'/1#'! !20'/1#-! !20'1#&'! !20'/,2! !20'/,&8'! !20%7! !20%/#! !20/%#'! !20/%&'! !20/,! !20/,"! !20,/-! !20,-'! !20/,-7! !20/6+'! !20/6+! !206"'! !206"/%&'!

518 650 47 406 123 128 23 246 309 34 15 230 586 23 25 56 18 57 54 26 17 75 56 40 62 42 16 155 108 17 46 37 82 180 89 347 109 29 435 58 38 15 14 88 17 33 56

$ $ +

$ $ $

$ + $ + + + + + $ $ + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + $ + + $ + + + + + + $ + + + $ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

370 !20;B!rv !20;9!rn !2;2;0;*!rn !2;-'!rv !2;-%2!rn !2;9!rv !2;0!rv1 !2;0'!rv !2;0!rv2 !2;0&!ra !2;#!rv1 !2;#!rv2 !2;#&!rn !2;&8'!rv !2;C!rv !2"%$0!ra !2"%0&'!ra !-'E$!rn !-'1B!ra

!-'17&'14!rv !-'12!rv !-'14'!rn !-'14&!rn !-'1#!rn !-'1&'!rv !-'1&!rn !-'1"!ra !-'1*!rv !-',!c !-',A6!c !-',7!rv !-',2!rn

!-',4!ra !-',#&!rn !-',8!ra !-',8!c !-',&'10!rn

329 !20;5! !20;B! 87 !20/;9! 32 !2;2;0/;*! 141 !2/;-'! 35 !2;-%/2! 77 !2/;9! !2/;9'! 84 !2/;0! 37 !2/;0'! 22 !2/;0! 18 !2/;0&! 289 !2/;#! 65 !2;#! 36 !2;#/&! 39 !2/;&8'! 66 !2/;C! 20 !2"/%$0! 120 !2"/%0&'! 76 !-'E$! 499 !-'/15! !-'6/B! !-'*! !-'*'! 30 !-'17&'/14! 156 !-'/12! 76 !-'/14'! 19 !-'/14&! 234 !-'1#! 199 !-'/1&'! !-'/6&! 579 !-'1&! 46 !-'/1"! 118 !-'/1#! !-'/1*! 1,074 !-',! 26 !-',A6! 23 !-'/,7! 505 !-',2! !-'/,&8'! !-',/&#! 56 !-'/,4'! 93 !-',#&! !-'/,#&7! 91 !-'/,8! 118 !-',8! 50 !-',&'/10!

124 205 87 32 141 35 22 55 84 37 22 18 289 65 36 39 66 20 120 76 46 196 98 159 30 156 76 19 234 94 105 579 46 42 76 1,074 26 23 21 222 262 56 47 46 91 118 50

$ $ + + + + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + $ + + $ $ + + + + $ + + $ + + + $ $ + $ + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ +

$ + +

$ $ $ $

$ +

$

371 !-';A!rv !-';$'!rn !-!sn1 !-OA!rn !-%A60!rn !-%$!rv !-%$64'!rn !-%B!rv1

!-%B!rv2 !-%2!rv !-%+9!rn !-%9!rn !-%#2!rv !-,A!rv !-6$!rn !-62O&'!rn !-69%&!rn !-68%$'!rn !-6"!rv !-;4!rn !-;&8'!ra !-;&8'!rn !-;&8'!rv !+'%B!ra !+'%#!rn !+'%&8'!rn !+'1$-'!ra !+'1-'2!rv !+'1-!rv !+'14'!ra !+'14!rv !+'14&!sn !+'10'1!rv

!+'10!rv !+'1#'%&#!rn

497 !-';A! !-'/;A'! 558 !-';$'! 788 !-! !-'! 53 !-OA! 20 !-%A/60! 86 !-/%$! !-/%$'! 41 !-%$/64'! 838 !-'/15! !-'/1&8'! !-%B! !-/65! 98 !-/%B! 31 !-%2! 49 !-/%+9! 26 !-/%9! 24 !-/%#2! 217 !-/,A! 52 !-/6$! 31 !-62O&'! 25 !-69/%&! 69 !-68%$'! 45 !-/6"! !-/6"'! 58 !-;/4! 332 !-/;&8'! 41 !-;/&8'! 677 !-/;&8'! 28 !+'/%B! 39 !+'/%#! 44 !+'/%&8'! 89 !+'/1$-'! 15 !+'/1-'2! 70 !+'/1-! 57 !+'/14'! 192 !+'/14! !+'/14'! 57 !+'/14&! !;+'/14&! 94 !+'/10! !+'10'/1! !+'/60! 246 !+'/10! 145 !+'/1#'%&#!

178 319 558 381 407 53 20 66 20 41 178 49 174 437 98 31 49 26 24 217 52 31 25 69 19 26 58 332 41 677 28 39 44 89 15 70 57 114 78 22 35 39 37 18 246 145

$ + $ $ $ $ + + + + + +

$ $

$ + + $ + + + + + $ + $ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

372 !+'1#&!rn

!+'18!rn !+'18!rv !+'1&!rv1 !+'1&!rv2

!+'1&%--!rn !+'1&6$!rn !+'1&0!rn !+'1&8'&!rn !+'1C%4'!rn !+'15$!rn !+',!in14 !+',B!rv !+',20!ra !+',-!ra !+',--'!rn !+',+6!c !+',4',#!ra !+',4!ra !+',4!rv

!+',4;&!rn !+',0!rn !+',#!rv !+',&'!rv !+!rp1 !+!rp2 !+!sn1 !+!sn2 !+%B%*',4!rn !+%7!rn !+%-!ra !+%+!rn !+%4!rn !+%4$!rv !+%0&!rn !+%08!rv

752 !+'/18&8'! !+'1#&! !+'/1#&'! 35 !+'18! 93 !+'/18! 49 !+'/1&! !+'/1&! 304 !+'/1&! !+'/1&'! !+'/1&8'! 92 !+'1&/%--! !+'1&/%--'! 23 !+'/1&6$! 152 !+'/1&0! 121 !+'/1&8'/&! 114 !+'1C/%4'! 215 !+'/15$! 69 !+'/,! 16 !+'/,B! 17 !+',20! 54 !+'/,-! 67 !+',--'! 66 !+',+6! 50 !+',4',/#! 54 !+',4! 537 !+'/%! !+',4! !+4'! 219 !+',4/;&! 255 !+',0! 25 !+'/,#! 150 !+'/,&'! 608 !+! 2,616 !+! 251 !/+! 225 !+! 41 !+%B%*'/,4! 35 !+/%7! 849 !+/%-! !+/%-'! 285 !+/%+! 85 !+'/14! !+/%4! 231 !+/%4$! !+/%4$'! 30 !+/%0&! 15 !+/%08!

38 435 279 35 93 24 25 19 164 121 57 35 23 152 121 114 215 69 16 17 54 67 66 50 54 77 105 355 219 255 25 150 608 2,616 251 225 41 35 256 593 285 67 18 152 79 30 15

+

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + $ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $

$ + $ $ + $ + $ $ + $ + + $ $ + $ + + + + + + + + + + +

+ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

373 !+%#!ra !+%#!rv !+%##!rn !+%8,4!rn !+%&'!rn !+%&'1+%&'!rn !+%&'10'!rn !+%&!ra !+%&06#!rn !+%C!rv !+,!rv !+,#-!rn

!+46B!ra !+6!rv !+6B!rv

!+62!rv !+6-!rn !+6-!c !+6-6$!ra

!+6-62!rn !+6-6&!rn !+6-&8'!rv !+6+'14&!rn !+64&!rv !+60!rn !+606*!rv !+6#26"!rn !+6#&!rn !+6&!ra !+&8'!rv !+;8&8'!rv !+;*!rn !+;5!rn !4'1!c

214 31 30 317 247 16 96 30 74 21 19 237

!+%#! !+/%#! !+/%##! !+%8/,4! !+/%&'! !+%&'1+/%&'! !+%&'10'! !+/%&! !+%&0/6#! !+/%C! !+/,! !+/,8-'! !+/,#-! !+/,#-'! 805 !+4/65! !+4/6B! 28 !+6! 2,221 !+6/8&8'! !+/65! !+/6B! !+/6&8'! 29 !+/62! 650 !+/6-! !+/6-'! 22 !+6-! 858 !+-/%$! !+6-6$! !+6-6$'! 103 !+6-6/2! 17 !+6-6&! 252 !+/6-&8'! 42 !+6+'/14&! 17 !+/64&! 230 !+60! !+60'! 35 !+60/6*! 59 !+6#2/6"! 38 !+6#/&! 40 !+6/&! 17 !+&8'! 14 !+/;8&8'! 91 !+/;*! !+/;*'! 122 !+;5! !+;57! 7,735 !4'1!

214 31 30 317 247 16 96 30 74 21 19 42 45 150 59 746 28 217 548 138 1,318 29 156 494 22 39 397 422 103 17 252 42 17 58 172 35 59 38 40 17 14 59 32 61 61 7,735

$ + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + $ + $ $ + $ + + + $ $ + + + + $ + + + $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

374 !4'1A!rn !4'1+'!ra !4'1#!rv !4'1&!c !4'15!ra !4',!c !4',2!rv !4',*!ra !4!rp !4!sa2 !4%!c !4%$!ra !4%$!c !4%,!c !4%&#!rv !4,4!ra !46!c !46B!rn !467%A0'!rn !46+'10!rn !46+!ra !46#'!rv !46#!rn !46#&!rn !46&8'!rn !46"!ra !465!rv !40%"'!rv !4&!sa !4;!c !4;!svc

!4;&0'!rn !4;5!rv

91 !4'/1A! !4'1A'1/#! 106 !4'/1+! !4'1+'! 299 !4'/1#! 763 !4'1&! 21 !4'/15! 1,702 !4',! 17 !4'/,2! 107 !4'/,*! 1,157 !4! 1,471 !4'! 11,313 !4%! 576 !4/%$! 341 !4%$! 32 !4%,! 43 !4/%&#! 83 !4/,4! !4/,4'! 1,966 !46! 221 !46/5! !46/B! 19 !467%A/0'! 109 !46+'10! 60 !4/6+! !4/6+'! 227 !468! !4/6#'! 97 !46#! 28 !4/6#&! 249 !46&8'! 1,027 !46"! !4/6"'! 24 !46/5! 138 !40/%"'! 306 !4&! !4&#! 711 !4;! 1,585 !4! !4%"-'! !4/6"! !46"'! !46"-'! !4/;! 28 !4/;&0'! 420 !4/;5! !4;5/$!

