Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics (No. 86))

In Slavic Prosody, Christina Bethin gives a coherent account of the Slavic languages at the time of their differentiation and relates these developments to issues in phonological theory. First Professor Bethin argues that the syllable structure of Slavic changed before the fall of the jers and suggests that intrasyllabic and intersyllabic reorganization in Late Common Slavic was far more significant for Slavic prosody than the loss of weak jers. She then makes a case for the existence of a bisyllabic prosodic domain in Late Common Slavic and trochaic metrical organization. What proves especially intriguing is the finding that the syllabic trochee was supported by a redistribution of quantity. Finally, she explores the implications of Slavic data for phonological theory, discussing sonority, skeletal structure, the representation of length and prominence, and language typology in some detail. By demonstrating that a nonlinear representation of the syllable together with the notion of constraint interaction can account for a wide range of data, this study takes a position on the nature of phonological representation and on a model of language change. In its attention to the history of selected problems of Slavic linguistics the book also offers a detailed survey of the field.

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN LINGUISTICS General Editors: s. R. ANDERSON, J. BRESNAN, B. COMRIE, W. DRESSLER, C. EWEN, R. HUDDLESTON, R. LASS, D. LIGHTFOOT, J. LYONS, P. H. MATTHEWS, R. POSNER, S. ROMAINE, N. V. SMITH, N.VINCENT

Slavic Prosody

In this series 68

75 76 11 78

Negative and positive polarity: a binding approach R. M. w. DIXON:Ergativity YAN HUANG: The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora KNUD LAMBRECHT: Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents LUIGI BURZIO : Principles of English stress J O H N A . H AW K I N s: A performance theory of order and constituency ALICE c. HARRIS andLYLE CAMPBELL: Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective LILIANE HAEGEMAN: The syntax of negation PAUL GORRELL: Syntax and parsing GUGLIELMO CINQUE: Italian syntax and Universal Grammar HENRY SMITH: Restrictiveness in case theory

79

D. ROBERT

80

The raising ofpredicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure ROGER LASS: Historical linguistics and language change J O H N M . A N D E R S O N : A notional theory of syntactic categories BERND HEINE : Possession: cognitive sources, forces andgrammaticalization NOMIERTESCHIK-SHIR: The dynamics of focus structure JOHN COLEMAN: Phonological representations: their names, forms and powers CHRISTINA Y. BETHIN: Slavic prosody: language change and phonological theory

69 70 71 72 73 74

81 82 83 84 85 86

LJILJANAPROGOVAC:

LADD:IntonationalPhonology

ANDREA MORO:

Supplementary volumes Theory and description in generative syntax: a case study in West Flemish A. E. BACKHOUSE: The lexical field of taste: a semantic study of Japanese taste terms NICKOLAUS RITT: Quantity adjustment: vowel lengthening and shortening in early Middle English LILIANE HAEGEMAN:

Earlier issues not listed are also available

SLAVIC PROSODY Language change and phonological theory

CHRISTINA Y. BETHIN State University ofNew York at Stony Brook

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521591485 © Christina Y. Bethin 1998 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1998 This digitally printed first paperback version 2006 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Bethin, Christina Y. (Christina Yurkiw) Slavic Prosody: language change and phonological theory / Christina Y. Bethin. p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in linguistics; 86) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 59148 1 (hardback) 1. Proto-Slavic language — Phonology, Historical. 2. Proto-Slavic language - Prosodic analysis. 3. Slavic languages - Prosodic analysis. 4. Slavic languages - Phonology, Historical. 5. Grammar, Comparative and general - Phonology. I. Title. II. Series. PG46.B48 1998 491.8 -dc21 97-1215 CIP ISBN-13 978-0-521-59148-5 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-59148-1 hardback ISBN-13 978-0-521-02630-7 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-02630-X paperback

Une theorie de la diachronie de la langue n'est possible que sous l'aspect du problfcme des mutations de structure et de la structure des mutations. (Roman Jakobson, Remarques sur revolution phonologique du russe comparee a celle des autres langues slaves, 1929.)

Contents

List of illustrations Preface List of abbreviations

page xn xiii XV

1.5

Introduction The syllable in Slavic: form and function Background Syllable theory Common Slavic syllable structure 1.2.1 The Moraic Constraint 1.2.2 The Onset Constraint 1.2.3 Intrasyllabic harmony 1.2.4 The No Coda Constraint 1.2.5 Monophthongization Late Common Slavic syllable structures 1.3.1 Changes in nonhigh vowel and liquid diphthongs 1.3.2 Changes in high vowel and liquid diphthongs 1.3.3 Developments in liquid and jer sequences 1.3.4 Changes in the nasal vowels 1.3.5 Syllable structure and "tense jers" 1.3.6 Contraction The bisyllabic domain of Late Common Slavic dialects 1.4.1 Compensatory lengthening 1.4.2 Changes in the jers Conclusions

1 12 12 16 25 28 30 34 38 39 46 47 68 78 84 89 91 95 96 104 107

2 2.0 2.1 2.2

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations Background Metrical theory and the expression of prominence Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

112 112 117 121

1 1.0 1.1 1.2

1.3

1.4

IX

x

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7 2.8 3 3.0 3.1

3.2

3.3

List of contents 2.2.1 The shortening of acutes 2.2.2 The neo-acute retraction The question of quantity in prominence 2.3.1 The progressive shift and the neo-circumflex in Slovene 2.3.2 Bulgarian evidence of quantity 2.3.3 Transitional Late Common Slavic areas: Czech and Upper Sorbian The bisyllabic domain 2.4.1 Pretonic length in North Central Slavic 2.4.2 The Slovak Rhythmic Law 2.4.3 The pretonic syllable in Russian and Belarusian dialects 2.4.4 The question of [6] in northern Russian dialects 2.4.5 Polabian accent shifts 2.4.6 Slovincian retraction Changes in prosodic domains 2.5.1 The Neostokavian accent retraction in Serbian and Croatian 2.5.2 Later prosodic developments in Slovene The evolution of fixed stress 2.6.1 Initial stress systems 2.6.2 Polish penultimate stress 2.6.3 Antepenultimate stress in Macedonian Polabian stress Conclusions

127 129 135 135 141

Theoretical considerations Introduction Sonority and syllable structure 3.1.1 Glides 3.1.2 Vowel-zero alternations Length 3.2.1 Length in Slovak and the Rhythmic Law 3.2.2 Reflexes of *S in Serbian and Croatian 3.2.3 Gemination in Ukrainian Prominence 3.3.1 Stress and length in Slovene 3.3.2 Tone and stress in Serbian and Croatian 3.3.3 Representing prominence

188 188 193 200 205 214 217 224 229 234 236 239 243

142 145 146 149 152 155 157 160 161 162 168 172 175 176 178 180 183

List of contents

xi

3.4

Constraints and constraint interaction

246

3.5

Phonological structure and language typology

251

Conclusion

261

Notes References Index

266 302 347

Illustrations

Map Approximate distribution of Late Common Slavic dialects

page xvi

Tables 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

xn

Common Slavic vowel system (after monophthongization) Changes in VR.C sequences Changes in CVR.C sequences Changes in CVR.C sequences Changes in CRV.C sequences

26 53 57 69 78

Preface

Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory was written at a very active time in the field of linguistics. New ways of analyzing language were being formalized, new studies of Slavic languages were being published, and discussions between Slavists and general linguists were raising some provocative questions. It is my hope that this work will be a contribution to the ongoing discussions in phonology. In this sense, the present study is only a beginning. By reconsidering some long-standing problems of Slavic linguistics from a new theoretical perspective, I have tried to suggest alternative interpretations and solutions to several persistent puzzles of Slavic historical phonology, while exploring some implications of the theoretical assumptions inherent in this approach. The interpretation of Slavic historical phonology presented here evolved over a period of several years and will probably continue to evolve beyond the writing of this book. An earlier version of the analysis of liquid diphthongs may be found in Bethin 1992a and 1994b. Some sections of chapter 2 (2.2 and 2.4.1) first appeared in a slightly different form as Bethin 1993a, and the discussion of the NeoStokavian accent retraction in 2.5.1 is based on material published as Bethin 1994a. An analysis of gemination in Ukrainian first appeared as Bethin 1992c. The writing of this book was greatly facilitated by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities in the form of a Senior Fellowship in 1993-1994 (Grant no. FA-31565-93) and by a six-month sabbatical leave granted by the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1995, for which I am very grateful. Without the resources of the Slavic and Baltic Division of the New York Public Library and the expert assistance of its library staff, the research for this book would have taken many more years. I would also like to acknowledge access to the Slavic collection of the Widener Library of Harvard University. At the Frank Melville, Jr. Memorial Library of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Donna Sammis, also known as the Sherlock Holmes of the Interlibrary Loan Department, was astoundingly resourceful in finding needed references. xiii

xiv

Preface

It has been my good fortune to have excellent linguists as colleagues. Mark Aronoff and Ellen Broselow read chapter 3 of the manuscript, and discussions in the Phonology Workshop also included Robert Hoberman, Marie Huffman, Lori Repetti, and Wendy Sandier, all of whom stimulated my thinking in different ways. To Michael J. Kenstowicz I owe many thanks for a careful reading of the manuscript and suggestions for improvement. My warmest thanks also to Henning Andersen, who was a patient and intellectually generous reader of most of the manuscript. Although we do not look at the history of Slavic in the same way, his comments on the text were invaluable. Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues in the Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures who assisted me in various ways, Elena Boudovskaia for her careful reading of two chapters, Ms. Alison Gilderdale for editorial assistance, and James Bethin for providing unquestioning support and computer expertise.

Abbreviations

ace adj Aves B BR CS Cz dat dim ES fern gen G Gk Gmc Go imp imper instr K La LCS Lith loc LS M

accusative adjective Avestan Bulgarian Belarusian Common Slavic Czech dative diminutive East Slavic feminine genitive German Greek Germanic Gothic imperfective imperative instrumental Kashubian Latin Late Common Slavic Lithuanian locative Lower Sorbian Macedonian

masc neut nom OCS OHG OPr P P Pb perf PIE

masculine neuter nominative Old Church Slavic (Slavonic) Old High German Old Prussian person Polish Polabian perfective Proto-Indo-European pl plural Po Pomeranian prep prepositional pres present tense PS Proto-Slavic R Russian SC Serbian, Croatian sg singular Sk Slovak Skr Sanskrit Sin Slovincian Sn Slovene U Ukrainian US Upper Sorbian voc vocative

XV

Introduction

Slavic Prosody is a book about language change and language structure. It seeks to provide a coherent account of the Slavic languages at the time of their differentiation and later, and to relate some of the findings to issues in phonological theory. In demonstrating that many persistent problems of Slavic historical linguistics, such as the development of nasal vowels, the well-known but little understood innovations in the liquid diphthongs, and the various accentual changes may be solved in a theoretically interesting way by reference to the syllable, the book offers a new analysis and a different view of the Slavic languages. This is not a historical or comparative grammar in the usual sense, nor does it contain the complete individual histories or synchronic descriptions of the Slavic languages. But by exploring some intriguing problems of Slavic historical linguistics and their synchronic resonances within a contemporary theoretical framework, the study aims to engage both Slavists and general linguists, as well as those simply interested in the Slavic languages or in language per se. Given that the objective of Slavic Prosody is to examine phenomena within the syllable and the role of the syllable within the word, it is particularly rewarding to look at how these relationships changed over time. The study therefore focuses on Late Common Slavic, the period of significant upheaval and differentiation of the Slavic dialects, but it looks at Late Common Slavic in relation to both its past and its future. From the past it recognizes the contribution of the syllable as a domain of phonological change. In the future it sees how the new syllable types and intersyllabic relationships that emerged in Late Common Slavic interact with other phonological characteristics of the Slavic languages. This relationship between sound patterns and prosody has more often than not been viewed in Slavic historical linguistics as the influence of the "prosodic sphere" on the "phonematic sphere" (Kolomijec' 1963), and it is commonly understood to be the influence of open syllables on sound change. The nature of this influence remains rather unspecified; however, it seems to be not so much a question of influence from one sphere to another as it is a question of how the 1

2

Introduction

two are integrated within the phonology of a given language. The present study argues that the integration takes place in the syllable. It cannot be said that the syllable has been ignored in Slavic for it is indeed rare to find a historical or comparative grammar written in this century that does not refer to a law or tendency of open syllables (or rising sonority) as critical to the history of Slavic. But too often that remains the extent of our knowledge about the Slavic syllable. It was Leskien who observed in 1909 that a series of changes in Slavic, such as the loss of final consonants and the monophthongization of diphthongs, had an effect on syllable structure, thereby inclining Slavists toward a more dynamic view of the syllable. This has sometimes precipitated teleological or causative interpretations of syllable structure. Thus it is common for historical and comparative grammars of Slavic to claim either that open syllables were the result of several phonological innovations during the first millennium of our era or that a law of open syllables caused a series of changes in Proto-Slavic. Others sidestep this question by simply noting that Common Slavic was characterized by open syllables or rising sonority until the subsequent loss of the short, high vowels (jers) in Late Common Slavic resulted in newly closed syllables. The neatness of this account has engendered a kind of complacency in Slavic linguistics, for after Slavists had identified a series of sound changes with a Law of Open Syllables (or a Tendency for Rising Sonority) and the subsequent loss of jers as contributing to its demise, little more was said about the syllable in Slavic. This book is the result of a conviction that there is more to be said about the role of syllable structure in Slavic and that many well-known problems of Slavic historical phonology bear rethinking in the context of syllable theory. Not much attention is paid here to the notion of a syllable boundary, although Slavists often saw a shift in the syllable boundary as related to the law of, or tendency to, open syllables. They used it to explain many sound changes in Slavic, among them the dissimilation of dental stops, e.g., *ied.ti>*ie.tti>*ie.sti "to eat," and the metathesis of liquid diphthongs, e.g., *gar.du>*gra.du "town, fortification," but this sometimes led to analyses that are complex and somewhat unmotivated. Allowing that some resyllabification of codas as onsets may have taken place in the history of Slavic, one need not think that ^syllabification was as general as adherents of the syllable boundary view would like to maintain. It becomes apparent that the traditional view of changes in syllable structure is inadequate and, in the end, uninteresting, for, as Shevelov (1965: 463) points out, "after the loss of the jers it became possible to utilize syllable types for specific functions, although, in fact, in the later histories of most Slavic languages this was not often done. In most cases the syllable boundary still comes imme-

Introduction

3

diately after the vowel, no matter how many consonants follow (e.g. R ostrov 'island' is syllabicated ollstrov) and closed syllables as such are accepted in most cases only in absolute word-final position." By considering syllable structure in terms of syllable constituents instead of the boundaries between them, this study reveals more interesting things about the nature of language change in Common Slavic and it focuses on what the syllable is rather than on what it is not. The syllable is a prosodic unit. It is made up of other prosodic units called moras which represent syllable timing or weight. A short or light syllable is monomoraic, a long or heavy one is bimoraic. The syllable is related to individual sounds in a hierarchical fashion and certain syllable positions are identified as being moraic (in some languages syllable codas are considered to contribute to the weight of the syllable, in others not). Likewise, certain sounds or segments have the potential to be moraic or not (in some languages only vowels may be syllable peaks, in others nasals and liquids also serve this function). The syllable nucleus is always a mora-bearing position; the syllable onset does not contribute to the weight or distinctive quantity of a syllable. The syllable coda position may, but need not, be moraic. A representation of the syllable is given

(1)

Onset

Nucleus

Coda

Changes may take place on one level of the hierarchy without affecting another, and syllable structure is separate from, though linked to, sounds. The mora (JJL), syllable (a), foot (F), and prosodic word (co) make up a prosodic representation (Hayes 1981, Steriade 1982/1990a, Selkirk 1984a, McCarthy and Prince 1986). Other prosodic constituents such as the phonological phrase or the intonational phrase are not referred to in this study. The sonority of a segment sequence has a bearing on syllable structure in at least two ways: (a) the relationship of a given segment to the mora, and (b) the status of a given segment with respect to the sonority of adjacent segments. The former categorically defines the class of potential syllable nuclei (and, possibly, codas); the latter calibrates sonority peaks and sonority lows with syllable positions. Syllable structure is to some degree independent of the segments that may implement it and a language may specify whether it permits certain syllable constituents. Thus languages may have constraints on maximal syllable weight

4

Introduction

and on the presence of codas and syllable onsets. The essence of a hierarchical representation of the syllable is to allow for different types of relationships among the various syllable constituents. Just as a syllable may be monomoraic or bimoraic, a segment may be associated with one mora or more, and the mora with one or more segments. Similarly, there may be restrictions on how many or what types of sounds may be associated with onsets, nuclei, and codas. There are many indications that this is a very useful way of looking at the components of syllable structure and in Slavic it is particularly proficient in relating the nature of quantity distinctions to their role in language change. In claiming that quantity may be both a property of the syllable and a property of individual sounds, this interpretation recognizes the central position of quantity with respect to transformations in sound patterns and prosody. The representation of word prominence in this study is also nonlinear or autosegmental. Tone prominence is given as high tone (H) associated with a mora; stress prominence (*) is indicated on a series of tiers above the syllable. It is abbreviated as one asterisk above the syllable in (2). (2)

*

H No low tone (L) is postulated for Common Slavic. Rising pitch accent is taken to consist of a sequence of (usually tautosyllabic) moras with H on the second mora; falling pitch accent derives from stress on the syllable or from H on the first mora. Stress and tone are considered to be independent and in some dialects they occur in separate syllables. But in Common Slavic there was an implicational relationship between the two such that the presence of high tone implied word prominence on that syllable and stress was implemented as higher pitch in the beginning of the stressed syllable. This redundancy played an important role in the reorganization of Slavic prosody. Given that syllable structure consists of prosodic elements as well as sounds, it is expected that the syllable function in the expression of prominence. As Haugen (1949: 280) states, "I do not believe a valid analysis of prosodic phenomena can be made without some implicit or explicit definition of the syllable. Without the syllable, the factors of timing are meaningless." The assumption that phonological representations may be nonlinear or multidimensional has come to be fairly well accepted in current linguistic theory. It was alluded to in the work of Trubetzkoy (1939/1967: 78), Hockett (1942,

Introduction

5

1955), Harris (1944), Haugen (1949), Firth (1948, 1957), and others on "prosodies," before being formalized as "autosegmental" phonology by Goldsmith (1976/1979; cf. Leben 1973, Williams 1976) and illustrated on the basis of tone languages. This view of phonology gives sounds (segments) relative autonomy with respect to other phonological properties, such as tone or stress, which may be found on their own autosegmental tiers. Subsequent development of nonlinear phonology has led to the representation of sounds as hierarchically organized articulator nodes and (distinctive) features. The following study is in the framework of nonlinear phonology. The hierarchical representation of the syllable (together with the notion of autosegmental tone) provides a flexible and insightful description of phonological changes in Slavic and serves as indirect evidence for the nonlinearity of phonological representations. An important assumption in this study is that the phonology of a language may consist of a set of constraints on outputs. These constraints are said to be universal, ranked with respect to each other, and violable. The form that appears is the one which violates the fewest number of highly ranked constraints. Constraints may be ranked differently in various linguistic systems and this accounts for variation. These principles, among others, constitute the basis for Optimality Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1993, Prince and Smolensky 1993). The description of the historical development of Slavic presented here entails certain constraints with respect to syllable structure, and their ranking is discussed in some detail in chapter 3, but it is not the goal of this work to give an Optimality Theoretic analysis of Slavic. It is, however, useful to look at language structure in terms of constraints on outputs and this perspective points to some promising areas for further research. The book has two other objectives. The first is to show that a fundamental and pervasive phonological innovation in Late Common Slavic was the reanalysis of syllable structure that took place before the fall of the jers and was independent of it. This change may be represented as the development of C V ^ / R ^ , CVJIS(M<), and CV^ syllable types, where C=consonant, V=vowel, R=liquid, S=sonorant. The second objective is to show that syllable structure was related to the nature of prominence in Slavic. The link between intrasyllabic reorganization and intersyllabic effects is quantity. Where quantitative distinctions were lost, oppositions of prosody came to be expressed on the syllable in terms of stress. But systems which retained distinctive quantity could exploit it in different ways: as a prosodic marker of prominence in and of itself, as a mechanism in support of other prominence markers, or as occurring independently within a system. I show that when quantity functioned in a stressbased system, the metrical organization tended to be strong-weak or trochaic.

6

Introduction

Where quantity itself served as a marker of prominence, there is some evidence that the preferred metrical organization was iambic. In systems where quantity remained free, stress became fixed either on a given position within a word or with respect to other accentual properties such as tone. The issues discussed here have received much attention in Slavic linguistics and I have tried to represent the history of the scholarship on a given question in order to place the current discussion in perspective and to facilitate the reader's access to the field. To make the study accessible to non-Slavists, quotations in Slavic languages are translated into English, but citations and references are given in transliteration. Quotations from French, German, Latin, and Spanish are left in the original language. Linguistic data are in the original if the language in question uses Latin script, but Belarusian, Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Old Church Slavic, Russian, and Ukrainian forms are given in transliteration unless the topic is orthography. Palatalized consonants in languages using Cyrillic script are represented with the consonant followed by an apostrophe in phonetic transcription or when the discussion focuses on phonology. The transliteration of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian follows the accepted AATSEEL standard, except that the vowels a, o, u after a palatalized consonant are transliterated with an apostrophe before the vowel in the text and in the standard ja, jo, ju format in the references. Otherwise, the prime is used for the soft sign and the double prime for the hard sign in Cyrillic. References to more extensive data are frequently provided and the notes are generally reserved for a history of the relevant scholarship. Some more recent analyses of the problems under investigation are discussed in the text. Many of the issues raised here are well known to Slavists and the data cited are meant to be representative rather than exhaustive. For more complete information the reader is referred to Miklosich 1875-1883, Porzezinski 1914, Vondrak 1924-1928, Meillet 1924/1965, Nahtigal 1938/1952,Vaillant 1950, Horalek 1955,1992, Stang 1957, BernStejn 1961, Brauer 1961, Arumaa 1964, Shevelov 1965, Garde 1976, Lamprecht 1987, among others, and to historical and synchronic grammars of the individual Slavic languages listed in the bibliography. An excellent source of general information on the Slavic languages is The Slavonic Languages, edited by Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (1993). To make the study accessible to the reader who does not have a strong background in linguistic theory, there is a basic introduction to the nature of syllable structure in chapter 1, section 1.1 and this is the framework for all subsequent analyses. Background material may be found in Kenstowicz 1994 and Goldsmith 1995 (especially chapters 5-8, 10, 11, 21), and in the discussion of

Introduction

7

theoretical issues in chapter 3. The focus of the work, however, is on languagespecific developments with reference to theory rather than on the theoretical model itself, though undoubtedly the choice of a particular linguistic model to a large extent determined which processes were studied. Given that this study is primarily concerned with the relationship of sounds to syllable structure, and only indirectly with changes in sounds themselves, there is little discussion about how (distinctive) features are organized. There is still some uncertainty about the specific nonlinear arrangement of particular features and nodes (see Kenstowicz 1994: 451-537 and Clements and Hume 1995), but the basic concept of phonological nonlinearity is a valuable one for theoretical and descriptive reasons. Here a fairly basic model of feature geometry is assumed in which distinctive features are located beneath a root or directly associated with it (Clements 1985, Sagey 1986). The root may be specified as [±consonantal], [±sonorant], and these major class features are different from other features in several ways. The major class features dominate the other features and serve as the link between sounds and syllable structure. Unlike features such as [nasal] or [back], the major class features do not spread from one segment to another without entailing the spread of other features as well (McCarthy 1988). An abbreviated model of feature geometry (based on Halle 1992,1995) is given below. (3)

Feature Geometry Model (abbreviated) Root [consonantal], [sonorant]

Manner features

Soft palate

Laryngeal = Guttural

Place [nasal]

Larynx I [voice]

Tongue root

Dorsal Labial

Coronal

The notion of the syllable as a prosodic unit consisting of syllable weight units (moras) and sonority sequencing (CVS) is a theoretical one. Although both components of syllable structure have some grounding in phonetic reality, either in terms of time (duration, length) or formant structure (sonority), they are used here primarily as phonological entities to express significant structural

8

Introduction

differences. The moraic and sonority characteristics of the syllable may be codified on separate levels in an underlying representation or understood to be the implementation of different constraints. What appears to be certain is that both sonority and duration played a critical role in the history of Slavic (as they no doubt did in many other languages as well), and that they were related in a nontrivial way. Expressing this relationship as one of syllable structure enables us to understand the effects of sound changes on prosody and vice versa, and to see that changes on one level (or of a certain type) may be independent of the other. Chapter 1, "The syllable in Slavic: form and function," examines the changes of syllable structure in Common Slavic, their function in the phonology of Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic and their interaction with subsequent developments in the Slavic languages. The most significant reorganization of syllable structure took place in the nucleus and coda of a syllable, in other words, in what is commonly called the syllable rime. Changes in syllable onsets, such as the various velar palatalizations, the i-palatalization (iotation), or the prothesis of glides did conform to certain syllable structure constraints and they are discussed in sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4. But most of the changes, e.g., monophthongization, changes in nasal vowels and liquid diphthongs, compensatory lengthening and contraction, restructured the syllable rime. While acknowledging that there was a tendency in Common Slavic to prefer open syllables and that newly closed syllables appeared after the fall of the jers in Late Common Slavic, I argue that there was a more critical development in Slavic syllable structure. Modifications in the relationship between syllable duration (mora) and syllable segments (phonemes) led to the structural differentiation experienced by Late Common Slavic that may be summarized as CV ( }/R ( }, CV S( }, and CV^ syllable types. There is no question that the fall of the jers had significant repercussions in the phonology of all Late Common Slavic dialects (e.g., it resulted in assimilation processes, compensatory lengthening, the "phonemization" of the palatalized/nonpalatalized opposition in consonants and other changes), but its effect on the syllable rime is not as revolutionary as is usually assumed. Late Common Slavic had already begun a reanalysis of syllable structure before the loss of the weak jers. Given the fundamental nature of this change, it is not surprising that innovations in syllable structure also had repercussions beyond the syllable. Chapter 2, "Beyond the syllable: prominence relations," is a diachronic and synchronic study of intersyllabic relationships in Slavic which shows that the modifications of syllable structure described in chapter 1 were related to the expression of word prominence. In dialects where distinctions in mora count

Introduction

9

prevailed, prominence was expressed by tone (H) or by quantity. Elsewhere, the syllable became the locus of prominence in relation to other syllables and prominence was most often manifested by stress (*). Though there have been proposals that pitch accent may be derived from a difference in the placement of the ictus on a mora within a bimoraic group, I argue for the presence of both tone and stress in Common Slavic because subsequent prosodic changes are better explained if both are recognized as markers of prominence. Quantity was critical in the evaluation of accent. A bimoraic syllable was ambiguous because it could be considered prominent on its own in a trochaic system or it could form the strong component of an iambic metrical foot. This ambiguity was exploited in very interesting ways in the history of the Slavic languages. There is overwhelming evidence that the metrical organization of Late Common Slavic, if not Early Common Slavic, was the syllabic trochee. But what is particularly striking is the extent to which the trochee is supported by a redistribution of quantity. Chapter 3, "Theoretical considerations," explores some issues in phonological representation and constraint interaction, such as sonority, skeletal structure, length and prominence. A three-dimensional model of the syllable is suggested as an alternative representation to the strictly layered twodimensional one employed in this study. Problems in the representation of diphthongs and quantity in Slavic are illustrated by phonological vignettes from Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. One might claim that no account of Slavic is complete without considering the well-known Slavic palatalizations, but an investigation of palatalization and its representation in Slavic deserves a much fuller treatment than can possibly be undertaken here. Jers in Slavic, on the other hand, are more directly related to the question of syllabicity and syllable rime processes that are the main concern of this study, so the representation of jers is discussed on the basis of examples from Polish and Russian. A brief exploration of constraints and constraint interaction in section 3.4 leads to issues in language typology, a topic of some interest to Slavists for many decades. Depending on the criteria used, typologies of Slavic differ in various ways. Slavic Prosody suggests that a typology of the Slavic languages could be based on syllable (and perhaps metrical) structure and/or on a different ranking of phonological constraints. Most of the discussion is concerned with Common Slavic, especially its later period. Recognizing that the periodization of Slavic prehistory is a complex question that continues to be debated (a summary of the discussions may be found in BernStejn 1961: 47ff., Lunt 1992 ms., and in the works of Birnbaum 1966, 1970, 1979, 1982, 1987 on this topic), many Slavists agree on a basic

10

Introduction

division of Common Slavic into two periods. The end of the first period is said to coincide with the beginning of the Slavic expansion in the fifth century; the second period is said to end with the Hungarian migration into Slavic territory during the last part of the ninth century (Lehr-Splawiriski 1955: 120). Adopting Andersen's (1985) suggestion, the term Proto-Slavic is used for the initial reconstructed stage of Slavic as separate (to the extent that this can be determined) from Proto-Baltic, and the term Common Slavic denotes the stage of shared developments. The language before the fifth century is referred to as Early Common Slavic and the period from the sixth to the eighth centuries when some major phonological changes (including monophthongization, iotation, but not yet changes in liquid diphthongs) were nearing completion as Common Slavic (CS). Reconstructed Common Slavic forms are generally cited with an asterisk alone, but PS or CS is used when there is a potential ambiguity or when a certain stage of development is emphasized. The term Late Common Slavic (LCS) is reserved for the time when the various dialect areas shared certain developments, though they were already fairly differentiated in terms of structure, approximately from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. This period encompasses changes in the liquid diphthongs, compensatory lengthening, contraction, the neo-acute accent shift and the changes in the jers. As this is also the time when one can speak of the proto-systems of individual Slavic languages, the subsystems within Late Common Slavic are called Late Common Slavic dialects. These in turn are commonly thought of as East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic but, given the nature of syllable structure changes, it is also useful to draw a distinction between the north and the south and then between the west and the east. The terms used in this study are (North) West Slavic, (North) East Slavic and South Central Slavic. Other subdivisions are defined as needed. Most Slavic languages now serve as the official language of an independent country (Belarusian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, and Ukrainian) and two are recognized minority languages in Germany (Upper and Lower Sorbian). Their history is related to that of Kashubian (also Slovincian, a Pomeranian dialect no longer spoken) and Polabian, a language that died out around the middle of the eighteenth century. Kashubian, officially classified as a dialect of Polish but linguistically quite distinct from it, is spoken to the west of Gdansk in Poland. Polabian was spoken on the western bank of the Elbe river. As languages on the northwesternmost periphery of Lechitic (northern West Slavic) they provide valuable linguistic data for the history of Slavic and are therefore included in this study. Old Church Slavic (Slavonic), an eastern Balkan Slavic variant with some

Introduction

11

Moravian features, is the language of the written Slavic manuscripts dating from the tenth or eleventh century. What emerges from this work is the suggestion that sound change and accentual change are systematically related in Late Common Slavic by means of syllable structure. This relationship is expressed by specific phonological representations resulting from constraints on syllable structure that apply to its prosodic and segmental constituents as well as by constraints that have a bearing on how the two levels relate to each other. Furthermore, syllable structure interacts with other prosodic constituents in the metrical organization of the system. By demonstrating that a nonlinear representation of the syllable together with the notion of constraint interaction can account for a wide range of data, this study does take a position on the nature of phonological representations and on mechanisms for describing language change. And by explicitly showing the phonological differentiation of Late Common Slavic as pivoting on the relationship between the mora and the syllable (and its constituents), Slavic Prosody relates developments within the syllable to those beyond.

1

1.0

The syllable in Slavic: form and function Background

Slavists agree that the syllable played a major role in the history of the Slavic languages and there are various principles, tendencies, and laws to explain how sound change related to syllable structure in Common Slavic. But our understanding of the syllable in Slavic is still fairly rudimentary. After Leskien (1909: 52ff.) observed that several developments in Proto- and Common Slavic had the effect of converting closed syllables to open ones, Iljinskij (1916, 1926) associated the loss of final consonants, the simplification of consonant clusters, the monophthongization of diphthongs, the changes in liquid diphthongs, and the creation of nasal vowels and syllabic liquids with a "law of open syllables." By formulating this "law" as a "principle of rising sonority," van Wijk (1931) was able to include the prothesis of glides among the series of innovations consistent with a certain syllable type. Other changes, including palatalization and vowel fronting, seemed to produce a similarity between sounds within a syllable and in 1929 Jakobson extended our understanding of the syllable as a phonological domain by referring to these changes as being consistent with a "tendency for syllable synharmony." Slavists since then have viewed the development of Common Slavic from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) as governed by open syllable structure or rising sonority, and syllable synharmony.1 It is also widely claimed that the loss of certain vowels (jers) in Late Common Slavic (LCS) thoroughly restructured the phonological system of Slavic, creating newly closed syllables. Current views on the phonological history of Slavic may be summarized as follows: The Proto-Slavonic sound system, throughout its long history, was affected by two fundamental tendencies in the structure of the syllable. One was the tendency for intrasyllabic harmony, that is for a back to front... accommodation within the same syllable... The other was the tendency for rising sonority or a tendency for an intrasyllabic arrangement of phonemes proceeding from lower to higher sonority . . . The most signal consequences of this tendency were the elimination of closed syllables, otherwise known as the law of open syllables, and the rise of prothetic semivowels. (Schenker 1993: 67) 12

1.0 Background

13

The weak jers then shortened, and "this shortening process culminated in the elimination of the weak jers, thus ending the era of open syllables and, at the same time, of the Proto-Slavonic period" (Schenker 1993: 78). It would appear that the syllable history of Slavic may be abbreviated as CVC > CV > CVC, or simply as a change of closed syllables to open ones and then again to closed ones (cf. PIE *poktos "sweat" > *po.tu > Bpot, Rpot, Vpoi). But the history of the syllable in Common Slavic is far more interesting. I will show that it is not so much a question of losing syllable codas and then reinstating them, but rather a question of the changing relationship between syllable sonority and syllable weight. This produced several new syllable types in Late Common Slavic before the loss of weak jers. The traditional understanding of the syllable is based on recognizing an alternating pattern of consonants and vowels.2 One approach studies the specific relationship between the consonants and vowels within a syllable. A related view operates on identifying permissible consonant sequences before or after a syllable boundary (i.e., the distributional principle of syllable structure). The first approach characterizes the work of Broch (1910), who, like many of his predecessors and colleagues, was concerned with the nature of the bond between a consonant and a following vowel and that of a vowel with a following consonant. Jakobson (1929/1971) also recognized this connection and specifically noted that the onset and the nucleus came to resemble each other more closely in certain distinctive features. He called this Common Slavic phenomenon "syllable synharmony." Thus "hard" syllables (CV) were opposed to "soft" syllables (C'V), and in this sense the syllable could be interpreted as the domain of "hardness" or "softness" in Slavic. Other Slavists (S£erba 1912/1983: 8; Trubetzkoy 1939/1967) also noted an especially close link between a consonant and a following vowel in Slavic and this relationship was formalized as a special linguistic unit called the "syllabeme" (Bubrix 1930, Ivanov and Polivanov 1930, and Avanesov 1947a) and the "group-phoneme" (Zuravlev 1961,1966, and elsewhere). The "syllabeme" and its variant, the "group-phoneme," were taken to be phonological (phonemic) units in Common Slavic. In Bubrix's (1930) view syllabemes were basically consonants. They were accompanied by a redundant (nonphonemic) vowel for the purpose of expressing loudness, height (tone), and length. The syllabeme proposed by Polivanov (Ivanov and Polivanov 1930) included various distinctive vocalic elements, but the consonant plus vowel functioned as a unit. Such units were found to be useful in the descriptions of a variety of languages, among them Japanese, Chinese, Korean (see Zuravlev 1966: 80-87), and Avanesov (1947a) suggested that Slavic had an "epoch of

14

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

syllabemes" toward the end of Slavic unity (a view accepted by BernStejn 1961: 126,241,257,274-277 for northern Slavic, but not for Proto-Serbo-Croatian or Slovene). Zuravlev proposed the notion of group-phoneme as a solution to the problem of "softness" (palatalization, sharping) of consonants and vowels, noting that if palatal(ized) or sharp (Jakobson, et al. 1952) consonants were found only before front vowels and nonpalatal(ized) or [-sharp] consonants were found only before back vowels then the feature [sharp] could not be unambiguously attributed to either the consonant or the vowel. Given the development of phonemic palatalization in many Slavic languages, it appears that the feature was present in Common Slavic, so it had to have been distinctive on some unit (if not the vowel or consonant, then on the indivisible CV group or a group-phoneme). The group-phoneme is then used to explain various phonological changes. For example, the loss of final or medial consonants is said to be due to the generalization of group-phonemes and the disappearance of simple phonemic remnants, as in *sunus > (sy)+(ny)+s > (sy)+(ny) > OCS sym> "son"; *sypnys > (sy)+p+(ny) > (sy)+(ny) > OCS si?m> "dream, sleep" (given in Zuravlev's transcription), and the retention of the first consonant in a cluster such as /st/ in *'(w£)+z+'(t!) > '(w£)+s+'(tl) > '(w£)+'(stl) > OCS vesti "to convey," for example, is attributed to the potential of that phoneme to enter into a group-phoneme (Zuravlev 1966: 91-96). For the latter part of the Late Common Slavic period it is claimed that group-phonemes apparently decomposed and distinctive features came to be marked on individual consonants and vowels. This position has not found uncritical acceptance in Slavic linguistics (see, for example, Cekmonas 1979: 111-120), though it did again call attention to the importance of recognizing some organizing principle, in addition to identifying consonants, vowels, and syllable boundaries, in the description of Slavic. The second approach, based on the concept of a syllable boundary, has been widespread in both diachronic and synchronic Slavic studies, and is the one most often used to explain the historical development of Slavic (see Shevelov 1965, BernStejn 1961, and others) and that of other languages (see Vennemann and Murray 1983, Murray 1988, Vennemann 1988). A shift of syllable boundary is said to be responsible for various changes, including the assimilation, dissimilation or loss of consonants, e.g., PS *ued.tei "to lead" > *ue.ttei > OCS vesti; PS *sup.nas > *su.pnas > OCS S7?m>, and the Late Common Slavic development of the so-called liquid diphthongs, e.g., PS *gar.du > *ga.rdu > ES go.ro.di> (BernStejn 1961: 187ff., 1963, Mel'nycuk 1966: 46-47; Lamprecht 1987: 42; and others). An analysis from this perspective, for

1.0 Background

15

example, would describe the changes in the liquid diphthongs as follows: a shift of the boundary from CVR.C to CV.RC, then possible syllabification of R to R and the insertion of a syllable boundary in CV.R.C (BoSkovic 1984: 89-91). Trubetzkoy (1925b) attributed the retention of /t/ and /d/ before /I/ in West Slavic to a very early retraction of the syllable boundary in this area: *mud.la > CS *my.dlo (cf. P mydlo "soap," R mylo, U mylo). Movement of the syllable boundary is primarily used to explain the loss of or changes in syllable codas and it is a way of understanding ^syllabification, i.e., the shift of a syllable coda to a syllable onset (or vice versa). One problem with this interpretation of syllable structure effects is that it sometimes leads to questionable analyses. For example, BernStejn (1961: 218) proposes a shift of syllable boundary in *gar.du to *ga.rdu for all areas of Slavic, but in order to explain the metathesized southern LCS variant grad, he claims that the short liquid could not remain in the syllable onset so it reverted to syllable coda position, from where it metathesized with the preceding vowel, e.g., VR.C > V.RC > VR.C > RV.C. Long liquids could not remain in the complex onset in other areas of Slavic either, but in this case they supposedly transferred the syllabicity of the liquid to a new vocalic element, e.g., VR.C > V.RC > V.RVC, instead of reverting to coda position. Another difficulty with analyzing phonological change as the consequence of shifting a syllable boundary is that other syllable-related processes such as prothesis or monophthongization then do not fall into the category of syllable structure effects. Prothesis is the implementation of preferred CV structure (in any position), not resyllabification by shifting the syllable boundary. And monophthongization takes place only within syllable rimes where there is no boundary between the two segments. The present study aims to explore the syllable in a new way. Instead of looking at syllable structure as defined by a linear sequence of phonemes or phoneme groups separated by a syllable boundary, the syllable is taken to be a phonological entity in which weight (length) and sonority are both represented. Open syllable structure and rising sonority are the consequences of constraint interaction in Slavic. Furthermore, the development of syllable structure in Slavic was not so much a question of CVC > CV > CVC, as is often taken for granted now in Slavic linguistics, but rather a reorganization of syllable components such that CVC was replaced by CV/R, CVS, CV, in other words, as a reanalysis of syllable weight or quantity and a difference in the potential for a syllable coda. I think that these changes in syllable structure were far more critical for the phonological evolution of Slavic than was the loss of weak jers which resulted in newly closed syllables.