45 46 53 53 299 763 21 1,702 17 107 1,157 1,471 11,313 576 341 32 43 57 26 1,966 22 199 19 109 36 24 91 136 97 28 249 948 79 24 138 193 113 711 115 24 40 236 25 1,145 28 402 18

+ + + $ +

$ $ $ $ $

$ +

$

$ + + $ $ $ +

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ + + +

$ $ $

$ + + + $ + + $ + $ + $ $ + + + $ $ $ $ $ +

$ +

$ $ + + + +

$ $ $

$ $ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

375 !4;5$!rn !6!ip !6!ipu !6!in18 !6!c1 !6A!rp !6A8&8'!ra !6B!sn !6BO4'!rn !6B$!sp !67!ip !67!in11 !67!c !626!rn

!62&'%A0'!rn !6-'!sp !6+!in19 !64'!sa !64!rp !69'%&'!c !69'10!rv !60!sa !60!sn !60B%4'!rn !6021#&0!rn !60;$!rn !6#'14!rn !6#46"!rn !6#&!sn !6#&0!ra !6#&06"!rn !6&'E&#!rn !6&!ip !6&!sn

!6&O!c !6&60!sp !6&8'!rn

18 !4;5/$! 990 !/6! 10,232 !/6! 19,598 !6! 5,385 !6!

!6A'! 96 !/6A! 442 !/6A8&8'! 20 !/6B! 92 !6BO/4'! 1,702 !6B$! 6,547 !/67! 15,808 !67! 42 !67! 235 !62/4!

!62/6! !6264! 32 !62&'%A/0'! 1,729 !/6-'! 33,898 !6+! 325 !/64'! 12,252 !/64! !/64'! 174 !69'/%&'! 29 !69'/10! 16 !/60! 603 !60! !/60'! 255 !60B/%4'! 22 !602/1#&0! 30 !60/;$! 72 !/6#'14! !6#'/14'! 71 !6#4/6"! 661 !6#&! !6#&'! 37 !/6#&0! 34 !6#&06"! 231 !6&'/1&8'! !6&'E/&#! 6,559 !6&! 1,881 !6&! !6&'! !6&8'! 3,182 !6&O! 1,348 !6&/60! 51 !6&8'!

18 990 10,232 19,598 4,002 380 96 442 20 92 1,702 6,547 15,808 42 107 21 107 32 1,729 33,898 325 9,199 3,053 174 29 16 509 94 255 22 30 24 48 71 53 608 37 34 21 210 6,559 1,485 20 376 3,182 1,348 51

+ + + $ $ $ + + + + $ +

+

$ $

$ $ + + $ + + $ + + + + + +

+

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

+

$ + + + + + + +

$ +

$ $ +

$ $

$ + + $ $ $ $ $ + $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

+ +

$

$ $

$

376 !6&8'14'!c !6"!in12 !6"!sa

!6C!c !6*'60!rn !6*!sa !65!sn !9'%&'E4!rn !9'%&!rn !9'1!rv !9'1$!rn !9'10'1!c !9'10',6$!rn !9'10'6$!c

!9'10!rv !9'10"!rp !9'1#!ra !9'18!ra !9'1&8'!rv !9'1&8'%&!rn !9',!rv !9',64'!ra !9',#!rv !9',&!rv !9'71#!rn !9!rv !9%$!rv !9%-'&!rn !9%-!ra !9%-%&!rn !9%9!rn !9%0'E4'!rn !9%0!rn

742 !6&8'14'! 23,238 !/6"! 2,328 !,4!

!6"! !6/"'! !;7! 24 !6C! 37 !/6*'60! 111 !/6*! 696 !/65! 32 !9'%&'E/4! 689 !9'/%&! !9'/%&'! 312 !9'/1! 22 !9'1$! 570 !9'10'1! !90'1! 17 !9'10',/6$! 1,302 !9'10'1$! !9'10'1$'! !9'10'/6$! !90'15! !90'15$'! !90'1$! !90'1$'! 30 !9'1/0! 934 !9'/10"! 43 !9'1#! 17 !9'18! 117 !9'/1&8'! 69 !9'1&8'/%&! 75 !9'/,! 466 !9',/64'! 808 !9',#! !9'/,#'! 85 !9',&! 26 !9'7/1#! 19 !9! 250 !9/%$! !9/%#! 59 !9%-'/&! 88 !9/%-! !9/%-'! 28 !9%-/%&! 131 !9/%9! 109 !9%0'E4'! 32 !9/%0!

742 23,238 55 1,923 56 75 24 37 111 696 32 191 498 312 22 374 196 17 336 66 9 51 99 640 19 30 934 43 17 117 69 75 466 520 288 85 26 19 87 163 59 21 67 28 131 109 32

$ + $ $ +

$ $ +

$ $ + + + + + + +

$

$ $ $ +

+ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $

$

$ $ + $ $ $ $ + + $ $ + + + + $ + $ + $ + + + + + + + $ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

377 !9%0!rv1 !9%0!rv2 !9%02!rn !9%0&!ra !9%#!rv !9%##!rv !9%;*!rn !9%C!rv !9,-'!rn !9,&!rv !9,C!rv !9-'14!ra !9-'1&8'!rn !9-',&!rn !9-%2!rv !9-%2%&!rn !9-%+'!rn !9-%4!rn !9-%&'!rv !9-%&!rn !9-%"!rv !9-,!rv !9-6$!rn !9-6&!rn !9-68&8'!ra !9-6C!ra !96!c !96$O!c !961!rv !962%!c !96267!rn !96-'!rn1 !96-'!rn2 !96-!ra !96-!rn !96-4!ra !96-6#!rn !96-6&4!rn !960!rv !9606B!rn

52 26 30 290

!9%0! !9%0! !9/%02! !9/%0&! !9/%0&'! 126 !9%#! !9%#'! 31 !9/%##! 85 !9/%;*! 55 !9%C! 25 !9/,-'! 247 !9,&! 21 !9/,C! 69 !9-'/14! 126 !9-'1/&8'! 18 !9-',/&! 49 !9-/%2! 52 !9-%2/%&! 19 !9-/%+'! !9-%+'64! 172 !9-/%4! 24 !9-/%&'! 107 !9-%&! !9-/%&'! 26 !9-/%"! 23 !9-/,! 18 !9-6/$! 22 !9-/6&! 105 !9-/68&8'! 153 !9-6C! 10,589 !9/%! !96! 1,297 !96$O! 32 !96/1! 195 !962/%! 187 !962/67! 194 !96-'! 32 !9/6-'! 105 !9/6-! 95 !96-! 390 !9/6-4! !9/6-4'! 39 !96-6/#! 21 !96-6&/4! 264 !9/60! !9/60'! 37 !960/6B!

52 26 30 61 229 50 76 31 85 55 25 247 21 69 126 18 49 52 10 9 172 24 63 44 26 23 18 22 105 153 77 10,512 1,297 32 195 187 194 32 105 95 162 228 39 21 227 37 37

$ $ + + + $ $ + + $ + $ + + + + + + + $ + + $ + + + + + + $ + $ $ + + + $ + + $ + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $

378 !960&?'1-'!rn !960&0'1&!rn !96#!rv !96#-'1!c !96&8'&',!c !96&8'"!rn !96*$!ra !90'%+!ra !90'%&!rv !90'%5!rv !90'1+'!ra !90',!c !90',4&#,9!rn !90%2!rv !90%"!rv

!90%*$!ra !90,B!rv !906!c1 !906!c2 !906A!rv !906A-'1+!rn !906#!rv

!906#&!ra

!906&',"!c !906&8'!ra !9&'!rn !9;A-'!ra !9;B!rv !9;42&!rn !9;#&!rv

!9;&!rn !9;&!rv !0'%$!rv !0'1!c

24 58 25 331 201 20 82

!960&?'/1-'! !960&0'/1&! !96/#! !96#-'1! !96&8'&'/,! !9/6&8'"! !9/6*5! !9/6*$! 161 !90'/%+! 25 !90'/%&! 16 !90'/%5! 19 !90'/1+'! 2,658 !90',! 20 !90'/,4&#,9! 27 !90/%2! 865 !90%"! !90%"'! !90/%"-'! 141 !90/%*$! 42 !90/,5! !90/,B! 1,828 !906! 324 !906! 71 !90/6A! 21 !906A-'/1+! 1,016 !90/%8! !90/6#! !90/6#'! 346 !9068&8'! !906#&! !906#&'! 135 !906&',"! 98 !90/6&8'! 84 !9&'! 225 !9/;A-'! 46 !9/;B! 21 !9/;42&! 515 !9;#2! !9;#&! !9;#&'! 294 !9/;&! !9;/&'! 40 !9/;&! 568 !0'/%5! !0'/%$! 253 !0'1! !0'1$!