16 1.1

The syllable in Slavic: form and function Syllable theory

The minimal requirement for a syllable is the presence of a syllable nucleus. In most languages the nucleus is a vowel, but sometimes liquids, nasals, and even obstruents fulfill this function. The nucleus may be preceded by a syllable onset, usually a consonant. Since it is most often the consonantal or vocalic nature of a segment that determines its position within a syllable, one can syllabify a sequence of consonants and vowels with a fairly high rate of predictability such that a sequence of CVCVCV will most likely be CV.CV.CV. Thus the onset and nucleus may be abbreviated on some level as the sequence CV, one which is so commonly found that it has been identified as a universal preference in terms of syllable structure (a core syllable). The nucleus may be followed by a syllable coda, often a consonant or a glide. The nucleus and coda tend to function as a group distinct from the onset, for example, in the calculation of light and heavy syllables in some languages. They constitute the syllable rime. Much work has been done on the nature of syllabification in languages and especially on whether syllable structure is built up by rule (Kahn 1976, McCarthy 1979/1985, Steriade 1982/1990a, Levin 1985, and others), exists as a template to which segments are associated by syllabification (Selkirk 1984a, Ito 1986/1988, Archangeli 1991), or is the product of well-formedness conditions (Hooper 1972, Cairns and Feinstein 1982, Vennemann 1988) or constraint interaction (Paradis 1988, Clements 1990, Goldsmith 1990, 1993, Wiltshire 1992, Lamontagne 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993, Prince and Smolensky 1993, and many others). Vennemann (1988, based on the work of Hooper 1972, 1976) postulates a series of laws pertaining to preferred syllable structures in terms of relative sonority or "Consonantal Strength," e.g., the Head Law (syllable onsets) states that "a syllable head is the more preferred: (a) the closer the number of speech sounds in the head is to one, (b) the greater the Consonantal Strength value of its onset, and (c) the more sharply the Consonantal Strength drops from the onset toward the Consonantal Strength of the following nucleus" (1988: 13-14). A Coda Law defines preferred syllable codas, a Nucleus Law a preferred nucleus, and the Weight Law states that "an accepted syllable is the more preferred, the closer its syllable weight is to two moras" (p. 30). In this view, syllabification is the identification of a syllable boundary as determined by the Syllable Contact Law: "A syllable contact A$B is the more preferred, the less the Consonantal Strength of the offset A and the greater the Consonantal Strength of the onset B; more precisely - the greater the characteristic difference CS(B)-CS(A) between the Consonantal Strength of B and that

1.1 Syllable theory

17

of A" (p. 40). (See also Hooper 1976, Murray and Vennemann 1983, Murray 1988.) Regardless of how syllabification is actually done, there is general agreement that the syllable in some form interacts with phonological processes and that a theory of syllable structure is needed for a complete description of language. The syllable has also been shown to play a role in prosody, especially in metrics and stress assignment. In many languages these prosodic characteristics depend on some notion of "light" and "heavy" syllables, either in terms of weight (mora value) or the presence vs. the absence of a coda (i.e., closed vs. open syllables). The mora as a measure of timing or duration has a long history in linguistics (see the review in Allen 1953: 83-87) and generative phonology adopted the traditional notion of the mora as a way of representing syllable weight (Hyman 1985, McCarthy and Prince 1986, Hayes 1989, and others). Recent work takes the mora to be a configurational element, a way of relating sounds (segments) to syllable structure with no direct correlation to actual segment timing. There is no one-to-one correspondence between segments and moras, and in some languages there may be a distinction between monomoraic and bimoraic diphthongs. It appears that some concept of a skeleton (or position slots that are separate from actual sounds) is also useful in phonology because it provides another way to account for timing differences, reduplication, gemination, and other processes (McCarthy 1979, Halle and Vergnaud 1980, Clements and Keyser 1983).3 While there is general agreement that syllable structure is a component of phonology, it is not yet clear whether the syllable is best defined in terms of position slots (originally C, V-slots or X-slots) as in (la), by moras as in (lb), by actual syllable constituents (lc), or by some combination of the above (Id). (1)

a. syllable X X X

a

syllable

skeleton

I II a b c

segment

3^

a

b

c

segment

syllable

Onset Nucleus Coda constituents

i

i

i

a

b

c

segment

In the X-slot model proposed by Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984) and Levin (1985; and applied to Slavic data by Bethin 1992b, Rubach 1993, and elsewhere),

18

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

syllable structure is built by rules on skeletal timing slots. Rules of syllabification, however, must refer to properties of segments that are associated with given slots because the consonantal/vocalic nature or the sonorant properties of a given segment often determine how it is syllabified. In the moraic model developed by Hyman (1985), McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990), Hayes (1989), and others, the association of segments to syllable structure is either direct (syllable onsets, except in Hyman 1985, Zee 1988/1994, also Buckley 1992) or via a mora (syllable rimes). Whether a nonmoraic segment becomes an onset or a coda, however, is determined by other factors such as the ordering of syllabification rules (onset creation precedes coda formation) or the nature of the syllable template in a given system. But whether a coda consonant is moraic or not is sometimes a question of its sonority and language-specific properties. In some languages sonorant consonants are moraic, in others all or no consonants are associated with a mora in syllable coda position.4 The moraic analysis is complicated by the fact that segments are counted differently for different language processes. In Ancient Greek, for example, the coda consonant was counted as "heavy" or moraic for some rules of accentuation, but not for others where only the vocalic segments were counted as moraic (Allen 1973: 50-62, 203-223). Thus moraic theory, too, must operate with some reference to the sonority of segments and language-specific properties. (For a detailed evaluation of the two models, see Kenstowicz 1994: 395^442.) Although arguments have been made in favor of one model over the other, some recent work indicates that both a skeletal tier and a moraic tier may be necessary in phonology (Hock 1986, Lahiri and Koreman 1988, Levin 1991, Sloan 1991, Tranel 1991, Schmidt 1992,1994, Rubach 1993, and others) or that both the mora and the sequencing of root nodes and their respective relationship to the syllable are referred to in the formulation of constraints (McCarthy and Prince 1993, and others). There are differences among languages in whether they prefer syllables to begin with an onset (i.e., in some languages there is less pressure for CV structure than in others) or to end with a coda (again, in some languages there is less pressure for CV structure than in others). It is also possible to identify rather systematic differences among languages with respect to the types of codas that are permitted and in the types of syllables that they prefer in general. In other words, languages encode information about syllable structure. Since it is not clear where this type of encoding is done and since some languages seem to tolerate different types of syllables for different purposes (or at different derivational levels; see Wiltshire 1992), I will take syllable structure to be established by the interaction of syllable structure constraints. Among these are constraints on the presence of an onset and a coda. Because languages tend to differ more in

1.1 Syllable theory

19

whether they allow a coda (and in the type of coda allowed) than they do in whether they prefer syllable onsets, I assume that the presence of a syllable coda is more marked than the presence of a syllable onset. Therefore, I will accept the proposal of McCarthy and Prince (1993), and Prince and Smolensky (1993: 34ff.) that there is a universal constraint against codas, i.e., a No Coda Constraint. There is also a constraint on maximal syllable weight in some languages. A universal principle of markedness may be cited as perhaps favoring maximally monomoraic syllables, so the operative constraint in some languages is one that restricts syllables to one mora. I will represent the syllable itself as consisting of a moraic tier and a sonority sequencing tier, a version of (Id) in which syllable sonority is abbreviated by CVC designating root nodes. The sonority tier relates to the moraic tier which is dominated by a syllable node. In that sense the mora serves both as a prosodic constituent licensed by the syllable node or its constituents and as a type of autosegment licensed by the segments themselves (Brentari and Bosch 1990). Segments may be listed in the inventory as associated or not with one or two moras. Syllables may be monomoraic or bimoraic. In Slavic, after the loss of syllable-final obstruents, the mora came to designate syllabicity and phonological quantity oppositions were found only in vowels and diphthongs. By restricting the expression of quantity distinctions to the moraic tier it becomes possible to see a whole series of prosodic changes in Common Slavic as shifting relationships between the moraic tier and the actual sound sequences. There is no question that sounds (segments) also have some inherent or relative duration. Although I think that this duration may be relevant in the early stages of a change in progress at some phonetic level, as in compensatory lengthening, the systematic reorganization of quantity takes place on a more abstract or phonological level (see Jakobson 1929/1971) which is represented here as cognitive organization on a moraic tier. It is nearly impossible to conceive of syllable structure without some reference to sonority and vice versa. The question of sonority is a vexing one, for although sonority is clearly recognized and exploited in linguistic organization, we still do not have a very good idea of what it is (see the discussion in Clements 1990, and section 3.1 below). The phonetic correlates of sonority vary and they are not always directly mappable from or onto phonological features, whether articulatory (see Keating 1983, Lindblom 1983, Beckman et al. 1992) or acoustic (Price 1980; see also Kozevnikov and CistoviC 1965). In phonology sonority has been variously represented as a binary value feature [sonorant] (see Jakobson et al. 1952 and most feature analyses since then), as a multivalued feature or a sonority index (see Hooper 1972,1976, Hankamer and

20

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

Aissen 1974, Selkirk 1984a) based on some notion of a sonority hierarchy (Whitney 1865: 372-373, Sievers 1881, Jespersen 1904, Saussure 1916/1966, Grammont 1933/1965, Hooper 1972,1976, Vennemann 1988, and others), or as derived from a combination of major class features (Zee 1988/1994, Clements 1990, Beckman et al. 1992), or other structural characteristics (Harris 1990, Rice 1992). It is generally recognized that segments may be ranked with respect to sonority. Vowels are the most sonorous segments and obstruents the least. The ranking in terms of decreasing sonority is vowels > glides > liquids > nasals > obstruents, and language-specific adjustments may be made within as well as between categories (Steriade 1982/1990a, Levin 1985). Regardless of how sonority is defined, certain properties of syllable structure are clearly recognized to be related to sonority. These include the order of sounds within a syllable onset and/or coda and the likelihood that a given segment will function as the syllable peak. In order to explain common restrictions on segment sequences in syllable onsets and codas, linguists have recognized a sonority sequencing principle, which Clements (1990: 285) formulates as follows: "Between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, only sounds of higher sonority are permitted." The other commonly occurring tendency for syllable codas to be more sonorous than syllable onsets was formulated as a syllable contact law (Hooper 1976, Murray and Vennemann 1983) and it is summarized as "In any sequence Ca$Cb there is a preference for Ca to exceed Cb in sonority" ($ is a syllable boundary) in Clements 1990: 287. The syllabification of mantra as man.tra is in agreement with both generalizations, whereas the syllable ntra or antr would violate the sonority sequencing generalization and a syllabification such as mant.ra would go against the syllable contact law. Sonority is also crucial to syllable structure in its relationship to the syllable peak or nucleus. One of the most striking examples of relative sonority and syllabicity is that of the Imdlawn Tashlhiyt dialect of Berber (Dell and Elmedlaoui 1985), where sequences such as tftkt "you suffered a strain" and txznt "you stored" are unambiguously syllabified as tftkt and tx.znt, respectively, given that fricatives are considered to be more sonorous than stops. It is usually the case that the most sonorous segment in a string of segments serves as the peak of the syllable, but it is not always the case that a sonority peak is also the syllable peak. For example, the three-syllable English word syllable is borrowed into Polish as a bisyllabic form [si.lapl] and in English yearn [yrn] the /r/ is the syllable peak in spite of the fact that glides are considered to be more sonorous than liquids. Thus some other factor must come into play in determining whether a sonority peak is also a syllable peak. To a large extent it seems that sonority is defined in terms of syllabicity and

1.1 Syllable theory

21

vice versa, and both are a function of alternating consonant and vowel sequences or what may be called a sonority cycle (Clements 1990). A basic phonological representation of this is to identify vowels with syllable peaks and consonants with onsets and codas or to view syllable structure as consisting of consonantal and vocalic slots on a skeleton (Clements and Keyser 1983). The different sonority constraints on onsets and codas may be represented as a special condition on segments which may fill the various positions of the syllable or by other mechanisms such as prohibitions on violating sonority sequencing in syllablebuilding processes or in matching a syllable template. A more recent interpretation of the relationship between syllable structure and sonority is offered in Zee 1988/1994, which views the mora as a subsyllabic constituent constrained by sonority requirements in a strong-weak relationship within the syllable. Moraic models of the syllable do need to distinguish between segments that have the potential of being associated to the mora of a syllable and those that do not, but in these models the sonority peak is not necessarily derived only from intrasyllabic strong and weak mora relations as proposed by Zee (1988/1994). In this study syllable positions will be designated as C in onsets (most often consonants), V/R in the nucleus (most often a vowel, but sometimes also liquids) and S or C in coda position (sonorant consonants or glides and any consonants, respectively). Consonants bear the major class feature [+consonantal], vowels are characterized by the feature value [-consonantal]. The two high segments, HI and /u/, are specified only as [+sonorant] in this discussion, so they function as vowels when in the V position of the syllable and as glides in the C or S position of the syllable. Prosodic characteristics of the syllable such as duration or weight and tone are designated on the moraic level. The two properties of syllable structure, sonority and duration or weight, are represented on different levels, the former as sonority sequencing of major class features corresponding to certain syllable positions, the latter as the number of moras associated to the syllable. One can then identify distinct syllable types in terms of both sonority sequencing, abbreviated as C, V, S, and syllable weight, in terms of JJL. The connection between the two is specified by association lines and various conditions on association. A two-dimensional representation is given in (2), where a=syllable, |x=mora, C=consonant, V=vowel, S=sonorant, — obligatory association, — ^optional association. (2)

,a

V

(S)

22

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

It is important to note that syllable structure is to some degree independent. Thus it should be possible to express that a language has a preference for syllable onsets or codas without specifying the actual instantiations, i.e., all occurring syllables. There are various ways to formalize syllable onset or syllable coda position, e.g., as projections of the nucleus, as dependents of the syllable node, as part of a syllable template. For our purposes it is only critical that syllable positions be identified in some way regardless of whether they are expressed by sounds or filled with segments. I assume the validity of syllable positions (empty or not), but I also assume that there is pressure to express such positions overtly, i.e., there is a constraint against unfilled positions. Different constraints on syllable structure apply to the moraic and the sonority levels of the syllable. Some constraints pertain only to the duration or weight of the syllable; others to the presence of onsets and codas; still others to the moraicity of segments. I will argue that it is not only possible but actually necessary to be able to designate a given system's preference for a certain syllable type (or a certain ranking of syllable structure constraints) and to do so in terms of moraic structure and sonority sequencing. The representation in (2) identifies syllable structure primarily on the basis of moras while recognizing sonority sequencing. There are several reasons for postulating a syllable to mora hierarchy and a mora to segment hierarchy. The connection between the syllable and the mora is that they both are prosodic units capable of expressing prominence of some type. They function separately in the expression of prominence, though not always contrastively. The mora also represents the notion that quantity is a property of the syllable although it may be distributed in various ways within the syllable (on vowels or on vowels and consonants). The relationship between the mora and the segment is a way of expressing the relationship between relative sonority and syllabicity. Languages may have classes of moraic and nonmoraic segments (Zee 1988/1994). In the Slavic languages only vowels and liquids may serve as syllable peaks, though in Common Slavic the category of moraic segments had also included nasals. As a rule, other consonants, regardless of their position, are not associated with a mora. Given this well-defined association of sonority and moraicity in Late Common Slavic, it is possible to identify the class of sonorants as being potentially moraic. The syllable nucleus is always identified with a moraic segment. The representation in (2) indicates that syllables may be monomoraic or bimoraic and that they may have the structure (C0V S )CT or (C0V S)CT in addition to (C0V )a or (C0V )CT. In some Late Common Slavie dialects a liquid (R) came to serve as the syllable nucleus (here, V). The broken lines represent optional associations: only V /R is required for a syllable. Vowels in Slavic are

1.1 Syllable theory

23

moraic, but the moraic status of other sonorants varies from language to language. The representation above allows for changes in the mora count to take place independently of changes in the segments and vice versa, while providing for a way to relate the two. The moraic status of a segment may change without the given segment's changing its position in the linear sequence of segments. And the number of moras allowed or the permissible sequence of segments within a syllable may change without affecting the actual sequence of segments itself, as is the case with vowel shortening or resyllabification. Both types of change were found in the history of Slavic. For example, Proto-Indo-European (PIE) diphthongs monophthongized in Common Slavic without necessarily producing changes in accent or syllable duration, e.g., V^R^ > V /R ; and in the southern dialects of Late Common Slavic the metathesis of liquid diphthongs, e.g., VR > RV, did not change the pitch accent or total weight of the given syllable. Changes in the northeastern area of Late Common Slavic also show that the moraic component of the syllable may be separate from the segmental: if rising pitch accent is interpreted as ictus on the second element of the liquid diphthong (VR) and falling pitch accent as ictus on the first element (VR), then the pleophonic variants which appear as VRV and VRV corresponding to older rising and falling accent, respectively, as in R vorona "crow" and R voron "raven," show that the place of ictus is not necessarily on the segment itself, but that it may be a property of some other component or of the syllable at large. The theoretical representations of syllable structure in (1) and (2) do not identify a syllable rime (nucleus and coda) as a separate syllable constituent (see Pike and Pike 1947, Fudge 1969, Harris 1983, and others), although there may be reasons for postulating such a constituent in some languages. In the Xslot model (la) the rime (X-slots) is not distinguished from an onset (also an Xslot) and both appear to have the same relationship to the syllable. Some X-slot models operate with branching tree structure (Levin 1985) and in that case there is a hierarchy of branching nodes, one of which may be identified as the syllable rime. When X-slots are identified with major class features or sonority classes, then one can identify a nucleus and the following elements as equivalent to the term "syllable rime," though not necessarily a rime constituent. In the moraic model (lb) a syllable rime may be defined as consisting of moraic segments and thus distinct from the syllable onset. But this requires that codas be moraic and there are languages in which codas are not, although they fall within what is traditionally perceived to be a syllable rime. Some linguists attach the coda consonant to the mora of the preceding vowel, others work with the notion of a syllable appendix in addition to a syllable rime. In defining syllable structure as

24

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

the interaction of constraints on the structure in (Id), there is no reference to a syllable rime, but constraints are formulated in terms of syllable structure, e.g., onset constraint, harmonic nucleus constraint, coda constraints (as in McCarthy and Prince 1993, Prince and Smolensky 1993, also Goldsmith 1993 and references therein). Although most of the changes discussed in this study of Common Slavic took place in the syllable rime, I think that the development of Slavic syllable structure may be adequately described without postulating a separate level or constituent for the syllable rime (see Nespor and Vogel [1986: 73ff], who argue against a rime constituent, Laubstein 1988, who finds no evidence for a rime in production errors, and Lamontagne 1993, who proposes a theory of syllabification without the notion of onsets or rimes). Most changes in Slavic syllable structure involve a reassessment of length or weight (which may be expressed by mora count), a change in sonority sequencing (which may be expressed as a reordering of segments), or a change in the relationship between the two. In the following discussion the term "syllable rime" is used in a general sense and not as a phonological entity or separate constituent of structure. In fact, Slavic presents an interesting case with respect to syllable constituency because while some Slavists have argued that the syllable onset and the syllable nucleus should be viewed as a constituent in Slavic (the "syllabeme") because they share certain properties (see 1.2.3), there are no compelling reasons to view the nucleus and the coda as a special unit. Certain changes in Slavic, such as the progressive velar palatalization or the change of /e/ to /o/, do seem to be related to a following segment, but there may be other explanations, and it is not always the case that the conditioning segment is tautosyllabic. Although it would seem that the monophthongization of diphthongs might make a case for tautosyllabicity (as a conditioning environment) and therefore an argument for some notion of a syllable rime, it is not quite clear whether diphthongs are best analyzed as complex nuclei or as nuclei and coda groups (rime) and thus no special distinction is given to the syllable rime. What seems to be more relevant in these cases, at least in Slavic, is the status of the second element with respect to sonority sequencing and its ability to be associated with the mora. The discussion is organized as follows. In section 1.2 I present the syllable structure of Common Slavic as the result of the interaction of a Moraic Constraint and the Onset Constraint. In 1.2.3 I suggest that what has been identified as a principle or law of intrasyllabic harmony (syllable synharmony in Jakobson 1929/1971) may be viewed as a preference for unmarked coronal shared place of articulation. This was not a high-ranking constraint. It was not until fairly late in Common Slavic that a No Coda Constraint became critical

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

25

(1.2.4), favoring the elimination of falling diphthongs. Differences in the resolution of problematic structures with respect to the No Coda Constraint, namely the monophthongization of oral and nasal diphthongs (1.2.5) and no monophthongization in vowel plus liquid sequences, are due to articulation factors. Changes in the so-called liquid diphthongs show that by this time Late Common Slavic was differentiated into dialect areas with different constraint ranking (1.3). South Central dialects had faithfulness to syllable weight in addition to a highly ranked No Coda Constraint. In the northeastern part of Late Common Slavic a constraint against moraic sonorant consonants (Sonorant Constraint) and a syllable weight constraint limiting syllables to one mora resulted in a new syllable type. The North West area shows a variety of constraint rankings with respect to the Sonorant Constraint and the No Coda Constraint. I then show that the generalizations made about syllable structure also hold for changes in the high vowel and liquid sequences (1.3.2), nasal vowels (1.3.4), tense jers (1.3.5), and contraction (1.3.6). I conclude the chapter by arguing for the emergence of a bisyllabic domain in two major phonological changes of Late Common Slavic, compensatory lengthening (1.4.1) and changes in the jers (1.4.2), both of which operated within a strong-weak bisyllabic relationship, a metrical grouping shown to be critical in the evolution of Slavic prosody (discussed in chapter 2). 1.2

Common Slavic syllable structure

Proto-Slavic (PS) inherited from Proto-Indo-European both open and closed syllables: *ru.ba "fish," *ran.ka "hand," *sup.nas "sleep." Throughout Common Slavic syllables could be long or short - *du.mu "smoke," *da.mu "house," - and diphthongs and sonorants (nasals or liquids) as well as vowels could serve as syllable peaks: *snaig- "snow," *mortv- "dead." Long syllables could have rising or falling pitch accent, e.g., rising in *pargu "threshold," falling in *galdu "hunger," and one such accent per word. The restriction of tonal oppositions to long syllables suggests that syllable length was distinctive at least until changes in the liquid diphthongs took place when some parts of Late Common Slavic came to have only monomoraic syllables. In fact, changes in Common Slavic accent fundamentally depended on the reorganization of quantity, so I follow Jakobson (1963: 157), Stieber (1979: 49), and others in assuming that quantity was phonologically relevant in Common Slavic at least until the changes in the liquid diphthongs took place. It is not clear whether quantity or quality was phonemic after monophthongization took place in Middle Common Slavic. Lindstedt (1991) proposes that the

26

The syllable in Slavic: form and function Table 1.1. Common Slavic vowel system (after monophthongization) \

/

II

if

\

/

y

ii

T

^

/

u

f o

e

a

Proto-Slavic vowel system of i, I, u, u, e, e, a, a with an opposition of high vs. nonhigh, front vs. back, and short vs. long became the Common Slavic quantity-based system of i, 1, u, u, y, e, e, a, a, plus nasal vowels. Lunt (1993) suggests that the Common Slavic system was b, i, T>, U, y, e, £, o, a, Q, Q with a primary distinction of tense/lax (and distinctive roundness) with redundant length. Lindstedt's argument in favor of distinctive quantity is based on "the mere fact that in some SI. dialects old quantities were preserved up to the jer shift, the traditional terminus ad quern of CS, excludes any possibility of a PS system without phonemic quantity distinctions - by the logic of reconstruction" (1991: 119-120) and also on the fact that tonal distinctions required quantity distinctions, otherwise "there would have been no synchronic motivation for the fact that a and e could be accented in two ways, but o and e in only one way" (p. 120). Lunt (1993) proposes redundant length but phonemic quality distinctions because monophthongization produced an opposition between /y/ from *u and u from *eu, *au, *ou, as well as /o/ from short *o, *a but /a/ from *6, *a. Here I will adopt Lunt's transcription with the exception that the high, lax or short vowels will be written as I and u. Quantity distinctions functioned in Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic, and I represent this as a distinction between monomoraic and bimoraic syllables. The understanding is that i, u, 6, a, y, e,, and Q were bimoraic, I, u, e, and o were monomoraic. Common Slavic began to show increasing dialectal variation in the eighth and ninth centuries, though the language was more or less "unified" through approximately the ninth century (the period Meillet [1924/1965] considers to be "le slave commun"). The different developments of liquid diphthongs, com-

12 Common Slavic syllable structure

27

pensatory lengthening, the neo-acute accent shift, and contraction, among other changes, show that there already was some significant dialectal differentiation by the ninth and tenth centuries. Subsequent changes signal the disintegration of Late Common Slavic, though certain processes, such as the changes in the jers taking place in the period from the tenth to the twelfth century were shared by most, if not all, dialects of Late Common Slavic.5 Common Slavic experienced a series of sound changes, many of which resulted in a syllable pattern which may be characterized as one of open syllables or rising sonority. There are different opinions about the relative chronology of these processes (Rozwadowski 1915, Trubetzkoy 1922, Milewski 1931), but most of the following changes appear to have resulted in open syllable structure or a more general tendency for rising sonority: (a) the loss of final consonants, e.g., PIE *gard-a-s > PS *gardu "fortification" (cf. Lith gafdas); (b) the simplification of consonant clusters, e.g., CS * sunu "sleep, dream" (cf. Lith sdpnas), CS *osi "axis" (cf. La axis, Skr dksas); (c) the elimination of nasal consonants after a vowel before another consonant, e.g., CS *petl "five" (cf. Lith penJd); (d) the monophthongization of diphthongs, e.g., CS *sn£gu "snow" (cf. Lith. sniegas, snaigala "snowflake"; OPr snaygis "snow"), CS *rudu "red" (cf. Lith raudas); (e) the rise of prothetic glides before /u/ and I'll and later before other vowels as well, e.g., PS *ups- "up, high" > CS *uys- (cf. R vysokij, SC vhofc), (f) the metathesis of liquid diphthongs, e.g., PS *gard- > OCS grad?>, PS *alk- "elbow" > OCS lafrbtb (cf. Lith alkdne, OPr alkunis), and related changes (Nahtigal 1938/1952: 11-17). In 1931 van Wijk proposed that the law of open syllables be understood as a tendency for rising sonority in order to include the prothesis of glides and the monophthongization of diphthongs. This has come to be the accepted interpretation (see van Wijk 1932, Nahtigal 1952, Horalek 1955: 114, Schenker 1993: 67). The terms "law of open syllables" and "tendency for rising sonority" are often used interchangeably (e.g., Zuravlev 1966: 89, Kraj5ovi5 1974: 63) and in syllable-final position the two generally have not been distinguished. I think that the law of open syllables and the principle of rising sonority are the results of different constraints. Specifically, I will argue that Proto-Slavic had a Moraic Constraint and an Onset Constraint. The Moraic Constraint allowed only moraic segments in syllable-final position, and its effect, which has been interpreted as a law of open syllables, could be defined in terms of moraicity. Rising sonority is the consequence of the Onset Constraint and a No Coda Constraint in parts of Common Slavic. These three constraints functioned throughout Common Slavic until other changes in syllable structure became more important in Late Common Slavic.

28

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

1.2.1 The Morale Constraint The chronology of word-final and syllable-final changes suggests that some type of hierarchy was operative in determining the loss of syllable-final consonants. Word-final consonants were lost earlier than word-internal (but syllablefinal) ones, and obstruents were more likely to be lost than sonorants, e.g., OCS gostb "guest," cf. La hostis "stranger, enemy," Go gasts; PS *gardu, cf. Lith gafdas "barrier, fence," except in word-final position where the loss of final nasals was an early change and subject to certain length restrictions (1.2.5.2), e.g., PIE *sunum "son," ace sg > CS *synu (Shevelov 1965: 224ff.). Within a word, consonants were generally lost except before sonorants, e.g., OCS cislo "number" < PS *5ltsla; OCS dasi "you will give" < *dadsi; OCS osa "wasp" < PS *apsa (cf. Lith vapsa "horse-fly"); OCS ploth "enclosure,"pleto "I braid" < PS *plakt-, *plekt- (cf. La plecto, OUG flihtu, Gk pleko), but OCS ognb "fire," uml-bknoti "to fall silent" (Brauer 1961: 203-206), though there were some exceptions in tl, dl sequences in some areas. Dental stops were lost before nasals, but dm in the PIE form *septmas > PS *sebdm- "seventh," is preserved in all Slavic languages, e.g., R sed'moj, Psiodmy, B sedmi, except U sjomyj, BR s'omy. (See Shevelov 1965: 194ff.) If we accept the notion of a universal sonority hierarchy (regardless of how this is defined; see Jespersen 1904, Hooper 1976, Murray and Vennemann 1983, Selkirk 1984a, Steriade 1982/1990a, and Clements 1990), then in order of increasing sonority sounds pattern as follows: voiceless stops - voiced stops/voiceless fricatives - voiced fricatives - nasals - liquids - glides/high vowels - vowels. One would expect that less sonorous syllable-final consonants would be lost before the more sonorous ones, i.e., obstruents would tend to disappear before nasals or liquids. This is generally true in Slavic except for the early loss of glides and the preservation of syllable-final liquids until approximately the ninth or tenth century. The unusual behavior of liquids is a key to understanding the principles of Common Slavic syllable structure. Specifically, the retention of syllable-final liquids into Late Common Slavic suggests that the notion of open syllable structure was defined in terms of moras and not so much on sonority sequencing and that the ability of liquids to carry a mora was critical to their development. This syllable structure constraint may be formulated as a moraic constraint on syllable-final segments. Moraic Constraint Syllables must end in a moraic segment. The tendency in Slavic then was to preserve syllable-final segments if they could be made moraic. Obstruents could not be associated with a mora and were

12 Common Slavic syllable structure

29

lost. But other segments which had functioned as (nonmoraic) syllable codas in Proto-Indo-European could now be incorporated into the Slavic syllable if they could be associated to the mora. The principal effect of the Moraic Constraint was to eliminate from syllable-final position those consonants which could not become moraic. This left vowels, nasals, liquids, and glides in the syllable rime. Vowel plus liquid sequences, for example, became bimoraic (V R ) and not vowel nuclei followed by a nonmoraic liquid coda (V R). Word-final position, however, appears to be an unusual case because segments (including nasals) were lost regardless of relative sonority. The word-final environment is a special one with respect to sound change in many languages and it must be kept in mind that certain changes here were also probably due to morphological considerations (Lunt 1993: 371-372). Support for defining a constraint on the moraic level comes from the shortening of Proto-Indo-European diphthongs. Length distinctions in Proto-IndoEuropean diphthongs (Kurylowicz 1958a: 162ff.) were eliminated in Slavic (Mikkola 1913: 53-62, Vondrak 1924: 42-43, Nahtigal 1938/1952: 21-22, Brauer 1961: 66-75, Arumaa 1964: 81-100), and if the vowel plus glide sequence was tautosyllabic, it monophthongized, e.g., !<*ei: OCS sito "sieve," SC sito (but OCS sejati "to sow" with a long root vowel); l<*ei: OCS iti "to go," U ity (cf. Skr hi, Lith eiti); u<*6u, au: OCS synu "son," loc sg<*sunou (cf. Go sundu, Skr sundu); u<*ou, au: OCS ruda "ore" <*roudh- (cf. Skr rdhitah "red," La rufus, ruber, Lith raudas) and OCS rumem?, R rumjanyj "ruddy, red" (cf. Lith raumud, Skr rumen). The glide is given here in its phonetic representation [i]. MareS (1956/1965) interprets the neutralization of Proto-IndoEuropean diphthongal length distinctions in Slavic as the elimination of a mora, specifically, as a change from trimoraic to bimoraic syllables. But trimoraic syllables are rare in languages and it is doubtful that Proto-Indo-European diphthongs were trimoraic. Another interpretation would be to postulate maximal bimoraic nuclei for Proto-Indo-European with nonmoraic syllable codas. The shortening of the vowel in these sequences would then be the consequence of moving a coda into the moraic position of the syllable as in (3) (perhaps resulting in the dissociation of the preceding vowel from the mora), and all diphthongs are thus bimoraic. (3)

PIE*au,au>PS*au

30

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

The change represented by (3) would have also characterized vowel and liquid (VR) sequences because length distinctions were eliminated in ProtoSlavic before liquids. Other evidence for defining this constraint as mora-based comes from the preservation of the original rising or falling pitch accent on shortened diphthongs. These developments are discussed in detail below (1.3.1), and they suggest that pitch accent was associated with the mora, regardless of whether the second mora belonged to a vowel or a liquid. If the constraint is formulated as a moraic constraint, then the exceptional behavior of liquids in syllable-final position in view of the general loss of other consonants in this environment may be due to their moraicity. Another argument comes from the early creation of short vowel and liquid sequences from Proto-IndoEuropean syllabic liquids, e.g., *mrti- > PS *sumirti "death." Though this appears to have been an early change, the existence of Ir, ur, II, ul diphthongs in CS might seem to contradict a "law of open syllables." But under the moraic constraint these diphthongs would not be considered a violation of prevailing syllable structure so long as the liquid was moraic. 7.2.2 The Onset Constraint The majority of Proto-Slavic syllables were of the structure CV(S) and Slavic shows substantial evidence of prothetic consonants when cognate forms are compared with those of other Indo-European languages, as in the case of "otter": R vydra, P wydra, US wudra, SC vidra, cf. Skr udrdh, Lith udra, Gk hydra "watersnake"; the word for "high": R vysokij, U vysokyj, P wysoki, US/LS wusoki, Cz/Sk vysoky, Sn visok, cf. OHG w/"up," Gk hypselos "high"; or "is": Rjest', Uje, BR josc', Pjest, LS jo, Cz/Sk/USye, Snje, SCje, cf. OLith esti, Skr dsti, La est, Go ist, Gk esti (Shevelov 1963a, Arumaa 1964: 101-110). Prothesis of u was regular before early CS /u/, /u/, that of i before a front vowel less so. Before /a/ the reflexes in contemporary Slavic languages vary greatly and prothesis of [u] before /Q/ and /u/ < *au, *ou in (North) West Slavic is generally considered to be a secondary phenomenon (except by Vaillant 1950: 185). The critical factor is that the nature of the prothetic segment was almost always determined by the following vowel and not by the preceding one: labial u was found before /u/, coronal i appeared regularly before /i/, and later also before /e/. It has been customary to view the appearance of prothetic glides as hiatusbreaking and to date this phenomenon to the period after the loss of final consonants.6 Thus, new sequences of word-final and word-initial vowels (V#V) were said to be intolerable. Prothetic i before /a/ was especially sensitive to the presence of a preceding vowel, according to Meillet (1924/1965: 79-85), who

12 Common Slavic syllable structure

31

writes that "la prothese provient de la liaison avec les mots precedents" (p. 81): phrase-initially there was no prothesis. Within a phrase it resulted in variants such as iaviti "to manifest" vs. aviti or obaviti (in the prefixed form). Regardless of what was taken to be the cause of u and i prothesis, several Slavists established a connection between the glide and the following vowel. SeliSCev (1952: 122) considers the regular appearance of [u] before /u/ > /y/ to be a case of delabialization, though the prothesis of the front glide is said to be due to hiatus; Meillet (1924/1965: 81ff.) and Vaillant (1950: 178-184) take the appearance of [i] before front vowels to be a signal of palatalization: "Al'initial du mot ou de la syllabe, la mouillure de la voyelle etait plus accusee, et toutes les voyelles prepalatales apparaissent precedees d'un j - , que l'orthographie le note ou non" (p. 178). Zuravlev (1965) proposes the decomposition of distinctive features in which the labial or palatal feature of the vowel is transferred to a preceding consonant or, when no consonant is available, as in the case of initial vowels, the feature is manifested as [u] or [i]. Thus Zuravlev sees prothesis as the early factoring out of certain vowel features (before /a/ he hypothesizes a possible [h] on-glide). The problems with the so-called "hiatus theory" have been discussed by Shevelov (1963a), who argues for a stratified view of this change and who shows that the motivation for prothesis may have been different at different times. In brief, the hiatus theory had difficulty in explaining why only prothesis - and not other mechanisms, such as vowel deletion - was used to eliminate hiatus, why the nature of the prothetic consonant was so clearly related to the nature of the following vowel, why prothesis was so much more regular before I'll and /u/ than it was before other vowels, why, if prothesis was a Common Slavic development, there are forms without it (at the same time as etymological word-initial glides are retained, thereby indicating that there was no general loss of glides in this position), and why prothesis should be characteristic of a system which was to experience the loss of an intervocalic glide and subsequent contraction. Both Shevelov (1963a) and Zuravlev (1965) propose that prothesis before /u/ and /i/ was an early and regular process in Common Slavic. Since prothesis was systematic before /u/ (> y) but not before the /u/ which derived from diphthongs, it most likely took place before monophthongization. Its close relationship to the following vowel indicates that this may have been a derived relationship. The prothesis of i before A/ and that of u before /u/ may be seen as a consequence of syllabification. If /i/ and /u/ are specified only as [sonorant], then whether they are manifested as a vowel or a glide depends on their relationship to the syllable. In syllable onset or coda position, they are glides; otherwise,

32

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

they can function as syllable peaks. Prothesis may be represented as in (4), where the sonorant is associated to two syllable positions, an onset and a nucleus or CV structure. Eventually the features may decompose and become associated with a specific root node, as in the case of /u/, which associated the labial node with the first position, i.e., [uy]. This may have happened with HI as well. (Length distinctions in the vowels are made with respect to the mora and are ignored in the diagram below. Labiality or roundness was distinctive in Proto-Indo-European.) (4)

Prothesis/Decomposition before /I/, /!/, /u/, /u/ a.