24 58 25 331 201 20 24 58 161 25 16 19 2,658 20 27 377 372 116 141 21 21 1,828 324 71 21 154 253 609 16 290 40 135 98 84 225 46 21 102 59 354 49 245 40 15 553 196 57

+ + +

$ $ $

$ + + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + + $ $ + + + + $ $ + + + + + $ $ $ $ + $ + + + $ $ $ + + + + + $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

379 !0'1A'!rn !0'1$!ra !0'12!rn !0'1#!rn !0'18!rv !0'1"!ra !0'1*',4!rn !0',#!rv !0!sa !0O&!rn !0%A!rv !0%$',!c !0%$',7!rn !0%$!ra !0%7!rp !0%764!rn !0%2!rn !0%4'!rn !0%4!ra !0%#!rv

!0%"!ra

!0%*!rv

!0%*O!c !0%*"'1!c !0,A!rn !0,"!rv !0,5!ra !06A!rv !06$!rv

913 35 76 241

!0'/1A'! !0'/1$! !0'1/2! !0'/1! !0'/1#! 478 !0'/18! 126 !0'/1"! 21 !0'1*'/,4! 57 !0'/,#! 128 !0! 38 !0O/&! 1,629 !0%/A! 24 !0%$',! 75 !0/%$'! !0/%$',7! 230 !0/%$! 47 !0%7! 180 !0%7/64! 31 !0/%2! 23 !0/%4'! 211 !0/%4! !0/%4'! 321 !0/%#! !0%#&! !0/%#&'! !0/6#! !06#&! 219 !0/%"! !0/6"! !06"'! 1,239 !0'/1*! !0/%5! !0%*! !0/%*'! 1,406 !0%*O! 126 !0%*"'1! 55 !0/,A! 37 !0/,"! !0/"! 27 !0/,5! 24 !0/6A! 878 !065! !0/65$'! !06/$! !0/6$'!

913 35 76 16 225 478 126 21 57 128 38 1,629 24 32 43 230 47 180 31 23 63 148 153 31 28 56 53 117 53 49 66 69 1,079 25 1,406 126 55 19 18 27 24 30 37 632 179

+ + + + + + $ + + $ + + $ + + + $ + + + + + + $ + + $ + + $ + + $ + $ $ + + + + + $ + + +

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

380 !062!rv

!06-'!rn !06*!rn !0;A!rv !0;2!rn !0;#!rn !0;5!rn !#'!rp !#'%!c !#'1!c !#'1$!ra !#'12;4$!rv !#'1-!rn !#'1+'E7!rn !#'1+!rn

!#'14!rn !#'14&'%A0'!rn !#'10'1$'!rn

!#'10'7!ra !#'10!ra !#'10$!rn !#'1#&'O0!rn !#'1"'10!rn !#',B4!rn !#',-!rn !#',4'!ra !#',#&'1+!rn !#'6-!rv !#O!c !#O&!rn

284 !0'1&8'! !0/62! !0/6&8'! 49 !06-'! 22 !0/6*! 121 !0;/A! !0;/A'! 964 !0;/2! !0/;&8'! 124 !0/;#! 19 !0;5! 1,765 !#'! !*! 7,557 !#'! !#'%! 155 !#'1! 23 !#'1$! 59 !#'12/;4$! 54 !#'1/-! 99 !#'1+'E/7! 417 !#'1$'+! !#'1+! !#'1+'! 22 !#'14! 26 !#'14&'/%A0'! 328 !#'10'1/$'! !#0'/1$! !#0'/1$'! 111 !#'/10'7! 51 !#'/10! 214 !#'10$! !#'10$'! 49 !#'/6#&'0! !#'1#&'O/0! 29 !#'/1"'10! 41 !#'/,B4! 421 !#'/,-! !#'/,-'! 54 !#'/,4'! 42 !#',#&'/1+! 205 !#'/1-'! !#'6/-! 14,124 !*! !#O! 705 !#/&'! !#O/&!

69 193 22 49 22 100 21 905 59 124 19 1,188 577 361 7,196 155 23 59 54 99 96 21 300 22 26 18 163 147 111 51 125 89 24 25 29 41 245 176 54 42 121 84 67 14,057 83 622

$ + + $ + + + + + + + $ $ $ $ $ $ + + + $ $ $ $ + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ + +

$ $ + + + + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

$ $ + +

$ $

381 !#%$!rv

!#%+!ra !#%96B!rn !#%0%7!rn !#,-!rv !#,4!rn

!#2%+'17!rn !#260!ra !#26&8'!rv !#2"6*'!c !#-'1$!rv !#-'1#!rv !#-'6*!rn !#-%A!ra !#-67!rn !#-6"!rn

!#-;8!rv

!#-;5!rv !#+'1!rv1 !#+'1!rv2 !#+6&0'!rv !#4'1B!rn !#6!rn !#6A!rp

!#6A%2!rn !#6-$%&!rn !#6-4!rn

1,043 !#'/1$!

!#'/1$'! !#'/1#! !#'/,$'! !#%$! !#/%$'! 1,381 !#/%+! 40 !#%96/B! 28 !#%0/%7! 96 !#/,-! !#-! 130 !#/,4! !#,46"'! !#,46"'7! 28 !#2%+'/17! 314 !#260! !#2/60'! 74 !#2/6&8'! 46 !#2"6*'! 520 !#-'1$! !#-'/1$'! 52 !#-'/1#! 49 !#-'6/*! 29 !#-/%A! 20 !#-67! 716 !#-/%"! !#-6"! !#-/6"'! 615 !#-/,8! !#-/;8! !#-/;C! 72 !#-/;5! 247 !#+'1! !#+'17! 95 !#+'/1! 696 !#+/%&0'! !#+/6&0'! 152 !#4'/15! !#4'1B! 650 !#6! 1,198 !#'/1A'! !#/6A! !#/6A'! 52 !#6A/%2! 53 !#6-$/%&! 150 !#/6-4! !#/6-4'!

157 157 167 298 132 132 1,381 40 28 22 74 44 43 43 28 172 142 74 46 463 57 52 49 29 20 61 601 54 317 274 24 72 99 148 95 26 670 26 126 650 781 222 195 52 53 116 34

+ + + + $ + + + + + $ + $ $ + $ + + $ $ + + + + $ + $ + + + + + $ $ + + + + $ $ + + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

382 !#6062!rn !#6#4!rn !#6&#!ra !#6"!rp !#9'1!rv !#9'1&#!rv !#9',4!rn !#9!rv

!#964$'!rv !#960&!rn !#&'12O-!rn !#&'1-'!rv !#&'14!rn !#&'19'!rn !#&'19'14!rn !#&',&!rv !#&',C!rn !#&%!rv1

!#&%!c !#&%$',7!rn !#&%2%4!rn !#&%0!ra !#&%0!rv !#&,$!ra !#&6-!rn !#&6-A!rn !#&60!rv !#&6064!rn

!#&6065!rv !#&0'1-'!rv

172 25 84 74 289

!#/6062! !#6#/4! !#/6&#! !#6"! !#9'/1! !#9'/1"! 129 !#9'/1&#! 75 !#9',/4! 205 !#! !#4! !#/64! !#9! 23 !#9/64$'! 219 !#9/60&! !#9/60&'! 62 !#&'12/-! !#&'/62O-! 29 !#&'/1-'! 153 !#&'1/4! 47 !#&'19'! 24 !#&'19'/14! 129 !#&'/,&! 63 !#&',/C! 4,021 !#&! !#&%! !#&/%"! !#&/%"'! !#&/%"-'! !#&/67! 97 !#&%! 36 !#&/%$',7! 22 !#&%2/%4! 501 !#&%0! !#&%0'! 125 !#&%0! 30 !#&/,$! 405 !#&6/-! !#&6-'! 16 !#&6-/A! 40 !#&/60! 760 !#&606/4! !#&0%/4! !#&0%4'! 103 !#&60/65! !#&0/6B! 19 !#&0'/1-'!

172 25 84 74 270 19 129 75 40 15 14 136 23 126 93 31 31 29 153 47 24 129 63 414 1,865 243 403 167 929 97 36 22 411 90 125 30 343 62 16 40 274 431 55 35 68 19

+ + + $ + + + + $ $ + $ + + + + + + + $ + + + $ $ + + + + $ + +

$ + $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

$ + + +

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ + +

383 !#&0'1+!rv !#&0%C!rn !#&067!rv !#&062!rv !#&0;!rv !#!rn !#&;$'!rv !#&;2!rv !#&;-!rn !#;!rv !#;$!rn !#;$!rv

!#;+!rn !#;0!ra !#;8&8'!rv !#;&O2!rn !#;C!ra !#"'%8&8'!ra !#"'102!rv !#"'1&!rv !#"'15!ra !#"!rp !#"6A6$!rn !8!sn

!8%B!rn !8%9!rn !8%0!rn !817!rn !81#&!rn !8,A!rv !8,0!ra !82%?!rn !826-!rn

69 !#&0'/1+'! !#&0'/1+-'! 124 !#&0/%8! !#&0/%C! 769 !#&0/%7! !#&0/67! 44 !#&06/2! !#&06/&8'! 22 !#&0/;! 51 !#&#/14! 140 !#&/;$'! 62 !#&/;2! !#&/;&8'! 45 !#&/;-! !#&/;-7! 20 !#/;! 87 !#/;$! 172 !#/;5$! !#;/$! !#;$'! 24 !#/;+! 21 !#;/0! 55 !#;8&8'! 31 !#/;&O2! 30 !#;C! 42 !#"'/%8&8'! 15 !#"'/102! 212 !#"'/1&! 44 !#"'/15! 1,776 !#"! 111 !#"6A/6$! !#"6A/6$'! 444 !8! !/,8! !/;8! 124 !8%B! 41 !8/%9! 42 !8%0! 44 !8/17! 282 !81#&! !81#&'! 52 !8/,A! !8/,A'! 160 !8,0! 25 !82%?! 908 !82/6-! !82/6-'!