V

C V

I

b.

\/

[son] Place

[son] Place

Cor

Cor

V [son]

C V \ / [son]

Place / \ / \ Lab Dor

Place / \ Lab Dor

C

V

[son]

[son]

Place

Place

Lab

Dor

It appears that syllable structure conditions may have motivated a phonological change with no effect on the moraic structure of the syllable since the original mora count remained the same. Prothesis satisfied the onset requirement and prothetic elements tended to be very stable in Slavic, showing reflexes in most Slavic languages today. This syllabification requirement may be formalized as an Onset Constraint (or Fill Onset Position Constraint): Onset Constraint Syllables must have onsets. The analysis of prothesis proposed in (4) does not require that there be a preceding vowel, thus (4) is not by definition hiatus-breaking, though its results may have served that function. After prothesis became legitimized by syllable structure constraints, an [i] could appear before vowels other than /i/ and the [u] before nonlabial /y/, but the overall "hardness" or "softness" of the syllable was maintained. The appearance of the front glide before /e/ (of various types, later e, e, and e) as in Rjest' "to eat," Ujisty, Pjesc, Pbjest, Cz jist', Skjest', Sn jesti, SCjesti, Bjam "I eat" (cf. La edd, Skr dtti, Lith esti) or Rjacmen' "barley," U

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

33

jacmin', ¥ jqczmieti, XJSjecmjeri, LS jacmeri, Cz jecmen, Sk jdcmen, Sn jecmen, SCjacmen, M jecmen (cf. Lithtf«&
34

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

[+vocalic] within a segment in syllable-initial position and as a diffuseness attenuation of [±compact] in the case of prothetic [i] and [u]. That account is compatible with the kind of template matching or constraint interaction proposed here. In any case, while it is possible to view the [i] before /i/ and /e/ and the [u] before /u/ as decomposition of features to fill a certain syllable template, the insertion of [i] before /a/ would have to be considered the insertion of an independent segment. Given that this, too, created CV syllable structure and met the Onset Constraint, it can be interpreted as a syllable structure effect. By definition the filling of the syllable onset position through decomposition means that there was some correlation between the features of the onset and those of the syllable nucleus in Common Slavic. Other changes taking place in Proto-Slavic also suggest that there may have been a special relationship between the onset and the nucleus. In the opinion of some linguists, this bond was considered strong enough to warrant the postulation of a special linguistic unit, the syllabeme or the group phoneme.

123

Intrasyllabic harmony

It was Jakobson (1929/1971) who identified a tendency in Common Slavic for syllables to be harmonious in terms of "hardness" or "softness": "Une des tendances qui traverse comme un fil rouge toute la periode considered, c'est l'uniformisation de la syllabe. II s'etablit graduellement une harmonie des sons a l'interieur de la syllabe (synharmonisme syllabique . . .), on voit cristalliser deux types de syllabes - les molles et les dures" (p. 25). He attributed to it both regressive and progressive assimilations within a syllable. Among changes considered to be manifestations of this tendency are the fronting (or as some interpret it, delabialization) of back vowels after palatals, e.g., PS * iuga "yoke" > CS *iigo (cf. OCS igo, Lithjungas, La iugum), the palatalization of velars before the front glide and later before front vowels, e.g., PIE *gw!u- "live" > CS *ziuu "alive" (cf. OCS zivh, Sn zfv, R z/v), sometimes iotation, if it is seen as the palatalization of a consonant before a glide, e.g., OCS plakati "to cry," placo "I cry" (< *plak-i-6-m), and a few other changes discussed by Jakobson (1929/1971: 25ff.), van Wijk (1941), and others. Regardless of whether intrasyllabic harmony (also known as syllable synharmony) was an internal development of the system or due to external Altaic influence (Shevelov 1965: 253ff., Gal ton 1994), most Slavists have accepted it as characterizing Common Slavic in the period from the fifth to the eighth centuries.8 Intrasyllabic harmony in Slavic appears to be somewhat one-sided in that it is an adjustment within the syllable primarily in favor of fronting (sharping, delabializing, or palatalizing) rather than backing (flatting, labializing, or

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

35

depalatalizing), though there are some instances of vowel backing before [u], e.g., *eu > *au as in *pleu- "flow," OCS plovo "I sail, swim" or *neu-as "new," OCS novi> "new" (cf. La novus). Thus the manifestations of this tendency are said to be various palatalizations and vowel frontings, resulting in the cooccurrence of front vowels and palatals. In terms of distinctive features, one could describe these palatalizations and vowel frontings as the generalization or spreading of a [-back] feature, accompanied by other articulatory adjustments. The segments affected were primarily velars, though if iotation is taken to be a manifestation of this tendency, then coronals and labials would be included as well. There were three major velar palatalizations in the development of Slavic. In postulated chronological order they are commonly known as the First, Second, and Third Velar Palatalizations, though the relative chronology of the so-called Second and Third Velar Palatalizations is still in dispute. The First Velar Palatalization took place before front vowels and the high front glide to produce 5 < *k (as in OCS mleko "milk," mlecbrvb, adj; PIE *kel> OCS celo "forehead"; OCS vlbkb "wolf," vlbce, voc); 5 < *g (as in OCS noga "foot, leg," nozbtfb, adj; bogi? "god," boze, voc); § < *x (as in OCS duxh "spirit," duse, voc; OCS tixb "quiet," tisina "quietude"). This produced either velar-palatal alternations within an inflectional or derivational paradigm, or simply palatals in Slavic with velar cognates in other Indo-European languages, e.g., OPr kirsnan "black," CS *5irnu "black," R cernyj. The Second Velar Palatalization took place after the monophthongization of diphthongs and shows the change of k > c (as in PIE *kaina > OCS cena "cost, value," OCS vlbkb "wolf," vlbce, loc sg); g > 3/z' (as in OCS kbriiga "book," kbni^e, loc sg); and some dialectal variation in the reflexes for /x/ (as in ES serb "gray," cf. Gmc *haira-; OCS muxa "fly," muse, dat, loc sg, cf. U musi, dat, loc sg, LS muse, dat sg). The so-called Third Velar Palatalization, which took place (somewhat irregularly) after a high front vowel before a back vowel, as represented by the OCS forms otbcb "father" < PIE *atikos and ovbca "sheep" < PS *aulka, was a progressive palatalization which was not tautosyllabic and which depended to a great extent on the nature of the vowel in the following syllable. This means that at some point there were sequences of a palatal(ized) consonant followed by a back vowel at the time when intrasyllabic harmony was supposedly in effect (unless some phonetic fronting is postulated for the back vowels). Since vowel fronting also occurred after this palatalization, cf. OCS otbcemb, instr sg (with the fronted allomorph of *-omi), it appears that vowel fronting was still operative at the time of this so-called Third Palatalization (unless this change is attributed to analogy) or that the palatalization was indeed an early one. (For a more detailed discussion of the Third Velar Palatalization, see

36

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

Channon 1972, Lunt 1987,1990, and references therein, where an earlier date is proposed for this change.) It was not always the case that consonants were changed before front vowels. A significant shift in the vowels took place after palatal consonants as well (see Meillet 1924/1965: 117-120). For example, the change of u > I, o > e, u (y) > i as in the desinences of the OCS paradigm rab-b "slave" vs. nozb "knife," nom sg, rabomb vs. nozemb, instr sg, and raby vs. nozi, instr pi could also be described as the influence of the stem consonant on the following vowel. This vowel fronting may have begun as a phonetic process, but in Slavic it was so general in many morphological categories that it constituted a major isogloss between Baltic and Slavic. It created a "hard" versus "soft" stem paradigm only in Slavic, where the phonological form of a given case ending came to depend on the nature (palatalized] or not) of the final stem consonant (cf. the instr sg masc/neut paradigm ending in -omb/-emb as in OCS mestomb "place" and OCS nozemb "knife" or the ace pi PIE *ions > *i$ as in OCS moz% "man" < *mongions). This was a fundamental change in Slavic which has since become morphologized and its phonetic origins (if any) are obscured. But this change did augment the number of sound sequences which were more consistent in terms of the place of articulation. Another Slavic innovation, the palatalization of consonants before the front glide (also known as iotation) is often taken to be a manifestation of intrasyllabic harmony because it is assumed that the consonant assimilated to the glide. But it is possible that iotation was simply the coalescence of segments (merger of adjacent features) within a syllable onset, and not directly parallel to the velar palatalizations. (See Bethin 1993b for one analysis of this process.) In dental fricatives, /s/ and /z/, iotation produced a palatal fricative /§/, /z/; in labials, many believe the result was an epenthetic /I'/ (with subsequent loss in some dialects), while in dental stops the change (or the final stage of the shift of It' I and Id'I) must have taken place later because there is a variety of reflexes in Slavic. Examples include PS *kiasia "cup, chalice," e.g., R casa, U casa, Cz else, SC casa, B casa, PS *zemia "earth" > U zemlja, Cz zeme,Vziemia, LS/US zemja, SC zemlja, Sn zemlja, B/M zemja, PS *suetia "candle" > R sveca, BR sv'aca, U svica, P swieca, LS/US sweca, Cz svice, Sk svieca, SC sveca, Sn sveca, B svest. Though there is some disagreement about the chronology of this change, most Slavists date the onset of iotation to the fifth century, if not earlier, and agree that it continued over a significant period of time, probably into the period of Late Common Slavic dialect differentiation (approximately the ninth century). This means that iotation was taking place at the time when the preference for intrasyllabic harmony was supposedly in effect.9

12 Common Slavic syllable structure

37

While iotation may have been motivated by intrasyllabic harmony, in many cases it actually produced exceptions to it. There are instances where iotation resulted in syllables with palatal consonants followed by /a/, as in OCS casa "chalice," koria "horse," gen sg, zeml'a "earth," in other words, syllables which did not conform to intrasyllabic harmony. This was also the case in the change of e > a as in OCS kricati "to shout" < *krik-e-, OCS drbzati "to hold" < *dirge-, OCS slysati "to hear" < *slux-e, OCS cas~b "hour" < *kes-, although Lunt (1956: 309) has argued that "the relatively back a became sharped, at least phonetically, under the same circumstances, as did u and a in northern Slavic and other "dispalatalizations" (5 > a, e > o) in this area. He dates the transfer of the front/back distinction from vowels to consonants to before the loss of weak jers, which implies that intrasyllabic harmony would have had to cease functioning in all areas of Slavic long before changes in the jers. Without specifically addressing issues of chronology, it is clear that there was a very strong tendency in Slavic in favor of palatalization or vowel fronting, and this was taken to justify the postulation of new linguistic entities (syllabeme or group-phoneme).10 But as Lunt (1956: 309) points out, "In the synharmonic syllables of late Common Slavic dialects, we must also assume that it was the vowels rather than the consonants that carried the distinctive feature of sharpness, for the consonants never occurred without a following vowel." It is not necessary to construct new linguistic units for Slavic, for the effect would obtain if one were to postulate a constraint in Common Slavic in favor of front-back harmony within a syllable. If such a constraint did function in Common Slavic it would have to be formulated as favoring coronality. And since constraints are violable, the presence of changes such as £ > a, e > o, or Q > a in the system is not completely ruled out. Intrasyllabic harmony did not seem to play much of a role in the southern Late Common Slavic dialects, where there was no development of a phonemic distinction in palatalization. Lunt (1956: 315) writes that "in West Balkan Slavic (pre-Slovene, preSerbocroatian), the synharmonic syllable was lost before the loss of the jers, and the opposition front-back ceased to be distinctive." The question of the development of phonemic palatalization in Slavic is still not completely resolved, but it should be noted that the claim that palatalization

38

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

was not distinctive in Slavic before the loss of weak jers depends to some extent on the presupposition that intrasyllabic harmony would have made palatalization redundant (Jakobson 1929/1971, Lunt 1956) and that the back vowels may have had front allophones /a/, /6/, /Q/. Intrasyllabic harmony in Common Slavic may be analyzed as consisting of two components, assimilation with respect to place of articulation and a preference for fronting as opposed to backing. Both of these developments may have been the result of segmental association preferences, perhaps a constraint ranking that favors the sharing of place features between a consonant and a following vowel and a constraint or a ranking that favors the parsing of a coronal node over a labial or dorsal (Prince and Smolensky 1993:181). If palatalization is a release feature (Steriade 1993), this would explain its predominant occurrence in prevocalic position. The high ranking of coronal node parsing would favor fronting over backing (dorsalization). Slavic may have had a preference for fronting: the prothesis of a front glide before initial /a/ suggests that the default onset is coronal. The question for this study is whether these processes (i.e., velar palatalizations, iotation, vowel fronting) are syllable structure effects. I treat them as the result of constraints on feature association which are not directly related to syllable structure. Slavic also experienced a progressive velar palatalization which was not tautosyllabic, so any syllable structure effects would be fairly complex, if present. Moreover, several of the processes identified by Slavists as related to intrasyllabic harmony were short-lived (velar palatalizations) or actually produced violations of harmony (iotation), so the most pervasive harmony effect was in the morphology. The distinction between "hard" and "soft" stem paradigms is retained throughout Slavic languages descended from northern Late Common Slavic. As a morphological property, it may be the result of other types of constraint (such as alignment) rather than syllable structure constraints. In any case, this problem bears further investigation if only to examine the typological distinction between northern Late Common Slavic which developed phonemic palatalization, and southern Late Common Slavic which did not.

1.2.4

The No Coda Constraint

Common Slavic syllables ended in a mora-bearing segment, though they were not necessarily organized in terms of rising sonority. Liquid diphthongs, vowels followed by nasals, and glide diphthongs technically met the specifications of the Moraic Constraint (vowels, glides, nasals, and liquids were mora-bearing in Common Slavic). Many languages have a constraint on the presence of codas and it belongs to the set of universal grammar constraints postulated in Prince and Smolensky 1993 and McCarthy and Prince 1993. A No Coda Constraint came to function in Common Slavic as well and it may be formulated as follows:

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

39

No Coda Syllables do not have codas. This constraint had an effect on a variety of remaining Common Slavic structures. Glide diphthongs and vowel plus nasal sequences monophthongized, but the development of the liquid diphthongs was radically different. These divergent developments are due to the properties of the segments in question (i.e., to differences in the nature of glides and nasals as opposed to liquids) as well as to specific syllable structure constraints.

1.2.5

Monophthongization

Proto-Slavic had a front/back, a high/nonhigh, and a long/short opposition in vowels, e.g., i, I, e, e, a, a, u, u. There were oral diphthongs (ei, eu, ai, au), nasal diphthongs (in, im, en, em, un, um, an, am), and eight liquid diphthongs (//, ir, ul, ur, el, er, al, ar). One of the changes characteristic of Common Slavic was monophthongization of oral diphthongs and vowel plus nasal sequences. This coalescence did not affect syllable weight and the resulting monophthongs were long, e.g., PS *ei > 1, PS *ai > e, PS *eu > (i)u, PS *au > u, PS *en > Q. In other words, the features associated with the second part of the diphthong, whether [high] in /i/ and /u/ or [nasal] in the case of vowel plus nasal sequences, were no longer represented in a separate position in the syllable, yet total syllable quantity remained the same: two-mora nuclei were retained. The retention of a mora in such cases may be seen as the reassociation of that mora to a tautosyllabic segment by mora conservation or a faithfulness constraint on total syllable weight. Mora conservation within the domain of the syllable was a critical feature of Common Slavic since total syllable weight tended to be preserved regardless of changes in the segment sequences. Monophthongization in Common Slavic was a change in the number of segments with no corresponding change in the number of moras (see (5)). It was not strictly a case of lengthening (or the acquisition of a mora by the syllable), but rather a redistribution of mora value among the components of the syllable.

II

\

/

X V S VX Monophthongization was bound by syllable structure in that the coalescing segments had to be tautosyllabic. A heterosyllabic PIE *ei sequence became *ei; a tautosyllabic one became *I, as in OCS sejo "I sow" vs OCS sito "sieve" and PIE *ou became either *ou (ov) or *u as in milovati "to pity," milujo "I pity"; PIE *eu has the reflexes OCS ptbvati "to spit" and pi'UJQ "I spit"; PIE *6u

40

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

(tautosyllabic) has the reflex *u as in OCS kup~b "pile," SC kup "heap, pile," cf. Lith kuopa "group," kaupas "heap" (Mikkola 1913: 53-62, Nahtigal 1938/1952: 13-14). The sequences most likely to experience coalescence were those in which the features of the second segment could be readily absorbed by the first, as in the case of oral diphthongs ending in /i/ or /u/ and vowel plus nasal diphthongs. Monophthongization produced new long vowels and the system of Common Slavic in the period fifth to seventh centuries had a series of long and tense vowels (a, e, /, u, v, e, Q), a series of short and lax vowels (e, o, i, w), and a series of non-high vowel and high vowel (jer) plus liquid diphthongs Or, el, or, ol, fr, il, ur, ul) (see Leskien 1888, 1893, Vondrak 1924: 219, Lunt 1993, and others). It appears that the PS *u had lost its labiality, becoming /y/ at about this time because the new long /u/ that resulted from diphthongization did not become /y/. Coalescence was characteristic of vowel plus glide and vowel plus nasal sequences, but it did not apply to vowel plus liquid groups. While all of the above were bimoraic syllable rimes and therefore technically in the same category of vowel plus sonorant, the glide diphthongs were among the earliest to monophthongize, probably because the [sonorant] root nodes were the most compatible with the [-consonantal] nature of the preceding vowel. The nasals and liquids were [+consonantal] and their merger with a [-consonantal] segment not particularly likely. But the development of vowel plus nasal and vowel plus liquid sequences was also different. The former resulted in nasal vowels by means of a two-step process (through nasal diphthongs, as in (7) below). And differences between developments in the nasal diphthongs and the liquid diphthongs may be attributed to the nature of the features involved, namely, nasality (which readily appears on vowels) and the place or stricture features of liquids (which do not appear on vowels). Although it is theoretically possible to distinguish nasal diphthongs from liquid diphthongs in structural terms, perhaps representing vowel plus nasal sequences as complex nuclei and the vowel plus liquid sequences as syllable nuclei followed by a coda, this is an unnecessary complication because there is no obvious need to distinguish complex nuclei from complex rimes in Common Slavic. 12.5.1 Oral diphthongs In Proto-Indo-European and early Common Slavic there were two sets of oral diphthongs of falling sonority, a series ending in the front glide [i] and a parallel series ending with the back glide [u] and they are transliterated as such in the citation of forms below, e.g., *ei. These diphthongs may be represented as vowels followed by sonorants equivalent to /i/ and /u/, whose glide-like pro-

12 Common Slavic syllable structure

41

nunciation is a consequence of syllable structure. In other words, an /i/ in the coda position of a syllable would be pronounced as [i], but it is basically an /i/. The changes in the tautosyllabic diphthongs may be roughly summarized as follows: PIE *ei, *ei > CS *i, PIE *ai, *ai, *oi, *ai, *6i > CS *S, PIE *eu, *eu > CS *u, *(i)u, PIE *9u, *ou, *au, *6u, *au > CS *u, and the original bimoraic value of the syllable was retained. Examples include OCS videti "to see," cf. Lith veidas "face, appearance," and /ai/, /oi/, which gave different reflexes, depending on grammatical function, position in the word, or a difference in pitch accent, cf. Lith kdina, OCS cena "price, reward," Lith snaigala "snowflake," OCS snegi? "snow," but cf. the dative singular as in Lith rankai "hand," OCS roce "hand, arm," and the imperative as in OCS beri "take" (< *bherois "take"). The /eu/ usually produced /u/ with palatalization or iotation on the preceding consonant as in PIE *bheudh-, Go anabiudan "to order," OCS bljud- "watch, guard," PIE *leudh-, Lith lidudis "folk, people," G Leute "people," OHG Hut, OCS ljud- "people," and /au/ fairly regularly corresponds to /u/ in Slavic, cf. Lith dausos "air," OCS duxb "spirit"; Lith taiiras "aurochs," La taurus, OPr tauris "bison," OCS tun? "bull" (see also Arumaa 1964: 81-100, 112-113). The monophthongization of oral diphthongs, according to Kolesov (1979: 117), probably took place in the period from the fourth to the sixth centuries between the two velar palatalizations. Lamprecht (1987: 192-193) dates the First Velar Palatalization to approximately 400 AD or later, the monophthongization of oral diphthongs to 500-575 AD, and the Second and Third Velar Palatalizations to the period 575-650 AD. Changes in oral diphthongs were probably complete before the appearance of nasal vowels (which Lamprecht 1987: 192-193 dates to after 750 AD; Kortlandt 1979 gives an earlier time). The monophthongization of oral diphthongs in most cases resulted in sounds whose features were identical to those of the glide, either /i/ or /u/, except for PIE *ai, *ai, *oi, *6i, which often produced a long, nonhigh front vowel represented here as e, perhaps [ae]. It did not contrast with a mid or low front vowel. The monophthongization of PIE *ei, *ei, *au, *ou, *6u, *au, *au may be abbreviated as the monophthongization of PS *ei and *au. This may be seen either as the loss of the first segment or as the spread of the Dorsal node to the preceding vowel with subsequent coalescence, resulting in [high] segments. In PIE *eu, *eu > PS *eu > CS *(i)u the frontness remained and was realized as [i] (perhaps through a stage of *iau as per Lunt 1993: 365), while the height was retained in the /u/ vowel (cf. OCS bljud- "guard, watch" from *(i)u which shows the effect of iotation). The monophthongization of PIE *oi, *6i, *ai, *ai, *ai or PS *ai was slightly more complicated. The process might have involved an intermediate

42

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

development PS *ai > CS *ei (see Lunt 1993: 365). Given that the system had an opposition of front/back and high/nonhigh before monophthongization, the fronting of PS *ai > e (S) instead of/o/ would suggest that /6/ was not possible in the system. In other words, the long back vowel was simply /a/; /o/ could only be short. One way for *ai to retain its length and to be distinct from the high *ei > 1 or *au > u was to become e. When viewed in the framework of feature geometry this change may be expressed as in (6). (6)

Monophthongization/coalescence

[son]

[-cons] 11 Place i1 Cor

—•

11 Place Cor

Dor 1 1 [+high]

[son] 11 Place Cor

Dor [+high]

a

[son] 11 Place

[-cons] 11 Place i1 Dor

[son] 1

1

Place Dor 1 [+high]

Lab

i

[-high]

o/a

I

1 [+high]

u

u

o

G

i

1

[-cons]

1

I

1

1

1

Place Cor

Place Dor 1 [+high]

j

[-high]

o/a

[son]

[son]

1

Place i1 Dor

Dor

Lab

i

Cor

Dor 1 [-high] e(e)

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

43

Monophthongization did not eliminate moras (for the resulting vowels were long), but it did have an effect on the sequencing of segments within the syllable nucleus. In other words, changes in the diphthongs were independent of the moraic tier: the No Coda Constraint does not affect the mora count of the syllable in Slavic. Monophthongization was not simply the loss of a coda or the loss of a mora on the glide with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel; the vowel resulting from this process was often qualitatively (though not quantitatively) different from the original diphthong. The features of the high segment merged with those of the preceding vowel and the original sequence of decreasing sonority was thereby eliminated. When coalescence is interpreted as involving two components of syllable structure, the mora and the segments or features, then vowel lengthening and the loss of the glide may be seen as being concomitant. The monophthongization of falling glide diphthongs in Slavic has been described in various ways. BoSkovic (1984: 76) postulates the following process of assimilation and ^syllabification, motivated by the law of open syllables: *vei.dos > ve.idos > ve.i.dos > vi.i.dos > vidu. He writes: "When the law of open syllables started to operate, then another syllabification emerged: *ve-idos. But such a pronunciation was impossible. Therefore the non-syllabic component of the syllable vocalized and as a result *ve-i-dos appeared; therefore, instead of a bisyllabic word a trisyllabic word was produced. Then followed assimilation: *ve-i-dos > vi-i-dos. And, finally, contraction: vldos > vidi>" (p. 76, trans. CYB). This version does not explain why an "impossible" pronunciation should develop in the first place nor how a nonsyllabic [i] can constitute a syllable. Velcheva (1988: 51-53) formulates rules raising and lengthening the vowel before /j/, then a rule of glide deletion. Stankiewicz (1973: 182) suggests that the vowel and the glide metathesized, though it is difficult to actually find evidence of this or to explain why the elements of a diphthong would be subject to metathesis. Jakobson (1929/1971: 31) and Trubetzkoy (1922) view monophthongization as the assimilation of the first vowel to the second element, though metathesis is postulated for oi > io > ie. The present analysis treats the length of the vowel and the loss of the glide as concomitant. The elimination of long and short vowel distinctions in ProtoIndo-European diphthongs by Proto-Slavic and Early Common Slavic was the result of moving the sonorant coda into a mora-bearing position in accordance with the Moraic Constraint. But by middle Common Slavic the No Coda Constraint seems to have become dominant, at least in certain parts of the Slavic-speaking territory. Monophthongization was in keeping with the No Coda Constraint. In addition to introducing new long vowels, it eventually also

44

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

resulted in a distinctive opposition in roundness for back vowels because the long monophthong /u/ was now opposed to the /y/ < */u/. 1.2.5.2 Nasal diphthongs Textual evidence in the form of special orthographic symbols as well as morphophonemic alternations show that Late Common Slavic had at least two nasal vowels, a front /$/ and a back /Q/, which developed from Proto-Indo-European sequences of vowels plus nasal consonants in position before another consonant, e.g., CS gosi "goose" < *ghans (cf. Lith zqsis. La anser from *hanser), OCS zob-b "tooth" < *gombhos (cf. Lith zambas "rib," Skrjdmbhas "tooth"), OCSpetb "five" < *penki- (cf. Lith pewit*, Gofimf Laquinque, Skipdnca), and from Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasals, e.g., OCS pam&b "memory" < *mntis (cf. Lith at-minfis "memory, remembrance," Go ga-munds "memory," La mentio, Skr matis "thought" (see Meillet 1924/1965, Milewski 1931, Arumaa 1964: 132-137; Shevelov 1965: 311-337, and references therein). The early Slavic alphabets also have letters for pre-iotated or fronted variants (IQ, IQ) of the nasal vowels. The emergence of the nasal vowels is most often attributed to the law or tendency for open syllable structure (see, for example, Rozwadowski 1915:42, Iljinskij 1916: 82ff., Mikkola 1921:15) and it was seen as a development akin to the monophthongization of diphthongs ending in /i/ or /u/, though most Slavists assume that it took place later, probably from the seventh to the ninth centuries. I think that there were two main stages in the development of vowel and nasal sequences from Proto-Indo-European to Common Slavic. In the early stages, the nasal was a syllable onset or a syllable coda, depending on whether a vowel or a consonant, respectively, followed. Before vowels, nasals were syllable onsets and did not carry a mora, e.g., *uu.zi. me.tu "will take," 3 p sg. But when nonmoraic nasals occurred in the syllable coda, they constituted violations of the emerging Moraic Constraint in Proto-Slavic. So the nasal acquired a mora, creating a diphthong. In the second stage the place of articulation became nondistinctive, and nasality was transferred to the preceding vowel, e.g., OCS vb.ze.ti < *uu.zim.tl. This may be represented as coalescence. The resulting nasal vowels were long (see Jakobson 1929/1971: 32-33), which is to be expected if the nasal had indeed been mora-bearing. The retention of nasality in word-final position seems to be a special case and it may be related to syllable weight: after a short vowel the nasal is often lost, e.g., PS *sunum, ace sg > OCS synh\ in originally long syllables nasality tends to be retained, e.g., PS *-am, 1 p sg nonpast verb ending > OCS -Q (but cf. PS *-ans, ace pi > OCS -v). This difference may be due to the bimoraicity of a long vowel which could have

1.2 Common Slavic syllable structure

45

provided an impetus for retaining nasality by supplying a mora for it to share. As in the case of oral diphthongs, monophthongization may have resulted in the elimination of the coda in the Common Slavic syllable, but mora conservation was in effect (see (7)). (7) a

V

S

Stage I

Stage II

a

o

V

The coalescence of a front vowel and a nasal consonant resulted in the front nasal vowel /§/ with perhaps [i] > [ej. Coalescence of a back vowel and a nasal consonant produced a back nasal vowel /Q/, possibly a variant -Q- after palatal consonants, and with nasal [q] merging with the /Q/ (see Shevelov 1965: 326). There has been extensive discussion in the linguistic literature about the phonetic and phonemic nature of the Common Slavic nasal vowels, and specifically about whether nasality in nasal vowels was a separate segment (phoneme) or only a distinctive feature on the vowel.11 Some scholars proposed a monosegmental analysis (V) and considered nasal vowels to have been phonemic (e.g., Lehr-Splawiriski 1926, Milewski 1931, Koneczna 1961-1962, BoSkovic 1984: 78-82; Lunt 1974, 1987); others took the nasal vowels to be bipartite (VN) sequences of either phonemes or archiphonemes (e.g., Trubetzkoy 1925c, Birnbaum 1963, though Birnbaum [1987: 317] allows that at the surface phonetic level there were actual nasal vowels due to the law of open syllables; Stieber 1979: 46, and others). As Birnbaum (1963) points out, nasal vowels were both phonemic and nonphonemic in Old Church Slavic. In a paradigmatic sense they were distinctive, as in OCS rokb "year" vs. rokh "hands," gen pi or OCS mociti "to wet" vs. mociti "to torture." They were also positional variants because they were not opposed to sequences of vowel + nasal + consonant: OCS zena "woman" butp
46

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

structure constraints of Common Slavic, they were derived by coalescence and characterized by mora conservation. While it is not clear whether changes in -VNC- sequences were contemporaneous with or preceded changes in -VRCsequences (see, for example, Rozwadowski 1915, Torbiornsson 1922, Trubetzkoy 1922, Lunt 1993), the fact that they gave different results may be an argument for representing nasal vowels differently from vowels plus liquids, in other words, as bimoraic monophthongs. Thus they were not subject to metathesis as were the liquid diphthongs. Nor did they produce pleophonic sequences in East Slavic, as did the liquid diphthongs. The preceding vowel simply absorbed the nasal feature, and the two moras were retained, though implemented differently. Given that nasals are generally considered to be less sonorous than liquids, one might expect them to pose a more serious violation of the No Coda Constraint than would vowel plus liquid sequences. In other words, only the more sonorous segments (i.e., liquids) would be tolerated in the syllable rime. 1.3

Late Common Slavic syllable structures

We have seen that the syllable structure of Common Slavic was the product of several constraints. The Moraic Constraint favored syllables that ended with a moraic segment and the No Coda Constraint put certain restrictions on the sonority structure of the syllable. By Late Common Slavic, the No Coda Constraint interacted with other emerging syllable structure constraints in the dialects of Late Common Slavic, producing different implementations of sound change with respect to syllable structure. As a result, Late Common Slavic exhibits several isoglosses separating the northern and southern dialects (see van Wijk 1924), and others that identify the following general dialect areas: northwestern Slavic dialects (represented by Polish, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Kashubian, Pomeranian, and Polabian), the northeastern Slavic dialects (today represented by Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian), and the southern and central dialects (Serbian and Croatian, Slovene, Bulgarian, Macedonian, as well as those areas which today are considered West Slavic, Czech and Central Slovak). I will use the terms (North) West Slavic, (North) East Slavic, and South Central Slavic for the three Late Common Slavic dialect areas which may be isolated on the basis of changes in the liquid diphthongs. The peripheral northwestern area (Polabian, Pomeranian) had a slightly different development and may be considered a separate group, though related to (North) West Slavic. I will show that the three distinct paths of liquid diphthong development signal more fundamental changes in the syllable structure of the three major Late

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

47

Common Slavic dialect areas and that these postulated syllable restructurings are consistent with subsequent phonological developments in the respective areas. In some areas changes in syllable structure primarily concerned the moraic status of the segment in the coda position of the syllable. It could become nonmoraic, transferring its mora to the preceding vowel (V S) or not (V S). Other constraints determined whether the nonmoraic S could remain in syllable-final position: when it could not and when it was a liquid (R), metathesis took place (RV). Sometimes syllable structure changes took place before the R lost its mora-bearing ability: one result was the resyllabification of a bimoraic nucleus into two syllables (V - R ). Syllable structure changes may be described as a reanalysis of the relationship between the prosodic tier and the segmental one. In the south the maximally bimoraic syllable became the dominant syllable structure type, e.g., V /R . The northwestern areas of Late Common Slavic interpreted the bimoraicity of syllables as a potential for a syllable coda, e.g., CVS. The northeastern areas generalized monomoraic syllables of CV structure. For a preview of these developments, see (16) below. These differences in syllable structure are clearly reflected in the changes experienced by the liquid diphthongs. Innovations in the nasal vowels coincided with this ongoing reevaluation of syllable structure and later developments in nasal vowels may also be seen as conforming to new syllable types. 1.3.1 Changes in nonhigh vowel and liquid diphthongs The structure of Common Slavic syllables was determined by several constraints and by the eighth century most syllables were open with one major exception: tautosyllabic sequences of vowels followed by liquids, also known as "liquid diphthongs." Although I take these sequences to be syllable nuclei followed by a coda, I will refer to them as liquid diphthongs both for historical reasons and because the absence of any other codas in Slavic at this time does not specifically require a distinction between complex nuclei and nuclei plus coda structures. Some of these were sequences of a short high vowel plus liquid (ir, ur, il, ul, represented below as VR and in other analyses as UR or turi) that had developed from Proto-Indo-European syllabic liquids in the early prehistory of Slavic. Others were sequences of a nonhigh vowel plus liquid (er, or, el, ol, represented here by VR and in other analyses as AR or tart) inherited from Proto-Indo-European (through Proto-Slavic er, el, ar, al) or borrowed from neighboring languages, e.g., the name of Charlemagne was borrowed into Slavic as Karl probably at the end of the ninth century and appears as R, U korol' "king," Cz krdl, P krol, SC krdlj. The tautosyllabic vowel plus liquid

48

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

sequences did not always monophthongize like other diphthongs, but they did change in a systematic way - the resulting syllables had no codas. What is perhaps the most intriguing and at the same time the most revealing problem is that the liquid diphthongs developed in three different ways in various parts of Late Common Slavic. I will argue that these differences in the liquid diphthong changes reveal a critical restructuring in the syllables of the Late Common Slavic dialects. Specifically, I will show that the interaction of a No Coda Constraint, a Syllable Weight Constraint, and a Sonorant Constraint produced three major dialectal divisions and that these new syllable types then played a role in other phonological changes in their respective dialect areas. Because the question of liquid diphthongs is so central to Slavic historical linguistics, I give fairly extensive background material before presenting a new analysis of the problem. Reflexes of liquid diphthongs readily distinguish among the major Slavic language groups and the development of liquid diphthongs is central to the comparative reconstruction of sound change within Slavic and Baltic. What is commonly known as the "metathesis of liquids" is among the most thoroughly studied and still least understood problems of Slavic linguistics today. (See Torbiornsson 1901,1903, Iljinskij 1916:128-134, andPeciar 1952 for a history of this problem.)13 The reflexes of original CVR.C fall into one of three general categories, CRV.C, CRV.C, and CV.RV.C (with some CVR.C variants on the geographical periphery of Slavic and specific differences in word-initial position) and they raise some interesting questions. Did metathesis take place everywhere in Slavic? Did vowel lengthening precede or follow metathesis? Which vowel in pleophonic forms was inserted? What was the role of pitch accent in the development of liquid diphthongs? Were the changes in wordinitial and word-medial position simultaneous? Are the changes in CVR.C and CVR.C related? There were two types of liquid diphthong: those with a nonhigh, front or back vowel followed by /r/ or /I/, represented as CVR.C here (also known as TART, tert, tortItart, or tart), and those with a high, front or back vowel followed by /r/ or /I/, given here as CVR.C (also known as TURT, tbrt, tbrt, or tirt, turt, or turt). The consonant following the liquid served as the onset of the next syllable (i.e., words did not end in consonants) and the vowel plus liquid sequence was tautosyllabic: VR.C, CVR.C, and CVR.C. Evidence for word-initial VR.C sequences is found in many Slavic languages, while that for initial VR.C is rare or nonexistent. The following discussion will therefore treat the development of VR.C, CVR.C, and CVR.C sequences. The vowel (V) represents a nonhigh, long or short, front or back vowel, unspecified for labiality. The back vowel will

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

49

be represented in Proto-Slavic with the symbol /a/ and the front vowel is given as /e/. Recall that the long vowel /a/ has the reflex /a/ in Common Slavic and the short vowel /a/ becomes /o/, long /e/ becomes /&/, short /e/ remains. Because the actual length of vowels was neutralized in diphthongs (e.g., PIE ei and ei fell together), length will not be indicated in liquid diphthongs. What is crucial, however, is that the vowel in these diphthongs did experience lengthening in some parts of Slavic, thus there are /a/ (< a) vs. /o/ (< a) reflexes of nonhigh, back vowels in original liquid diphthongs. See table 1.3 below. An example of changes in liquid diphthongs of the CVR.C type are the following correspondences: PS *kafu-a "cow," OCS krava, B krava, SC krava, Sn krava, Cz krava, Sk krava, P krowa, US krowa/kruwa, LS krowa, Pb korvo, R korova, U korova, BR karova; PS *mafz-u "frost," OCS mrazi?, B mraz, M mraz, SC mraz, Sn mraz, Cz mraz, Sk mrdz, P mroz, mrozu, US mroz, mroza, LS mroz, Pb morz, R moroz, U moroz, BR maroz; PS *zalt-a "gold," OCS zlato, B zlato, M z/ato, SC zlato, Sn ztoo, Cz zlato, Sk ztog, U berih, BR teVaA (Meillet 1924/1965: 65-73, Arumaa 1964: 140-151, Shevelov 1965: 391-^21, and others). The traditional view is that changes in the liquid diphthongs were connected to the law or tendency for open syllables, and many believe that these changes were actually motivated by the preference for CV structure (see Mikkola 1921, Peciar 1939, 1941, BernStejn 1961, and others mentioned below). Much effort has gone into proposing various phonetic mechanisms or intermediate stages of the developments in liquid diphthongs. Some analyses (cited here in their original notation of tart, tort, tart, etc.) suggest that the liquid became the peak of the syllable, e.g., torrt (Porzezinski 1912: 45, 1914: 39-40, Kul'bakin 1911-1912, Fortunatov 1919/1957, Mikkola 1921: 15), tort (Saxmatov 1902a, 1903a), tort > tort > trot > trat (Jagic 1898, Solmsen 1902, Vondrak 1903, Bruckner 1909), tart (Sobolevskij 1891/1910, Endzelin 1902), tarat (Ekblom 1927-1928), tort > torat (Skljarenko 1993) or that it strengthened to tarrt, then relaxed to tart (Vaillant 1950: 155-167); and/or that there was a shift of syllable boundary, e.g., CV.RC- (BernStejn 1961: 218), tor-t > to-rt > to-rt > to-r-t (BoSkovic 1984: 89-91), in compliance with the law of open syllables. A fairly widespread interpretation of metathesis is one which takes it to be related to the placement of the syllable boundary: a sequence CVR.C > CV.RC but the RC onset is impossible, so the liquid is said to metathesize with the preceding vowel. One of the difficulties with treating liquid diphthong developments as a change in the syllable boundary is that once the boundary is postulated to fall between the

50

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

vowel and the liquid, metathesis is not as well motivated because a syllable onset and a preceding syllable nucleus do not as a rule metathesize. There are two basic problems to be solved in explaining the changes in liquid diphthongs. The first concerns length. The vocalic reflexes of liquid diphthongs (a, e) in South Central Slavic come from a long vowel (< *6, *a, *e), so there is general agreement that this area shows vowel lengthening. Where there is less consensus is in the description of where the length comes from and whether it is to be postulated for all areas of Late Common Slavic. Length has been derived from the syllabicity of the liquid (Torbiornsson 1909, and others), by what has been called the metathesis of quantity (Ekblom 1927-1928) as in *tarat > tsrat (also versions in Nahtigal 1938/1952: 16; Skljarenko 1993), from proposed length on the liquid itself as in *tort > tort (or tart); tort > trot > trot (Fortunatov 1919/1957), or by the insertion of a mora to the left of the liquid (Feldstein 1976). In such phonetic explanations, length and syllabicity tend to be confused. Most of these proposals assume length throughout Late Common Slavic, but envision a different distribution or analysis of it in the various dialects. The second problem concerns metathesis. There are two aspects to the question of metathesis: whether it was related to the development of length and whether it took place early and/or everywhere in Late Common Slavic. Analyses which operate with the notion of quantity metathesis invariably relate length to metathesis; others view metathesis as a separate process. We are still far from understanding exactly when and where metathesis took place. For example, BernStejn (1961: 218), following SeliS5ev (1951: 166ff.), attributes metathesis only to southern Late Common Slavic where the liquid was tautosyllabic with the preceding vowel, but postulates no metathesis in the north, where the liquids were supposedly long. The loss of syllabicity on this long liquid is said to have resulted in a vowel (e.g., torot). In the western part of northern Late Common Slavic the first vowel is said to have shortened, leaving terot. He claims that the Polish forms krowa, brzeg, etc. did not have metathesis, but instead had a reduced vowel before the liquid, i.e., tarot. On the other hand, postulating metathesis to be an early change, as some have done, implies that metathesis took place everywhere in Slavic (cf. Torbiornsson 1901, 1903, Peciar 1939, Furdal 1961), including East Slavic, where there is little evidence for it. Jakobson (1952: 307), who considers dr to have been a two-mora group "which as one whole carried the syllabic length and intonation," does not accept metathesis for all of Slavic and notes that Polish and Sorbian as well as East Slavic reflect the presence of a svarabhakti vowel between the liquid and the following consonant. Others (e.g., Leskien 1909: 60-63; Brauer 1961: 79-80) assume metathesis everywhere except in East Slavic.