44 25 96 28 32 737 19 25 22 51 140 31 31 23 22 20 87 37 53 82 24 21 55 31 30 42 15 212 44 1,776 91 20 21 47 376 124 41 42 44 102 180 37 15 160 25 702 206

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + $ + + $ + $ + + + + $ + + $ + + $ + $ + $ $ + + $ $ + +

$ + $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

384 !86?'!rv !8696&!rv !86##!rn !8&%A!rn !8&;2!rn !8&;0!rn !8&8',&!rn !8&8'62!rn !8;+!rv !8;&!rv !&'!sa2 !&'E0!sn !&'%5!rv !&'1%&0!rn !&'12!rn !&'1-'!ra !&'1-'!sn !&'1-!rn !&'1+!ra !&'1+!rn !&'14'!rn !&'10'!rv !&'109'!ra !&'100'!rn !&'1#!rv !&'1&0%$!rn !&'1&8'!rv

!&'1C4'!rn !&',9!rn !&',C!ra !&'69!rv !&'6&'!rn !&!rp1 !&!rp2

79 17 16 54 25 18 38

!86/?'! !8/696&! !86#/#! !8&%A! !8&/;2! !8&/;0! !8&8'/,8&8'! !8&8'/,&! 48 !8&8'6/2! 111 !8/;+! !8/;+'! 50 !8/;&! !8/;&'! 48,060 !&'! !&'/,! 264 !&'E0! 254 !&'/%! !&'%5! 76 !&'1/%&0! 35 !&'/12! 79 !&'1-'! 1,588 !&'/1-'! 37 !&'1-! 121 !&'1+! !&'/6+! 66 !&'/1+! 29 !&'14'! 75 !&'/10'! 18 !&'/109'! 23 !&'/100'! 15 !&'/1#! 67 !&'1&0/%$! !&'1&0/%$'! 57 !&'/1&8'! !&'/1&8'! !&/62! 209 !&'/1C4'! 17 !&'/,9! 259 !&',8! !&'/,C! 92 !&'69! 61 !&'/6&'! 13,705 !&! !&'! 2,349 !&! !&"!

79 17 16 54 25 18 16 22 48 83 28 23 27 42,690 3,959 264 98 156 76 35 79 1,588 37 45 76 66 29 75 18 23 15 21 46 17 16 24 209 17 57 202 92 61 13,052 653 2,166 183

+ + + $ + + + + + + + + + $ +

$ +

$ +

$

$ + + $ + $ $ + + $ + + + + + + + + + + + $ + $ + $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

385 !&!sa1

!&!sa2

!&!sn1

!&!sn2 !&%7!rv !&%-'!rn !&%4'E&#!rn !&%0'1-!rn !&%#2!rv !&,-!rn !&,#'%&8'!rn !&6!c !&62!rv !&6-!rn !&6-9!rn !&6-#&!ra !&64!ra !&64!rn !&644!rn !&60B!rv !&6069'!rv !&60&8'!ra !&6#2!rv !&6&8'!rv !&6"%0',8&8'!rn !&0'1A!rv !&0'1"6B!rn !&0!rp !&0%$',!rv !&0%2!rv

1,356 !&!

!&'! !&8'! !&"! 2,325 !#! !#'! !&! !&'! !&#! 653 !&! !&'! !&8'! 494 !&! !&'! 34 !&/%7! 75 !&/%-'! 73 !&/%4'E&#! 25 !&%0'/1-! 68 !&/%8&8'! !&/%#2! 45 !&,-! 406 !&/,#'%&8'! 1,240 !&6! 36 !&/62! 29 !&6-! 36 !&6-/9! 37 !&/6-#&! 52 !&/64! 42 !&64! 65 !&/644! 99 !&60/5! !&/60B! 52 !&60/69'! !&60/69-'! 17 !&/60&8'! 41 !&8&8'! !&6#/2! 149 !&/6&8'! 529 !&/6"! !&6"/%0',8&8'! 125 !&0'/1A! 76 !&0'1"/65! !&0'1"/6B! 793 !&0! !&0'! 28 !&0%$'/,! 108 !&0%2!

677 492 169 18 128 119 1,372 221 485 229 327 97 276 218 34 75 73 25 52 16 45 406 1,240 36 29 36 37 52 42 65 84 15 32 20 17 23 18 149 33 496 125 34 42 36 757 28 108

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + + + + + + $ + $ + $ + + + $ + + + + + + $ + + + + + + + $ $ + $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

386 !&0%+"%7!rn !&0%"!rn !&06!rv !&0;A!rn !&0;$!ra !&;+%4!rn !&;&8'!rn !&"'10$'!ra

32 57 17 107 752 40 19 93

!&"60!rv !
!rp !
-'!rn !
-!ra

79 63 66 199

!!rn !&!rn !&0!rn !'!rv !
#!rv !
C!rn !&#,?0!rn !&#"'1&!rv !&8'%7!rn !&8'%#!rn !&8'%#&!ra

20 39 117 31 39 176 63 173 57 959 140

!&8'%#&!rv

546

!&8'1-6"'12!rn

708

!&8'1+6$%4!rn !&8'10'1$!ra

43 96

!&8'10'1*!c !&8'102!rn !&8'104'!ra

334 22 148

!&8'10&!rn !&8'1&"'10!rp

41 399

!&8'1*!rv !&8',4!rv1

29 940

!&0%+"/%7! !&0%/"! !&0/6! !&0;/A! !&0;/$! !&0;/$'! !&;+/%4! !&/;&8'! !&"'/105$! !&"'/10$'! !&"'/60$! !&"/60! !
! !&#/1-'! !&#/1-! !&#/1-'! !&#/14! !&#/14&! !&#/14&0! !'! !&#/1#! !&#/1C! !&#/,?0! !&#"'1&! !&8'%7! !&8'%#! !&8'/%8&8'! !&8'/%#&! !&8'/%#&! !&8'/%#&'! !&8'1-6"'/12! !&8'1-6"'/1&8'! !&8'1+6$/%4! !&8'10'1$! !&8'10'1$'! !&8'10'1*! !&8'102! !&8'/604! !&8'/604'! !&8'10/&! !&8'1&,0! !&8'1&/,0'! !&8'1&"'10! !&8'1&"'/60! !&8'/1*! !&8'/%! !&8'/,4!

32 57 17 107 632 120 40 19 18 23 52 79 63 66 170 29 20 39 117 31 39 176 63 173 57 959 38 102 277 269 636 72 43 29 67 334 22 128 20 41 24 231 36 108 29 763 177

+ + + + + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + + $ + + + $ $ $ + + + + + + + $ $ $ $ + + + $ + $ + + + +

$ + $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

387 !&8',4!rv2 !&8',#&!ra !&8',&!rv

!&8'-'14!rn !&8'60&!rn !&8';$'1#!rn !&8';&'!c !&8';"!rv !&8';5!ra !;!in22 !;!c !;%*!sa !;$!sp !;BO-'!rn !;BO-!rn !;B0';+!ra !;2!rv

!;-'!rn !;+!rv !;+!sn !;4',"'10#'!ra !;4!sn !;9!sn

!;0!sn2 !;&!sp !;&0!rn !;C!rn !;C!sn !;*!ra !;*!sn

41 !&8'/,4! 108 !&8'/,#&! 812 !&8'/1#! !&8',/#! !&8',/#'! !&8',&! !&8'/6&! 122 !&8'-'/14! 48 !&8'10&'! !&8'/60&! 60 !&8';/$! !&8';$'/1#! 132 !&8';&'! 248 !&8'/;"! 60 !&8';5! 33,704 !;! 5,525 !;! 29 !;/%*! 633 !;$! 21 !/;BO-'! 143 !;BO/-! 15 !;B0'/;+! 1,475 !/,2! !/,&8'! !/;2! !/;&8'! !"/,2! !"/,&8'! 232 !/;-'! 256 !;/+! !/;+'! 106 !/;+! 64 !;4',"'/10#'! 57 !/;4! 392 !/;9! !;9'! !/;9-'! 220 !/;0! 407 !;&! 330 !/;&0! !"&0! 51 !;8! !/;C! 28 !/;C! 51 !/;*! 31 !/;*!

41 108 169 35 35 427 146 122 24 24 24 36 132 248 60 33,704 5,525 29 633 21 143 15 43 121 66 1,179 42 24 232 66 190 106 64 57 156 199 37 220 407 168 162 25 26 28 51 31

+ + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +

$ + + $ + + +

$

$ + $ $ $ + $ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + $ + + $ + $ $ + + + +

$ $

+ $

$ + $ $ $ + $

+ +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

388 !;51!c !;5,4!rn !"'E#'!rp !"'%*!rv

!"'1$'!rv2 !"'1$'!c !"'1$!rv

!"'12!rn !"'1-'!ra !"'1-'!rv !"'10'6"!rn !"'10!rv !"'10C!rn !"'1#'E4!c !"'1#'1-!ra !"'1#'+%!c !"'1#!rv

!"'18&8'!rn !"'1&'E0!rn !"'1&!rn !"'1&!rv

!"'1&8'10!rn !"'1*!rv !"',!rv !"',$!rv

1,249 !;5!

!;5/1! 20 !/;5,4! 4,251 !"'1*!

!"'E#'! 257 !%*! !"'/%*! !"'/%*'! 486 !"'/1$'! !"'/1#! 481 !"'1$'! 307 !/18! !"'/18! !"'/1$! !"'/1$'! !"'/1#! 54 !"'12! 127 !"'1-'! 27 !"'/1-'! 26 !"'10'/6"! 552 !"'/10! !"'/10'! 252 !"'/108! !"'/10C! 122 !"'1#'E/4! !"'/6#'E4! 158 !"'1#'1-! !"'1#/'6-! 21 !"'1#'+/%! 125 !"'/1#! !"'/1#'! !"'/,#'! 88 !"'18&8'! 117 !"'1&'E0! 54 !"'1/&! 1,165 !"'/1&! !"'/1&'! !"'/1&8'! 354 !"'1&8'10! !"&8'10! 64 !"'/1*! 77 !"'/,! 1,238 !/,$! !/,$'! !"'/,$! !"'/,$'!