13 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

51

The challenge of the liquid diphthong reflexes has been to provide a coherent and consistent account of their differentiation in the various areas of Late Common Slavic. It has long been recognized that aspects of syllabicity and/or syllabification are relevant to this problem, but the question has been posed either in terms of segment sequences and their relative syllabicity or in terms of where the syllable boundary is said to have occurred. Neither approach has proved entirely satisfactory, though elements of both provide some insight into the development of liquid diphthongs. In arguing for the independent evolution of syllable structure in Late Common Slavic, an earlier study (Bethin 1992a) showed how a nonlinear concept of the syllable could relate the set of changes in the liquid diphthongs. The present work further expands on ideas first presented there. Unlike in vowel plus nasal sequences or nasal diphthongs, where nasality could be absorbed by the vowel and still be manifest, the features of liquids could not be readily expressed on the vocalic part of the diphthong. Thus coalescence was not a likely mechanism for the elimination of liquid diphthongs. What is especially interesting is that the solution to the problem of an apparent coda violation was prosodic and heterogeneous. In other words, it was not a question of eliminating the liquid or metathesizing it with the vowel everywhere in Slavic, both of which would have removed violations of the No Coda Constraint, but one of redefining the relationship of the liquid to syllable structure. It is the changes in the liquid diphthongs which provide evidence for the emergence of new syllable types within Late Common Slavic. I think that vowel plus liquid sequences, like the vowel plus nasal sequences, had two stages in their development from Proto-Indo-European to Common Slavic. The first stage consisted of making the liquid moraic. This stage was characteristic of Common Slavic and is parallel to the one proposed for the nasal diphthongs in (7). But later, when the No Coda Constraint was gaining ground in a large area of Late Common Slavic, this structure was not acceptable and further changes took place. At this point other syllable structure constraints were coming into effect and changing the nature of the syllable in different ways in various parts of Late Common Slavic. These syllable structure changes interacted very specifically with the No Coda Constraint as it applied to the liquid diphthongs. It has been noted that changes in these diphthongs were in some significant ways also related to the nature of pitch accent, especially in word-initial position. Rising and falling pitch accent were opposed on long syllables. Liquid diphthongs, being long syllables, carried this accentual distinction. I will represent rising pitch accent as the association of (high) tone (H) to a second mora.

52

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

Falling pitch was found only in initial syllables by Late Common Slavic. This predictability of falling pitch may be represented either as the redundant occurrence of H on the first mora of a word or as the realization of stress (an asterisk) on the first syllable of the word. For reasons that will become clear in chapter 2, I will represent falling pitch in Common Slavic by an asterisk on the syllable, as in (8b) below. (8)

a. rising pitch accent

H V

R

b. falling pitch accent

MI V

\i I R

What is curious about Slavic is that liquid diphthongs developed somewhat differently, depending on their position in a word. In word-initial position the vowel plus liquid sequences always metathesized, VR.C > RV.C. In noninitial position the diphthongs have different reflexes in various areas of Late Common Slavic, CRV.C, CRV.C, and CV.RV.C. In word-initial position changes in the diphthongs bear some relation to the nature of pitch accent; in other positions the effect of accent is not obvious. These facts suggest that changes in word-initial and word-internal position may have had either a different chronology or different structural/positional constraints. 1.3.1.1 Word-initial position: VR.C Liquid diphthongs in initial position lacked a syllable onset and were sequences of decreasing sonority. In all Late Common Slavic dialects, regardless of whether the vowel preceding the liquid was originally long (PIE *VR.C) or short (PIE *VR.C), initial vowel plus liquid sequences metathesized. This development served two purposes: it produced syllables with an onset, thereby satisfying the requirement of the Onset Constraint, and it eliminated potential coda violations, e.g., OCS latbtb "elbow," cf. OPr alkunis, Lith alkune; OCS ravbnb "even," cf. OPr arwis "true, real," Aves ravah- "free room"; and OCS lakati, alkati "to hunger," cf. Lith dlkti "be hungry," dlkanas "hungry," OPr alklns "fasting," OHG ilgi "hunger." This clearly indicates that the Onset Constraint was highly ranked in Slavic. But the vowel plus liquid sequences in initial position evolved differently in the north and in the south, depending on their accent or length. In the north, initial diphthongs under rising pitch retained their length and the vowel reflex is /a/ (< *a), while those under falling pitch show a short vowel reflex /o/ (< *a). In the south both diphthongs have the

13 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

53

Table 1.2. Changes in VR.C sequences Proto-Slavic

South Central LCS

Rising pitch: *VR.C *ardla "plow" Falling pitch: *VR.C *alkuti "elbow"

RV.C SC ralo RV.C SC Idkat

Northern LCS RV.C

Rralo RV.C

R lokot1

reflex /a/ (< *a). The question of accent as being critical in the development of these word-initial diphthongs was raised by Fortunatov (1880, 1919/1957) and Torbiornsson (1901,1903,1906). Studies by Solmsen (1902), Vondrak (1903), Pedersen (1905), and others since have also attributed the north-south difference in word-initial position to pitch accent (but see Endzelin 1902). On the other hand, Jakobson (1952) saw word-initial developments as a question of neutralizing length in the south (but not in other areas) and not so much as a consequence of pitch accent. The different reflexes of the nonhigh vowels depending on pitch accent are summarized in table 1.2. Forms with original rising pitch (acute) accent show long vowel reflexes in all areas of Late Common Slavic, e.g., PS *ardla "plow," R ralo, U ralo, BR rala, P radio, LS radio, US radio, Cz radio, Sk radio, SC ralo, Sn ralo, M ralo, B ralo, Pb rddlii. In forms with original falling pitch (circumflex) accent Central Late Common Slavic patterns with the northern dialects in showing a short vowel reflex, e.g., PS *aruinu "even," R rovnyj, U rivnyj, BR rouny, P rowny, LS rowny, US rowny, runy, Cz rovny, Sk rovny, but SC rdvan, Sn raven, M ramen, B raven, Pb ruovne; PS *alkuti "elbow," R lokot', U likot'llokot', BR lokac', P lokiec, LS loks, US lohc, Cz loket, Sk loket', laket', SC Idkat, Sn lakdt, Idket, M lakot, B lakdt, Pb lut'et (Arumaa 1964:147-151, Shevelov 1965: 391-399, and others). I will assume that since all syllables were maximally bimoraic in Common Slavic, liquid diphthongs were also maximally bimoraic. If there were any differences in the length of the vowel before the liquid they could be represented as a difference in association to the mora rather than by a difference in mora count (as in (9) and (10) below). One could assume that under rising pitch, the vowel carried the greater phonetic length of the diphthong in order to express the rise in pitch as given in (9) (cf. Ohala and Ewan 1973). Note that when metathesis took place, the pitch accent of the syllable remained the same; changes in sonority sequencing were independent of the mora. Although the liquid became a syllable onset, its mora with tone (H) was left behind. The vowel alone then carried the prosodic weight and tone of the syllable.

54 (9)

The syllable in Slavic: form and function Changes in word-initial position under rising pitch accent

V'

R

H

Reflexes of original VR.C are generally the same throughout Late Common Slavic, namely RV.C, implemented as Ra.C- (< *aR.C) or Rg.C (< *eR.C). The liquid diphthongs under falling pitch accent, however, do not have identical reflexes in the dialects. It seems that the north and the south were developing different strategies to deal with the diphthongs and their relationship to syllable sonority and syllable weight. While all Late Common Slavic dialects show metathesis in accordance with the Onset Constraint, under falling pitch in the north a short vowel remained short, but under falling pitch in the south the vowel lengthened; in other words, falling pitch yielded two reflexes, original VR.C > RV.C and RV.C, respectively. Since falling pitch was characteristic of so-called "unaccented" word classes, one can take it to be the phonetic implementation of a default accent. (See chapter 2 for a more complete discussion.) It is indicated here by the asterisk (*). This ictus may have been implemented phonetically as higher pitch at the beginning of a long syllable, but I assume that phonologically stress was an ictus associated with the syllable node, not the mora. The different reflexes of VR.C under falling pitch in the north and in the south point to an emerging difference in syllable structure. In the southern dialects of Late Common Slavic, the vowel lengthened because southern LCS was characterized by mora conservation, a type of faithfulness constraint with respect to syllable weight.14 Original syllable weight was preserved, and it was transferred to the vowel. The mechanism, exemplified in (10), derives long vowels. The liquid metathesized with the vowel, leaving nuclei with two mora weight but no diphthongs, and the ictus on the syllable (*) was not affected. (10)

Changes in word-initial position under falling accent in South Central Late Common Slavic

V

R

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

55

In the northern dialects, however, while initial VR.C sequences with rising pitch remained long (as in the south), those with falling intonation, VR.C, remained short. The original distinction in pitch was maintained by quantity. Rising pitch required a minimum of two moras with a high tone on the second mora. Falling pitch, on the other hand, was representable as ictus on the syllable, regardless of its duration. In principle, mora conservation was not necessary to maintain prosodic distinctions in the case of falling pitch accent because differences in quantity could replace those of pitch accent. Mora conservation was not characteristic of this system, and the unassociated mora was simply lost (see (11)). (11)

Changes in word-initial position under falling pitch in northern Late Common Slavic

V

R

Changes in the liquid diphthongs in initial position suggest that some dialects were developing a notion of conserving syllable weight, regardless of pitch accent. This process, coupled with metathesis and the lack of a mora on onsets, resulted in the reinterpretation of length. What had been a property of the syllable became more restricted; specifically, length became a property of the segment in southern Late Common Slavic. The combination of mora conservation and the Onset Constraint produced *RV.C reflexes; the absence of mora conservation resulted in *RV.C from original short *VR.C. Word-initial changes conformed to the Onset Constraint, but in medial position liquid diphthongs occurred in syllables which already had a syllable onset. In this case other constraints interacted with developments in the liquid diphthongs. 1.3.1.2 Word-medial position: CVR.C In noninitial (word-medial) liquid diphthongs length distinctions were neutralized everywhere in Slavic, either in favor of length as in the southern dialects, i.e., original CVR.C and CVR.C > CVR.C, or not, as in the northern area, i.e., CVR.C and CVR.C > CVR.C. Representative data include the following (pitch accent in Proto-Slavic forms is written on the vowel but understood to have been carried by the liquid as well; stress is indicated in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian because its placement depends on the nature of the original pitch

56

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

accent): with original rising (acute) accent, PS *pargu "threshold," Rporog, U porih, BR pardg, P prog, LS prog, US proh, Cz prdh, Sk prah, SC prag, Sn prag, Mprag, B prag, Kparg/prog, Pb porg; PS *balta "swamp," R boloto, U boloto, BR Z?a/<9ta, P Woto, LS btoto, US /?/Jfo, Cz bldto, Sk 6too, SC Z?$to,Sn bldto, M Z?too, B blato, Pb b/tffw; PS *berza "birch," R bereza, Ufeercfea,BR bjaroza, P brzoza, LS brjaza, US breza, Czfrnztf,Sk breza, SC breza, Sn breza, M breztf, B Z?reztf, Pb frreztf; with original falling (circumflex) accent, PS *gardu "fortification," R gorod, U /*Jrod, BR gorad, P grod, LS grod, US /zrod, Cz /irafi, Sk hrad, SC grad, Sn grdd, M graJ, B graJ, K gard, Pb gorJ; with a shift of /e/ to /o/ in (North) East Slavic and a later one in Sorbian: PS *melka "milk" (cf. Gmc *meluk-), R moloko, U moloko, BR malako, P m/^A:o, LS mloko, US mloko, Cz mleko, Sk mlieko, SC mleko, Sn mleko, M mleko, B mljako, K mlouko, Pb m/a&a gen sg. (SC, Sn, B, M, Cz, Sk show the lengthened reflex /a/; R, U, BR, P, LS, US, Pb show /o/ for V. The accent mark in R, U, BR stands for stress; in Cz it represents vowel length, in SC, Sn a long rising accent. The "a" in BR is the spelling of an unstressed /o/ which undergoes phonetic "vowel reduction." In P and US the 6 is pronounced as [u] and it derives from a later lengthening of /o/. The K reflex is similar to that of a strong jer.) Today Czech and northeastern Slovak pattern with the northern dialects in their reflexes of initial VR.C sequences, but with the southern dialects in the reflexes of word-medial liquid diphthongs. These developments show that VR.C changes must have been separate from and earlier than CVR.C changes, as Fortunatov (1880), Iljinskij (1916: 128), Milewski (1969: 30), and others have suggested.15 It appears that mora conservation was characteristic of the south. In the central part of Late Common Slavic, metathesis in word-initial position took place before mora conservation spread from the south, but by the time that changes in word-internal diphthongs were taking place, mora conservation was also found in this area.16 As a result, reflexes of vowels are long. We can summarize the development of tautosyllabic CVR sequences in table 1.3 as falling into four basic types: (a) in the South Central area (reflexes in Slovene, Serbian and Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Czech, and Central Slovak) the vowel and liquid exhibit metathesis and vowel length, e.g., CVR > CVR > CRV; (b) in most of the (North) West Slavic area (Polish, Upper and Lower Sorbian) the vowel and liquid exhibit metathesis but no length, e.g., CRV; (c) in the (North) East Slavic area (represented by Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian) the vowel and liquid group is realized pleophonically as CV.RV; (d) in the northernmost West Slavic territory (Pomeranian, Polabian, and partly in Kashubian) there are many instances of unmetathesized CVR groups (see table 1.3).

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

57

Table 1.3. Changes in CVR.C sequences Proto-Slavic

South Central LCS (North-) West LCS (North-) East LCS

CVR CRV *karua "cow" OCS krava *bergu "shore" OCS breg-b

CRV P krowa Cz bfeh

CV.RV

U korova R bereg

In word-initial position the change of VR to RV could be described simply as metathesis. Developments in word-medial position, however, show that changes in the liquid diphthongs had to do with the moraic status of the liquid. In other words, this was not simply a question of reordering segments (metathesis), but one which involved a reanalysis of the liquid's status with respect to syllable structure. As already mentioned, the literature on liquid diphthongs is extensive and various scenarios have been postulated for their development.17 One commonly offered explanation is that the syllabic liquid developed a svarabhakti vowel, either before or after it, e.g., CV.R > CRV > CsRV or CVR > CV.Ra, depending on whether metathesis is claimed to have occurred first, and that the different areas of Slavic dealt with this vowel in different ways. Another explanation is that changes in the liquid diphthongs were due to a shift of the syllable boundary necessitated by the law or tendency for open syllables, a process which may be summarized as CVR.C > CV.RC- (BernStejn 1961: 216ff.) or CV.RC > CV.RC > CV.R.C (BoSkovic 1984: 89-91). Both versions are problematic: the former because it assumes metathesis or pleophony for all parts of Slavic-speaking territory (though there is no direct evidence for metathesis in East Slavic and no evidence for pleophony in the south) and the latter because it proposes an intermediate stage (-RC-) which was an impossible syllable onset for Slavic. A change of CVR.C to CRV.C would have been much better motivated. The syllable boundary analysis as well as some earlier theories proposed a lengthening of the liquid in (North) East Slavic and in (North) West Slavic from which a svarabhakti vowel supposedly developed. But it is peculiar to postulate lengthening precisely in those areas where length distinctions are not maintained. It seems as if length in earlier analyses was a way of representing syllabicity. I do not think that it was a question of length (at least not in a phonological sense, though phonetically syllabic segments may be longer than their nonsyllabic counterparts), or of a different chronology with respect to pleophony and metathesis, or of moving the syllable boundary in all parts of Late Common Slavic. Changes in the liquid diphthongs reveal the emergence of major syllable structure constraints within Late Common Slavic.

58

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

In the south, where all other diphthongs had been eliminated in favor of long vowels, the liquid diphthongs followed suit. Liquid diphthongs were both bimoraic and bipositional (sequences of segments). Theoretically the relationship between the mora and the segment may be one-to-one or many-to-one in favor of either (or there may be no relationship). The southern area of Late Common Slavic had mora conservation and in most cases both moras were associated with one segment. In other words, only one sound could constitute the syllable nucleus, though it could be bimoraic. Liquid diphthongs were the exceptions. It appears that the liquid lost its moraic status and that its mora was transferred to the vowel. But in the north syllables were being analyzed differently. The northwestern dialects allowed syllable rimes with two positions. Moreover, where the No Coda Constraint was operative metathesis took place, but in the periphery (northwestern LCS) syllable codas were tolerated, i.e., the CVR syllable was acceptable and metathesis not necessary. In the northeastern dialects monomoraic syllables became the norm: all quantity distinctions were lost. Bimoraic liquid diphthongs were reinterpreted as bisyllabic. The South Central dialects show vowel length in liquid diphthongs wordmedially as well as in word-initial position as a result of mora conservation. Changes in word-initial VR.C and word-medial CVR.C sequences came fairly close together in the south. This is the generally accepted chronology, though there is some disagreement about which came first (BernStejn 1961, Milewski 1969, Stieber 1969, Feldstein 1976). It is not clear whether the liquid first dissociated from the mora, whether the liquid metathesized and then in onset position lost its association to the mora, or whether the south simply generalized a many-to-one mode of association between the mora and a segment in favor of the vowel. The important factor is that as a result of these changes, syllables now conformed to the Onset Constraint, the No Coda Constraint, and the Moraic Constraint. (12)

South/Central Late Common Slavic developments o

V

a

R

The South Central Late Common Slavic dialects were developing a preferred syllable type of CV . Syllables could be maximally bimoraic and they had to end in a mora-bearing segment, but now both moras were associated with the

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

59

same segment, here a vowel (V), but eventually also a liquid (R). The major reanalysis in South Central syllable structure was that syllable duration became segment (vowel or sonorant) duration, in other words, length distinctions were phonemic. In the northern dialects, diphthongs continued to exist for a longer period of time. This is an important distinction between the two dialect areas: in the south a two-mora nucleus now implied only a single long segment, but in the north, a two-mora nucleus could be either a long vowel or a diphthong. These dialect differences may be represented as in (13). (13)

a. Southern dialects

V

b. Northern dialects

V

V

R

In places where the No Coda Constraint was in effect, metathesis took place, but where the constraint had ceased to hold, then (13b) might remain. Note that metathesis does not require the loss of a mora on the liquid. The two-mora syllables allowed in (North) West Slavic could technically be either -RV- or -VRsequences. The (North) West Slavic dialects, in fact, show both developments. The metathesis of CVR.C could have resulted in CRV.C (see also Abele 1924: 30). Several Slavists, on the basis of textual evidence where prepositions with a jer appeared to "vocalize" the jer before some forms with liquid diphthongs according to the usual vocalization of the jers only before a jer in the immediately following syllable (CuCu > CVC), e.g., P we glosie "in the voice," have argued for a stage of CuRVC- or CbRVC- in (North) West Slavic by which an intermediate stage /vu gulos-/ gives /e/ in the preposition. The first stem vowel was weaker than the second and eventually lost (Rozwadowski 1909, Iljinskij 1916, Ekblom 1927-1928, Los 1928, Jakobson 1952, MareS 1956/1965). Sorbian reflexes also support the notion of some difference in the /r/ here because there was a change in syllable onsets by which /tr/, /pr/, /kr/ became /ts7, /p§/, /kS/ as in *prosiSI "you ask" > LS psosys, *trQbiSI "you trumpet" > LS tsubis, and in *kraji "edge" > LS ksaj, but the onset change did not encompass those clusters which resulted from metathesis, e.g., LS proch "dust, powder," prog "threshold," krowa "cow," prjedk/prjodk "front" (Meillet 1924/1965: 66-67). The lack of assibilation in CRV.C (< *CVR.C) sequences was often taken as evidence that assibilation preceded metathesis, but borrowings of original CRV.C groups into German with nonassibilated /r/ and other developments

60

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

in prefixes suggest that metathesis was in fact earlier and that the difference in CR onsets must be due to other factors (Fasske 1993). Lamprecht (1987: 59), Timberlake (1985) and, more cautiously, Stieber (1979: 4 5 ^ 6 ) take this to be evidence for the presence of a reduced vowel before the liquid (teret), which could be interpreted phonologically as a moraic liquid. We may analyze the intermediate CuRVC- stage as follows: since the (North) West Slavic area allowed two mora nuclei, metathesis could result in CRV.C with a liquid belonging to the syllable nucleus. In (North) West Slavic CRV.C the liquid quickly lost any syllabicity: the result was CRV.C. By postulating a brief CRV.C stage for (North) West Slavic as a consequence of the No Coda Constraint, the syllable-based analysis reconciles attested spellings (with an "e" in the preposition as a reflex of a strong jer before a word beginning with CR from an original liquid diphthong) in Lechitic documents with the fact that there are no traces of pleophony in West Slavic today. One could, in principle, postulate this scenario for all instances of metathesis with subsequent demorification of the liquid in onset position, but then one would have to explain why the liquid in CRV.C sequences should have remained moraic longer in the north than in the south. Perhaps the fact that (North) West Slavic tolerated two-part syllable rimes meant that the liquid could be moraic and therefore retained in the syllable nucleus, as it were, in the form of a diphthong. (14)

(North) West Slavic developments

R

V

R V

Most of (North) West Slavic had metathesis in liquid diphthongs, but it is not at all surprising to find that the peripheral northwestern Slavic dialects do not show metathesis. The No Coda Constraint was not very important in the north and CVR syllables were more common. Unmetathesized reflexes of liquid diphthongs in Kashubian such as mcors "frost," varna "crow," and in Polabian gord "castle," starnd "side," morz "frost," vorno "crow," and korvo "cow" were therefore acceptable.18 In northwestern LCS the No Coda Constraint was not highly ranked and violations of it were tolerated so the sonorant could remain in the syllable coda. In (North) East Slavic, on the other hand, the fundamental innovation was the restriction of one mora per syllable. This meant that two-mora nuclei had to be either shortened or reanalyzed as two syllables, i.e., CVR.C > CV.R.C. Both

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

61

types of effect are found in East Slavic but in the case of liquid diphthongs the solution was ^syllabification: a bipositional bimoraic syllable split into two monomoraic ones (as in (15)). Jakobson (1929/1971: 33) postulates a "dedoublement de la diphthongue en deux syllabes." (15)

(North) East Slavic developments G

GO

V

V

V

R

O

G

V

R

Liquids did not remain moraic or syllabic. In other words, the mora licensed a syllable, but the liquid could not license the mora. In order to retain (or license) the syllable, some vowel was needed. The features for the inserted vowel appear to have been copied or spread from the vowel which occurred in the original liquid diphthong, resulting in pleophony (also commonly known as "polnoglasie"), e.g., U bereza "birch," volos "hair," from PS *berza, *ualsu. That the development represented in (15) is a reasonable account of liquid diphthong changes in East Slavic is also supported by the prosodic (stress) developments in this area and by borrowings. In Russian, for example, rising pitch is realized as stress on the second syllable of pleophonic forms, e.g., korova "cow," boloto "swamp," vorona "crow," while falling pitch is realized as stress on the first pleophonic vowel, e.g., bereg "shore," voron "raven," suggesting that the liquid had to bear tone (and a mora) which remained in that reanalyzed syllable until it could be transferred to a proper vowel nucleus. The identity of the vowels in pleophonic forms has at times presented a technical problem in phonological analysis and one way to account for it is to postulate some type of vowel copy or feature spreading across or over the liquid. Steriade (1990b: 392) points out that the gestural model of phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1990) has an advantage over the autosegmental model in representing such phenomena. Given that articulatory gestures overlap in time, the change of CVRC to CRVC may be seen as a difference in articulatory timing with the onset of the liquid being simultaneous with or prior to that of the vowel. The CVRVC variant is seen as the superimposition of the /r/ gesture on the vowel sometime midway in the vowel articulation, which accounts for the identity of the vocalic element on both sides of the liquid. Similar liquid transitions were proposed by Ekblom (1927-1928), Lehr-Splawinski (1931), Peciar (1939), and Timberlake (1985) for other parts of northern Late Common Slavic as well. There have been other views on the representation of length and liquid

62

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

diphthongs which bear more directly on the questions raised here. Scatton (1968) proposes a different chronology for these changes in the form of different rule orderings and different representations of length (reminiscent of Trubetzkoy 1939/1967). He suggests that length in South Slavic, Czech, and Slovak was V, while in the East Slavic area lengthening produced VV, which was subject to metathesis as CVRVC. This analysis, however, requires a shift of accent from the first to the second mora in acute (rising pitch) forms in order to derive CVRVC- from CVRC and a process of lengthening in East Slavic for which there is little evidence. Thus Scatton (like Torbiornsson 1901,1903, and Mikkola 1913) assumes that metathesis took place in all areas of Slavic. Feldstein (1976) presents a similar interpretation of the liquid diphthongs. He claims that metathesis took place everywhere in Slavic and that a mora was inserted to the left of the liquid in order to compensate for the loss of a mora on the liquid (word-internally) throughout Late Common Slavic. The different reflexes of CVR.C today are said to be the result of different orderings of the two processes in Late Common Slavic. In the north metathesis supposedly preceded mora insertion, and in the south mora insertion preceded metathesis. While few would disagree that lengthening is characteristic of the south (I refer to it as mora conservation because the mora of the liquid is simply transferred to the preceding vowel) and that metathesis is found in the south and the (North) West dialects, it is not clear that metathesis word-internally ever took place in the east (see Endzelin 1902, Saxmatov 1902a, 1903a, Iljinskij 1916, Fortunatov 1919/1957, Jakobson 1952, MareS 1956/1965, Milewski 1969). Shevelov (1965: 410) writes that for East Slavic "both lengthening of the vowel and metathesis are out of the question." In my analysis the northern and southern dialects of Late Common Slavic are said to differ not so much in the relative ordering of the two processes, but in that the latter had mora conservation (and therefore bimoraic segments), while the former did not (except in some transitional areas). The two processes may have had a different relative chronology in some areas of Slavic, but my analysis does not require the postulation of metathesis or lengthening for the East Slavic area. Metathesis may have been spreading northward without reaching the eastern parts of northern Late Common Slavic or by the time it reached the northeast perhaps there were no diphthongs left to undergo it. While I agree with Feldstein (1976) that the liquid lost its syllabicity earliest in the south, I do not agree with his claim that metathesis originated in the north. In any case, the loss of syllabicity on the liquid, length and metathesis are probably related changes, not completely different processes. In postulating an intermediate stage of CRV.C > CVRVC (tarat) for both (North) West Slavic

13 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

63

and East Slavic, Feldstein does not account for why the (North) West should have eventually generalized CRV.C while the East retained CV.RV.C. In my analysis CRV.C is the expected development of CRV.C (even if syllabic R was at some point [or] or i?r) given the occurrence of numerous CR- onsets elsewhere, e.g., ES *bratu "brother," *straxu "fear," etc. In the East it is not CRV.C but CVR.C which develops into CVRV by syllabification. While the East Slavic dialects eventually developed bisyllabic groups in liquid diphthongs, I do not think that the attested spellings of certain prepositions plus CRV.C forms in Lechitic necessarily indicate that the RV sequence was bisyllabic (or aR.V), though it was bimoraic, with a moraic liquid. Andersen (1973b) suggests that changes in the liquid diphthongs did not "reflect the supposed 'lengthening before metathesis' in the TRAT area, but instead, TORT changes after//before the qualitative differentiation of CS1. long and short vowels." He takes the TROT, TRAT VS. TOROT isogloss to be parallel to that of TURT (high vowel plus liquid sequences) in that East Slavic showed a liquid syllable coda with subsequent pleophony, e.g., CVR > CVRV, and the West and South Slavic area first took the liquid to be a syllable peak (monophthongization) then diphthongized it into a liquid plus a vowel, e.g., CVR > CR > CRV. Andersen (1972: 37) writes that the nature of the vowel is determined by the quality of the original liquid: When a diphthongized coda is resolved into a sequence, its [-consonantal] latter portion is identified with some specific vowel. The quality of the liquid may determine the quality of this vowel, as in early East Slavic, where the transitional vowel was identified with /e/ after a high tonality [r'], but with /o/ after [r] or [1]; e.g. ORuss. bereg*b "bank," but korova "cow," celorvb "limb," zoloto "gold" (cf. Jakobson [1929] 1962: 30 [= 1929/1971: 30, CYB]). And the developments in the West Slavic and South Slavic areas are said to preserve original prosodic distinctions after the syllabic liquid diphthongizes: Since the vowel-like latter portion of the reinforced syllabic liquid has greater sonority than the initial portion, the phonetic diphthongization may be followed by an intensity shift, which transfers syllabic function to the vowel-like portion and reduces the sonorant portion to (part of) an onset. It is interesting to note that in such an intensity shift, any prosodic features carried by the syllabic sonorant will be transferred to the [-consonantal] part of the diphthong, (p. 34) In other words, length and pitch distinctions are transferred to the "epenthetic" vowel. This is one of the more original accounts of liquid diphthongs in Slavic, though it presents some problems when one attempts to interpret it in terms of

64

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

phonology or evolving syllable types. The intermediate stage of a syllabic liquid that is assumed for both West and South Slavic implies that syllable structure may have been the same throughout this entire area. There is some support for syllabic liquids in the development of jer and liquid diphthongs, discussed below, but the developments in the West and the South were basically different. Andersen does recognize a different type of syllable structure for East Slavic, postulating a syllable coda which subsequently diphthongizes. One wonders why the differences in the distribution of syllable quantity found in the (North) West and the South Central dialects could not be actually attributed to properties of syllable structure. The preference for syllable codas is found primarily in the (North) West, not in the East Slavic area. The East is characterized by short syllables; there is little evidence for syllable codas. And there is clear evidence for monosegmental expression of length distinctions in the south. The western and southern CR syllable is said to eventually diphthongize as CRV, but it is not obvious why an equally likely CVR does not happen, particularly in the western areas, cf. P zolty "yellow" and data from southwestern Ukrainian dialects. The autosegmental or nonlinear representation of liquid diphthongs proposed here offers certain advantages in terms of relating other sound changes to structure or to a finite number of constraints. In positing a set of syllable structure constraints and different relationships among them, this analysis operates with a limited number of variables and a variety of possible manifestations. But I think that it is especially the representation of quantity on a moraic tier which has the greatest potential for explaining subsequent redistributions of quantity and their effects on other prosodic characteristics of the Slavic languages. One interesting result of looking at changes in the liquid diphthongs as the interaction of competing constraints is that issues which were central to other analyses, such as chronology or rule ordering, are either not critical issues or are subsumed in the relative ranking of constraints. Thus the fact that we cannot be absolutely certain whether the liquid first lost its mora and then metathesized with the vowel or whether it first metathesized with the vowel and then lost its mora in South Central Late Common Slavic, whether the vowel first lengthened and then the liquid metathesized with it or vice versa, or even whether there was a syllabic liquid stage in West and South Slavic (as Andersen suggests) is not central. The important development in South Central Slavic was that the system had both mora conservation and a No Coda Constraint and that it differed from the northern LCS area in this way. Likewise it is not necessary that metathesis and lengthening had to be related to pleophony and therefore had to be charac-

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

65

teristic of (North) East Slavic. The syllabification of monomoraic -R- was in keeping with the Moraic Constraint. Resyllabification could have been early or late and it may have been independent of metathesis or lengthening elsewhere. Stieber (1979: 40) cites the name of the city Tamantarkan in East Slavic, Ti>mutorokanb, as evidence that pleophony was operative in East Slavic by the tenth century, when the city was conquered. This is interesting because several Slavists have assumed that changes in the liquid diphthongs (in the form of metathesis) reached the northeast much later than they did other areas of Late Common Slavic (but see Feldstein 1976). Developments in Slavic diphthongs ending in a liquid support the idea that the dialects of Late Common Slavic were evolving different syllable types. All dialects permitted complex onsets of rising sonority (Cx), but they had different restrictions on the syllable rime. In the South Central dialects the Moraic Constraint and/or the No Coda Constraint were in effect. In the (North) West area metathesis was optional. Where the No Coda Constraint was highly ranked, metathesis took place. But given the development of two-part syllable rimes, syllable structure did not necessarily require metathesis. In the East Slavic dialects, there is no evidence for metathesis nor is there any motivation for it. Here both constraints seem to be subordinated to newer syllable structure requirements, i.e., a Syllable Weight Constraint for monomoraic syllables and a restriction on the moraicity of sonorant consonants (S^JUL). Pleophonic forms satisfy the Onset Constraint and the Syllable Weight Constraint. There is no evidence that a No Coda Constraint was necessary for pleophony to take place, though this development certainly would have been in keeping with a No Coda Constraint. The new RV sequence met all constraints; the alternative resolution of R as VR would have presented too many violations. In the South Central dialects sonorants could be mora-bearing, but when codas were eliminated the mora was associated to the vowel. Bimoraic syllables were reinterpreted as bimoraic segments. There was no opposition between long vowels and diphthongs. A segment could be either moraic or not, and if moraic, then either mono- or bimoraic. These dialects were characterized by the syllable type in (16a), with a one- or two-mora nucleus. As a result, these dialects preserved distinctions in vowel quantity. The (North) West Late Common Slavic dialects presented a transitional stage in that length distinctions were not necessarily lost, but length could be expressed on individual segments as well as on diphthongs. The (North) West Slavic dialects differed from the (North) East Slavic ones in allowing sonorant consonants in syllable-final position. Liquids could not be syllable peaks in either of the two areas, though they were potentially mora-bearing in the

66

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

(North) West Slavic dialects. The syllable structure of these dialects may be represented as in (16b). The tolerance for syllable codas also distinguished these dialects from the South Slavic ones, where no falling diphthongs are found. In (North) East Late Common Slavic there was a categorical loss of moraicity on liquid consonants (S * JJL) and the syllable became monomoraic (16c). (16)

a. South/Central LCS

b. (North) West LCS

a

In terms of constraint interaction, these developments may be summarized as follows: the No Coda Constraint was ranked very high in the South Central area and this was probably the center of the no coda innovation. The elimination of codas had no effect on the total mora count of the syllable because the dialect had mora conservation. The result was that syllable weight was reinterpreted as vowel or liquid length. In the (North) East Late Common Slavic area there were two significant changes: the introduction of a monomoraic limit on syllables, and the categorical demoraification of sonorant consonants, i.e., S^|JL. The No Coda Constraint ranked below the monomoraic syllable constraint. In any case, liquid diphthongs remained VR structures until ^syllabification took place. The (North) West area was split in its ranking of the No Coda Constraint. Where it was important or highly ranked, metathesis took place. In the periphery it apparently ranked very low. This area also shows a relatively low ranking of the Sonorant Constraint because sometimes vowel plus sonorant sequences remained bimoraic. (See also the discussion of constraint interaction in 3.4.) It appears that Czech and Central Slovak may represent transitional areas between the south and the (North) West Late Common Slavic dialects in having both long vowels (mora conservation) and bimoraic diphthongs. On the other hand, Ukrainian and Belarusian show characteristics expected of a transition between the northwest and the northeast: they have syllable codas like (North) West Slavic and monomoraic syllables like (North) East Slavic. It is not surprising to discover that Ukrainian and Belarusian had an earlier stage in which moraic liquids were tolerated. Most interesting is the fact that the emerging syllable structure differences identified above were functional in the later evolution of nasal vowels (see 1.3.3) and in the subsequent development of high vowel (jer) and liquid sequences.