236 1,013 20 30 4,221 157 30 70 144 342 481 63 34 27 18 165 54 127 27 26 311 241 98 154 61 61 66 92 21 21 16 88 88 117 54 756 254 155 293 61 64 77 35 23 450 730

$ + + $ $ $ + + + + $ + + + + + $ $ + + + + + + + + $ + + + + + $ $ + + + + $ $ + + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

389 !"',4!rn !"!rp !"O!c !"%B64!rn !"%5!rn !"1!rp !",!c !",#!ra !"-%#!rv !"6$!rn !"6$!rv

!"67!rv !"62*%-!rn !"6-'!rv !"6-';!rv !"6-4!rn !"6-6#!rn !"64!c !"606&!rn !"606&!rv

!"60&8'!rv !"6&!c !"6*'!rv !"6*-'1!c !"0'1+'64!rn !"0%B!ra !"0%&8'!rn !"#&0'1&'!rv !"8!sa !"&60!rp

56 !"'/,4! !"'/,4'! 2,290 !"! 14,434 !"O! 74 !"%B/64! 202 !"/%5! 36 !"1! 1,554 !"/,! 319 !"/,8! !",#! 114 !-%#! !"-%#! 281 !"6/$! 939 !"/65! !"6$! !"/6$'! 382 !"67! 27 !"62*/%-! 265 !"/6-'! 41 !"6-'/;! 166 !"/6-4! !"/6-4'! 75 !"6-6#! 59 !"/64! 73 !"60/6&! 522 !0/%8&8'! !0/%&! !0/%&'! !"'10! !"60/6&! !"0/%8&8'! 14 !"/60&8'! 1,283 !"/6&! 21 !"/6*'! 76 !"6*-'1! 701 !"0'/1+'! !"0'1+'64! 49 !"0%/B! 42 !"0%/&8'! 343 !"#&0'/1&'! !"#&0'/1&8'! 132 !"! !"8! 426 !&60! !"&60! !"&60'!

35 21 2,290 14,434 74 202 36 1,554 55 264 59 55 281 24 682 233 382 27 265 41 135 31 75 59 73 50 74 71 221 47 59 14 1,283 21 76 647 54 49 42 140 203 55 77 28 335 63

+ +

$ $ $

$ $ + +

$ $ $

$ + +

$ $ $ $ +

$ $ $ + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + $ + + + + + $ + + + + +

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ + + + + +

$

$ + $ + + + + $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

390 !C!sn !C%0%2&'10!rn !C,+'!rv !C-'1A!rn !C+;0!ra !C6$!rv

!C6-6$!ra !C60!rn !C6068!ra !C6&!rv !C6*'%7!rn !C;$!ra !C"%&!rv !C"6#&!rn !*'E0!rv !*'1-'!ra !*'1+!rn !*'10"!rv !*',+!rn !*'604!rn !*O"!rv !*%!c !*%A!rv !*%$!rn !*%264!rn !*%-!rn !*$!rv !*$606"!ra

!*-!ra

330 !8! !C! 64 !C%0/%2&'10! 27 !C/,+'! 113 !C-'/1A! 19 !C+/;0! 1,925 !8! !8/1! !C/%5! !C/65! !C/6$! !C/6$'! 108 !C6-6$! 45 !C/60! 750 !C60/68! 1,102 !C/6&! !C/6&'! 885 !C/6*! !C6*'/%7! 321 !C/;5! !C/;$! 169 !C"/%&! !C"/%&'! 71 !C"6#/&! 117 !*0'! !*'E0! 91 !*'/1-'! 311 !*'1+! !*'1+'E/-'! 34 !*'/10"! 108 !*',/+! 50 !*'60/4! 597 !*/,"! !*O"! 5,296 !*%! 60 !*%/A! 174 !*/%$! !*/%$'! 57 !*%2/64! 93 !*/%-! 252 !*$! 221 !*$60/6"! !*$60/6"'! !*$0/%"! !*$0/%"-'! 22 !*-!

171 159 64 27 113 19 131 26 21 94 261 1,392 108 45 750 47 1,055 592 293 38 283 38 131 71 81 36 91 21 290 34 108 50 191 406 5,296 60 139 35 57 93 252 87 25 92 17 22

$ $ + + + + $ + + + + + $ + + + + + + + + + + + $ $ + $ + + + + + $ $ + + + + + $ + + + + $

+ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $ + $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

391 !*4'!sn

!*4%!rv !*4%+'64'!rn

!*6-6&!rn !*;A!rn !*;-'&!rv !*"'14!rn !*"'10'!rn !*"'6*$!rn !*"64!rn !*";2!rn !5%!rv !5%-!rv

!5%#!rv !51!c !51-'1*!rn !51#&!rn !51&8'!rv !5,!rv !5,$!rv !56-&!ra !564!rn !5;04!ra

831 !#'/14! !#4'! !*4'! 1,830 !*4/%! !*4/%"! 68 !*4/%+'! !*4%+'/14'! !*4/%+'64! 80 !*6-6&! !*6-6&'! 60 !*;A! 81 !*/;-'&! 22 !*"'1/4! !*"'/14'7! 40 !*"'10'! 68 !*"'6*/$! 111 !*"64! !*"/64'! 100 !*"/;2! !*"/;&8'! 23 !5/%! 450 !51-! !5/%-! !5/%-'! 20 !5%#! 2,363 !51! 88 !51-'/1*! 23 !5/1#&! 25 !5/1&8'! 1,269 !5/,! !5,"! 412 !5$! !5/,$! 51 !5/6-&! 260 !56/4! 85 !5/;04!

88 89 654 1,797 33 42 13 13 64 16 60 81 11 11 40 68 59 52 50 50 23 96 237 117 20 2,363 88 23 25 1,111 158 277 135 51 260 85

+ $ $ + + + + + $ $ $ + + + $ + $ + + + + $ + + $ $ + + + + $ $ + + + +

$ + $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ + $

392 Appendix 4: The computational phonology as a Prolog Definite Clause Grammar /*

:-

A computational phonology of Russian. For use in parsing and generating Russian word-forms. The variety of Prolog used here is Poplog Prolog.*/ op(21,xfy,':').

/* Top-level predicate: this finds all possible structures for a given string of phonemes (the variable Word), matched with their respective likelihoods (Prob). Prob is computed as the log likelihood of the syllable structure plus the log likelihood of the morphological structure. The number of possible parses (Number), whether the word-form is marked or unmarked for plural stress retraction (Mark), a morphological structure (Mstructure), syllable structure (Pstructure), and morphological tokenization (Tokenization) are also returned. The predicate mpword stipulates that a well-formed word-form (an “mpword”) of Russian must have both a morphological and syllable structure (it must be both an “mwd” and a “pwd”), in accordance with the grammar modules below.*/ mpword(Tokenization,Number,Prob,Mark,Mstructure,Pstructure,Word):fast_setof ( (A1,T,M,MS,PS), ( mwd(T1,M,MS,A2,Word,""), pwd(A3,M,PS,Word,""), A1 is -(A2 + A3) ), [(Prob,T,Mark,Mstructure,Pstructure)|NT] ), !, length(NT,N), Number is N + 1. /* Russian syllabification grammar */ pwd(Z,R,pwd(W,S)) --> weakfoot( Z1,[left:_,right:V2],W), strongfoot( Z2,[left:V1,right:R],S), {unif(V2,[peripheral:1|_]), Z is Z1 + Z2, voicing_assim(V1,V2)}. pwd(Z,R,pwd(S)) --> strongfoot( Z1,[left:_,right:R],S), {Z is Z1 + 1}. weakfoot(Z, [left:L,right:R],weakfoot(W1,W2)) --> syllable( Z1, [left:L, right:V2], W1), weakfoot( Z2,[left:V1,right:R], W2), {unif(V2,[stress_det:0,stress:0,peripheral:0|_]), Z is Z1 + Z2, voicing_assim(V1,V2)}.

393 weakfoot( Z, syllable(

[left:L,right:R],weakfoot(W1)) --> Z, [left:L, right:R], W1), {unif(R,[stress_det:0,stress:0|_])}.

strongfoot( Z, syllable(

[left:L,right:R],strongfoot(S)) --> Z, [left:L, right:R], S), {unif(R,[stress_det:1,stress:1,pl_retr:0,vfv:0|_])}.

strongfoot( Z, syllable(

[left:L,right:R],strongfoot(S,W)) --> Z1, [left:L, right:V2], S), weakfoot( Z2,[left:V1,right:R],W), {unif(V2,[stress_det:1,stress:1|_]), unif(R,[pl_retr:0,peripheral:0,vfv:0|_]), Z is Z1 + Z2, voicing_assim(V1,V2)}.

strongfoot( Z, syllable(

[left:L,right:R],strongfoot(SA,SB)) --> Z1, [left:L, right:V2], SA), syllable( Z2, [left:V1, right:R], SB), {unif(V2,[stress_det:0,stress:1|_]), unif(R,[stress_det:1,stress:0,pl_retr:1,vfv:0|_]), Z is Z1 + Z2, voicing_assim(V1,V2)}.

strongfoot( Z, syllable(

[left:L,right:R],strongfoot(SA,SB,W)) --> Z1, [left:L, right:V4], SA), syllable( Z2, [left:V3, right:V2], SB), weakfoot( Z3, [left:V1,right:R],W), {unif(V4,[stress_det:0,stress:1|_]), unif(V2,[stress_det:1,stress:0|_]), unif(R,[peripheral:0,pl_retr:1,vfv:0|_]), Z is Z1 + Z2 + Z3, voicing_assim(V1,V2), voicing_assim(V3,V4)}.

394 syllable( onset( rime(

Z, [left:LM, right:RM], syllable(O,R)) --> Z1, [left:LM, right:LRM], O), Z2, [left:RLM, right:RM], R),

{ Z is Z2 + log(Z1/71637), cv_interdependency(RLM,LRM), unif([stress_det:H1,stress:H2,peripheral:H3|_],LRM), unif([stress_det:H1,stress:H2,peripheral:H3|_],RLM) }. syllable(

Z, [left:LM, right:RM], syllable(R)) --> rime( Z, [left:LM, right:RM], R), {unif(LM,[onset:[]|_])}.

onset(

32, [left:P1, right:P4], onset(S1,S2,S3,S4)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), segment(P3,S3), segment(P4,S4), {unif( [sonor:0, cont:1, coron:0, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:1, anter:1 |_], P2), unif( [cont:0, del_rel:0 |_], P3), unif( [cons:1, voc:1 |_], P4), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P4), voicing_assim(P4,P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P4,P3), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2), unif([stress_det:H|_],P3), unif([stress_det:H|_],P4)}.