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

67

1.3.1.3 The e > o change in liquid diphthongs In the northeastern Late Common Slavic dialects as well as in the extreme northwestern area, the distinction between /e/ and /o/ in position before the IM in the diphthong was neutralized in favor of the back vowel, e.g., PS *melk-a "milk" (Gmc meluk-) > R moloko, U moloko, BR malako, K miouko, Pb mldkd (perhaps a later change). The e > o reflexes before /I/ are primarily found in the north Lechitic languages (Pomeranian, Polabian, Kashubian/Slovincian) and in the East Slavic ones (Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian), though under somewhat different conditions in the two areas. Shevelov (1965:401-405) proposed that there were two separate changes: (a) a general shift of/e/ to /o/ after palatals, and (b) a shift of/e/ to /o/ after other consonants under certain conditions. The first /e/ to /o/ shift supposedly took place in the central Late Common Slavic area after the palatal consonants which resulted from the first palatalization of velars. The /o/ is sometimes found after /£/, /§/, /z/ in Polish and Sorbian, e.g., Pziob "manger," LS zlob as well as in Ukrainian zona "woman," solom "helmet" (cf. R zena, Mom). Sorbian shows e > o fairly regularly before /I/ and /r/, especially after labials, e.g., PS *melka "milk" > mloko; *bergu "shore" > US broh, brjoh (Fasske 1993). The second shift is commonly found before /I/. Shevelov attributes the second change of e > o in some northwestern and northeastern Late Common Slavic areas to rising pitch accent and says that it preceded changes in liquid diphthongs. The e > o shift was fairly widespread before /I/, but it did not happen everywhere. Some have hypothesized that a front vowel in the immediately following syllable (Jakobson 1929/1971:26) or the presence of a palatalized consonant following the diphthong (Lehr-Splawiriski 1932b) prevented what has been called the labialization of/e/, e.g., R seledka "herring" (cf. R sel'd' "herring"), U oseledec', BR seledzec, Pb slid, K sledz (from the Old Scandinavian *sild), except after labial consonants, PS *melt-i "grind" > R molot', U moloty, BR maloc', Pb mldt.19 The Old Russian forms celom> "limb," selomb "helmet" present a problem because it appears that the e to o shift took place after the development of pleophony, not prior to it. The /o/ is stressed in the Russian forms. We do not find this shift in the first syllable, even under stress, e.g., R dial. peled "shed," R, U selezen' "drake." Andersen's (1972, 1973b) analysis, deriving the pleophonic forms from the diphthongized liquid, has the advantage of explaining the /o/ reflex after the /I/ in celowb < CelC and the /e/ after the /I/ in R seledka (cf. R sel'd' "herring") < Cel'C as a property of the original liquid. There are differences of opinion about the exact nature of this change. LehrSplawinski (1932b) proposed a change of /el/ to /6l/ everywhere under the influence of the labialized /I/ with a later reversal of /61/ to /el/ in the environment of a following palatal(ized) consonant. Jakobson (1929/1971: 26) viewed

68

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

it as a case of /el/ not becoming /ol/ if the following syllable had a prepalatal (front) vowel. The other puzzling aspect of the e > o change is its geographic distribution in two noncontiguous areas of Slavic. It appears to have been an early change, predating innovations in liquid diphthongs because in East Slavic the consonant preceding the vowel is not palatalized (cf. the later e > o shift under stress as in R n'os "he carried," nesla "she carried," or [s'il'otka] "herring") and the pleophonic vowel is usually /o/ in both places, e.g., *telt > tolot (not *tolet or *telot, but see Jakobson 1929/1971: 25-27; Shevelov 1965: 401^405). The e > o shift was connected by Furdal (1961: 58-59) to the labialization of the vowel in tilt > tult (CVR-C) before it became a jer: East Slavic also shows an /o/ with no palatalization of the preceding consonant in these cases, e.g., PS *uilku "wolf > R volk, U vovk. Many Slavists have taken this /e/ to /o/ shift before /I/ as evidence of early or continual contacts between the two peripheral northern Late Common Slavic areas and for a velarized pronunciation of the liquid in the north. The e > o change before /I/ in liquid diphthongs is of interest to this discussion insofar as the change appears to have had the syllable as its domain, i.e., the /e/ and the lateral were originally tautosyllabic. When the liquid was in the onset, this change did not take place, e.g., R dial, pelesyj [p'il'osij] "spotted," cf. Sn pelesast, Lith peleti "mold" (Shevelov 1965: 405). Thus it is possible to interpret the shift as a regressive assimilation of the vowel to the liquid, with the liquid serving as a labializing or velarizing environment (Jakobson 1929/1971: 25-27). Jakobson {ibid.) considered these sequences to be subject to intrasyllabic harmony.20 The interesting comparison here is between the various palatalizations and vowel fronting where coronality appears to prevail (discussed in 1.2.3) and this change in favor of backing or velarization. Much still remains to be learned about the e > o shift in East Slavic and its relationship to developments in the peripheral northwestern area of Slavic as well as about its role in the rise of phonemic palatalization (cf. Furdal 1961, BernStejn 1961: 219-220), but for purposes of this discussion we may observe that this change preceded innovations in liquid diphthongs and therefore it probably also preceded the reanalysis of syllable structure. The tautosyllabic environment for this vowel backing may be an example of how syllable structure interacts with other phonological processes. 1.3.2 Changes in high vowel and liquid diphthongs Common Slavic developed high vowel (perhaps actually jer) plus liquid sequences (CVR.C) from PIE syllabic liquids (e.g., PIE *mrti- "death," PS *sumirti; cf. Lith mirtis, Skr mrti-, La mors, mortis; PS *stulbu/stulpu, CS

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

69

Table 1.4. Changes in CVR.C sequences Proto-Slavic

South Central LCS

Northern LCS

CVR *uirxu "peak" *gurdla "throat"

CR SC vfh, Cz vrch SC grlo, Sk hrdlo

CVR R verx, BR verx R gorlo, U /zor/o

*stulbu, stulpu "stake, post," OCS stfopi? "pillar," SC stub, stup "pillar," Cz sloup, Sk stlp, P s/w/?, US stolp, K sto/&; cf. Lith stulpas "pillar") and liquid plus jer groups (CRV-C) from original liquid plus short high vowel sequences (e.g., OCS pl~btb "flesh"; cf. Lith pluta "crust, rind," Latvian pluta "flesh"). These jer/liquid structures were originally capable of expressing length distinctions, as data from Baltic and Slavic show in the form of differences in pitch accent (cf. Lithuanian), e.g., /}/: PIE *ulqyos "wolf," Skr vfkah, Go wulfs, Lith vilkas, OCS vlbkb, ES vblkb and /I/: PIE *pln- "full," Skr purnah, Go fulls, Lith pMnas, Laplenus, OCS pfern?, ES p7?lm?; /r/: PIE *grn- "kernel," Skrjirndh, jurndh "grind," La grdnum, Go kaurn, Lith zirnis "pea," OCS zrbno, ES zbrno, Uzer/w (Mikkola 1913: 78-85; Brauer 1961: 77; Shevelov 1965:91-93). I will treat the two separately because the high vowel or jer plus liquid groups were diphthongs, if not syllabic liquids, and the liquid plus jer sequences were not. The grouping of tautosyllabic high vowel plus liquids changed throughout the Common Slavic area. Reflexes of these combinations show many subsequent language-particular adjustments, but the basic isogloss separates the South Central dialects with syllabic liquids from northern dialects with a vowel adjacent to the liquid, as shown in table 1.4. There is some evidence that in Polish, Slovene, and Macedonian what now appears as a vowel plus liquid sequence once went through a stage with a syllabic liquid (either as the only syllable peak or as part of a complex nucleus). Examples are: PS *uirxu "peak, summit" > OCS vrbXb, B vrax, M vrska, SC vfh, Sk vrch, Cz vrch, P wierzch, US wjerch, LS wjefch, Pb wdrch, R verx, U verx, BR verx; PS *pilnu "full," Rpoln-, Upovn-, BRpoun-, Ppelny, LS poiny, US poiny, Cz piny, Sk piny, SC pun, Sn poln, M poln, B pdln-, Pb paund; PS *gurdla "throat," R gorlo, U horlo, BR gorla,P gardlo, LS gjardlo, US hordlo, Cz hrdlo, Sk hrdlo, SC grlo, M grlo, B garlo; PS *uilku "wolf," R volk, U vovk, BR vouk, P wilk, LS wjelk, US wjelk, Cz vlk, Sk vlk, SC vuk, Sn volk, M volk, B vdlk, K vouk. Bulgarian seems to be unique among the South Central dialects in that it has a vowel /a/ in the vicinity of liquids, but this is a fairly recent development (cf. Shevelov 1965: 478). Note that the schwa may appear before or after

70

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

the liquid which suggests an earlier syllabic liquid. Many Slavic languages did not tolerate a syllabic /I/: in Serbian and Croatian, for example, it is now realized as /u/ and in Slovene and Macedonian a vowel appears next to the liquid. The (North) West Slavic languages show the greatest variety of reflexes in jer plus liquid sequences. Some Slavists claim that these vowel-liquid groups were falling diphthongs similar to the non-high vowel plus liquid sequences and that they were subject to the same pressures as the latter (i.e., open syllable, rising sonority). For example, Peciar 1941 postulates an identical development for all liquid diphthongs, including metathesis with a pleophonic variant in East Slavic. Lunt 1956: 309 considers these to have been closed syllables in East Slavic, e.g., vi>LkT>, as opposed to OCS vlT>.kT>. Others have suggested that the liquid must have originally been the syllable peak, i.e., CVR.C, because these did not undergo metathesis (cf. BernStejn 1961: 207, Lamprecht 1987: 66; Skljarenko 1993) or that the jers were nonsyllabic and that the syllabicity was carried by the liquid, as in tyrt, ujlt (Fortunatov 1919: 34-39, 156-167; Saxmatov 1902a: 286, 1915/1967: 4 5 ^ 6 , Vondrak 1924-1928: 180-188, 420-422). Mikkola 1913: 78-85 took them to be bimoraic and bisyllabic, and Feldstein 1994: 27 suggests that syllabic liquids in the south derive from the normal loss of weak jers before a strong syllabic segment (the liquid), proposing to modify Havlik's Law to include monosyllabic sequences. Andersen 1972, 1973b postulates syllabic liquids for many parts of Slavic. There were two major stages of development: 1) from PIE syllabic liquids to high vowel plus liquid sequences in early Common Slavic, and 2) the change of Common Slavic high vowel plus liquid sequences into a variety of reflexes in Late Common Slavic. To a large degree the lack of consensus in interpreting changes in vowel-liquid and liquid plus jer groups may result from the approaches taken, which for the most part are phonetic. In these accounts it is critical to determine precisely the status and constituency of the liquid diphthong and to reconstruct the domain of the syllable peak. But if the problem is approached from the point of view of phonology, then one could operate with the notion of either a syllabic liquid which had various allophones (e.g., R or ar) or a vowel-liquid sequence which was phonemicized differently in various dialects. Within the constraints established for Common Slavic, i.e., the Moraic Constraint and the No Coda Constraint, the representation of these original PIE syllabic liquids requires that the liquid be moraic. Thus although the change of PIE syllabic liquids to PS vowel plus liquid sequences may appear to be a change that produced closed syllables, it is more likely that the liquid was the syllable peak. Some linguists, following Baudouin de Courtenay, have postu-

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

71

lated syllabic liquids for Common Slavic (/r/, /I/) as a consequence of the law of open syllables (Nahtigal 1938/1952: 14-15), but others suggest that CS had allophonic pronunciations with syllabic liquids in some parts and a vowel plus liquid in others (cf. van Wijk 1949-1950, BernStejn 1961: 207; Andersen 1972, 1973b). I think that these vowel plus liquid sequences (which at first glance seem to go against the open syllable principle) are actually an argument for the existence of a Moraic Constraint in Common Slavic. These syllabic liquids or jer plus liquid sequences (abbreviated as CVR.C here) were not violating CS syllable structure as defined with respect to moraicity. In the southern and central LCS dialects these groups and eventually sequences of liquids followed by jers (CRV.C) became syllabic liquids (Stieber 1979: 33-36, 54-57). In the northern dialects, both types have a non-jer vowel adjacent to the liquid. It is usually assumed that changes in these nuclei preceded the general loss or lowering of jers since innovations here do not in every area produce the reflexes expected of jers. The usual later development of jers throughout Slavic was to vocalize or lower a jer in "strong" position (in a syllable before one with a weak jer) so that the jer was realized as a full (non-jer) vowel, either /a/, /e/, /o/, etc. depending on the dialect. Elsewhere, the jer was lost. Contrary to the usual developments, however, in these diphthongs southern dialects show only a syllabic liquid, while many northern dialects show vowel reflexes even in "weak" position, that is, in the syllable before a non-jer vowel. Jakobson 1929/1971: 29-30 saw the development of liquid diphthongs as the transfer of length to one element of the diphthong (to the vowel in CVR.C and to the liquid in CVR.C) in the south and as a strengthening of the weak member of the diphthong (the liquid in CVR.C and the jer in CVR.C) in the East Slavic and northwestern LCS areas, but it is not clear why the different Slavic areas should have developed these particular preferences. I would like to suggest that these different developments may be seen as deriving from emerging differences in syllable structure. 1.3.2.1 Southern Late Common Slavic: CRC It is uncertain whether the South Central area simply continued PIE syllabic liquids or whether it actually developed a stage of high vowel or jer plus liquid sequences. Unlike in CVR.C sequences, here the liquid was the syllable peak (cf. English yearn). Original length distinctions (reflected in accentual differences) were most likely expressed on the liquid, as in (17). The loss of the high vowel or jer, if it was present, in these nuclei would not endanger total syllable weight or change the accentual profile of the form. These sequences either were or became syllabic (moraic) liquids.

72 (17)

The syllable in Slavic: form and function South Central LCS dialects short falling accent

R

long rising accent

V

R

R

If one operates with the notion that there was some vowel before the liquid, then the process depicted in (17) may be understood as a type of monophthongization or coalescence which produced a monosegmental (monomoraic or bimoraic) nucleus. It is true, as Henning Andersen (p.c.) suggests, that we cannot be sure that these high vowel and liquid groups were not monophthongized before Havlik's Law and "they may even have been monophthongized before the vowel shift that produced jers (the reinterpretation of CS short vowels as lax)." The critical factor in this analysis is that the liquid was moraic and that it was the syllable peak, with or without a preceding vowel. That changes in these sequences seemed to depend on the moraicity of the liquid is not surprising because the South Central LCS dialects did not have a constraint against moraic liquids as did other areas of Slavic. The evidence from Old Czech is of particular interest, for as Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 168; trans. 1969: 172 observed, "in Old Czech r and / were syllabic between two consonants in some words, non-syllabic in others: in verse, words such as 'mrtvy' (dead), 'piny' (full) were treated as bisyllabic, words such as 'krvi' (blood), 'slza' (tear) as monosyllabic." The syllabic liquids are found in forms which derive from the PIE syllabic liquids (or early CS high vowel plus liquid diphthongs); the others are discussed in 1.3.3. In other words, the syllabicity of liquids was not predictable from the sonority sequencing of the root nodes alone, but it must have been distinctive at some point, and Proto-Czech, like Proto-Serbo-Croatian and other South Slavic languages, must have distinguished moraic and non-moraic liquids in the same environment. 1322 Northern Late Common Slavic: CVR.C ICRVC The situation was quite different in the north. There seem to be two different developments, depending on the moraic status of the liquid. At the time of these changes in (North) West Slavic, the liquids could still be associated to a mora. It was not necessary to retain the vowel if the syllable could be identified on the basis of a moraic sonorant and indeed in some cases the liquid became the syl-

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

73

lable peak. Evidence for this comes from those vowel reflexes which are not the expected reflexes of strong jers, e.g., P wilk "wolf." Other forms appear with /e/ which is the reflex of a strong jer, e.g., Psmierc "death" (though here we probably see lowering before /r/). In the (North) East Slavic area where syllable peaks were identified with vowels the way to preserve a syllable was to preserve the vowel. Sonorant consonants were categorically non-moraic (S^JUL). It is not surprising then that the reflexes of these diphthongs in the East Slavic dialects, in "weak" as well as "strong" position, have vowels, e.g., R smert' "death" (< CS *sumirti > PS *sumirti), polnyj "full" (< CS *puln- > PS *puln-). There are transitional dialects between the eastern and western areas of northern LCS which show reflexes of strong jers as well as other vowel reflexes. These subdivisions within the northern dialects are also attributable to evolving differences in syllable structure. 1.3.2.2.1 (North) West Slavic This area, and today Polish in particular, exhibits the most complex development of what are postulated to be CVR.C sequences. Although some vowel does appear next to the liquid (as it does throughout the northern dialects of LCS), this vowel is not always the reflex of a strong jer. Specifically, in Polish the front vowel plus liquid groups have a high vowel reflex (and in the case of /r7, also a palatalized reflex spelled as rz with lowering of the preceding vowel to /e/), e.g., CS *mlku > P wilk "wolf," CS *uirxu > P wierzch "peak, top" (< Old Polish wirzch). The back jer plus liquid nuclei show either /e/ (or its backed variant /of) or the lowered /a/ before /r/: CS *uulna > P welna "wool," CS *mlrt> P martwy "dead." These developments have led previous researchers to assume either that 1) Polish and other (North) West Slavic shared the developments in the south by first deriving syllabic liquids and then randomly inserting vowels (Stieber 1973: 17) or that 2) they shared the developments of the East Slavic area and have partially developed jer reflexes (Shevelov 1965: 474). Feldstein (1994) believes that Polish (and to some degree Czech) shows both types of development: syllabic liquids as well as strong jers. He argues for a difference in chronology: in some words jer loss preceded the loss of syllabicity in liquids, resulting in syllabic liquids (CRC) and subsequent reflexes with high vowels or /a/; in others the liquid lost its syllabicity first, strengthening the jer (CVR.C), which shows up as /e/. He offers no explanation, however, of why the liquid retains its syllabicity in some jer plus liquid sequences but not in others. Stieber 1979: 35-36 clearly says that north Lechitic went through a syllabic liquid stage (cf. van Wijk 1941) and that forms such as volk, dolgi that occur in Slovincian cannot be due to the preservation of original "vocalized" jers (as in

74

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

R dolgij) because in the northwestern LCS area the jers merged with /e/. These forms, according to Stieber, attest to a stage of syllabic liquids, much like the Sn or M forms volk, dolg. Developments in Sorbian parallel those in Polish in that older jer plus liquid diphthongs have a variety of vowel plus liquid reflexes: LS cerw (cerw) < *£irvi "worm," LS zerno (zorno) < *zirno "kernel, grain," LS gjarsc, US horse < *gursti "fist," US kyrk, kerk < *kurku "neck," US dyrkotac, LS derkotas < *durgutati "to tremble" (Mucke 1891/1965: 120ff.), and similarly, LS kjarmis "to feed," marchwej "carrot" (< CS *murky), twardy (< *CS tuirdu- "hard"), US wjelk, LS wjelk "wolf." The Polish and Sorbian developments find a natural explanation in terms of syllable structure. I think that they represent liquid syllable peaks (as in the south) either alone (R) or with a [or], [si] variant. These later changed to sequences of vowels plus liquids in conformity with the emerging syllable type in (North) West Slavic. In other words, when the (North) West dialects allowed moraic sonorants, syllabic liquids were acceptable. It was only when the constraint on the moraicity of sonorants (S^JJL) became dominant that these syllabic liquids constituted violations. The solution was to decompose the syllabic liquid into a vowel plus liquid sequence. For (North) West Slavic there are two arguments in support of the syllablebased analysis. First, assuming an intermediate syllabic liquid stage (CR.C or CaR.C) for original CVR.C, the "new" vowel almost always appears in front of the liquid. We might have expected that a syllabic liquid would produce a vocalic element after it, so as not to violate the No Coda Constraint. That this did not happen suggests that these dialects were tolerating (and perhaps even developing a preference for) sonorant syllable codas (CVS syllable type). Second, the vowel which appears next to the liquid is not completely arbitrary. Generally, palatalized liquids are realized as sequences of the high front vowel l'\l and liquid, e.g., wilk "wolf; nonpalatalized liquids are realized as sequences of [-high] vowels plus liquid, e.g., wetna "wool." Sometimes there is lowering as elsewhere in Polish and Sorbian, e.g., wierzeh "peak, top," or backing before nonpalatalized /r/, e.g., martwy "dead." To the extent that the features of the vowel are predictable from the liquid (cf. Andersen 1972, Feldstein 1994), it seems that an intermediate stage of syllabic liquids may be postulated for all such diphthongs with subsequent decomposition into CVR sequences.21 Perhaps the influence of syllable structure in jer/liquid sequences may be illustrated by subsequent developments in Polish, Czech and Sorbian. In Czech, these "liquid diphthongs" or "syllabic liquids" almost always show syllabic liquid reflexes, e.g., smrt "death," vlk "wolf," trh "market" (except after /£/ and

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

75

HI, e.g., cerny "black"). In Polish all of these have a vowel before the liquid, in effect reconstructing (from syllabic liquids) the original jer (vowel) plus liquid sequence. The Czech developments pattern with the southern LCS dialects in all reflexes except for some /1/s (said to derive from Cul.C, and occasionally Cil.C), which do not remain syllabic. These became /I/ plus /u/ or /u/ (spelled as ou): CS *mulua > Cz mluva "language, speech," CS *sulnuce > Cz slunce "sun," CS * pulku > Cz pluk "regiment," CS *zult- > Cz zluty "yellow," CS *dulg- > Cz dlouhy "long." Stieber 1979: 55 sees the Czech developments as distinguishing unpalatalized and palatalized syllabic liquids, with the palatalized /I'/ remaining as the syllable peak, cf. vlk "wolf," vlna "wool," piny "full," at least after labials. The Polish cognates are mowa (> molva), slonce, pulkowy "regimental," zolty, dlugi. While it is interesting that in Czech the lateral does not remain syllabic, producing a following /u/ as the syllable peak, what is more significant is that in Czech it eventually develops into a CRV structure (zluty), whereas in Polish, if we postulate an intermediate syllabic stage for these liquids as well, the result in most cases is a CVR sequence. The one exception to the CVR structure in Polish jer plus liquid developments are back jer plus /I/ sequences after dentals: CS *dulg- > P dlugi "long." Feldstein 1994 takes these as evidence for a syllabic liquid stage: "only a single environment has a non-jer reflex requiring us to posit an intermediate stage of tit. This is the case of the back vowel tblt groups beginning in a dental consonant, which all result in the tlut reflex . . . whose metathesis, combined with the vowel u, are sure signs that a tit stage once existed" (p. 32). Why syllabic /I/ after labials and velars produced a vowel in front of it, but after dentals one after it, is not entirely clear. Perhaps the fact that the tongue position for the lateral is a continuation of that for the preceding dental, is relevant (Koneczna 1965: 77). In many ways Sorbian resembles Polish, e.g., US home "pot," wjelk "wolf," and zorno "grain" and US implements CVR structure even after dentals, e.g., tolsty "fat," dolh,polny, zolty (< CS *zult-). (Data from Stone 1993: 608-609.) Upper Sorbian shows /or/ and /er/ reflexes for syllabic liquids, e.g., hordy "proud" (cf. Cz hrdy), kork "neck" (cf. Cz krk), hordlo "throat," wjefch "top, summit," smjerc "death," tolsty "fat," wolna "wool"; Lower Sorbian parallels these developments, e.g., gjardy "proud," wjerba "willow," smjers "death," except in the case of /I/, where several variants are found, e.g., wel'k, wjelk "wolf," potny "full," styrico "sun," tlusty "fat," dlujki "long." Sorbian seems to conform to the CVR preference except after dentals where Lower Sorbian shares some characteristics of Polish, e.g., LS tlusty, diug, polny, zolty. These developments support the claim that the (North) West Slavic area (in distinction from both the South Central and the East Slavic dialects) was evolving a

76

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

preference for syllable codas (or to put it another way, the No Coda Constraint was superseded by others). Slovak shows a great variety of reflexes of CVR- diphthongs in dialects, including syllabic liquids, vowels plus liquids, or vowels instead of liquids, e.g., Contemporary Standard Slovak dlhy, tlstnuf "become fat," slnko "sun," stlp "post," East Slovak dialects dluhi, tlusti, slunko, slup, and in West Slovak dialects, duzen, sunko (Pauliny 1963: 156-170). There are also variants that bear a resemblance to Polish, e.g., viVk "wolf," hardlo "throat," verch "summit," etc. Note that the original length distinctions in the diphthongs are often preserved, e.g., Sk tlsty "fat, thick" vs. tlk "pestle" and in Czech they are carried over to the vowel, e.g., dusty, tlouk [u] (Andersen 1972: 34). In the extreme northwest, represented primarily by Polabian and Pomeranian both CVR.C and CVR.C diphthongs are realized as some type of vowel followed by the liquid. Of interest to this analysis is the fact that the jer generally appears as a vowel identical to a strong jer reflex or very close to it (Shevelov 1965: 470-471), much as it does in the East Slavic dialects. This is to be expected if we accept the generalization of CVR syllable structure in this area. One should also note the close contact of these languages with German(ic) which retains a vowel and liquid sequence in original liquid diphthongs and in cognate forms such as Go wulfs "wolf." 1.3.2.2.2(North) East Slavic In (North) East Slavic (primarily Russian) there are two outstanding characteristics of high vowel (jer) plus liquid development: the vowel appears as the strong reflex of a jer, and the vowel retains its original position before the liquid. There are fairly consistent vowel reflexes of the original high vowel plus liquid groups in Russian, regardless of whether the jer was in strong position (before a jer in the next syllable) or in weak position (before a non-jer vowel in the next syllable), e.g., smert' "death," smerti, gen sg, verx "peak, summit," verxu, loc sg, volk "wolf," volka, gen sg, gorlo "throat," solnce "sun." Ukrainian and Belarusian pattern like Russian, e.g., U smert'', smerti; verx, verxu; vovk, vovka; horlo, sonce; BR smerc', gorla, sonca. Jer changes in general took place fairly late in this northeastern area. Stieber 1979: 34, citing Finnish borrowings of East Slavic (north Russian) forms, such as F turku, virsta (cf. R torg "trade," versta "verst") maintains that East Slavic retained jers next to liquids and that it did not have a stage of syllabic liquids. The constraint on monomoraic syllables was probably in effect in (North) East Slavic at the time of changes in these "diphthongs" and certainly by the time of changes in the jers. Even if the high vowel and liquid sequences did at

13 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

11

one time express quantitative distinctions, these distinctions had been eliminated in (North) East Slavic by the time of the changes in non-high vowel and liquid diphthongs. If these high vowel and liquid diphthongs still existed at that time, then they were most likely monomoraic. It is not clear that the No Coda Constraint was of any importance here, since other syllable structure changes would have eliminated violations of it anyway (as in the case of pleophony). So it appears that codas were irrelevant, or tolerated. On the other hand, the constraint against moraic sonorant consonants (S^|JL) that was operative in pleophonic forms would have certainly favored non-moraic liquids in these forms as well. The loss of mora-bearing ability on the liquid meant that any adjacent vowel, regardless of its position, became the syllable peak. The CVR.C diphthongs would not normally split into two syllables a la CVR.C > CV.RV.C because they were monomoraic, not bimoraic.22 But it is interesting to note that such a split into two syllables actually appears to have happened in a certain area of (North) East Slavic. The northwesternmost Russian dialects are characterized by "secondary pleophony" in original jer plus liquid diphthongs, e.g., North Russian dialects have verex, ver'ox "summit" (< CS *uirxu), verxa, gen sg, xolom "hill" (< CS *xulmu), xolma, gen sg, and dolozno "necessary, owed" (< CS *dulzino) and texts from this area often show spellings with a jer on both sides of the liquid (Janin and Zaliznjak 1993). These liquid-jer spellings have been taken to stand for syllabic liquids (Sidorov 1953/1966, GolySenko 1962, Cernyx 1952: 108-109), epenthetic vowels (Markov 1961, 1964) or both. Kolesov 1963 accepts SeliScev's 1941b position that Old East Slavic did not have syllabic liquids and sees the development of secondary pleophony as related to changes in original CVR.C sequences, i.e., tort > torot. He attributes the appearance of pleophony in some forms but not in others not to the avoidance of homonymy (as did Markov 1964) but to stress, whereby variants with secondary pleophony are said to occur in mobile stress classes, e.g., perst/perest "finger," perstd, gen sg, stolb/stolob "column," stolbd, gen sg, xolm/xolom "hill," xolma, gen sg, but volk "wolf," volka, gen sg, smert' "death," smerti, gen sg (pp. 154-155). But it is also probable that the jer in strong position was identified with the CVR.C diphthongs which had mid vowels (just like reflexes of strong jers) and the change was not so much a bimoraic syllable becoming bisyllabic, but a change in segments. The ol, or and er strong jer reflexes followed by liquids came to be identified with other mid vowel plus liquid groups and treated accordingly as pleophony, i.e., a type of restructuring could have taken place. Since this secondary pleophony was not so common when the jer was in weak position (before a non-jer vowel), one could assume that it post-dated the changes in the

78

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

Table 1.5. Changes in CRV.C sequences Proto-Slavic

South Central LCS

(North) West LCS

(North) East LCS

CRV *kruui "blood" *sliza "tear"

CR SC krv, M krv Sk slza, Cz slza

CRV/CR P krew, krwi, g sg P ha, tez, g pi

CRV R krov', krovi, g sg R sleza, U sliza

jers. At this time pleophony in original CVR-C sequences would have been analyzed as a segmental alternation of Ce/oRC > Ce/oRe/oC. 1.33 Developments in liquid andjer sequences The development of liquid and jer sequences shows three main trends: (a) the jer was lost everywhere, leaving a syllabic liquid as in the South Central LCS area; (b) the jer was subject to Havlik's Law, namely, in position before a jer in the following syllable, the jer was pronounced but before a non-jer vowel in the next syllable, the jer was lost, as in the (North) West dialects; (c) the jer was treated as a strong jer regardless of position, as in many (North) East Slavic dialects (see table 1.5). Transitional areas represented by Belarusian and Ukrainian show especially interesting developments. The following are representative reflexes: PS *kru/kruui "blood,"Rkrov', Ukrov, BRkrou,Pkrew,LS ksew, US krej, Cz krev, Sk krv, SC krv, Sn kri/krv, M krv, B krdv; PS *sliza "tear," R sleza, U sliza/sljoza, BR sljaza, P ha, LS Idza, US sylza, Cz slza, Sk slza, SC suza, Sn solza, M solza, B sdlza. Much of South Central Slavic developed syllabic liquids in CRV sequences, though here the strong/weak jer development is generally more often attested (in Old Church Slavic) than in the CVR (or CR) case. (Today Czech and Macedonian may show different reflexes in these groups than in the tautosyllabic CVR types, while Standard Slovak has syllabic liquids in both original CVR and CRV sequences, e.g., since "sun," vlna "wool," trvaf "to last," slza "tear" [Stieber 1979: 57], though there is much variation in Slovak dialects.) Because the liquids in the southern regions of LCS could serve as syllable nuclei the loss of a jer in CRV sequences would have had no effect on total syllable weight, as illustrated in (18). (18)

a

R

a

V

R

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

79

The reflexes of CRV.C in Czech conform to the reflexes of strong and weak jers, as expected, and there is no vowel in weak position. Although in Contemporary Standard Czech the liquid between two consonants is syllabic, in Old Czech apparently CVR.C and CRV.C gave different reflexes. Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 168; trans. 1969: 172, as already mentioned, noted that r and / were syllabic between two consonants in some Old Czech words, nonsyllabic in others. Forms such as krvi "blood," slza "tear," which derive from original CRV.C sequences, were metrically counted as monosyllabic. The fact that the bisyllabic forms derive from "liquid diphthongs," while the monosyllabic ones are the development of CRV.C sequences supports the contention that the liquid in what are referred to as diphthongs (CVR.C) retained its association to the mora and therefore its syllabicity. On the other hand, the loss of the jer (moraic) in CRV.C sequences in which the liquid had not been moraic simply left a consonant cluster. These differences are represented in (19). (19)

C RC By the fourteenth century, however, liquids in the environment of two obstruents also became syllabic (cf. Shevelov 1965: 587; Stieber 1979: 57). All CRC groups in Czech now have a syllable peak. Whereas Slovak for the most part had syllabic liquid reflexes in CRV.C forms, in word-initial sequences of RV-, where the jer was in weak position, Slovak lost the jer but it did not tolerate potential syllabic liquids (or nasals). Here a vowel was often reinserted next to the liquid, usually relegating the liquid to the onset, e.g., CS *lugota > lehota "period, interval," *ru3a "rust" > dial, ri^a, re$a, er$a, ar$a, or$a, zerz, zerzina (see Pauliny 1963: 13Off.). The developments in Slovak dialects share some of the characteristics found in southwestern East Slavic areas (e.g., U irza "rust") and in general they seem to represent the kind of variation expected in transition from (North) West Slavic (Polish and Sorbian) to East Slavic (Ukrainian). The (North) West area shows regular jer development in most cases, as in the Upper and Lower Sorbian loss of the jer in weak position: LS dzas, US rzec < *druzati "to hold"; LS pcha < *bluxa "flea"; LS Iza, US sylza < *sliza "tear," but retention of the strong jer in LS ksew, ksej, US krej < *kruui "blood"; LS pies < *pluti "flesh"; LS ksebjat, US khribjet (< khrSbjet) < *xrlbitu "spine" (Mucke 1891/1965:120ff.). Polish is also quite regular in losing weak jers, e.g., krew "blood," but krwi, gen sg, ha "tear," lez, gen pi (< *sl!zu).

80

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

The (North) East Late Common Slavic dialects show two main trends. The easternmost part, today Russian, tended to preserve jers in the vicinity of liquids regardless of whether a non-jer vowel occurred in the following syllable. But even within Russian there are differences: either the jers are treated as positionally strong and weak according to Havlik's Law (northwestern area, represented by Pskov and Novgorod), e.g., kstit'< krfstiti "to baptize," Pskov < Pliskovu, or the jers appear as "strong" reflexes and retain their position, such that CVR.C develops as CVR.C and CRV.C develops as CRV.C, as in the northeastern area (Rostov-Suzdal, later Muscovy dialects and standard Russian today). The southwestern area (Belarusian and Ukrainian) shows some peculiar reflexes which have been construed as representing an intermediate stage of syllabic liquids, in other words, this area may have experienced the loss of weak jers adjacent to liquids. The question of why Russian preserved jers after the liquid (CRV.C sequences) even in weak position remains unanswered. Filin 1972: 235 attributes /e/ and /o/ here to analogy with other forms in the paradigm. Given that these were treated differently from jers in other contexts, it is possible that the liquid was somehow relevant (Bulaxovs'kyj 1956:177). In any case, the constraint against moraic sonorant consonants in the northeast (Russian) resulted in the reinterpretation of the original equation mora = syllable as one of vowel (not liquid) = syllable. The elimination of the jer in liquid environments would have left three-member consonant clusters. While this is not unheard of in northeastern East Slavic (cf. ES *di>ska "board" > R dial, dska > cka [tska]; R mgla "haze"), the identification of syllables with vowels in this part of LCS might have served to retain a vocalic segment whenever possible, especially if its loss would result in extensive clusters which violated sonority sequencing (see Filin 1972: 234 and Malkova 1981). The southwestern part of East Slavic, represented by Ukrainian and Belarusian, developed a reflex of a strong jer in CVR.C, but not always in CRV.C. Unlike Russian dialects to the northeast which have reflexes equivalent to those of strong jers after the liquid even in weak position, e.g., R krov' "blood," krovi, prep sg, krovavyj "bloody," drozat' "to tremble," gremet' "to thunder," glotat' "to swallow," or the Polish developments to the west which resulted in the loss of these jers in weak position, e.g., krwi "blood," prep sg, krwawy "bloody," drzec "to tremble," grzmiec "to thunder," Ukrainian, Belarusian, and some southern Russian dialects show a vowel reflex for the jer. In strong position, i.e., before a jer in the following syllable, the vowel is typical of strong jer reflexes, as in U krov "blood" (< ES *kn>vb). But in weak position, before a non-jer vowel in the next syllable, the vowel is usually /y/ in Ukrainian and the allophone [y] of/i/ in Belarusian, e.g., U kryvavyj "bloody," dryzaty "to

13 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

81

tremble," hrymity "to thunder," hlytaty "to swallow"; BR kryvavy "bloody," dryzac' "to tremble," hrymec' "to thunder," hlytac' "to swallow." Some southwestern Ukrainian dialects (SWU) have reflexes in which the /y/ precedes the liquid, as in kyrvavyj "bloody," dyrzaty "to hold," xyrbet "spine." Why did CRV.C sequences develop differently from CVR.C groups in Ukrainian and how do they compare to developments in CVR.C groups? On the basis of differences in the CRV.C and CVR.C reflexes found in Eastern Slovak dialects, van Wijk 1930 argued that the changes in these groups were unrelated. Although both produced syllabic liquids in Slovak, the changes in CVR.C were much earlier than changes in CRV.C. The Ukrainian/Belarusian developments do not contradict this postulated chronology, though they were different from developments to the west. In East Slavic the jer in CVR.C type sequences is represented by a strong jer reflex, even in weak position. It appears that these were instances of jer strengthening in position before a liquid. The question is, why were jers strengthened or retained in CVR.C groups even in so-called weak position? Proximity to a liquid is not a sufficient condition. It is only jers before a liquid that are somehow protected from loss; those in position after a liquid seem to have undergone a different development. Compare CVR.C, CVR.C, and CRV.C sequences in (20): (20)

a.

a

V R C

b.