395 onset(

2, [left:P1, right:P3], onset(S1,S2,S3)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), segment(P3,S3), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:0, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, anter:1 |_], P2), unif( [cons:1, sonor:1 |_], P3), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2), unif([stress_det:H|_],P3)}.

onset(

9, [left:P1, right:P3], onset(S1,S2,S3)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), segment(P3,S3), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:0, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, anter:1, coron:1 |_], P2), unif( [cont:0, del_rel:0 |_], P3), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2), unif([stress_det:H|_],P3)}.

396 onset(

717, [left:P1, right:P3], onset(S1,S2,S3)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), segment(P3,S3), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cont:0, del_rel:0 |_], P2), unif( [cons:1, sonor:1, nasal:0 |_], P3), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P3), voicing_assim(P3,P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P3,P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2), unif([stress_det:H|_],P3)}.

onset(

1643, [left:P1, right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:1, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cont:0 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

onset(

74, [left:P1, right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:1, anter:0 |_], P1), unif( [cont:0, del_rel:0 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

397 onset(

1200, [left:P1, right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, anter:1 |_], P1), unif( [cons:1 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

onset(

1252, [left:P1, right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cons:1, voc:0, del_rel:0 |_], P1), unif( [cons:1, voc:1 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

onset(

53, [left:P1, right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [sonor:0, del_rel:0 |_], P1), unif( [cons:1, voc:0, sonor:1, nasal:1 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

398 onset(

885, [left:[sonor:0|P1], right:P2], onset(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [sonor:0 |_], P1), unif( [cons:1, sonor:1, nasal:0 |_], P2), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

onset(

23295, [left:P1, right:P1], onset(S1)) --> segment(P1,S1), {unif( [cons:1|_], P1), voicing_assim([sonor:1|_],P1)}.

/* Rimes */ rime(

Z, [left:L, right:L], rime(N)) --> nucleus( NUC, [left:L], N), {Z is log(NUC/71637)}.

rime(

Z, [left:LM, right:RM], rime(N,C)) --> nucleus( NUC, [left:LM], N), coda( COD, [right:RM], C), {Z is log(NUC/71637) + log(COD/71637), unif([stress_det:H1,stress:H2,peripheral:H3|_],RM), unif([stress_det:H1,stress:H2,peripheral:H3|_],LM)}.

/* Single-consonant codas */ coda(

5535, [right:P], coda(C)) --> segment(P,C), {unif(P,[cons:1|_]), voicing_assim(P,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P)}.

399 coda(

64, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cons:1, voc:1|_],P1), unif( [cons:1, voc:0|_],P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

79, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [del_rel:0|_], P1), unif( [cont:0, coron:1, anter:1, del_rel:0|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

12, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cons:1, voc:0, sonor:1, nasal:1|_], P1), unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:1|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

400 coda(

10, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cons:1, voc:0, sonor:1, nasal:1|_], P1), unif( [cont:0|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

1, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cont:0, coron:0|_], P1), unif( [cont:1, sonor:0, coron:1, anter:1|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

1, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [sonor:0, cont:1, coron:1, anter:1|_], P1), unif( [cont:0, coron:0, anter:0|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

401 coda(

15, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [sonor:0, cont:1, coron:1, anter:0|_], P1), unif( [cont:0, coron:1, anter:0|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

8, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [sonor:0, cont:1, coron:1, anter:1|_], P1), unif( [cons:1, voc:0, anter:1|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

coda(

16, [right:P2], coda(S1,S2)) --> segment(P1,S1), segment(P2,S2), {unif( [cont:0, del_rel:0|_], P1), unif( [cons:1, voc:1, coron:1|_], P2), voicing_assim(P2,P1), voicing_assim(P1,[sonor:1|_]), cv_interdependency([cons:1|_],P2), cv_interdependency(P2,P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P1), unif([stress_det:H|_],P2)}.

nucleus(

32666, [left:L], nucleus(P)) --> segment(L,P), {unif( [cons:0, voc:1|_], L)}.

segment([],N,[F1|T],T).

402 segment(F,N,[F1|T],T):phoneme(F1,X,""), name(N,X), unif(F,F1). /*Definition of voicing assimilation constraints*/ voicing_assim(X,Y):unif(X,[sonor:1|_]), unif(Y,[sonor:1,vfv:1|_]). voicing_assim(X,Y):unif(X,[sonor:1|_]), unif(Y,[sonor:0,voice:V,vfv:V|_]). voicing_assim(X,Y):unif(X,[sonor:0,vfv:V|_]), unif(Y,[vfv:V|_]). /*Definition of consonant-vowel interdependency constraints*/ cv_interdependency(X,Y):unif( [cons:0, back:F1, high:F2, onset:[back:F4,high:F3|_]|_], unif( [cons:1, high:F3, back:F4, rime:[high:F2,back:F1|_]|_],

X),

Y).

cv_interdependency(X,Y):unif( [cons:1|_], X), unif( [cons:1, rime:[back:1|_]|_], Y). /*Word-formation grammar*/ mwd(T,M,morphological_word(N),A) --> noun(T,M,N,A). mwd(T,[pl_retr:0|_],morphological_word(V),A) --> verb(T,V,A). mwd(T,[pl_retr:0|_],morphological_word(R),A) --> refl_verb(T,R,A). mwd(T,[pl_retr:0|_],morphological_word(Adj),A) --> adj(T,Adj,A). mwd(T,[pl_retr:0|_],morphological_word(Adv),A) --> adv(T,Adv,A). mwd(T,[pl_retr:0|_],morphological_word(P),A) --> part(T,P,A). noun([T1|T2],F1,noun(NS,P),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,NS,Z1), in(T1,P,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3), pl_retr(F1,F2,F3) }.

403 verb([T1|T2],F1,verb(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), iv(T1,Y,F3,'',_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), unif([stress:1|_],F2), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. refl_verb([T1|T2],F1,refl_verb(X,Y),A) --> verb(T2,F2,X,Z1), c(T1,Y,[pos:particle|F3],'Sa',_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), unif([refl:1|_],F1), unif([refl:0|_],F2), unif([refl:1|_],F3) }. adj([T1|T2],F1,adj(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), ip(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { not(X = [("N",_)|_]), not(X = [("T",_)|_]), A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), unif([stress:1|_],F1), unif([stress:1|_],F2), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adv([T1|T2],F1,adv(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), ipu(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { not(X = [("N",_)|_]), not(X = [("T",_)|_]), A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), unif([stress:1|_],F1), unif([stress:1|_],F2), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. part([T],part(Y),A) --> c(T,Y,_,_,_,_,Z1), { A is log(Z1/1318181) }. noun_stem([T],F,noun_stem(Y),A) --> rn(T,Y,F,_,_,_,Z1), { A is log(Z1/1318181) }.

404 noun_stem([T1,T2],F1,noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> c(T2,X,[pos:prefix|F2],_,_,_,Z1), rn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is log(Z1/1318181) + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[collective|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,'Estv',_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[collective|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,D1,Acc1,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,'Estv',_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[qualityname|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[agent|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,'TeL',_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[obj_w_attrib|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,[concrete|F2],X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }.

405 noun_stem([T1|T2],[obj_w_attrib|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[obj_w_attrib|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[deverbal|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[diminutive|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[diminutive|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1,T2|T3],[diminutive|F1],noun_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> noun_stem(T3,F2,X,Z1), sn(T2,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), sn(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }.

406 noun_stem([T1,T2|T3],[diminutive|F1],noun_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> adj_stem(T3,F2,X,Z1), sn(T2,Y,F3,c,_,_,Z2), sn(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. noun_stem([T1,T2,T3|T4],[diminutive|F1],D,noun_stem(X,Y,Z,P),A) --> adj_stem(T4,F2,X,Z1), sn(T3,Y,F3,c,_,_,Z2), sn(T2,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), sn(T1,P,F5,_,_,_,Z4), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181) + log(Z4/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(Fy,Fx,F4), assign_stress(F1,Fy,F5), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(Fy,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(F1,Fy,F5) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[action|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,[sfppart|F2],X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,_,_,3823,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[institution|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,iJ,"2",1829,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. noun_stem([T1|T2],[institution|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,iJ,"2",1829,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }.

407 noun_stem([T1|T2],[place|F1],noun_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sn(T1,Y,F3,ic,"",524,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T],F,adj_stem(Y),A) --> ra(T,Y,F,_,_,_,Z1), { A is log(Z1/1318181) }. adj_stem([T1,T2],F1,adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> c(T2,X,[pos:prefix|F2],_,_,_,Z1), ra(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is log(Z1/1318181) + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1,T2],F1,adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> ra(T2,Y,F2,_,_,_,Z1), sa(T1,Z,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is log(Z1/1318181) + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1,T2,T3],F1,adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> c(T3,X,[pos:prefix|F2],_,_,_,Z1), ra(T2,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), sa(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is log(Z1/1318181) + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }.

408 adj_stem([T1|T2],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,[agent|F2],X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1,T2|T3],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> noun_stem(T3,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), sa(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. adj_stem([T1,T2|T3],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> noun_stem(T3,F2,X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,ik,"2",1168,Z2), sa(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> noun_stem(T2,[obj_w_attrib|F2],X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }.

409 adj_stem([T1,T2|T3],[desubst|F1],adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> noun_stem(T3,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,ik,"2",1168,Z2), sa(T1,Z,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[comparative|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,’aJw’,"",47,47), { A is Z1 + log(47/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[comparative|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,’eJ’,"",_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[deverbal|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1,T2|T3],[ppart|F1],adj_stem(X,Y,Z),A) --> verb_stem(T3,F2,X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,n,"2",_,Z2), sa(T1,Z,F4,n,"2",_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[ppart|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,’t’,"1",_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }.