C V R C

C R V C

Both (a) and (b) represent liquid diphthongs, though they produced different reflexes. In liquid diphthongs the vowel was not lost. Unlike the -VR- sequence which was bimoraic and therefore taken to be bisyllabic, the CVR.C groups originally had length expressed on the liquid. Thus in order to meet the monomoraic constraint of (North) East Slavic, it appears that these groups had shortened by the time of jer changes, so the sequence -VR- remained tautosyllabic. The jer could become the syllable peak.23 Where codas were allowed, as in SW East Slavic, the liquid was later relegated to the coda. One would not expect pleophonic sequences here since the liquid was not resyllabified as a separate syllable. The fact that the postulated -R- in CRC (from CRV.C) apparently develops differently from the liquid -R- in CVRC forms in Ukrainian is curious. The pleophonic development of CVR.C might be due to ^syllabification and perhaps an earlier loss of moraicity on the liquid when it was next to a vowel, satisfying both the Onset Constraint and inserting a syllable nucleus. Between

82

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

two consonants (CR.C) R functioned as the only syllable peak. In any case CVR.C changes took place before jer loss, probably in the period mid-eighth to mid-ninth century, so it is not improbable that CV.RV.C and CR.C coexisted in southwestern East Slavic for a period of time, as nonsyllabic and syllabic liquids coexist in Slovak or Serbian and Croatian today. Neither structure violates the Moraic or the No Coda Constraints. It is generally accepted that the jer in CRV.C sequences in weak position was lost in southwestern East Slavic. Lehr-Splawiriski 1921, Trubetzkoy 1925a, Bulaxovs'kyj 1956: 176-177, 180; and others, took this to be a feature distinguishing south[west]ern East Slavic from north[east]ern developments (Russian) where the jers are usually preserved next to a liquid even in weak position.24 Trubetzkoy 1925a: 297 interprets the development of Ukrainian and Belarusian CRV.C into CRy.C as the result of jer loss and vowel epenthesis, while the Russian reflexes are said to be the consequence of jer strengthening in the environment of a liquid regardless of position. But Slavists disagree about the nature of the liquid in CRC clusters. Those who argue for a stage of syllabic liquids in the history of Ukrainian postulate the development of CRV.C sequences to have been as follows (with minor variations, where R represents a syllabic liquid): CRVC > CRC > CRC > CRyC (Saxmatov 1915/1967: 236-241; Lehr-Splawiriski 1921: 61-62; Bulaxovs'kyj 1951: 273; Bezpal'ko et al 1957: 123-125; BernStejn 1961: 271; Sidorov 1953/1966: 11-14; Filin 1972: 234-237; Andersen 1972: 33-34; Zovtobrjux et al. 1979: 185-187). Because the liquid-jer sequences had different developments within East Slavic and because U /y/ cannot be derived from a syllabic jer, Saxmatov 1903a: 323ff., 1915/1967: 181-182 took these sequences to be syllabic liquids followed by a non-syllabic jer. Bulaxovs'kyj 1951: 273, on the other hand, postulates a syllabic liquid stage as do Bezpal'ko et al. 1957: 123-124 where an intermediate syllabic liquid is proposed not only for Ukrainian and Belarusian, but for all of East Slavic. According to Bezpal'ko et al. the subsequent loss of syllabicity resulted in epenthetic /e/ or /o/ in Russian and epenthetic /y/ in Ukrainian and [y] /i/ in Belarusian. Inexplicably, in SWU the vowel appears before the liquid. There is no discussion of these sequences in Filin 1962 but in his 1972 book he accepts Saxmatov's theory of syllabic liquids with subsequent loss of syllabicity and the development oily I (spelled bi) and /i/ (spelled H). It is not clear to him whether the southwestern Ukrainian reflex (yR) is due to metathesis. Given that spellings with pbi, jibi, pH, JIH appear in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century southwestern documents and that jers were probably lost in this area by the mid twelfth century, Filin 1972:236 considers the existence of a stage of r, 1 or r, 1 without syllabic vowels possible. This interpretation seems to

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

83

derive a secondary syllabicity on the liquid when it is between two consonants. Others do not accept syllabic liquids for this area of Late Common Slavic. Shevelov 1979: 375 rejects syllabic liquids in Ukrainian on several grounds. Among them are the spellings "ne klbnetesja 'do not swear' (Hank 13c), ko krscenbju 'to baptism' (Hank M 14c), vobrbdosa 'wade in' 3 pi aorist (Hyp 1190)" for the expected "ne klbnetesja, tb krbsceniju, Vbbrbdosa" which suggest to him that the vowel in the syllable preceding the liquid plus jer syllable behaved as if that jer were weak (not the liquid syllabic). The loss of the liquid in U masnyj "greasy" (cf. the older maslbnoe, gen sg fern. (Hyp. 1173)) is also cited in support of his thesis insofar as syllabic liquids are supposedly not subject to deletion (Shevelov 1979: 367, 375). Instead he proposes (1979: 365) that the development of CRV.C sought to resolve two-sonority-peak syllables by vowel insertion (anaptyxis), not immediately after the loss of jers but in what he refers to as the Middle Ukrainian period (especially from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries), and that this process took place word-initially or word-internally and in a different form also root-, stem- and wordfinally. The reflexes of CRV.C sequences in Ukrainian and Belarusian find a plausible account in terms of syllable structure. The loss of the jer in this system entailed the loss of the vowel and resulted in new consonant-sonorant clusters. The remaining /CR/ was syllabifiable so long as syllables could be identified on the basis of moraic segments and liquids could be moraic. However, as the constraint against moraic sonorant consonants, S^JUL, became more important, syllable peaks became identified only with vowels. CRy.C and CyR.C depict two possible resolutions of the loss of moraicity on liquids: a syllable peak (vowel) position is created either before or after the liquid. The vowel which fulfills this function is not the reflex of a jer; the jer was lost in these cases and the variety of vowel reflexes found in this environment (in some SWU dialects) is the result of moraic liquids. This analysis provides a plausible explanation for why the vowel is lyl and not /e/ or /o/, and for the different positions of the vowel next to the liquid. This version of events conforms to the chronology of changes in the jers: they were lost in weak position in the southwestern part of LCS (and in the southwestern area of East Slavic) before they were lost in the northeast (Saxmatov 1915/1967: 216; Malkova 1981). In Russian jers persisted until the constraint against moraic sonorant consonants came to predominate, but in Ukrainian and Belarusian they were lost at a time when the constraint was not yet relevant. This could explain the different reflexes of jers in CRV.C groups in the northeastern and southwestern parts of East Slavic. In Russian, the /e/ and

84

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

/o/ are the continuation of retained vowel (jer) syllable peaks. But the /y/ reflex of Ukrainian and Belarusian represents the emergence of a new syllable peak after the liquid could no longer carry the syllable. The loss of the jer next to the liquid apparently did not entail the loss of the mora in southwestern East Slavic and this situation may have obtained for some time. In fact, the spelling "liquid +/y/" becomes widespread in Ukrainian texts only from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century, while the SWU area has either no vowel or vowel plus liquid and liquid plus vowel variant spellings in texts. It appears that the SWU area preserved moraic liquids longer than did other areas of Ukrainian and Belarusian because Ry/yR variants begin to show up here only in midsixteenth-century texts.25 The geographical distribution of these changes reflects the spread of the S^|x constraint from the northeast (Russian) to the southwest (Ukrainian). The developments within Ukrainian itself are in a continuum between the western (Polish) and eastern (Russian) areas of northern LCS in terms of syllable structure and they share many characteristics with Slovak. West Slavic was characterized by a CVS syllable, while the northeastern LCS area seemed to prefer CV syllables with no specific restriction on syllable codas. In Ukrainian we see a transition between these two syllable types: the -yR- reflex occurs in southwestern Ukrainian dialects, while -Ry- is found in northeastern Ukrainian. 1.3.4 Changes in the nasal vowels The chronology of nasal vowel changes probably overlapped to some degree with changes in the liquid diphthongs, so one might expect that syllable structure trends discernible for changes in the liquid diphthongs would have also functioned in the development of nasal vowels. This is indeed the case. Moreover, some specific properties of vowel plus nasal sequences predictably interacted with syllable structure and produced results which differed in principled ways from those found in the liquid diphthongs. It appears that nasal vowels were lost earliest in the northeastern, central and southern areas of Slavic, probably by the mid tenth (Lamprecht 1987:127,130) or eleventh century (Schwarz 1928, Koneczna 1961-1962, Stieber 1979: 46). Other areas of Slavic show evidence of nasal vowels up to the twelfth century and Bulgarian has evidence of nasal vowels as late as the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. Some dialects of Macedonian and several West Slavic languages preserve nasal vowels (Polabian, Slovincian, and today Polish and Kashubian) and the Podjunski (Carinthia) dialect of Slovene has nasal vowels under stress. Koneczna 1961-1962 accepts that the vowels in question were nasal monophthongs which may have been pronounced differently in different areas or in dif-

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

85

ferent positions in a word (as Kuraszkiewicz 1932b argued on the basis of Old Polish texts) and she provides an extensive phonetic account of the changes in the nasal vowels throughout Slavic, relating them to the nature of tone or stress in a given system. Changes in the nasal vowels may also be related to syllable structure. In the northeastern area of LCS /Q/ became /u/ and/eV became /a/. The palatalization of consonants before the front nasal was preserved and it became phonemic (i.e., C'e > C'a vs. Ca). Examples are: LCS *rQka > U ruka "hand, arm"; LCS *peti "five" > R [p'af], U [pjaf]; *m^so "meat" > R [m'aso], U [mjaso], with Ukrainian showing decomposition of palatalized labials into a consonant and a glide. Recall that in Common Slavic nasal vowels were bimoraic. The (North) East Slavic area eliminated quantitative distinctions fairly early. In fact, the generalization of monomoraic syllables in this area led to the pleophonic interpretation of the liquid diphthongs. The change in the nasal vowels, and specifically the loss of nasality, may also be related to the loss of length (21), given that the expression of nasality requires some duration. (21)

(North) East Late Common Slavic dialects

The (North) East Slavic developments support the analysis of nasal vowels as being monosegmental in most of Common Slavic because the bimoraic syllables did not undergo pleophony (*CV.NV). The nasal was not separately associated with a mora in these dialects and syllable structure was not of the type that would encourage the separation of the nasality from the vowel or an asynchronic pronunciation. In contrast, northwestern LCS, and especially the ProtoLechitic area, was developing a tolerance for nasal vowels. It appears that the bimoraic nature of nasal vowels might have been implemented by decomposition, i.e., the separation of the oral and nasal components of the vowel as in (22). Polish today shows sequences of vowels and nasals for etymological nasal vowels, e.g., reka [rerjka] "hand, arm," zqb [zomp] "tooth," dziewi^c [3evjeric] "nine." Some Slavists take this to have been the phonetic variant of nasal vowels in Proto-West Slavic (Trubetzkoy 1925c). Phonetic decomposition would have preserved nasality as a separate component, perhaps as a nasal glide. In any case, nasality was retained fairly regularly for a significant period of time in the Lechitic area (Stieber 1979: 46-49): in Kashubian the long /§/

86

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

often appears as /i/ from an earlier nasalized high front vowel, e.g., vzic "to take" (cf. P wziac); in Polabian there is evidence of nasality, e.g., divat "nine," pat "five " jozek "tongue, language," d'olob "pigeon" (cf. P golqb), and Polish today still has nasal vowels. I would like to suggest that the (North) West Slavic area with its CVS syllable structure allowed nasality to be retained and/or implemented as a sonorant nasal syllable coda. (22)

(North) West Late Common Slavic dialects a a

/

\

\i

/ \i

V [+nasal]

-^

\

\i

JLl

V

S [+nasal]

The later development of nasal vowels in Polish, for example, the existence of new long and short /e./, /Q/, is then not unexpected, given that there is no moraicity requirement on the sonorant consonant even in coda position, which frees the vowel to be associated with more than one mora (as discussed below). The Central LCS (non-Lechitic) areas show a variety of reflexes, e.g., Cz Q > M, e. > 'a, ia, e, a, /; Sk Q > w, § > a, a, ia, but no preservation of nasality. For example, Cz ruka, maso, pet (and variant developments of /e7 as in svaty "holy"; svetec "saint," svdtek "holiday, celebration," posviceni "religious holiday"), Sk ruka, maso, svaty, pdf (and long a > ia as in sviatok "feast, holiday," mesiac "month"), US ruka, mjeso, swjaty, pjec, jazyk (with /a/ for some /e./, and word-finally often /o/ [Stieber 1979: 47]); LS ruka, meso, pes, swetyjezyk, zewjes "nine." In the south and central dialects of LCS the loss of nasality in the nasal vowels took place in the tenth or eleventh century (Lamprecht 1987:130 dates it to approximately 950-1025 AD) and it may have been due, as Koneczna 1961-1962 suggests, to the preservation of pitch accent. Yet the loss of nasality here is also consistent with changes in syllable structure (see (23)). South Central LCS was developing distinctions in quantity but these were restricted to single segments. Diphthongs were not allowed. Both moras of a long syllable had to be associated to one segment. And the No Coda Constraint remained in effect. One would not expect the nasal vowels to decompose into a vowel plus nasal element here. Most vowels and syllabic sonorants came to be opposed in terms of duration with the exception of the nasal vowels. These were always long. The loss of nasality and the subsequent merger of nasal vowels with other vowels, usually /e/ and /6/, extended phonemic quantity distinctions to all syllabic segments.

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures (23)

87

South Central Late Common Slavic dialects o

o

/

\

/

\

/ V

\

\ / V

The reflexes of nasal vowels in the southern area are diverse, e.g., Sn Q > o, e, > e (with some isolated areas preserving nasality); SC Q > u, e, > e (or a), M Q > a, Q > e (with isolated dialects preserving nasality), and B Q > a, e, > e (though nasality was preserved for some time). In general nasality was lost: e.g., SC ruka, meso, svet "holy," pet "five"; Sn roka, sod "judgement," meso, svet, pet, devet; B rdka, zdb, meso, svet, pet; M raka "hand, arm," pat "path," zab, meso, svet, jazik. In this respect the retention of nasal vowels in Bulgarian texts and dialects is of some interest (cf. Velcheva 1988: 156ff.). Koneczna 1961-1962 attributes the loss of nasals in Bulgarian (and parts of Macedonian) to the eventual development of strong dynamic stress, much like that of East Slavic. But the fact is that nasal vowels actually remained here for a significant period of time after they were lost in the other Slavic dialects (except in West Slavic) and they are still found today in some peripheral Macedonian dialects. One explanation could simply be dialect geography: the change reached the eastern parts of South Slavic later or not at all. But it is also possible that the later loss of nasality coincided with the change of syllable structure in Bulgarian, from a bimoraic to a monomoraic syllable nucleus (as in East Slavic), with concomitant vowel shortening and loss of nasality. Today Eastern Bulgarian and Macedonian do not exhibit quantitative distinctions in vowels. Thus nasal vowels would have indeed been interpreted differently in different areas of Late Common Slavic. Where quantity distinctions were lost, the bimoraic nasal vowels would have become monomoraic fairly early, as in East Slavic. Where a bimoraic syllable was allowed, nasal vowels could, in principle, remain. But LCS shows an interesting difference in the retention of nasality here. Nasal vowels are lost in the bimoraic systems of South Central LCS but retained in northwestern LCS. It is curious that southern LCS which provided for quantitative distinctions did not develop a quantitative opposition for the nasal vowels, preferring instead to lose nasality. The (North) West LCS area which seems to have been developing a CVS syllable type, on the other hand, not only preserved nasal vowels, but eventually also allowed quantitative oppositions in them. Stieber 1952: 12 postulates both long and short nasal vowels in early Polish (before 1000 AD), e.g., Q, Q, Q, Q, which merged into one nasal

88

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

vowel, written as 0 in fourteenth-century Polish texts, but with a long and short variant. In Polish quantitative distinctions in nasal vowels persisted until the mid-fifteenth or early sixteenth century (Stieber 1952: 29ff.; Birnbaum 1963). These later developments in Lechitic, in fact, support the proposal that (North) West and later West Slavic in general preferred CVS syllables. If the nasal vowels decomposed into a bipartite structure, then the nasal could evolve an independent relationship to the syllable. It could be a syllable coda, regardless of whether it was moraic. The preceding oral segment was free to be monomoraic or bimoraic, and this is exactly what happened later in Polish, resulting in short and long nasal vowel variants (i.e., long or short vowels before a nasal segment). In the peripheral northwest Slavic areas where CVR.C- forms are found, one also finds evidence for the retention of nasality. The decomposition of nasal vowels in Lechitic indicates that the No Coda Constraint was not playing a major role in the syllable structure of these dialects and that sonorant syllable codas were tolerated. It is proposed here that in Late Common Slavic nasal vowels were phonologically bimoraic monophthongs. The nasal vowels may have been pronounced as V in (North) East Slavic and in the South Central dialects and as VN in (North) West Slavic because syllable structure in the former was tending towards CV (CV) and in the latter to CVS. This analysis reaches a compromise between the phonemic (monosegmental) and biphonemic (bisegmental) versions of nasal vowels proposed in the literature. Given that nasal vowels were probably bimoraic it is certainly possible that the oral component and the nasality were pronounced asynchronously, but whether they were phonologized as units or as sequences of two separate segments depended on the type of syllable structure that was emerging in a given area of LCS as well as on other distinctions that were developing in the vocalic systems. Nasal vowels were more likely to be retained in areas where the syllable could be bimoraic and especially in those areas where a syllable coda was allowed. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the retention of nasality and pitch accent in Slavic. Bulgarian and Macedonian started out as systems with a bimoraic syllable type but they lost pitch accent, thus retaining nasal vowels. When they later evolved into CV type systems, nasality was also lost. The only areas of Slavic to retain nasality from the original nasal vowels today are the (North) West Slavic languages (and some Slovene and Macedonian dialects). The syllable-based analysis proposed here provides a possible explanation for the retention of nasality in (North) West Slavic: inasmuch as these dialects provided for a sonorant coda, nasality could have become asynchronous with the vowel and in this sense protected.

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

89

1.3.5 Syllable structure and "tense jers" In a majority of Late Common Slavic dialects (the exception being northeasternmost LCS) the short high vowels or jers were often neutralized with the high front vowel /i/ and the high back vowel /y/ in position before the front glide, such that one finds alternate spellings of bi ~ ii, i>i ~ yi. Old Church Slavic documents spell *novi>ib "new" as HOBT>H and HOBbiii; *Tudbib "people," gen pi as jnojjbH and JHO^HH. It is generally assumed that jers as well as high vowels before the front glide were pronounced the same. This phenomenon is known as "tense jers" (Saxmatov 1952: 260-261).26 Some Slavists take glide plus jer sequences to be tense jers; others include [ii] sequences, usually in word-initial position, e.g., CS *iiskra "spark," R iskra, Sn iskra, SC Iskra (see Vondrak 1924: 168-170; Stieber 1979: 52-53). This neutralization entailed a shortening of the HI and /y/ before the glide, e.g., OCS biio "I beat"; bratbie/bratiie "brethren"; siia "neck" (Vaillant 1950: 137-138). It is possible that syllable structure played a role in this neutralization. The traditional interpretation of tense jers is that there was no change in quantity, but only one in quality (Place features).27 Bernstejn 1961: 233-234 writes: "The jers in Slavic experienced yet another important positional change: before [j] they became more closed, tense. Not undergoing quantitative changes in this position, they experienced a kind of qualitative change, since these mid vowels became high vowels... Thus the vowels [b] and [T>] in position before [j] had positional variants, which we represent as [I], [y] [trans. CYB]." Meillet 1924/1965: 111-112 also speaks about a qualitative change in the jers: "Au voisinage dey, a en juger par la graphie du vieux slave et par la comparaison des langues, les jers ont tendu a subir une alteration de timbre, sans que la quantite ait ete atteinte par la. Avant et apresy, un Ttend vers le timbre /, et devanty un w vers le timbre y." Flier 1988 postulates a process of jer delabialization, especially before the front glide, which is said to have produced tense jers. He notes that delabialization also took place in other environments, and it interacted with jer lowering. In those areas (primarily the northeasternmost dialects of LCS, later Russian) where jer lowering took place first, delabialization did not apply, and jers in all positions (including before the front glide) developed as strong and weak jers. Thus, in Flier's analysis the development of a tense jer is seen to be a consequence of chronology: in Russian, where there is generally no evidence of tense jers, lowering must have preceded delabialization. Within the framework of a syllable structure analysis, the phenomenon of "tense jers" receives another reading: tense jers are found only in those areas that permitted bimoraic or bipartite syllable rimes. If we allow that quantity distinctions persisted in Late Common Slavic, with the exception of the

90

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

northeastern territories, then the neutralization of Ai/ or /bi/ with /ii/ (and /ui/ or with /yi/) could be interpreted as in (24). This means that a distinction between /ii/ and /ii/ would have been difficult to perceive, in other words, the syllable as a whole was bimoraic.

IIAI

(24)

a.

c

b.

V

S

l/u

i

The tautosyllabicity of the two sounds probably contributed to a shared articulation (25). o

(25) [i

I V \

JLL

I S

/ [son]

I

Place Dorsal The actual mechanism of this process, i.e., whether the development of tense jers involved delabialization or the sharing of the dorsal place node with the glide, is of secondary importance here. Either change apparently would have been tautosyllabic. But there are many cases where tense jers did not develop and jers before the glide were for the most part treated as strong and weak jers, depending on the context, e.g., R bratja, U brattja, BR braccja < *bratiia "brethren" (with the expected gemination in Ukrainian and Belarusian). The absence of tense jers is particularly notable in the northeastern part of (North) East Slavic. There is some disagreement about which forms actually show reflexes of tense jers, but compare the U suxyj "dry" and R suxoj, U cyj "whose" and R cej, U syja "neck" and R seja, perhaps also Upyj "drink!," Sn pij, SC pij, Bpij, but Rpej, OCS and R zitie "life, saint's life" and R zitje "life" (cf. Shevelov 1965: 439ff.; Carlton 1991: 167ff.). Forms with -oj, -ej are found as early as the second half of the thirteenth century in Old Russian texts and they become more common in the fourteenth century (Vaillant 1950: 138). The usual development was for the glide to become an onset with the following more sonorous vowel as in (26) and in (North) East Slavic this process was significantly encouraged by the monomoraic restriction on syllable structure.28

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures a

(26)

I

a

I

I

V

S

i/y

i

V

c

I

I

V

S

l/u

i

V

o

o

I

I

91

V

l/u

i

The resulting open syllable with a short high vowel was identified with other instances of jers, all of which occurred in open syllables. Thus the absence of tense jers in the northeast appears to be consistent with its syllable structure just as their presence elsewhere in Slavic is consistent with the syllable structure postulated for those dialects. The northeastern LCS dialects (from which Russian developed) did not allow bimoraic nuclei, i.e., they did not have the conditions required for tense jers. While the late date of changes in the jers in the northeast may have had something to do with their treatment as strong and weak jers, it is probably not irrelevant that this region of LCS was also evolving a CV syllable type with no potential for diphthongs (or bipartite structure). The related southwestern dialects of (North) East Slavic (today Ukrainian), whose syllable structure was monomoraic, did allow a syllable coda and they do show some reflexes of tense jers. Thus, we could define "tense jers" as jers (I/u) and /i/, lyl that were tautosyllabic with the following /i/. There was no lengthening of the syllable, but there seems to have been a redistribution of length within the syllable. If tense jers are analyzed as the structures in (24) and (25), then their presence in most of Late Common Slavic and their absence in (North) East Late Common Slavic is fully consistent with the syllable structure constraints postulated for these areas. We have seen that the development of liquid diphthongs, the changes in jers adjacent to liquids, the changes in nasal vowels and perhaps even the existence of tense jers may all be related to emerging syllable structure differences in Late Common Slavic. Another innovation, contraction, also took place at approximately this time. Unlike the changes in the jers which occurred throughout LCS, albeit with different results, contraction was more restricted. The effect of contraction on syllable structure was two-fold: it resulted in the deletion of a syllable and it produced new quantitative distinctions.

13.6

Contraction

In a fairly large area of Late Common Slavic an intervocalic front glide was lost and two adjacent vowels contracted to one (Vaillant 1950: 194-199). The quality of the resulting vowel varied and it was not always identical to either of the original two, though the Bulgarian/Macedonian area seemed to prefer assimilation in favor of the first vowel, as in *dobruiemu > *dobruemu >

92

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

dobrumu, dat sg, likewise SC mlddo, neut sg < *mladoo < *mladoe < *mladoie (Lamprecht 1987: 136). The contracted vowel was usually long. Contraction seems to have been an innovation in the central part of LCS (Cz/Sk area today) from where it apparently spread to neighboring areas (Trubetzkoy 1929a, Shevelov 1965: 527; Marvan 1979, Lamprecht 1987: 131). Thus Czech shows extensive evidence of contraction, as in the adjective dobry, dobrd, dobre, dobrou, instr sg, and the verbs bdti se "be afraid," stdti "stand" (Stieber 1979: 58-59), while peripheral northwestern and northeastern LCS dialects do not. Contraction was a fairly late change in Slavic, coming right before or contemporaneously with changes in the jers (approximately in the tenth century) and it produced new quantitative oppositions in several parts of LCS. Shevelov 1965: 634 dates contraction to the tenth century and later, calling it a "dialectal loss of intervocalic j and contractions of vowels." But others argue that contraction took place earlier. Marvan 1979: 144ff. takes the position that contraction preceded the fall of the jers and that it had an effect on jer changes. Trubetzkoy 1929a, in criticizing Travni5ek 1926 who argued that contraction and jer loss were contemporaneous, proposed that in the western part of LCS contraction preceded jer loss while in the south the changes in the jers took place before contraction. BernStejn 1968 claims that contraction would not have been permitted during the "epoch of syllabemes" so it had to have followed the fall of the jers and the free movement, as he terms it, of the syllable boundary. In any case, contraction was effected after LCS dialects were already differentiated in terms of syllable structure. It seems to have been both morphologically and phonologically conditioned. In long form adjectives, for example, contraction of *-aiego produced a two-syllable desinence, e.g., OCS dobrago, dobrego, though some OCS manuscripts also have dobrajego, dobraago. Contraction seems to have been more characteristic of the West and South Slavic languages than of the East Slavic ones, especially in the present tense of some first conjugation verb forms, e.g., P smiesz "you dare," Sk smies, US smes, Cz smis, SC smes, but not in R smejes, U smijes, BR smejes, LS smejos, Sn smes/ smejes, B smees, M smees (Shevelov 1965: 526); cf. also CS *znaietu "knows," 3 p sg reflexes in P zna, Sk ma, Cz zna, SC znd versus R znajet, U znaje. Pauliny 1963: 89-90 notes that contraction is not regularly found in those languages which retained phonemic stress or pitch accent. The purpose of this discussion is not to present an exhaustive description of contraction and its reflexes in Slavic (see Marvan 1979, Lamprecht 1987: 131-137 for more complete accounts), but to relate it to the syllable structure variants postulated for LCS. Contraction involved various vowels and an intervocalic front glide, though it seems to have been most common when the vowels were identical or similar. The following sequences often contracted: aia > a; oia

1.3 Late Common Slavic syllable structures

93

> a; OIQ > u; eie > e, 1; eia > e, a; aie > a; eie > e, I; oie > e; iia > a, I; O|Q > Q, U; eiQ > u; lie > e. Data include Cz sect "sowing," Sk siaf "to sow," P siac [sac] "to sow," LS sas/ses "to sow," US sac "to sow," but R sejat', U sijaty, BR sejac', Sn sejati, SC sejati (cf. *seiati) and Czpfitel "friend," Skpriatel', US pfecel, but R prijatel', U pryjatel', BR pryjacel', P przyjaciel, LS psijasel (ptsacel [Mucke 1891/1965: 37]), Snprijatelj, SCpnjatelj, Mprijatel, Bprijatel; Czm?vJ "new," OP nowd, SC nova, but R novaja; Cz pas "belt," OP pas, SC pas, but Rpojas. Lamprecht 1987: 131-137 also considers the high vowel series to have been subject to contraction in West Slavic and in Serbian and Croatian (he writes that iji > I, e.g., Cz dobri "good," nom pi; and Iji > i, as in pesi "dog's," and gives other examples), as does Shevelov 1965: 527-528. The new length resulting from contraction was later subject to language-specific shortening in some areas. The other element relevant to contraction is the intervocalic glide. Schenker 1993: 81 writes that contraction involved "the elision of intervocalic) ( < i)." BernStejn 1961, 1968, who postulates the consonantal [j] for Common Slavic, claims that [j] changed to [i] before contraction could take place: "In pre-Slavic [j] was preserved in all positions. It was always preserved in intervocalic position, joining, naturally, the vowel of the next syllable. However, already in the early period of the development of individual Slavic languages the intervocalic [j] started to be lost. This was connected to the vocalization of the sonant: [j] > [i]. Thus [i] was lost, not [j]. In those languages which did not experience the change of [j] to [i], the intervocalic [j] was preserved" [trans. CYB] (1961: 247). I think that the development was just the opposite, that [i] became /j/ in some dialects. Contraction began in the Czech/Slovak area, where the intervocalic glide was a non-moraic /i/, not a consonantal /j/, and it did not take place in those systems which not only had no distinctive quantity but which also had a more constricted glide. TravniCek 1928: 144 claimed that contraction is proof that CS did not have [j], but only [i]. To the extent that the nature of the glide depends on its relationship to the syllable (Bethin 1993b), a system which provides for bipartite rimes (i.e., sonorant codas) and which operates with moraic distinctions might be more likely to have contraction. Most Slavists interpret the geographical distribution of contraction as a reflex of chronology. Specifically, since Czech shows the greatest intensity of contraction reflexes, it is generally considered to have been the center of the innovation and therefore subject to contraction for a longer period of time. The smaller incidence of contraction reflexes in other areas is sometimes taken to represent peripheral developments (cf. BernStejn 1961: 247, 1968). Another position is that contraction was qualitatively different: not all areas showed the same potential for contraction and languages may be identified as those which favor contraction and those which do not (Shevelov 1965, Marvan 1979).

94

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

Though this position does not rule out the possibility that the innovation was centered in the Czech/Slovak area from which it spread, it suggests that contraction did not take place in other systems not because of a lack of time, but due to certain characteristics of these systems. The analysis offered here addresses the potential for contraction in terms of syllable structure characteristics. Since contraction yields long vowels, systems which allowed for some type of quantitative distinction in syllable nuclei were probably more tolerant of contraction. This includes the South Central and (North) West Late Common Slavic dialects. The eastern areas of LCS (the East Slavic area and to some degree Bulgarian and Macedonian) did not preserve a quantitative distinction in vowels and were never really predisposed to contraction.29 The West Slavic area (Polish and Upper Sorbian) shows reflexes of contraction because at that time its syllable structure allowed for distinctions of length. Contraction also provides evidence for an autosegmental analysis of the syllable. The Proto-Serbo-Croatian forms with a long rising accent, e.g., stdt "stand," bat se "be afraid," correspond to East Slavic uncontracted forms with stress on the second vowel as in R bojdt'sja, U bojdtysja "be afraid"; R stojdt', U stojdty "stand." On the other hand, forms with a long falling accent as in pas "belt," zee "hare," smes "you dare" correspond to East Slavic ones with stress on the first syllable as in R pojas, U pojas, R zdjac, U zdjec', BR smejes, U smijes. This correspondence may be succinctly represented in an autosegmental analysis (27) in which accent consists of tone (H) and stress (*), and where stems which are unaccented (enclinomena) in that they do not have underlying tone (H) in the lexicon receive word stress (*) on the initial syllable. (27)

unaccented/stressed

1

a /

i

/1

accented

G

long rising pitch

G

G

\i

At—H

I / I o

long falling pitch

i

a

G

n

u —H

\

/ a

1A The bisyllabic domain of Late Common Slavic dialects

95

The preservation of accentual characteristics during contraction strongly suggests that they are designated on a separate tier from that of segmental features. Contraction is a change that involved two syllables. Although it resulted in a decrease in the actual number of syllables in a word, it did not produce a decrease in total mora count. Its effect was to reinterpret word prosody and to produce new long vowels. This derived quantity had a strong impact on the interpretation of existing or potential quantitative distinctions, especially in the Central and (North) West Slavic systems. For West Slavic these new quantitative oppositions were critical because they reintroduced bimoraic nuclei into a system which already tolerated syllable codas. Thus long or short vowels could again be found before nasals, liquids or glides and in the subsequent development of Polish, for example, new quantitative oppositions were created in the nasal vowels. 1.4

The bisyllabic domain of Late Common Slavic dialects

Certain changes in Late Common Slavic are best described as taking place within a two-syllable group, in other words, they have a bisyllabic domain. LCS experienced at least three phonological changes which involved adjacent syllables: contraction, compensatory lengthening and the changes in the jers (other than tense jers which depended on tautosyllabicity). Contraction, the result of the loss of an intervocalic glide, happened to involve two adjacent syllables, but the change was predicated on the nature of the glide and the potential for branching rimes in a given system more than on the bisyllabic environment itself. Compensatory lengthening and changes in the jers, on the other hand, were readjustments which critically depended on the nature of the second syllable in a bisyllabic domain. In both, compensatory lengthening and the vocalization of strong jers, the second syllable contained a high lax vowel (Jer)- The scope of the two changes, however, was not the same. Compensatory lengthening was characteristic of central, western and southern LCS. There are no traces of it in the northeast (Russian) or in the southeast (Bulgarian and Macedonian). Changes in the jers took place throughout Late Common Slavic. Although there is great variation in the actual reflexes of the strong jers within Slavic, the formal mechanism of jer strengthening was the same. It is possible to interpret the development of strong jers as a type of compensatory lengthening as did Vondrak 1924: 171, Furdal 1964: 52, and others. Jer strengthening may have been due to increased duration phonetically, but phonologically these two processes are different: in languages where compensatory lengthening reflexes are long vowels, the strong jer reflexes are not

96

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

simply the lengthened version of a front and back non-high vowel; in many instances the front/back distinction in the jers is actually lost, e.g., * dim > SC dan "day," *sunu > SC san "dream." The presence of compensatory lengthening seems to be specifically correlated with syllable structure types within individual dialect areas, while the development of jers was based on the same general concept throughout Slavic, a bisyllabic relationship, regardless of the syllable structure type of a given system. Therefore I distinguish between compensatory lengthening and the development of strong jers. The latter was not, strictly speaking, phonological lengthening, though strong jers may have been phonetically longer. It was when the preceding vowel was a non-jer vowel that the loss of a weak jer resulted in what Slavists commonly refer to as compensatory lengthening. Changes in the jers are discussed separately below. Both compensatory lengthening and jer strengthening are changes that may be interpreted as the phonological strengthening of one syllable with respect to another and in Slavic this resulted in a strong-weak relationship within a bisyllabic domain. This particular relationship of strong to weak (as opposed to weak-strong) probably originated as a consequence of word-final weakening of jers. Word-final position is interpreted as weak in many languages and vowel weakening or elision is not uncommon. This strong-weak pattern set in motion a series of other changes whose effects on the prosodic system of Slavic were profound. These are discussed in chapter 2. 1.4.1 Compensatory lengthening Reflexes of compensatory lengthening (CL) in the Slavic languages today vary; some languages exhibit alternations in vowel quantity, others in vowel quality. For example, alternations such as those between the nom sg and gen pi of "mountain" as in SC gdra [gora] ~ gdra [gora], U hora ~ hir, or the alternation in the nom sg and the gen sg of "honey" as in P miod [mjut] ~ miodu [mjodu], U dial, mid ~ medu (with subsequent raising in Polish and Ukrainian) are for the most part accepted in Slavic linguistics as representing compensatory lengthening. Not all Slavic languages show reflexes of compensatory lengthening. Within the South Slavic dialect area, only the northwestern zones exhibit length. (The southeastern zone, represented by Eastern Bulgarian and Macedonian today, does not have reflexes of any length distinctions.) The West Slavic area shows reflexes of lengthening, but they are somewhat different in the northern part of West Slavic (Polish, Kashubian) and the southern part of West Slavic (Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian). In the east, only the southwestern zone shows qualitative changes which have been attributed to compensatory lengthening (Ukrainian and southern Belarusian). Compensatory

1.4 The bisyliable domain ofLate Common Slavic dialects

97

lengthening seems to have taken place under different conditions in different Late Common Slavic dialects. Thus for purposes of compensatory lengthening the three major LCS dialect areas discussed thus far must be further subdivided into four smaller areas (per Timberlake 1983a, 1983b): northwestern South Slavic (NW-SS), northern West Slavic (N-WS), southern West Slavic (S-WS), and southwestern East Slavic (SW-ES). The conditions for and reflexes of compensatory lengthening in Slavic are very complex. Though compensatory lengthening was most often motivated by the loss of a weak jer it is not the case that the loss of a weak jer always resulted in lengthening. Even in systems which had CL, it did not take place regularly or under identical conditions. For example, in some dialects lengthening happened only under certain accents: SW-ES has compensatory lengthening more regularly under the neo-acute (new rising pitch) than under circumflex (falling pitch) or acute (rising pitch) accent, but in Slovak there is compensatory lengthening of *e, *o only under the neo-acute, while Czech shows reflexes of compensatory lengthening under neo-acute and elsewhere. In certain dialects the nature of the intervening consonant played a role (N-WS has CL before sonorants and voiced obstruents as well as more generally under the neo-acute accent), while in others the position of the jer in the word was relevant to CL (in N-WS the loss of a final jer resulted in CL more often than the loss of a wordinternal jer and in NW-SS the opposite seemed to be the case). To summarize, in northwestern South Slavic lengthening is found in forms with original circumflex accent, e.g., SC bog "god," boga, gen sg, led "ice," leda, most "bridge," mosta, nos "nose," nosa, voz "cart," voza; Sn bog, kost "bone," sol "salt," nos, god "year" (but original acutes and neo-acutes remained short or shortened, e.g., Sn rdk "crab," brat "brother," ded "grandfather," kdnj "horse," bob "bean," stdl "stool"). In some SC dialects there is lengthening of old acutes and neo-acutes before certain sonorants, in other dialects this happens before all sonorants, or, as in some Cakavian dialects, before sonorants and voiced consonants, e.g., SC Stok. krdj "edge," kraja, but kdnj, kdnja, dim "smoke," dlma; Posavian icon, dim; NCak. krdj, dim, kon, stdl, but not mraz "frost," prag "threshold"; SCak. dim, kuon, did, mroz, prog, buob "bean." Southern West Slavic shows CL reflexes of /e/ and /o/ under the neo-acute in Slovak, e.g., stdl, vol, noz "knife," kon, kos "basket" (but not under the circumflex, e.g., sol' "salt," noc "night," most, or acute, e.g., dym, kraj, ded). Czech shows evidence of CL, but generally not before obstruent stops or voiceless obstruents, e.g., buh, dum, kun, sul, vuz, but not in med "honey," led, most, nos, bob, kos (Travni5ek 1935: 267-270). Upper Sorbian has reflexes of CL only in initial syllables with apparently no consonant restrictions, e.g., kori, med, Mod

98

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

"hunger," kosc "bone," noc "night." Northern West Slavic shows consonant effects in that CL in Polish is found before voiced consonants and sonorants (as the alternation between o and 6), e.g., krdj "cut, style," woda "water," wdd, gen pi, but not in nos, bok "side," pot "sweat." Kashubian shows reflexes of length in other vowels as well and CL also seems to be restricted by the nature of the following consonant, e.g., before voiced consonants: noga "foot," nog, gen pi, mod "honey," modu, gen sg, rdba "fish," fib, gen pi, baba "old woman," bcob, gen pi, but not before voiceless ones: sok "juice," mak "poppy." There are reflexes of compensatory lengthening which are attributed to morphological factors or the neo-acute accent. These data are from Timberlake 1983a. The southwestern East Slavic area shows reflexes of lengthening as an alternation between /e/, /o/, and /i/ in Ukrainian, e.g., bik "side," boku, gen sg, nic "night," noci, gen sg, kin' "horse," konja, gen sg, though not always (especially if the following syllable had a back jer) as in med "honey," klen "maple." Under the neoacute, reflexes of CL are found even in pleophonic forms (Bulaxovs'kyj 1947, 1956: 49ff.). A more detailed discussion of compensatory lengthening may be found in Timberlake 1983a, 1983b, in Topolinska 1968 for West Slavic, and in the histories of the individual Slavic languages. But it should be noted that there were accentual as well as segmental constraints on compensatory lengthening. Accentual restrictions are discussed in chapter 2 (2.4.1). Segmental constraints generally fall into two types: restrictions on which vowel may undergo compensatory lengthening and restrictions on the nature of the intervening consonant. In some languages several vowels show reflexes of length (Kashubian, Serbian and Croatian), while in others CL reflexes are found only on mid vowels (Slovak under the neo-acute, Ukrainian, Upper Sorbian). The situation in Czech is unclear (see Timberlake 1983a). In Polish some consider the alternation in the nasal vowels to be a reflex of CL (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b); others find this to be problematic (Abele 1925). Restrictions on the nature of the vowel undergoing lengthening are to a large extent related to accentual properties in that short vowels /e/ and /o/ were commonly found under the neo-acute (and under the circumflex); restrictions on the nature of the intervening consonant seem to be related to sonority and are discussed below. Compensatory lengthening in Slavic is interesting in at least two respects. First is the mechanism itself. Unlike other cases of compensatory lengthening where the loss of a given segment causes lengthening in an adjacent segment, in Slavic compensatory lengthening always involves two syllables. The loss of a weak jer (a syllable) causes lengthening in the preceding syllable, e.g., CVCV > CVC. The loss of a consonant does not entail compensatory lengthening. The

1A The bisyllabic domain of Late Common Slavic dialects

99

second interesting fact is that compensatory lengthening is found in only some areas of Slavic, while weak jers were lost throughout Slavic. The Slavic languages which show reflexes of CL today are different from those which do not in an identifiable way. The difference, I would like to suggest, lies in syllable structure. Compensatory lengthening involving two syllables may be expressed as dissociation and reassociation on the moraic tier in a bisyllabic domain, as in (28). This representation also has the advantage of not requiring that the jer be lost before lengthening can occur; it is sufficient to have a weakening of the jer. Thus it addresses some of the objections raised by Garde 1985 and others with respect to Ukrainian, where some distinction between mid vowels in closed syllables which were originally followed by a jer and subject to compensatory lengthening and those mid vowels in closed syllables which are the reflex of a strong jer and which do not show the expected CL reflexes must be maintained, e.g., nis "he carried" < *neslu (cf. nesla "she carried") vs. pes "dog" < *pisu

(cf.psa, gensg). (28)

a

a

Of particular concern to this analysis is the fact that compensatory lengthening seems to have occurred only in some LCS dialects. The NW-SS dialects, which were characterized by mora conservation, generalized phonemic length distinctions. These dialects are therefore good candidates for CL, given that CL is generally found only in languages with a syllable weight contrast (de Chene and Anderson 1979, Hayes 1989). Compensatory lengthening is also found in the West Slavic area (N-WS and S-WS), and there was a mechanism for representing syllable weight distinctions in these systems when the jers were lost. The SW-ES dialects pattern with West Slavic in having reflexes of compensatory lengthening. No CL is found in the peripheral areas of LCS (i.e., in Polabian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and in the northeastern parts of East Slavic, Russian and northern Belarusian). Such a geographical distribution indicates the spread of a language change which may have simply stopped before it reached the periphery. But it also interacts with the evolving syllable structures of the various LCS dialects in that syllable weight distinctions (predisposing dialects to compensatory lengthening) are maintained only in the dialects that have been characterized as having either long vowels or bimoraic syllables. The correlation of CL and syllable type is given in (29).

100

The syllable in Slavic .form and function

(29)

CL

No CL

o

c

/ \ !^

/ \ M-

V/R

o

VV

I V S

H V

The South Central LCS dialects (NW-SS and S-WS) had bimoraic vowels or liquids which were opposed to monomoraic vowels or liquids, in other words, quantitative distinctions were phonemic. In (North) West Slavic bimoraic syllables were interpreted to have a second element which could be different from the first so long as it was a sonorant. There was no monosegmental restriction on long syllable rimes as there apparently was in the south. The situation in the N-WS area suggests that it was indeed the system's potential for a syllable weight contrast (a vs. a ) and not just phonemic vowel or liquid length (V /R vs. V /R ) which was relevant to CL. The relationship between the mora and the segment was fluid in N-WS, i.e., there was no requirement of a one-to-one correspondence between moras and segments. The two moras could become associated with one segment instead of with a vowel and a following sonorant. This was already happening during contraction which was producing new long vowels. In the northeast, syllable structure allowed only monomoraic vowels, and there was no quantitative mechanism for reflecting compensatory lengthening. The SW-ES dialects present an intriguing case of compensatory lengthening. Unlike the N-WS area, which preserved length distinctions until the fourteenth or fifteenth century, the SW-ES dialects do not show unambiguous evidence for distinctions in vowel length. Modern Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects do not have phonemic length distinctions as a result of CL, but Ukrainian clearly shows qualitatively different reflexes in cognate forms (where lengthening is expected) as in hora ~ hir "mountain." Shevelov 1979: 331-332, 1985 has repeatedly argued that the change of /e/, /o/ to HI does not represent CL, but merely a narrowing or an assimilatory raising of the mid vowels before a high vowel in the next syllable (cf. Kurylo 1928a, Garde 1985) because the process seems to be more common before a final front jer than before a back jer. Phonemic length had been lost in this part of LCS presumably by the tenth century and "in a language of that type length was concomitant with stress" (Shevelov 1985: 389). But the traditional view, based on Potebnja's 1866 discussion and connection of /e/, /6/ with /i/ as well as on evidence from northwestern Ukrainian diphthongs and Old Ukrainian texts with spellings such as

1A The bisyllabic domain ofLate Common Slavic dialects

101

fl" for U vivcja "sheep," is that CL did take place in SW-ES (cf. Stieber 1969, Lamprecht 1987: 154). Stieber 1979: 53, citing a similar restriction to mid vowels in Upper Sorbian, concludes that since the Upper Sorbian developments are unquestionably due to compensatory lengthening, there is every reason to expect that the same process also took place in Ukrainian. The syllabic analysis provides a possible explanation for compensatory lengthening in Ukrainian. This area, in distinction from the neighboring northeastern one (Russian today), also has evidence of tense jers and a differentiation of liquid and jer sequences (see 1.3.3) due to its different syllable structure.30 It appears that SW-ES shared with the West Slavic dialects the potential for two segments in the syllable rime, though not necessarily two moras, i.e., vowel length. This syllable structure may be represented as an alternation between (a) and (b) below, which eventually develops into a preference for (b). (30)

a.

c

b.

Reflexes of CL in structures like this are not likely to be simply long vowels. And in Ukrainian they are not. While the reflexes of CL in N-WS were at one time long vowels which subsequently shortened or changed, e.g., CS *dQbu > d$b (spelled d00b in Old Polish), reflexes of CL in the SW-ES area are diphthongs or qualitatively different vowels, e.g., CS *medu > med, m'uod, mid in various Ukrainian dialects. The presence of CL in the SW-ES dialects which did not generalize vowel length or make other distinctions in terms of light and heavy syllables is intriguing and somewhat problematic for an analysis which claims that CL is found only in systems that have weight distinctions. In this respect, an analysis which operates with a segmental syllable in addition to a moraic one might have an advantage, for then SW-ES dialects could be described as having two syllable positions in addition to onsets but only monomoraic syllables. In other words, the potential for a syllable coda, regardless of syllable weight, might be a sufficient condition for CL. Another possibility is that the Ukrainian developments represent phonetic lengthening and raising, but given the monomoraic restriction on syllables (Syllable Weight Constraint), this quantity was not phonemicized. On the other hand, the syllable structure analysis does not rule out interpreting the /e/, /o/ > /i/ change in Ukrainian as an example of intersyllabic vowel harmony or raising, as Shevelov (1979: 331-332) and others propose. The reflexes in SW-ES are affected by metrical considerations, too, and these are discussed in 2.4.2. But

102

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

the fact that a syllabic analysis allows ambiguity here may be seen as an advantage. In many areas of Slavic compensatory lengthening appears to have been affected by the nature of the consonant before which it was to take place. CL was fairly consistent along the hierarchy: sonorant, voiced fricative, voiced stop, voiceless fricative, voiceless stop, in the order of more to fewer reflexes, although it was fairly widespread without any consonantal restrictions at all under various accents in Slavic (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b). In terms of reflexes of CL before certain consonants, the Slavic languages pattern as follows: some Serbian and Croatian dialects show compensatory lengthening (on old acute and neo-acute shorts) only before sonorants (though more generally under the circumflex); Cz shows length (under the circumflex) before sonorants and voiced fricatives (though it may have been more general under the neo-acute); P and southern SC have lengthening before sonorants and voiced obstruents (Stieber 1979: 53). In other languages or under special circumstances, the intervening consonant does not seem to play a role. As Timberlake 1983b: 300 points out, "there are no consonant restrictions at all in Ukrainian and Upper Sorbian, and none under the NAct [neo-acute] in Slovak, Polish, and (possibly) Czech, and none under the Cmflx [circumflex] in Serbo-Croatian." For example, the following alternations appear in US: kori, koria; dwor, dwora; hids, hlosa; noc, noce; polski, etc. (Stieber 1979: 53). Topolinska 1968 finds a connection between final devoicing (or "dephonologization of voicing") and compensatory lengthening in West Slavic, noting that "in the West Slavic area compensatory lengthening appears exclusively in dialects which also have desonorization before a pause" (1968: 78). There are at least two points of view on the development of compensatory lengthening in Slavic. One holds that it took place more or less generally (Baudouin de Courtenay 1927/1990) before and during the loss of weak jers and that differences among the Slavic dialects are due to a later innovation of vowel shortening motivated by analogy. In a variant of this proposal, lengthening is said to be constrained (Abele 1925-1926) or abridged by the nature of the following consonant (Andersen 1970, Timberlake 1983b). The other view holds that CL took place only under certain conditions, for example, it was said to prevent homonyms when final devoicing threatened to merge CS *roku "year" and *rogu "horn" (Furdal 1964: 53-54, and see Timberlake 1983b for a fuller discussion). The former view gives a plausible phonetic explanation for the effect of the consonant and for the chronology and phonemization of length in the various Slavic dialects and is the one proposed in Timberlake 1983b. The consonant effect may be systematic enough to warrant looking for a gen-

1A The bisyliable domain ofLate Common Slavic dialects

103

eralization. It is not clear that the presence of codas in a system has a regular effect on CL because consonant effects are felt in the NW-SS and S-WS dialects (which in this analysis have CV structure) as well as in the N-WS area (characterized by CVS structure). Perhaps the effect of consonants on compensatory lengthening, either permitting CL or constraining vowel abridgement, is a consequence of their mora-bearing potential, in addition to phonetic factors. Sonorants (and to some extent voiced consonants) seem to have an effect in CL in those areas where they may be potentially moraic; there seem to be no such restrictions on consonants in areas which restrict moraicity to vowels. If compensatory lengthening is interpreted as the transfer of a mora to the immediately preceding segment before transfer onto the preceding vowel, then the sonority (mora-bearing ability) of that segment would be relevant to CL. This seems to occur in the South Slavic dialects where sonorants are potentially morabearing. The effect of voiced consonants in Czech and Polish, on the other hand, is not so clearly a consequence of syllable structure. Here the distribution of CL reflexes may be due either to the presence of CL under certain conditions or to vowel abridgement before voiceless consonants (and in Czech before voiced stops). This distribution of length seems plausible, for phonetic length is commonly found before voiced segments. The voiced stops in Czech may be a special case, perhaps due to factors other than voicing. The absence of consonant effects on CL in Ukrainian in contrast to Polish is intriguing and it may be related to the presence of final devoicing as Topoliriska 1968 suggests. On the other hand, it is not clear that the /e/, /o/ > /i/ in Ukrainian actually is a reflex of compensatory lengthening, as mentioned above (cf. Kurylo 1928a, Shevelov 1979, Garde 1985). At this point it appears that the effect of a consonant on CL may be a phonetic phenomenon, where the presence of sonority or voicing may favor length on the preceding vowel (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b). It is not so obvious that consonant effects were phonologized because there are exceptions to consonantal restrictions on compensatory lengthening in all languages. Even in NW-SS, where the consonantal restrictions on CL are fairly strict (CL is favored only before sonorants), accent appears to override them (under the circumflex accent length is found before both voiced and voiceless obstruents). Compensatory lengthening in many instances served to preserve the timing of a given unit and in this sense it could be interpreted as a form of isochrony within a word (Timberlake 1993). In the great majority of cases it was the preceding syllable that compensated for the loss of a timing unit. In large part this is due to the fact that jers were weak in word-final position. But this pattern of compensatory lengthening is not an isolated case. Late Common Slavic was experiencing other changes, in accent as well as in sound patterns, which

104

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

strengthened one syllable in order to compensate for loss of strength on a following one, in a pattern which may be represented as a strong - weak metrical group. Another phonological innovation shared by all dialects of Late Common Slavic, the changes in the jers, also critically depended on a bisyllabic domain. 1.4.2 Changes in the jers The two short vowels known as jers, /I/ and /u/, were subject to a change throughout Late Common Slavic that may be described as a type of strengthening and weakening. The relative strength of a jer was primarily determined by its position in a word, and although the reflexes of jers in strong position are different in the various LCS dialects, the notion of strong and weak jer holds in all of them. Specifically, the changes in the jers may be summarized as follows: jers in word-final position were considered weak and were lost, while jers in position before a syllable with a weak jer were considered "strong." These developed into a non-jer vowel, usually /o/, /e/, /a/, or /a/ depending on the dialect. For example, CS *dini "day" > SC dan, Sn dan, B den,Pdzieri, Cz den, R den', U den'; CS *sunu "sleep, dream" > SC san, Sn sen [san], B sdn, P sen, Cz sen, R son, U son. This is traditionally known as jer lowering or vocalization. Before a non-jer vowel, a jer was also considered "weak" and was lost: SC sna, gen sg, Sn dne, sna, gen sg, P dnia, gen sg, snu, dat sg, B dni, pi, R dn'a, sna, gen sg, U dni, sny, nom pi, etc. Changes in the jers are assumed to have begun sometime in the tenth century in the southwestern area of LCS and spread to the north and east by the twelfth century (Saxmatov 1915/1967: 203-216; Vondrak 1924: 171-180; Trubetzkoy 1925a: 294ff.; Jakobson 1929/1971: 64, 75; Horalek 1955: 129; Stieber 1979: 49-52, and others), though jers are still found in some East Slavic texts as late as the thirteenth century. In all instances where the strength of the jer was positionally defined, the domain of this definition was a bisyllabic group. A jer was considered weak (pronounced as shorter and lax) everywhere except before a jer in the following syllable. Conversely, a jer was strong only with respect to a jer in the next syllable, so a bisyllabic domain was the minimal requirement for jer strengthening. In Slavic the distribution of relative strength was in favor of the first of two sequential syllables, a strong-weak bisyllabic grouping, not a weak-strong one. The reasons for this are discussed in chapter 2, but for now it should simply be noted that both jer changes and most of the attested instances of compensatory lengthening conform to a strong-weak bisyllabic relationship. In sequences of three or more jers, the pattern was alternating weak - strong weak - strong - weak from the end of the word, as in the name of the city

1A The bisyliable domain of Late Common Slavic dialects

105

Smolbnbskh > Smolnesk ("Smolensk"). This alternating pattern of strong and weak jers is commonly known as Havlik's Law.31 It may be represented as a [s-w] grouping of two consecutive jer syllables, starting at the end of a word (31), e.g., CS *Sivict, Sivica, gen sg > U svec' [Svec'], seveja [Seuc'a]. (31)

Strengthening of jers w [s w] si vl cl 0 e 0 U svec9

[s w] si vl ca e 0 U seveja

Havlik's Law was sometimes undermined by effects of stress (for example, in Polabian there is evidence of the preservation of weak jers in initial syllables, e.g., kdto "who" < *kuto, stdblo "stem" [Stieber 1979: 51] which has been attributed to stress), by the influence of a neighboring glide (tense jers) or liquids, or by paradigmatic factors such as levelling and analogy, as in the R svec, sveca "tailor" (archaic), P szewc, szewca "shoemaker" (cf. Cz svec, sevcem, instr sg). Other morphological constraints also play a role, as in derived forms, where the alternation seems to have been maintained only in the last syllable: *dintkiku > R denecek "day," dim., *dinikika, gen sg, R denecka (Worth 1968). Many of these factors have obscured the probable phonetic origin of jer strengthening and weakening, but all Slavic languages today show a vowelzero alternation which is attributable to changes in the jers. There were various constraints on jer loss and weak jers did not simply disappear everywhere at one time within a given dialect (Meillet 1924/1965: 111-116). Final jers seemed to be particularly susceptible to loss, especially before a pause or before a word beginning with a vowel, but weak jers were somewhat more likely to be retained if their loss would result in a "difficult" consonant cluster (Los 1922: 24). Malkova 1981 argues for recognizing gradations in the strength of jers and shows that jers were more likely to be preserved (or that there was a significant delay in their disappearance) under stress, in certain morphological structures (prepositions, prefixes, monosyllabic words), or in potentially "difficult" consonant clusters. In Kashubian, as Andersen 1970 points out, the reflexes of strong jers are to some extent determined by the nature of the intervening consonant: jers tend to have vowel reflexes before sonorants and voiced consonants, e.g., CS *bQbinu > bqbdn\ otherwise they are lost, even in strong position, e.g., CS *palici "finger" >pcolc. Polabian seems to have retained jers in initial syllables, which Kurylowicz 1955 took to be evidence for an initial fixed accent. There also appear to be frequent instances of weak jer retention in South Slavic, especially in bisyllabic words and when the resulting consonant cluster would have been complex, e.g., Sn mezdd "reward,"

106

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

deska "board," tema "darkness," though kdo "who," tla "floor" are regular developments. Polysyllabic words tend to lose the weak jer more readily, e.g., Snptica "bird" (< CS *pitica), knjiga "book" (< CS *kuniga). On the basis of documentary evidence it is generally accepted that the loss of weak jers took place earliest in South Central Late Common Slavic, as the spellings without jers found in the Freising fragments of the ninth or tenth century indicate. The northwest South Slavic dialects (today Serbian, Croatian and Slovene) eventually developed new length distinctions and retained pitch accent, both characteristics of mora-based systems. One could speculate that weak jers were lost more readily in the southern dialects simply because there was a mechanism for preserving mora count. On the other hand, changes in the jers in the northeast are dated to the twelfth-thirteenth centuries and in the northwestemmost (Polabian) area there is some evidence of jers as late as the fourteenth century (Vondrak 1924: 171-180). This geographical distribution may represent the spread of an innovation throughout a speech community, but language contact is not a requirement for this change. Certain structural characteristics of Late Common Slavic predisposed all of its dialects to a syllable strengthening and weakening within a bisyllabic domain. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that jers were lost earliest in dialects which had a mechanism for mora conservation. The loss of weak jers had significant repercussions in Slavic, possibly including the establishment of contrastive palatalization in the consonant system of several Slavic languages (Kurylowicz 1956: 369-370; Lunt 1956, and many others).32 It is also said that the rise of voicing assimilation and final devoicing in the majority of Slavic languages, the creation of new consonant clusters with subsequent assimilation, epenthesis and/or the deletion of consonants were all consequences of jer loss. But it is the creation of newly closed syllables that is almost universally said to have been the most fundamental and profound result of changes in the jers. To cite a few representative statements: "The crucial event in the history of the phonemic systems of all Slavic dialects is the loss of the ubiquitous reduced vowels ID and b, which destroyed the structure of open syllables" (Lunt 1956: 310). "The loss of jers in 'weak'position led to the reappearance of closed syllables in the Slavic languages. This loss not only led to a fundamental restructuring of syllable structure, but it also brought out regularities which defined a major turning point in the history of all Slavic languages" [trans. CYB] (BernStejn 1961: 50). Likewise, Brauer 1961: 114: "Durch den Schwund der reduzierten Vokale . . . aufgezahlten Stellungen im Wort kommt es zu einer grundsatzlichen Anderung der Silbenstruktur im Slavischen bzw. in den slav. Einzelsprachen. Das Urslavische hatte in seiner

7.5 Conclusions

107

Abneigung gegen geschlossene Silben alle silbenschlieBenden Konsonanten beseitigt, umgestellt oder so verandert, daB die Silbe geoffnet wurde..." and "in einzelsprachlicher Zeit der Schwund der reduzierten Vokale in schwacher Stellung eintritt..., so daB aufs neue geschlossene Silben moglich werden, wo durch die Silbenstruktur einer grundlegenden Anderung unterworten sind" (p. 79). BernStejn 1961: 257-258 considers the loss of jers to have ended the "epoch of syllabemes." This change is said to have caused major restructuring of the Slavic phonological system. Similar statements are found throughout the Slavic linguistic literature.33 The loss of weak jers and the subsequent occurrence of newly closed syllables was not the fundamental restructuring of Slavic syllable structure it is claimed to have been.34 Significant changes in syllable structure had preceded the fall of weak jers. The changes in the jers, in fact, may have been a reflection of another type of prosodic reorganization taking place within Slavic. There is some evidence from accentual changes in LCS, discussed in chapter 2, that a bisyllabic domain functioned as a metrical group. This metrical organization tended to be a strong-weak trochaic grouping. Given that the relative strength of a jer was determined within a bisyllabic domain, changes in the jers may be interpreted as consistent within the evolving metrical pattern of Slavic. The loss of weak jers may have produced newly closed syllables in Slavic, but it did not initiate a major restructuring of the syllable. 1.5

Conclusions

The traditional view of Slavic historical phonology is that there were two major innovations in the syllable structure of Slavic: 1) the rise of open syllables in Common Slavic, and 2) the creation of newly closed syllables after the loss of weak jers in Late Common Slavic. I have argued that the history of Slavic could be viewed in terms of an Onset Constraint, a Moraic Constraint which required that syllables end in a mora-bearing segment, and a No Coda Constraint. In parts of Late Common Slavic there was also a constraint on sonorant consonants (S^|UL) and a constraint on maximal syllable weight. A fundamental thesis of this book is that a significant reanalysis of Common Slavic syllable structure began before changes in the jers. This reanalysis was independent of the loss of weak jers. In other words, a major innovation in Late Common Slavic was the appearance of new syllable types (32). The South Central dialects allowed maximally bimoraic syllables, but only as long vowels or liquids; the (North) West Slavic dialects allowed two-mora syllables including a sonorant syllable coda; the (North) East Slavic area permitted syllables of one mora (only vowel nuclei)

108

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

with no specification for a coda. Dotted lines represent optional associations: all dialects had short syllables without codas. (32)

a. South Central

b. (North) West

c/

c/

V/R

V'

c. (North) East

*S

c

i

v

The syllable types given above not only correlate with developments in liquid diphthongs, but they are also borne out, with appropriate modifications, by other innovations in Slavic prosody. The emergence of syllable codas in (North) West Slavic, for example, may be due to the reinterpretation of bimoraic structure (JX|LJL) as bisegmental structure (VS). (Traditional analyses do not mention the rise of syllable codas in (North) West Slavic.) Vowel lengthening and metathesis in liquid diphthongs were related processes in the South Central dialects of LCS because they both implemented certain regularities of southern syllable structure. By the same token, metathesis is not expected in the northeast, where syllable structure reanalysis led to monomoraic syllables and a restriction of moras to vowels (S?tjx). This analysis also provides a unified account of developments in the jer/liquid diphthongs. Thus, dialects which develop CRV.C from CVR.C may be expected to develop CR.C from CVR.C. Likewise, the difference in the nasal vowels and their subsequent evolution may be related to syllable structure differences. Nasal vowel decomposition is found in areas which favored syllable codas. To some extent, the occurrence of tense jers, contraction, and compensatory lengthening may be correlated with the syllable structure types postulated here. Several subsequent developments in the individual Slavic languages seem to implement the syllable characteristics identified in (32). For example, it has been claimed that Eastern Bulgarian and perhaps Macedonian actually have sequences of vowels as opposed to long vowels (BernStejn 1968: 31). Unlike the NW-SS dialects, Eastern Bulgarian and later Macedonian initiated vowel shortening so that their syllable structure came to resemble that of East Slavic, whereby one mora = one syllable. Adjacent vowels are syllabified as two syllables. This analysis provides a rationale for the observation that Western Bulgarian dialects seem to have long vowels while Eastern Bulgarian dialects have vowel sequences (see BernStejn 1968: 31) and the geographical distribution indicates a transition from bimoraic syllable structure in the southwest to monomoraic syllable structure in the east. The syllable structures proposed in (32) may also govern some consonant effects. The loss of weak jers created new consonant clusters throughout Slavic

7.5 Conclusions

109

with subsequent regressive assimilation in obstruent voicing, e.g., PS *prasiba "plea" > R pros'ba [proz'ba], U pros'ba [proz'ba], P prosba [prozba]. The assimilation is sometimes reflected in the spelling, e.g., SC redak "line," retka, gen sg; svadba "wedding" (< *suatiba), Srbija "Serbia," srpski, adj; R rasskazat' "to relate" vs. razvestis' "to divorce." In most Slavic languages the assimilation of voicing is bilateral in that voiced obstruents become voiceless and voiceless ones voiced before voiceless and voiced obstruents, respectively. In all of these languages there is also final devoicing, so a case can be made for the specification of voicing only in syllable onsets, in the obstruent closest to the nucleus. Voicing may then be said to spread as in (33). (33)

Voicing in new consonant clusters after the loss ofweakjers

c1

C

p

r

1

1

V

1 a

[vo]

C

V

C

1 1 s i I

1

b

I

[vo]

[vo]

V

1 a

C

C

1 1 p r I

V

1

0

[vo]

C

C V 1 1 1 s' b a - >. ^ | [vo]

In Ukrainian, however, there is a peculiar restriction on voicing assimilation: voicing contrasts are found before voiceless obstruents and in word-final position, e.g., hryp [hryp] "grippe" vs. hryb [hryb] "mushroom," vas [vas] "you," gen pi vs. vaz [vaz] "vase," gen pi, plit [pl'it] "fence" vs. plid [pl'id] "fruit," vesty [vesty] "to lead" vs. vezty [vezty] "to convey," duska [duSka] "soul," dim vs. duzka [duzka] "handle" (accent mark indicates stress). Because obstruent devoicing is found in some other clusters, e.g., rozxytdty [rosxytaty] "to rock" vs. rozklad [rozklad] "layout," the voicing phenomenon has been attributed to the influence of stress, specifically to the preservation of voice after a stressed vowel (Prokopova 1958: 46; Braxnov 1970: 25). Voiced segments tend to be retained in syllable-coda position in Ukrainian and voiceless ones tend to syllabify with a following onset (34). (34)

vezty vs. vesty

C

1

V

V C 1 1 e z

C

V

t

y

1

1

c v c c v

I I I I I v e s t y

The retention of voicing in syllable codas is likely related to the preference for sonorant codas in (North) West Slavic. In that respect, Ukrainian is transitional between the (North) East syllable type and that of the (North) West, a

110

The syllable in Slavic: form and function

typology supported by geography. Additional evidence for the importance of syllable codas in Ukrainian comes from the behavior of geminates, discussed in 3.2.3. Other areas of Slavic phonology, such as consonant cluster simplification, assimilation with respect to palatalization, and epenthesis, all bear reexamination in terms of syllable structure which cannot be undertaken here. There are various ways to interpret the phonological development of Slavic, as a series of regular sound changes, as the implementation of certain tendencies, as changes in the phonemic status of sounds or combinations of sounds (were one to accept syllabemes), as the appearance of new phonological oppositions and the neutralization of others, as changes in the hierarchy of distinctive features or their markedness, as a succession of typologically different sound systems, or as the reordering of certain constraints and the introduction of others. Most Slavists have related sound change in Slavic to some understanding of the syllable, either in terms of the syllabeme (or group phoneme) or the syllable boundary. But the analysis proposed here goes beyond the traditional issue of open versus closed syllables. By examining the relationship of syllable components to each other and to the sounds implementing them, we get a different view of phonological development, one in which sound change is intimately related to syllable structure. Many old problems of Slavic linguistics receive a new interpretation and perhaps a solution. For example, the question of metathesis in East Slavic may now be seen differently: the emergence of monomoraic syllables in East Slavic coincided with the emergence of the constraint on moraic sonorants (S^|JL). On the other hand, the changes in jer/liquid sequences in West Slavic are explained by postulating a stage in which liquids remained in the nucleus. Their subsequent realization in Polish and Czech, for instance, is the implementation of two different syllable structures, CVS and CSV. Similarly, Ukrainian and Belarusian CRV.C reflexes may be explained by syllable structure conditions. The syllabic analysis also resolves some contradictions: Feldstein 1994 postulates loss of syllabicity on the liquid and jer strengthening in East Slavic jer plus liquid sequences while Sidorov 1953/1966: 18 makes the opposite claim that the jer was preserved because the liquid was syllabic. In this analysis the jer plus liquid groups are monomoraic and syllabic, and the liquid later dissociates from the mora. I do not take a position on whether changes in syllable structure caused sound changes or vice versa, but I think that changes in syllable structure were related to sound changes and that they interacted with them in a critical way. One of the problems with some previous attempts to relate sound change to prosody is that they tried to establish a causal relationship between the two and as a result had to deal with an element of circularity. For example, it is said that /t/ and /d/ were

7.5 Conclusions

111

lost before /I/ in some parts of Slavic because they were syllable codas and that they must have been syllable codas because they were lost.35 Similarly, many Slavists have pondered whether open syllable structure in Common Slavic was the cause or the result of phonological change. And various movements of the syllable boundary were designed to explain metathesis or pleophony in liquid diphthongs. But if we consider prosodic change in tandem with segmental changes, then the interaction of prosody with sound change is studied more with a view to how languages change instead of why they change. As Coseriu 1973: 235 observed, "Nadie sabe exactamente como cambian las lenguas; y, ello, en gran parte, porque tan a menudo la atencion se ha concentrado en el falso problema del porque." In this analysis, for example, South Central Slavic is said to have preserved length distinctions because it had a principle of mora conservation or faithfulness to syllable weight. The interesting aspect of South Central Slavic is how this concept of moraic distinctive quantity interacted with other phonological/accentual changes. In conclusion, it seems to me that the importance of newly closed syllables in Slavic has been exaggerated, for unlike in some languages where the open versus closed syllable distinction carries some weight, in Slavic this distinction is not one of light and heavy syllables. The critical stage in Slavic syllable structure involved the moraic status of segments in the coda position of the syllable. By Late Common Slavic bimoraic syllables ending in a liquid were transformed in various ways, e.g., V ^ > RV^, V ^ > V^R, V ^ > V ^ and the interaction with other specific constraints led to a differentiation of CV ( JR { y CV S( }, and CV syllable types. It becomes clear that these reorganizations had a far more important role in the history of Slavic than did the loss of weak jers which has traditionally been credited with fundamental restructuring and prosodic upheaval. The intrasyllabic changes experienced by Late Common Slavic also had profound implications far beyond the syllable.

2

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

2.0

Background

Slavic languages exhibit a variety of prosodic systems, though they may be generally divided into stress and pitch accent languages. In some, prominence is expressed by free stress, as in Belarusian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Russian, Northern Kashubian (Slovincian); in others, stress is fixed, as in Czech, Polish, Slovak, Southern Kashubian, Upper Sorbian, Macedonian; and stress in Polabian may be predictable. Lower Sorbian has initial stress and a strong secondary stress on the penultimate syllable. The Slavic languages with pitch accent have only one main pitch accent per phonological word (unlike contour tone languages). Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene are of this type and the pitch accent is often subject to certain quantitative or positional restrictions. Transitional dialects tend to show transitional prosodic features, e.g., some southwestern Ukrainian dialects have fixed stress; eastern and parts of central Macedonia have different types of non-fixed stress patterns. In this chapter I demonstrate that although there was one accent per phonological word in Common Slavic (CS), Late Common Slavic (LCS) had a bisyllabic norm for the expression of prosody. First I show that a major change in Slavic was the shift from a bimoraic to a bisyllabic prosodic grouping (2.2). This bisyllabic norm was more than a phonetic requirement for the expression of pitch accent; it was a phonologically significant metrical grouping. Many phonological changes in LCS, including the distribution of quantity, were circumscribed by it (2.3). In the majority of the Slavic dialects the bisyllabic norm was composed of the tonic and pretonic syllable. Quantity was most often retained in the latter, especially after the shortening of tonic syllables. In unaccented wordforms the word stress fell on the initial syllable and this type of word prominence created a trochaic metrical grouping. In those dialects where word stress came to be the primary indicator of prominence (northern LCS), there is a definite preference for trochaic metrical structure in general (section 2.4). Where tone was the "accent," quantity sometimes functioned as promi112

2.0 Background

113

nence in unaccented forms (early Slovene) which resulted in iambic metrical feet (section 2.3), but in these dialects, too, trochaic metrical structure prevailed and it was then supported by quantity (2.5). Finally, I show that the fixed stress systems of Slavic today are all trochaic (2.6) and that Polabian is consistent in this respect with the rest of Slavic (2.7). The study of CS accent is interesting for several reasons. First, the three main types of accentual systems found in Slavic today (free stress, fixed stress, and pitch accent) all derive from a common ancestor, but because the earliest written Slavic sources did not as a rule mark suprasegmental features, our account of early Slavic accentual developments cannot be directly verified by written evidence. So Slavic accentology consists of internal and comparative reconstruction with special reference to the Baltic languages (especially Lithuanian) and this reconstruction relies on certain assumptions about language change and language diversity. Thus our knowledge of CS accent is hypothetical and subject to revision. Second, the fact that there is some evidence of pitch accent in CS has provoked a discussion about the exact nature of pitch oppositions, and specifically, about whether pitch could occur on unstressed syllables, on short syllables, or in any position of a word. Was pitch accent simply an ictus on a given part of the syllable which was then interpreted as pitch or was it truly a musical pitch accent independent of the ictus? In a very suggestive way the conclusions reached about the nature of CS accent are theory-dependent. If, as Trubetzkoy 1939/1967 proposed, languages may be divided into syllable-based and mora-based languages on the basis of a set of linguistic criteria, then the nature of accent or prominence in a given system may be the consequence of where the prominence is indicated, on the syllable or on the mora. And if, as Kurylowicz 1931, 1958a claimed, pitch accent is the result of ictus on either the first or the second mora of a long syllable, then by definition it is impossible to express pitch contours within the confines of a short syllable. Likewise, depending on whether pitch accent is analyzed as an indivisible musical pitch contour (rising vs. falling) or as consisting of separate units (low tone and high tone), the changes of accent will be viewed quite differently. Finally, Slavic shows evidence of both pitch accent and dynamic word stress. The relationship between the two lends a particular complexity to Slavic accent and a theoretical richness to the study of prominence relations in general. Although admittedly quite varied, the accentual patterns of the Slavic languages are not entirely unique. They consist of a given set of linguistic correlates combined in specific ways. These correlates and their interaction in Slavic are the focus of the following discussion. I consider the nature of prominence (whether tone or stress), the position of prominence within a word (fixed or

114

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

not), and the metrical organization of prominence (iambic or trochaic). The objective is to describe Slavic accentual history in a theoretically coherent way. Traditionally, in Slavic linguistics the term accent has been understood to encompass pitch, stress, and length, though the role of the individual components has not always been well defined. Scholars recognized both a free, dynamic expiratory accent and a pitch accent for Proto-Slavic (Brandt 1880 and references therein, Saxmatov 1898), but they did not necessarily agree on how the two were related (i.e., whether pitch distinctions were present in unstressed syllables and for how long) or on how many different pitch accents should be postulated for Slavic (e.g., some differentiated the neo-acute from the acute and the neo-circumflex from the circumflex as well as short rising from long rising and short falling from long falling accent).1 A significant contribution to our understanding of pitch accent in Slavic was made by the separation of tone and quantity, which led to the proposal that pitch contours could be derived from ictus on a given mora if quantity were represented as a sequence of moras (Leskien 1914: 123ff.; Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, Kurylowicz 1931, 1958a, and others). Much of the debate on early Slavic accent centers on the period of its development from Proto-Indo-European and its relationship to Proto-Baltic. But there is no complete agreement on the course of accentual developments in the later periods either, from Proto-Slavic to Common Slavic to the final disintegration of Slavic "unity" (Late Common Slavic). This study is primarily concerned with accentual developments at the later stage of Slavic (i.e., in the Late Common Slavic dialects) and specifically with its differentiation into the Slavic languages themselves. Recent work assumes that pitch contours in Slavic may be derived from some combination of tone, stress, and quantity, though not necessarily all three, but there are analyses that postulate pitch contour as being fundamental to accent (e.g., Shevelov 1965, Timberlake 1993).2 Some linguists operate with a distinction between moras and syllables and take the mora to be the bearer of the ictus (e.g., Kurylowicz 1931, 1958a, 1958b, Garde 1968, Kiparsky 1973, Halle and Vergnaud 1987: 190-203; Stieber 1979: 63; Skljarenko 1985, Feldstein 1990a); others consider Slavic accentual developments only in terms of syllables (Stang 1957/1965, Garde 1976, Kortlandt 1975, Dybo 1981, Dybo et al. 1990). But the correlation of word accent with high tone or word-initial syllables indicates a certain predictability of tone and stress, and the restriction of pitch oppositions to long syllables marks a relationship between quantity and pitch accent. These correlations led several linguists to represent quantity as a sequence of units and to derive rising and falling pitch contours from the location of ictus,

2.0 Background

115

"accent" or "culminative prominence," on a given unit within the syllable. In some interpretations the phonetic nature of this ictus is left unspecified, e.g., Kiparsky 1973 operates with the notion of "accent"; Feldstein 1990a refers to it as "stress" and as "ictus," while in others it is viewed as the presence of high tone with redundant word stress (Jakobson 1931a/1971). Related to the question of the phonetic nature of this ictus is the general opinion that in unaccented word classes the initial falling pitch contour (circumflex) may have been more expiratory (stress-like) than musical (tone-based). Jakobson 193la/1971 ascribes to it a predictability often associated with default phenomena and a different function from that of the accent present in accented word classes. An analysis which treats quantity as a sequence of identical phonological units or moras may represent pitch accent by an ictus (Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, Kiparsky 1973), as in (1). (1)