410 adj_stem([T1|T2],[sfppart|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,’n’,"2",_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. adj_stem([T1|T2],[sfppart|F1],adj_stem(X,Y),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,X,Z1), sa(T1,Y,F3,’t’,"1",_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. verb_stem([T],F,verb_stem(X),A) --> rv(T,X,F,_,_,_,Z1), { A is log(Z1/1318181) }. verb_stem([T1,T2],F1,verb_stem(X,Y),A) --> c(T2,X,[pos:prefix|F2],_,_,_,Z1), rv(T1,Y,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is log(Z1/1318181) + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. verb_stem([T1|T2],[thematic|F1],verb_stem(Y,Z),A) --> verb_stem(T2,F2,Y,Z1), sv(T1,Z,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. verb_stem([T1,T2|T3],[frequentative|F1],verb_stem(Q1,Q,R),A) --> verb_stem(T3,F2,Q1,Z1), sv(T2,Q,F3,_,_,_,Z2), sv(T1,R,F4,_,_,_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }.

411 verb_stem([T1|T2],[denominal|F1],verb_stem(Y,Z),A) --> adj_stem(T2,F2,Y,Z1), sv(T1,Z,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. verb_stem([T1|T2],[denominal|F1],verb_stem(Y,Z),A) --> noun_stem(T2,F2,Y,Z1), sv(T1,Z,F3,_,_,_,Z2), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181), assign_stress(F1,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,F2,F3) }. verb_stem([T1,T2|T3],[denominal|F1],verb_stem(X,Y,rv(a)),A) --> noun_stem(T3,[deverbal|F2],X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,’ov’,[],2328,Z2), sv(T1,rv(a),F4,_,"i",_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. verb_stem([T1,T2|T3],[denominal|F1],verb_stem(X,Y,rv(a)),A) --> noun_stem(T3,F2,X,Z1), sa(T2,Y,F3,’ov’,[],2328,Z2), sv(T1,rv(a),F4,_,"i",_,Z3), { A is Z1 + log(Z2/1318181) + log(Z3/1318181), assign_stress(Fx,F2,F3), assign_stress(F1,Fx,F4), vowel_zero(Fx,F2,F3), vowel_zero(F1,Fx,F4) }. /*Definition of stress assignment constraints*/ assign_stress(X,Y,Z):unif([acc:1,stress:S|_],X), unif([stress:0|_],Y), unif([dom:1,stress:S|_],Z). assign_stress(X,Y,Z):unif([acc:1,stress:S|_],X), unif([acc:1,stress:S|_],Y), unif([dom:0|_],Z). assign_stress(X,Y,Z):unif([acc:1,stress:S|_],X), unif([acc:0|_],Y), unif([acc:1,stress:S|_],Z).

412 assign_stress(_,Y,Z):unif([acc:0|_],Y), unif([acc:0,dom:0|_],Z). /*Definition of jer constraints*/ vowel_zero(X,Y,Z):unif([strong:P|_],X), unif([strong:Q|_],Y), unif([strong:P,left:[high:Q,tense:0|_]|_]). vowel_zero(X,Y,Z):unif([strong:P|_],X), unif([strong:0|_],Y), unif([strong:P,left:[tense:1|_]|_]). /*Definition of plural stress retraction constraints*/ pl_retr(X,Y,Z):unif([pl_retr:1|_],X), unif([num:pl,pl_retr:1|_],Y). pl_retr(X,Y,Z):unif([pl_retr:0|_],X), unif([pl_retr:0|_],Y), unif([pl_retr:0|_],Z). /*The general definition of the unification function*/ unif(X,X):- !. unif([F:V1|Rest1],[F:V2|Rest2]):- !, unif(V1,V2), unif(Rest1,Rest2). unif([F1|Rest1],[F2|Rest2]):unif([F2|Rest3],Rest1), unif(Rest2,[F1|Rest3]).

413 References Afaneseva, Alla. 1984. Udarenie v razli7nyx tipax razgovornoj re7i: imja suš7estvitel'noe. Voronež: VGU. Andersen, Henning. 1969. The phonological status of the Russian “labial fricatives”. Journal of Linguistics 5, 121-127. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological theory. In Newmeyer (1988), 146-191. Archangeli, Diana. 1991. Syllabification and prosodic templates in Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 231-283. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark and Frank Anshen. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer and Zwicky (1998), 237-247. Aronoff, Mark and Richard T. Oehrle (eds.). 1984. Language sound structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovi;. 1956. Fonetika sovremennogo literaturnogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta. Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovi; and S. I. Ožegov. 1959. Russkoe literaturnoe proiznošenie i udarenie: slovar’-spravo7nik. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej. Baayen, Harald. 1992. Statistical models for word-frequency distributions: a linguistic evaluation. Computers and the Humanities 26, 347-363. Baayen, Harald and Richard Sproat. 1996. Estimating lexical priors for low-frequency morphologically ambiguous forms. Computational Linguistics 22, 155-166. Barry, Susan. 1989. Aspects of sonorant devoicing in Russian. Speech Hearing and Language: Work in Progress 3, 47-59. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London. Barxudarov, S. G. et al. (eds.). 1975. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI-XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka. Bear, John. 1990. Backwards phonology. In Karlgren (1990), volume 3, 13-20. Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In Spencer and Zwicky (1998), 44-65. Benveniste, Émile. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en Indo-Européen (second edition). Paris: Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve.

414 Berendsen, Egon. 1983. Russian voicing assimilation and the behavior of Moscow V. Linguistic Analysis 12, 399-413. Bethin, Christina Y. 1998. Slavic prosody: language change and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bird, Steven. 1995. Computational phonology: a constraint-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bird, Steven, J. S. Coleman, J. B. Pierrehumbert and J. M. Scobbie. 1992. Declarative Phonology. In A. Crochetière, J.-C. Boulanger, and C. Ouellon (eds.). Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference of Linguists. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith (1995), 206-244. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: H. Holt and Company. Blumstein, Sheila E. 1991. The relation between phonetics and phonology. Phonetica 48, 108-119. Bondarko, Lija Vasil’evna. 1969. The syllable structure of speech and distinctive features of phonemes. Phonetica 20, 1-40. Bondarko, Lija Vasil’evna. 1977. Zvukovoj stroj sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Prosveš;enie. Booij, Geert. 1983. Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics 21, 249-280. Booij, Geert and Jerzy Rubach. 1984. Morphological and prosodic domains in lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1, 1-27. Boyer, Michel. 1988. Towards functional logic grammars. Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming 2, 45-61. Breen, Gavan and Rob Pensalfini. 1999. Arrernte: a language with no onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 1-25. Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan, and R. M. Kaplan. 1982. Introduction: grammars as mental representations of language. In Bresnan (1982), xvii-lii. Bresnan, Joan, Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanley Peters, and Annie Zaenen. 1982. Crossserial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 613-635. Bromberger, Sylvain and Morris Halle. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 51-70.

415 Brown, Dunstan, Greville Corbett, Norman Fraser, Andrew Hippisley and Alan Timberlake. 1996. Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics 34, 53107. Bulanin, Lev L’vovi;. 1970. Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Visšaja Škola. Burton, Martha W. and Karen E. Robblee. 1997. A phonetic analysis of voicing assimilation in Russian. Journal of Phonetics 25, 97-114. Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond and Noonan (eds.). Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. 119-141. Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Cheng, Robert. 1966. Mandarin phonological structure. Journal of Linguistics 2, 135158. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2, 137-167. Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. In Luce, Bush and Galanter (1963), 323-418. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co. 184-221. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Chomsky, Noam, and George Miller. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, Bush and Galanter (1963), 269-321. Christie, William. 1976. Another look at classical phonemics. Language Sciences 39, 37-39. Church, Kenneth. 1983. Phrase-structure parsing: a method for taking advantage of allophonic constraints. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Reprinted by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.

416 Church, Kenneth. 1986. Morphological decomposition and stress assignment for speech synthesis. In The Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 156-164. Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman (eds.). Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283-333. Clements, George N. and Samuel J. Keyser. 1983. CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clocksin, William F., and Christopher S. Mellish. 1981. Programming in Prolog. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Coats, Herbert S. 1997. On the phonemic status of Russian (8':). Russian Linguistics 21, 157-164. Coats, Herbert S. and Alex P. Harshenin. 1971. On the phonological properties of Russian v. The Slavic and East European Journal 15, 466-478. Cole, Jennifer S. 1995. The cycle in phonology. In Goldsmith (1995), 70-113. Coleman, John S. 1990. Unification phonology: another look at "synthesis-by-rule". In Karlgren (1990), volume 2, 79-84. Coleman, John S. 1993. English word-stress in unification-based grammar. In Ellison and Scobbie (1993), 97-106. Coleman, John S. 1996. Declarative syllabification in Tashlhit Berber. In Durand and Laks (1996), 177-218. Coleman, John S. 1998. Phonological representations: their names, forms and powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, John S., A. Dirksen, S. Hussain and J. Waals. 1996. Multilingual phonological analysis and speech synthesis. In Proceedings of computational phonology in speech technology: second meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 67-72. Coleman, John S. and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Computational phonology: third meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49-56. Corbett, Greville, and Norman Fraser. 1993. Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113-142. Dirksen, Arthur. 1993. Phrase structure phonology. In Ellison and Scobbie (1993), 8196.

417 Dresher, B. Elan and Jonathan Kaye. 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34, 137-195. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Morphonology : the dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers Inc. Durand, J. and B. Laks (eds.). 1996. Current trends in phonology: models and methods, volume 6. Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford. Dybo, Vladimir Antonovi;. 1981. Slavjanskaja akcentologija: opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom. Moscow: Nauka. Ellison, T. M. and J. M. Scobbie (eds.). Computational phonology. Edinburgh working papers in cognitive science 8. Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh. Evans, Roger, and Gerald Gazdar. 1989a. Inference in DATR. In Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 60-62 April 6989. Manchester: University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. 66-71. Evans, Roger, and Gerald Gazdar. 1989b. The semantics of DATR. In Anthony G. Cohn (ed.). Proceedings of the seventh conference of the society for the study of artificial intelligence and simulation of behaviour. London: Pitman. 79-87. Evans, Roger, and Gerald Gazdar. 1995. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 382. Brighton: University of Sussex. Fedjanina, Nina Arxipovna. 1976. Udarenie v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. Fudge, Erik C. 1969. Syllables. Journal of Linguistics 5, 253-286. Garde, Paul. 1976. Histoire de l'accentuation slave. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Garde, Paul. 1980. Grammaire russe: I. Phonologie. Morphologie. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Gladney, Frank Y. 1995. The accent of Russian verbforms. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3, 97-138. Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Reprinted by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

418 Goldsmith, John A. (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Grammont, Maurice. 1933. Traité de phonétique. Paris: Librairie Delagrave. Grishman, Ralph. 1986. Computational linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gvozdev, Aleksandr Nikolaevi;. 1949. O fonologi7eskix sredstvax russkogo jazyka: sbornik statej. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Pedagogi;eskix Nauk RSFSR. Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, Morris. 1973. The accentuation of Russian words. Language 49, 312-348. Halle, Morris. 1975. On Russian accentuation. Slavonic and East European Journal 19, 104-111. Halle, Morris. 1997. On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73, 275-313. Halle, Morris, and Paul Kiparsky. 1979. Internal constituent structure and accent in Russian words. Folia Slavica 3, 128-153. Halle, Morris, and Paul Kiparsky. 1981. Review of Garde (1976). Language 57, 150181. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1981. Harmony processes. In W. Klein and W. Levelt (eds.). Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1-23. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, James W. 1989. The stress erasure convention and cliticization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 339-363. Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haugen, Einar. 1956. The syllable in linguistic description. In M. Halle, H.G. Lunt, H. McLean, and C.H. Van Schooneveld (eds.). For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton. 213-221. Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Aronoff and Oehrle (1984), 318-328.

419 Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Hooper, Joan B. 1972. The syllable in linguistic theory. Language 48, 525-540. Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press. Houlihan, Kathleen. 1979. On assimilatory and non-assimilatory phonological rules. Glossa 13, 13-26. Idsardi, William J. 1992. The computation of prosody. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Illi;-Svity;, Vladislav Markovi;. 1963. Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom: sud'ba akcentuacionnyx paradigm. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Isa;enko, A. V. 1970. East Slavic morphophonemics and the treatment of the jers in Russian: a revision of Havlik’s Law. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13, 73-124. Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 635-671. Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. Prague: Jednota Keskoslovenských MatematikL a FysikL. Jakobson, Roman. 1931. Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4, 164-182. Jakobson, Roman. 1956. Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen. In Margarete Woltner and Herbert Bräuer (eds.). Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 6956. Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei Otto Harrassowitz. 199-202. Jakobson, Roman. 1978. Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica 32, 107-110. Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Acoustics Laboratory Technical Report No. 13, January 1952. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Jefremova, Tatjana Fedorovna. 1971. Review of Worth, Kozak and Johnson (1970). Voprosy jazykoznanija 1971 (4), 112-117. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner.

420 Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Published 1980 in New York by Garland Press Karlgren, Hans (ed.). 1990. COLING-90: papers presented to the 63th international conference on computational linguistics. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Kenstowicz, Michael J. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. In Osamu Fujimura et al. (eds.). Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 1-136. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-6986. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. 3-91. Kiparsky, Paul and Morris Halle. 1977. Towards a reconstruction of the IndoEuropean accent. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.). Studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. 209-238. Kohler, Klaus. 1966. Towards a phonological theory. Lingua 16, 337-351. Kuhn Plapp, Rosemary. 1996. Russian !i! and !i! as underlying segments. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4, 76-108. Lagerberg, Robert. 1992. The relationship between stress and affixation in Russian. Ph. D. dissertation, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London. Larin, Boris Aleksandrovi;. 1959. Russko-anglijskij slovar’-dnevnik Ri7arda Džemsa (6668-6669). Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo leningradskogo universiteta. Leben, William R., and Orrin W. Robinson. 1976. ‘Upside-down’ phonology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lightner, Theodore M. 1972. Problems in the theory of phonology, volume 6. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Luce, R. Duncan, Robert R. Bush and Eugene Galanter (eds.). 1963. Handbook of mathematical psychology, volume 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matusevi;, Margarita Ivanovna. 1976. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: fonetika. Moscow: Prosveš;enie.

421 McCarthy, John J. 1982. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Ph. D. dissertation 1979, reprinted. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. McCarthy, John J., and Alan S. Prince. ms 1993. Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University. Melvold, Janis L. 1989. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Miller, George and Noam Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce, Bush and Galanter (1963), 419-491. Nesset, Tore. 1994. Russian stress: stress as an inflectional formative in Russian noun paradigms and Bybee’s cognitive morphology. Oslo: Novus Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). 1988. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oliverius, ZdenMk F. 1974. Fonetika russkogo jazyka. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Oliverius, ZdenMk F. 1976. Morfemy russkogo jazyka: 7astotnyj slovar’. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Panov, Mixail Viktorovi;. (ed.). 1968. Russkij jazyk i sovetskoe obš7estvo: sociologolingvisti7eskoe issledovanie. Moscow: Nauka. Panov, Mixail Viktorovi;. 1979. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: Fonetika. Moscow: Visšaja Škola. Pesetsky, David. ms 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Cambridge, MA, MIT. Pierrehumbert, Janet and Rami Nair. 1995. Word games and syllable structure. Language and Speech 38, 77-114. Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince. 1988. On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73-193. Piotrowski, Marek. 1992. Polish yers in non-linear phonology. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, H. C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer, and J. R. Rennison (eds.). Phonologica 6988: Proceedings of the sixth international phonology meeting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 215-227. Piotrowski, Marek, Iggy Roca & Andrew Spencer. 1992. Polish yers and lexical syllabicity. The Linguistic Review 9, 27-67. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, volume I: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

422 Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row. Press, J. Ian. 1986. Aspects of the phonology of the Slavonic languages. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Red’kin, Vitalij Andrejevi;. 1971. Akcentologija sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka: posobie dlja u7itelej. Moscow: Prosveš;enie. Reformatskij, Aleksandr Aleksandrovi;. (ed.). 1970. Iz istorii ote7estvennoj fonologii. O7erk. Xrestomatija. Moscow: Nauka. Reformatskij, Aleksandr Aleksandrovi;. 1975. Fonologi7eskie ètjudy. Moscow: Nauka. Robblee, Karen E. and Martha W. Burton. 1997. Sonorant voicing transparency in Russian. In Wayles Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova and D. Zec (eds.). Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the Cornell meeting 6995. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 407-434. Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris. Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three dimensional phonology: the yers. The Linguistic Review 5, 247-280. Rubach, Jerzy. 1995. Representations and the organization of rules in Slavic phonology. In Goldsmith (1995), 848-866. Rubach, Jerzy, and Geert Booij. 1990. Syllable structure assignment in Polish. Phonology 7, 121-158. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: a theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Librairie Payot. Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Š;erba, Lev Vladimirovi;. 1912. Russkie glasnye v ka7estvennom i koli7estvennom otnošenii. St. Petersburg: Tipografija Ju. N. Erlix. Schane, Sanford. 1971. The phoneme revisited. Language 47, 503-521. Scobbie, James, John Coleman and Steven Bird. 1996. Key aspects of declarative phonology. In Durand and Laks (1996), 685-709. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982a. The syllable. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.). The structure of phonological representations (part II). Dordrecht: Foris. 337383. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982b. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

423 Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff and Oehrle (1984), 107-136. Shapiro, Michael. 1986. The Russian system of stress. Russian Linguistics 10, 183204. Shapiro, Michael. 1993. Russian non-distinctive voicing: a stocktaking. Russian Linguistics 17, 1-14. Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Criteria for designing computer facilities for linguistic analysis. Linguistics 23, 189-211. Shieber, Stuart M. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Siegel, Dorothy. 1977. The adjacency condition and the theory of morphology. Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 8, 189-197. Sievers, Eduard. 1881. Grundzüge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. Slowiaczek, Louise, and Daniel Dinnsen. 1985. On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 13, 325-341. Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Modern phonology. London: Arnold. Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A nonlinear analysis of vowel zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22, 249-280. Spencer, Andrew. 1998. Morphophonological operations. In Spencer and Zwicky (1998), 123-143. Spencer, Andrew, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.). 1998. The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Abstract published in The Linguistic Review 5, 185-196. Stang, Christian S. 1957. Slavonic accentuation. Oslo: I kommisjon hos H. Aschehoug (W. Nygaard). Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT. Švedova, Natalia Jul’evna et al. (eds.). 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moscow: Nauka. Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. Ghost segments in nonlinear phonology: Polish yers. Language 48, 277-312. Thelin, Nils B. 1974. On the phonological status of the Russian geminate palatals. Russian Linguistics 1, 163-178.

424 Thelin, Nils B. 1983. The Russian geminate palatals in a processual and more realistic functional perspective, or: why Michael Flier’s monkey-tail argument cannot convince me of there being 5 (or more) phonemes in 18%&. Russian Linguistics 7, 167-192. Tixonov, Aleksandr Nikolaevi;. 1985-90. Slovoobrazovatel’nyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka, volumes 1-2. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. Toman, JindNich. 1998. Word syntax. In Spencer and Zwicky (1998), 306-321. Tornow, Siegfried. 1984. Die häufigsten Akzenttypen in der russischen Flexion. Berlin: Osteuropa-Institut. Townsend, Charles E. 1975. Russian word-formation. Corrected reprint of original edition, 1968. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Trofimov, Mixail V. and Daniel Jones. 1923. The pronunciation of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vennemann, Theo. 1972. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18, 1-18. Walther, Markus. 1993. Declarative syllabification with applications to German. In Ellison and Scobbie (1993), 55-79. Weinberg, Amy S. 1988. Mathematical properties of grammars. In Newmeyer (1988), 416-429. Whitney, William D. 1865. On the relation of vowels and consonants. Journal of the American Oriental Society 8, 357-373. Worth, Dean S., Andrew S. Kozak and Donald B. Johnson. 1970. Russian derivational dictionary. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evi;. 1967. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evi;. 1977. Grammati7eskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evi;. 1985. Ot pravoslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj, Moscow: Nauka. Zemskaja, Elena Andreevna. 1973. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Slovoobrazovanije. Moscow. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Robert Levine (ed.). Formal grammar: theory and implementation. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 327-371.