Rising accent

Falling accent

|JLfi

fi|X

Trubetzkoy 1939/1967 distinguished between mora-counting and syllablecounting languages (i.e., between VV and V: as a representation of length). He suggested that for some languages the bearer of prosody, which he called the prosodeme (distinct from the prosodemes of Trager and Bloch 1941), was the mora, while for others it was the syllable, and that depending on whether the culminative accent fell on the mora or the syllable, it was realized phonetically as pitch or stress, respectively. In other words, in syllable-counting languages the prosodemes are distinguished by intensity, in mora-counting languages by pitch (Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 179). This interpretation is based on distinguishing prominence sites (prosodemes) and not so much on the nature of the ictus (tone or stress) itself, which is assumed to be one per word. Under Trubetzkoy's interpretation the evolution of Slavic prosody could be viewed as consistent with the differentiation of languages into syllable-counting and mora-counting types, with prominence being realized as stress in the former and as pitch accent in the latter. But it is not simply a question of different prosodemes (mora vs. syllable) under some ictus for LCS. Trubetzkoy's theory predicts the nonoccurrence of tautosyllabic sequences of a stressed mora followed by a high tone mora, but it also predicts the nonoccurrence of stress and tone sequences intersyllabically, which are, however, found in Slavonian dialects (cf. IvSic 1911/1971, 1913a, 1913b/1971) and in the NeoStokavian dialects of Serbian and Croatian (see 2.5.1). The analysis given below agrees with Trubetzkoy in relating the nature of prominence to the nature of the relevant prosody-bearing unit, but it recognizes

116

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

the independence of tone and stress. I argue that the prosodic evolution of Slavic may be better understood if tone and stress are analyzed as different entities and if tone is characteristic of the mora, but stress is taken to be a property of syllables, not moras. Tone is an autosegment on a level different from that of sounds, but connected to them by association lines. The association is done through the moraic level so the connection to the segment is not direct. This means that the mora is the tone-bearing unit in Slavic. Stress is a rhythmic property of language. The representation of stress is not the same as that of tone; it is not an autosegment. Recent metrical theory views stress as marking the head of a metrical constituent, i.e., the strong element in a strong-weak grouping. To distinguish tone from stress, I represent tone by H, but stress by an asterisk (*) above the syllable node as in (2). (2)

11

i H

In distinguishing phonological stress from tone, I follow Jakobson 193la/1971, who proposed that tone, in addition to word stress, was phonologically relevant in LCS. In accented word classes high tone and word stress coincide. This may be expressed by high tone which may be redundantly stressed. If a form did not have prominence specified, i.e., was unaccented (enclinomenon), then in Common Slavic the ictus occurred on the first syllable of the phonological word. Since in these cases the pitch contour was always falling, it is not quite clear whether high tone (H) or stress (*) should be indicated on the first mora/syllable. There are Slavic languages in which both stress and tone still participate in prominence, as they apparently did in CS. Languages that have both tone and stress prominence have several prosodic options. Stress may coincide with the high-tone syllable, it may be the only marker of prominence, or it may occur in some fixed relationship with respect to tone. Slavic shows all three possibilities. Some areas retain tone prominence (Cakavian), others have stress prominence (Russian). Still others, such as West Slavic, fixed the position of stress and thus made it independent of tone. And the NeoStokavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian present a system in which the place of stress is calculated in relation to tone but is not necessarily isochronic with it. Yet no Slavic language has both tone and stress completely independent of one another. Although extensive morphological and analogical changes have in many cases obscured the original prosodic patterns, the phonological evolution of LCS accent shows

2.1 Metrical theory and the expression ofprominence

111

an underlying coherence if it is studied within the context of syllable structure and prosodic domains. My primary concern here is what may be rather loosely described as the "phonological" evolution of prominence; grammatical, morphophonemic or paradigmatic functions of accent will not be addressed, although they are critical to a complete understanding of Slavic accentual history (cf. Kurylowicz 1958a, 1958b, Stang 1957/1965, Garde 1976) and in many languages these factors continue to play a role. In chapter 1 I argued that Late Common Slavic developed different restrictions on the syllable rime: in the South Central LCS dialects it could be bimoraic, but monosegmental; in the (North) West LCS area it could be maximally bimoraic and bisegmental; in the (North) East dialects only monosegmental (monomoraic) syllable nuclei were allowed. (3)

a. South Central LCS

b. (North) West LCS

c. (North) East LCS

Cj

q

q

V/R

v

s

v

Where quantity oppositions were restricted to vowels or liquids (V^/R^ vs. V /R ) as in the South Central areas, the mora had a differentiating and significant function. In the northern LCS dialects the distinctive factor was the composition of the rime (regardless of mora count), that is, the structural difference between V and VS was critical. This presence vs. absence of a second component, whether a mora or another segment, distinguished the northwestern area from the northeastern one. In the northeast, CV syllables were preferred. In most languages only the syllable rime is relevant for prominence and Slavic is no exception: syllable onsets do not play much of a role in accent. 2.1

Metrical theory and the expression of prominence

The study of prominence has a long tradition in Slavic linguistics but accentology is still probably the least well understood area of Slavic phonology and morphology. Since 1926 when N. S. Trubetzkoy wrote to Roman Jakobson that "in general Slavic accentology is a completely hopeless enterprise" (Letters and Notes, ed. R. Jakobson, p. 91), the work of Stang 1957/1965, Kurylowicz 1958a, Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961, Jakobson 1929/1971, 1931a/1971, 1963, Dybo and Illi£-Svity£ 1963, Kortland 1975, Garde 1976, Dybo 1981, and elsewhere, Dybo et al. 1990, and Skljarenko 1971, 1974, 1988, among others, has clarified several important problems. Perhaps coincidentally, developments in

118

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

theoretical linguistics have led to a renewed interest in the study of prominence as a metrical phenomenon and progress in this area has contributed to research on prosody in general. It is not yet clear which particular view of prosody will prevail in theoretical linguistics, but certain aspects of what has come to be known as formal metrical theory, or metrical phonology, are particularly congenial to cross-language comparison. Phonological theories of prominence do not make specific claims about the acoustic or articulatory correlates of prominence, though there is an understanding that intensity, duration, pitch, and tenseness may all contribute to the perception of prominence. By definition prominence is relative: something is prominent only in reference to something else. So the expression of prominence requires minimally a two-unit group, a stronger and a weaker element. This relationship may hold between two constituents (a binary metrical foot) or it may hold between a strong member and any number of weaker members (an unbounded metrical domain). Metrical theory operates with the formalism of either metrical trees or metrical grids, and sometimes a combination of the two.31 will not discuss whether the arboreal representation or the metrical grid gives the better account of Slavic accentology, but I do think that a metrical foot was operative in Slavic and that a notion of constituent structure or some indication of relative strength is useful. I will designate this as strong-weak (s-w) or (w-s). Both arboreal and grid theory represent prominence as hierarchical, either as tree structure or as grid columns and the metrical rhythm is indicated by branching or by alternating grid marks. A good discussion of current metrical theory may be found in Kager 1995. (4)

metrical trees

metrical grids

word

sw II c a

(*

)

sw

* * * *

II a c

c o c a

It turns out that in many languages the strong constituent is often long or heavy, so it seems that quantity or heaviness plays an important role in the organization of prominence. There are several ways to take the role of quantity into account in the determination of prominence relations. One could say, for example, that a language defines closed syllables as heavy and heavy syllables are considered to be more prominent. Or one could indicate the property of heaviness by mora count. Then a bimoraic syllable is heavy and a bimoraic syl-

2.1 Metrical theory and the expression ofprominence

119

lable is more prominent than a monomoraic one. But in many languages prominence is not determined on the basis of syllable quantity or syllable weight. Either prominence is fixed on some syllable in a word, usually the first or the last, or it is fixed in relation to another syllable in a repeating, usually alternating strong and weak, rhythmic pattern. In general prominence tends to be organized according to certain well defined principles. It has been observed that people tend to impose rhythmic organization on a sequence of pulses (Woodrow 1909, 1951, Bell 1977, Allen 1975 and references therein) and specifically that "prominence contrasts based on duration lend themselves to iambic grouping, while prominence contrasts based on intensity lend themselves to trochaic grouping" as Hayes 1985:430 reports. A sequence of alternating long and short pulses is most often interpreted as groups of a short pulse followed by a long one (5a), i.e. a weak-strong (iambic) foot. A sequence of alternating intense and less intense pulses tends to be grouped as a strong-weak (trochaic) foot (5b). Allen 1975: 77 notes that "differences in pitch act like differences in loudness, causing us to hear a sequence of trochees with the higher pitch leading." If the foot is symmetrical with respect to quantity, then the default prosodic organization tends to be a trochaic foot (McCarthy and Prince 1986). (5)

a.

x

b.

x

[x x] ws [x x] sw

[x x] ws [x x] sw

[x x] ws [x x] sw

[x x] x ws [x x] x sw

iambic [w-s] trochaic [s-w]

In some languages prominence is determined by syllable weight while in others stress is assigned irrespective of syllable structure. The iambic foot is preferably quantity-sensitive (Hayes 1985, Prince 1990). Trochaic feet, on the other hand, may be quantity-sensitive though often they are not. In other words, trochaic feet may ignore quantity but iambic feet do not. Iambic feet and quantity-sensitive trochaic feet represent the well-known characteristic of many stress systems that long or heavy syllables tend to attract the stress, as is the case in Latin. McCarthy and Prince 1986 refer to this tendency as a Quantity/Prominence Homology. It may be formalized as branching or bimoraic rimes associated with the strong member of a metrical foot (F) with syllable weight represented by moras. (6)

iambic

trochaic

/\

i|Ll

T JLL

T

A

JLL

JLL

120

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

The optimal iambic foot is unbalanced in favor of the second syllable [cr cr ], whereas an optimal trochaic foot is either strong (long, heavy) [a ] or equally balanced [& a ], though both an unbalanced trochee and a balanced iamb may be found in languages. Prince 1990 gives a well-formedness hierarchy of iambic and trochaic feet, from most to least preferred: (7)

iambic feet: [cyr^J > [a^J, [cx/r.J > [ a j trochaic feet: [a^J, [cyr^] > [ a ^ ] > [a^]

The intersection between the iamb and the trochee is in the bimoraic syllable [o* ], highly ranked as a trochaic foot but also highly ranked as part of an iambic foot. I will argue that this intersection is where prosodic reanalysis took place in Slavic. The hierarchy in (7) shows that quantity is relevant to both iambic and trochaic feet. A system that tolerates only monomoraic syllables will obviously not base its metrical organization on quantity, and this was the development in the (North) East LCS dialects. On the other hand, a system that allows quantity distinctions (|x vs. |X|JL) has the option of exploiting quantity in different ways, and this is what happened in the (North) West LCS and the South Central LCS areas. One curious fact about Slavic in general is that many accentual changes (those not grammatically conditioned or analogical) were predominantly accent retractions, not accent advancements. In some instances this is simply a consequence of the position of prominence, i.e., word-final accent can only retract. But what is rather surprising is that initially accented forms were not subject to stress advancement with any significant regularity and that wordmedial prominence was subject to retraction much more regularly than to advancement. Another interesting fact is that Slavic shows examples of pretonic lengthening] but relatively few examples of post-tonic lengthening and many of lengthening under stress (as well as lengthening independent of stress and shortening under stress). The following analysis of the accentual history of Common Slavic proposes to relate the developments in syllable structure discussed in chapter 1 and shown in (3) above to the other prosodic changes experienced by Late Common Slavic. Other than to note how changes in syllable structure were played out in accent, I will not discuss the free stress systems of East Slavic in detail. There are, however, traces of quantity distinctions in some of these languages and they are considered in 2.3.2 and 2.4.1. The discussion of fixed-stress systems is also brief because the primary objective of studying these languages is to present evidence in support of trochaic metrical organization. It is not my purpose here to offer complete descriptions of the accentual systems of Slavic (cf. Stankiewicz 1993 and references therein).

2 2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent 2.2

121

Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

In reconstructing Common Slavic accent Slavists disagree about whether unaccented syllables also carried a pitch contour and about whether there was pitch accent on short vowels. The postulation of pitch contours on pretonic and posttonic syllables was a way of explaining, among other things, how the movement of ictus resulted in new pitch accents (e.g., neo-acute/rising or neo-circumflex/failing). But certain restrictions on the occurrence of rising pitch (limited to long vowels and non-initial shorts) made the opposition of tone distinctive only in the initial syllable, where a rising accent could be opposed to a falling accent. Even if there were pitch distinctions on unaccented syllables in Proto-Slavic, as Lamprecht 1987: 79 and others suggest, it is not clear whether they were expressed on short syllables. Kurylowicz 1962 claims that short vowels could not have had pitch contour (pitch accent). I follow Trubetzkoy 1954, Kurylowicz 1958a: 192ff., 243ff., 1962, Jakobson 1929/1971, 1963, Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961: 21-22; Stang 1957/1965: 168; Lunt 1963, and others in assuming that by Late Common Slavic there was at most only one accented syllable per word and that there were no pitch contours on unaccented syllables. I refer to accent as consisting of tone with redundant stress, to ictus as prominence of either tone or stress. The following analysis takes accented stems to have a high tone in the lexicon and unaccented ones to have none, in other words, only rising tone (H) is considered a marked accent (per Jakobson 1931a/1971, see also Kolesov 1979). There is no H in unaccented wordforms. Jakobson 1949/1971: 414 attributes to the period of Slavic unity "a prosodic pattern based on opposition of rising and falling pitch both in long and short syllables, with word-accent appended to the rising pitch and, in its absence, to the initial syllable." This interpretation thus differs from Kiparsky 1973 who postulates accented moras in both tonic and atonic or circumflex forms, where mm represents rising pitch accent, mm falling pitch accent. Short syllables predictably do not show pitch contours (m is simply accented). The original place of high tone was lexically determined (phonologically distinctive) and stems (or morphemes) belonged to tonic (with high tone) and atonic (no high tone) or "strong" and "weak" classes (Garde 1976). It has been claimed that syllables preceding the one with high tone were redundantly high (van Wijk 1923/1958: 94; Kuryiowicz 1958b: 42; Jakobson 1963: 160, 1965/1971: 695; Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961: 21-22; Schenker 1993: 78). This may have been true phonetically, but in phonological autosegmental theory this is not a necessary condition. All other syllables had a low or neutral tone, and could be long

122

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

or short. Given the location of the high tone, stress was predictable: Jakobson 1963: 161 observed that stress occurred on the rightmost or only syllable with high tone in a word and, if there was no high tone in the given wordform, stress was simply assigned to the initial syllable. Pitch accent in Slavic is correlated with stress patterns as follows: "Acute is the pitch contour of a vowel which retains the stress throughout the paradigm. It can occur in any syllable. Circumflex is the pitch contour which occurs in the first syllable when other forms of the paradigm have stress on the last" (Stang 1957/1965: 21). Three accentual paradigms are reconstructed for CS and LCS: acute, with stress fixed on the same root syllable throughout the paradigm and where accent is realized as rising pitch (here designated by'); oxytone, with stress on the first post-root syllable and where accent may have been rising, though this is not certain (designated by v ); and a mobile accentual paradigm, with stress shifting from the final to the initial syllable of the phonological word (including proclitics). In these classes the initial syllable had falling pitch C on longs," on shorts). Forms are thus classified as accented or not. When not lexically indicated, prominence predictably falls on the initial syllable. So one can speak of the acute as rising pitch accent (bimoraic with H on the second mora), the circumflex as falling pitch accent (no H) and of oxytones as simply having accent (H). In terms of accent, there is a two-way distinction (H and no H). The autosegmental representation in (2) allows us to treat tone (H) and stress (*) as independent, though potentially related. It is precisely this characteristic that was exploited in the history of the Slavic languages. I will represent the underlying accent in CS as high tone (H) on a given mora of a word. Stress (*) is assigned to the syllable with high tone as in (8a). If there is no tone, then word prominence is assigned to the initial position as in (8b) by default, where w [a indicates word-initial position of a phonological word.4 (8)

a.

* —•

G

GO

M^

I

b. JG

G

GO

M^

GO V

* —•

JG

GO M<

I

H H Atonic forms received initial stress by default, which was phonetically realized as falling pitch (circumflex). Kurylowicz 1958a calls this "recessive stress." Garde 1976: 244ff., 253ff., 269ff. assigns initial stress by "reaccentuation" at the phonetic level, since prefixes and prepositions with atonic words often receive the stress (i.e., phonological, not morphological, words are stressed), e.g., SC na vodu "on the water,"Ispece "he will bake"; R ndzimu "for

2.2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

123

the winter," prodal "he sold." Thus stress was either redundant, i.e., predictable from tone, or assigned by default and not distinctive. Pitch contours (acute vs. circumflex) may be represented by (9) where (*) stands for predictable stress. Rising and falling contours are understood to be the phonetic implementation of tone and/or stress. Phonetically stress is heard as increased prominence at the beginning of a syllable, which could be interpreted as falling pitch contour on long syllables and simply as stress on short ones. (9)

(*) a C

\i

\L I

a C

\i

o

(*)

(*)

a

a

C | n C | i

C

[i

(*) c [i C

[i

C

e [i

o C

[i

I

H

H

*raku"crab" *stolu "table" acute (rising)

*zQbu "tooth" *ijozu"cart" circumflex (falling)

In tonic words, high tone could occur anywhere within a morphological word on a long vowel, but on a short vowel it could occur only non-initially. The restriction of rising pitch contour (acute) to long vowels and final (or medial) shorts suggests that the acute was defined over two moras. In long vowels this entailed one syllable, but in the case of shorts the preceding syllable would have been relevant (Kurylowicz 1962: 32). This means that in tonic forms, the pretonic mora or syllable (as opposed to the post-tonic one) was critical for distributional reasons, in that high tone could not occur on an initial short syllable and for phonetic reasons, in that rising pitch requires an interval of time long enough to be perceptible as a pitch gradient. In contrast, if falling pitch is the result of stress, then a post-tonic syllable might be the more relevant one. The bimoraic/bisyllabic requirement for accented forms was interpreted differently in the various dialects of Late Common Slavic. Language change involved an ambiguity in metrical structure because a bimoraic metrical foot had to be [|X|x]F, but this bimoraic requirement could be distributed differently, as in (10). (10)

F

^

F

\i

I

\i

M-

I

H H Most phonological words in LCS before the loss of weak jers were bisyllabic or longer. Some aorist verb forms, prepositions, demonstratives, and clitic pro-

124

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

nouns were monosyllabic, e.g., by "was," kit "towards," vit "into, in," sf "this," masc sg, ta "that," fern sg, se, reflexive particle, but most of these did not constitute independent accentual units. So even in the case of redundant initial stress, the domain of prosody was more than one mora. In these and other accented forms the bimoraic accentual norm was not only bisyllabic, but it also happened to coincide with the domain of the word. Two subsequent changes in Late Common Slavic had an effect on the prosodic system: 1) the shortening of final vowels in general, as in Cz sestra "sister" (< *sestra), sestry, gen sg (< *sestry) and 2) the retention of length in pretonic position, especially in bisyllabic words of the oxytone paradigm with an accented short vowel, as in Cz trdva, SC trdva (< *traua "grass"), Cz svlce, SC svijeca (< *sv6tia "candle"), Cz mouka, SC mwla, P mqka (< *mQka "flour").5 The first change produced a final vowel that was equal to or "weaker" in duration than the one before it. This established a potential strong-weak relationship with the preceding syllable. The second change had important implications as well, for it identified the pretonic syllable as somehow more prominent than other unaccented syllables. This change, too, established an intersyllabic relationship between a pretonic and tonic syllable. It is notable that the preservation of pretonic longs was particularly characteristic of two-syllable words, though there are a few instances where pretonic longs appear to have been preserved also in polysyllabic words. The preservation of pretonic length in bisyllabic words allowed length to be distinctive in initial syllables. This meant that all prosodic marking with the exception of short rising pitch contour could be found in word-initial position. Once final syllable shortening took place, there were no long syllables following a stressed syllable in bisyllabic words. The accentual profiles of bisyllabic words are given below; note the predominance of length or stress on the initial syllable. (11)

The prosody of bisyllabic forms rising (long) G

G

/ \ H

falling (long) falling (short) pretonic long

pretonic short

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

I / \

I

I

I

/ \

I

I

I

H

H

*lipa "linden" *zQbu "tooth" *ubzu "cart" *SQdu "judgment" *stolu "table'

The various shortenings of posttonic and final syllables together with pretonic length in oxytones led to a new metrical relationship. The bimoraic accen-

2 2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

125

tual inventory in (10) was expanded by Late Common Slavic to include bisyllabic structures of more than two moras (12). (12)

F

JLL

(|Ll)

JLL

H With the exception of atonic forms with short vowels, e.g., *uozu "cart" and the short root vowel oxytones, e.g., *stolu "table," all other bisyllabic relationships in LCS generally consisted of three moras arranged in a [s-w] group. This was the situation at approximately the time when LCS syllable structure was beginning to differentiate as in (3). Obviously, length could be preserved in those dialects which had a mechanism for doing so, either (3a) or (3b), but in those which were beginning to identify syllables with a short vowel or one mora (3c), length would not have been expressible. Reflexes of pretonic longs are found in all of the Slavic languages which did or do retain the ability to express quantitative differences, e.g., SC sud, Sn sod, Cz soud, P sgd, Snc soud, Sk siid from CS *SQdu "judgement," but not in R sud.6 The generalization of the prosodic structure given in (12) implies that other shortenings may have taken place according to this template. So it is of interest that in the acutes, which were originally long, the pretonic syllable often lost its length (Timberlake 1993: 428^29). In the forms with a circumflex accent in the initial syllable, that post-tonic syllable either retained its length if the original circumflex was short or lost it if that original circumflex was long. For example, there are suggestive differences in the length reflexes of nasal vowels in Cakavian: prdseta "piglets" from *prds&a and golub "pigeon" from *golQbi, as Timberlake 1993 shows. The preservation of pretonic length in the neoacutes and not in the acutes may be attributed to differences of quantity in the original accented syllables. Slavic experienced at least two other critical prosodic adjustments even before the changes in the jers: the shortening of syllables under original acute accent and a retraction of the ictus, known as the neo-acute. It is generally assumed that these changes came fairly late in Slavic because they produced several major isoglosses in Late Common Slavic. The southern area reinterpreted the acute (rising) vs. circumflex (falling) as an opposition in quantity and the acute became short falling, e.g., SC prag [prag] "threshold," while the circumflex was long falling, e.g., SC grdd [grad] "town." This system is found in Cakavian SC dialects. There the rising pitch may be traced to the neo-acute as in

126

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

krdj [kraj] "king." The central LCS area (Czech, Upper Sorbian) identified the acute with the neo-acute as long in opposition to the circumflex which became short (here ' indicates a long vowel), e.g., Cz prdh, krdl vs. hrad. A third type is found in Polish, Slovak and Lower Sorbian where both the acute and the circumflex have short vowel reflexes in distinction to neo-acute longs, e.g., Sk prah, hrad vs. krdl'. In the eastern parts of LCS, today represented not only by the East Slavic languages (Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian) but also by Bulgarian and parts of Macedonian, there are no distinctions of quantity. Original pitch accent was replaced by distinctive stress, e.g., Rporog, korol' vs. gorod; B prdgdt, krdljat vs. graddt (Schenker 1993: 78-79; see also Jakobson 1963, 1965/1971: 697-698). I will show that these accentual isoglosses correspond to differences in syllable structure that were emerging in LCS. In other words, there was a connection between changes such as those exemplified by the liquid diphthongs and prosodic changes in word accent. At the root of both is the analysis of syllable quantity. All of the Slavic languages, with the exception of Czech and Upper Sorbian, have short vowel reflexes under original acute accent.7 Slavists recognize a general shortening of acutes (Meillet 1924/1965: 103ff.; Vondrak 1924: 274; Rozwadowski 1915, BernStejn 1961: 230-232; Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961: 30-31), but they have different opinions about the relative chronology of this change. Most consider the shortening of the acutes to have been a reaction to the neo-acute retraction and date it after the neo-acute (Vaillant 1950, Sadnik 1959, Kurylowicz 1958a: 218-219, 1960, Jakobson 1963: 164 [with respect to preSerbo-Croatian], and Kolesov 1979: 131). Schenker 1993: 79 writes that all types of long vowels were affected: "the introduction of the neo-acute resulted in the shortening of some Early Proto-Slavonic long vowels: the acute long vowels in Serbo-Croat and Slovene, the circumflex long vowels in Czech, Upper Sorbian, East Slavonic, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and both the acute and circumflex long vowels in Slovak, Polish and Lower Sorbian." On the other hand, Ivic 1965a, Stankiewicz 1966b, Gustavson 1969 and others believe that the acute shortened before the neo-acute retraction took place, at least in some areas of Slavic (Carlton 1991: 191-193) or that the two were contemporaneous (Lencek 1982: 81). It is quite likely that at least in the south the two changes, the shortening of the acutes and the neo-acute retraction, may have come fairly close together. I think that the shortening of the acutes was the watershed for prosodic restructuring. This innovation, together with the syllable structure changes taking place at the time, to a large extent determined what would serve as the prominence marker in any given area of Late Common Slavic, and that in turn

2.2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

127

determined the effect that the neo-acute retraction was likely to have in a given system. 2.2.1 The shortening of acutes The shortening of old acutes would have been interpreted differently in the northern and southern LCS dialects. If we take the acute stems to be marked with a high tone on a given mora and with redundant word stress on the syllable that contains the high-tone mora, then the relationship between tone and stress may be subject to different interpretations (13a, b). Either tone or stress may be taken to be redundant in the system. This is what seems to have happened. The northern LCS dialects took stress to be the indicator of prominence (13a); the southern LCS dialects took high pitch to be the marker of word accent (13b). (13)

Shortening of acutes a. Northern Late Common Slavic *

*

I

A (H)

(H)

b. Southern Late Common Slavic (*>

(*)

I

A H

H

That this was the prosodic reinterpretation of Late Common Slavic is strongly supported by changes that took place under the circumflex. In northern LCS circumflex forms were identified as stressed, but in southern LCS the circumflex words belonged to the class of unaccented forms. This meant that in the north, after the shortening of acutes both acute and circumflex wordforms were analyzed as having an ictus or as being phonologically prominent (with *), while in the south there still was a distinction between tonic (with H) and atonic (with no H) wordforms. This difference is shown in (14). (14)

a. Northern Late Common Slavic *

b. Southern Late Common Slavic

*

a

vs.

a

c c \i

H

\i (U)

(H)

acute

circumflex

acute

(ictus: stress)

vs.

JLX U.

circumflex (ictus: tone)

The developments under the circumflex are particularly revealing because they involved a redistribution of quantity. The northern dialects tended to short-

128

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

ening while the southern ones preserved and even generalized length under the old falling pitch contour. If the representation in (14) is accurate, then the developments under the circumflex are entirely predictable. The north simply shortened all stressed syllables, whether originally accented (acute) or unaccented, transforming the opposition from that of rising pitch vs. falling pitch to one of stressed and unstressed syllables within a word. In the south, however, the shortening of only H syllables meant that the opposition remained one of accented (H) and unaccented wordforms, and it was identified as one of short accented syllables and long unaccented ones. The shortening of acutes throughout Slavic freed quantity from accent. (15)

Changes in long vowels a. Northern Late Common Slavic: acute, circumflex = accented (*)

(H) acute

circumflex

b. Southern Late Common Slavic: acute = accented; circumflex = unaccented

(*)

(*)

O

H

- •

O

M-

H

H

H acute

- •

G

M-

(M-) circumflex

The significance of the change in (15b) is that quantity came to function as a marker of prominence in non-H forms. In other words, a bimoraic syllable still constituted a type of prominent syllable, but not so much in accented forms (with underlying H) as in unaccented (circumflex) forms in southern LCS. Recall that the [a ] metrical foot is ranked very highly in trochaic systems and that a long syllable may also function in iambic rhythm, either as the rightmost constituent of an iambic foot [a o~ ] or as a metrical foot on its own [a ] (see (7) above). The problem was that these a prominent syllables (circumflex) all occurred in the initial position of phonological words, where they were most likely to be interpreted as a moraic trochee. But it is also common for quantity-

2 2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

129

based prominence to be organized in terms of a highly ranked iambic type, the [a a ] foot. Both of these options were taken in Slavic. The moraic trochee is found in Polabian (2.7); the iambic metrical foot is found in early Slovene (2.3.1). But most LCS dialects evolved into syllabic trochaic systems, including those with distinctions in quantity. 2.2.2 The neo-acute retraction One of the last changes shared by dialects of Late Common Slavic was the retraction of ictus from high, lax vowels (jers) to a preceding syllable (van Wijk 1916: 321).8 Since it resulted in rising pitch contour (acute) in some Slavic languages, the retracted accent was referred to as the neo-acute by Rozwadowski 1915: 310. The effects of this LCS retraction were somewhat different in the various Slavic dialects. The major isogloss divides the northern LCS area, where reflexes of the neo-acute tend to be primarily long vowels (or vowels derived from long vowels), from the southern dialects (represented by Serbian, Croatian and Slovene today), where both long and short vowel reflexes are found. The neo-acute was traditionally described as a change of pitch contour (metatony) until Stang 1957/1965 showed that "a neo-acute arises through retraction of the ictus to a syllable from the one immediately following i t . . . Thus neo-acute does not arise as a result of metatony, if by this term is implied a change of pitch contour within one and the same stressed syllable. Neo-acute occurs in syllables which were not previously accented" (p. 21). Different and sometimes contradictory explanations are given for the neoacute reflexes in Late Common Slavic. For example, Feldstein 1978 argues for the loss of tone distinctions in certain areas of LCS before the neo-acute retraction took place because the acute merged with the circumflex in giving short reflexes, while Timberlake 1983a, 1983b concludes that all dialects of LCS had some accentual contrast at the time of the neo-acute shift because the neo-acute resulted in a rising pitch accent distinct from both the acute and the circumflex. Many Slavists claim that changes in accent and quantity were a reaction to the neo-acute retraction. For instance, Jakobson 1963:164 attributes the shortening of acutes in Serbo-Croatian to the avoidance of a merger with the new rising accent (neo-acute) on long vowels. It is often said that the neo-acute shift resulted in a major restructuring of the LCS prosodic system by creating new oppositions of quantity, pitch accent, or both: "Accent, which retracted from short narrow [vowels] in the final syllable to the preceding syllable, served as the stimulus for fundamental transformations of the Slavic prosodic system" [trans., CYB] (Jakobson 1963: 163). I think the different effects of the neo-acute in the various language areas were to a large extent determined by independently

130

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

evolving syllable structure and intersyllabic metrical relations, and they show LCS as differentiating into stress-based and tone-based subsystems. The neo-acute retraction of ictus to a preceding syllable was subject to various morphological and phonological conditions: from long /i/ in the present tense of second conjugation verbs, e.g., *nos-itu > R nosit "carries," 3 p sg; in the present tense of -ye-stem verbs, e.g., CS *uQzietu > R vjdzet "ties, binds," 3 p sg; from other vowels in /i/ -suffixed classes, e.g., CS *uol-i-a "will" > Cz vtile, Sn vdlja, R dial, volja; in other derivations, e.g., CS *pis-ari-i > Rpisar' "scribe"; in some comparative forms, e.g., R dial, bole "more," and elsewhere (Stang 1957/1965: 167ff.; Garde 1976: 218-240). Although some still describe it (or its results) as metatony of pitch accent (RamovS 1951, Nahtigal 1952: 19-32; Pauliny 1963, Meillet 1924/1965, Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961, Shevelov 1965, Stieber 1979, Lamprecht 1987: 145-154), it is best seen as a retraction of ictus (Stang 1957/1965, BernStejn 1961: 234-238 [who considers the neo-acute to be a new stress, not so much a new pitch accent], and Nazarova 1975, Feldstein 1978, Kurylowicz 1958b, Garde 1976, Timberlake 1983b, Dybo et ah, 1990). Probably the most transparent case phonologically is the retraction from a weak jer (Bulaxovs'kyj 1961a) and this is discussed below, mostly on the basis of nominative singular forms. Changes in the genitive plural may have been morphologically determined and the motivation for the neoacute shift under other conditions is not well understood (see Stang 1957/1965: 21; Bulaxovs'kyj 1958: 261; Skljarenko 1971 and references therein).9 The neo-acute shift onto pretonic longs was interpreted as rising pitch contour in those dialects which maintained length and tone distinctions, and as a long vowel elsewhere, except in areas which lost all length distinctions. The neoacute retraction onto preceding short vowels shows two different reflexes: lengthening and no lengthening. Those dialects which had no mechanism for expressing length, namely the northeastern area of LCS (and Bulgarian and Macedonian today), do not have any reflexes of length. But among dialects which retained the potential for quantitative distinctions there are two different developments. The central and some (North) West dialects tend to exhibit reflexes of lengthened vowels under the neo-acute (CVCi > CVC), e.g., Sk stol "table," kon "horse," bob "bean," krdl' "king" (cf. atonic/circumflex sol' "salt," noc "night" with short vowel reflexes) and U kin' "horse," konja, gen sg, niz "knife," noza, gen sg; Pstdt, ndz "knife" (cf. noc "night," nos "nose"). The southern LCS dialects, though they could, generally do not have lengthening, e.g., Sn kdnj "horse," bob "bean," stol "stool" (CVCI > CVC).10 The Central Slovak dialects pattern with the northern ones in reflecting neo-acute lengthening and the shortening of other stressed (originally acute or circumflex) syllables.

2 2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

131

I think that the isogloss between lengthening in the north (and in the north central areas) and no lengthening in the south is due to the reinterpretation of prominence. After the shortening of the acutes and the circumflexes, in the northern LCS dialects long syllables were primarily the pretonic ones in oxytone paradigms, though a few cases of post-tonic length may have remained. All prominence was marked by stress (*). In the south, on the other hand, the identification of prominence was still on the basis of high tone (H). Circumflex forms were not marked by H prominence, but they were marked by quantity. The oxytones had H. The retraction of the ictus in the north and in the south had different effects: In the north the neo-acute was the retraction of stress (*); in the south it entailed a retraction of high tone (H). This not only explains the resulting rising pitch accent in tone systems but it also provides an explanation for the occurrence of pretonic length in some northern LCS dialects.

222.1

The retraction of tone

The South Central LCS dialects differ from those in the north in preserving distinctions under the neo-acute, e.g., Cak. vlds "hair" (with long root vowel), nom sg vs. vlds, gen pi (with neo-acute retraction onto a long /a/ from PS *uolsu) and short bdb. In other words, it appears that "neo-acute lengthening" was not generally characteristic of South Slavic. If we represent the oxytone forms with high tone (H) on the post-root or final syllable, then the neo-acute retraction may be viewed as the dissociation of high tone and its reassociation to the preceding mora as in (16). This produces a long rising accent on original pretonic longs, e.g., Cak. vlds, gen pi, and a short accent on pretonic short vowels, e.g., Sn kdnj "horse," bdb "bean," stdl "stool." The critical factor in South Central LCS is that the neo-acute retraction took place on the moraic tier. (16)

Neo-acute retraction in South Central Slavic Southern Late Common Slavic

South Central Late Common Slavic

C

C

[i

[i

C

|i

-•

(i

H

H

[i

C

(i

H

H

The neo-acute retraction in the south was the result of dissociating tone (H). Stress occurred on the high-tone syllable, and if none was available, on the first syllable/mora of the word. Because the dissociation from H always took place

132

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

from a short (monomoraic) vowel, the accent did end up on the preceding syllable, but its real movement was to the preceding mora, which resulted in rising pitch contour on that syllable if it was bimoraic and in accent if it was monomoraic. As expected, southern LCS continued to maintain length and tone/stress distinctions after the neo-acute shift. Cakavian exemplifies the process where the neo-acute retraction appears to have been a retraction of tone. In Cakavian, a distinction in pitch accent is realized on long syllables but not on short ones f=failing pitch, ~ = rising pitch,v = short accent): cas "moment," cas, gen pi; gldva "fyead," gldv, gen pi; sud "court," sudd, gen sg; stol "table," stold, gen sg; stril "lightning," stril, gen pi; bob "bean," bobd, gen sg; cep "stopper," cepd, gen £g; grm "thunder," grmd, gen sg. (Other examples are cited in Belie 1909b, 1935 and Steinhauer 1973.) Cakavian accent has been analyzed as having a difference in the placement of the ictus on a moraic base: if the ictus occurs on the first mora of a bimoraic syllable, then the syllable has falling pitch contour; if the ictus is on the second mora then the pitch contour is rising (Becker 1978; for a similar analysis of Indo-European, see Kiparsky 1973). Much like in LCS, a given mora in Cakavian can bear a high tone or not; stress automatically falls on the (rightmost) syllable containing the mora with high tone. If the word has no high tone mora in the lexicon, then stress falls on the first syllable of the word. The critical factor is that stress (or the peak of intensity) fully coincides with the position of the high tone. Kurylowicz 1931: 3 identifies this type of relationship as characteristic of Balto-Slavic: "dans les langues qui nous occupent ici (baltique et slave) les categories phonologiques hauteur et intensite n'ont pas d'existence autonome. On ne peut pas y degager subjectivement une courbe musicale distincte d'une courbe dynamique . . .," though in initial position stress (with a phonetic raised pitch and greater intensity) can occur without an underlying high tone. In distinction from LCS, however, Cakavian has forms with falling pitch accent not only in originally unaccented wordforms but also in some where a high tone must be postulated for the rest of the paradigm and for the form in question, e.g., cas "moment," gen pi by lengthening accented /Cas/ to /Caas/ (cf. cas, nom sg). These falling pitch contours arose as the result of later changes and they complicate the description of Cakavian in the sense that phonetically falling pitch appears to be the manifestation of two different underlying structures (forms without H and the forms with H on the first mora of a bimoraic syllable). Cakavian high tone is redundantly stressed: H implies stress on that syllable, though H itself may occur on either mora of a given syllable (17a). Original circumflex forms have word stress (*) on the first syllable (17b) where it is pronounced with slightly higher pitch contour at the begin-

2.2 Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic accent

133

ning (and on long vowels this would coincide with the initial portion of the syllable). (17)

Cakavian accent a. accented

(U)

(*)

(*)

G

G

JLL

IX

I

b. unaccented/stressed

G (Ll)

LI

c. unaccented/unstressed

G (U)

LI

(|l)

I

H H The short accented and unaccented but stressed syllables are both pronounced with a falling pitch contour. That the unaccented but stressed forms (circumflex) are actually different from originally accented ones (acute) is shown by the retraction of stress onto a prefix or preposition in unaccented forms, e.g., od boga "from god," while no such retraction is found in originally accented forms, e.g., odsmlha "from laughter" (cf. SC NeoStokavian odboga vs. ddbrata "from brother" : od boga has stress on the first syllable of the phonological word, but the rising pitch accent in od brata indicates that while stress falls on the /o/, the H is on the /a/ of the latter form. See also the discussion in section 2.5.1). Cakavian must mark the ictus in the underlying representation for some lexical items and morphological categories, but otherwise stress may be assigned to the initial syllable of underlying unaccented phonological words. A prefix or preposition may be considered part of a larger accentual unit or phonological word. Given that the neo-acute was the result of retracting the ictus and that in the south the ictus was tone, the neo-acute retraction in Cakavian produced, as expected, a rising pitch on long vowels but only accent on short vowels: palls 2 p sg (cf. inf. pdllt "burn") and zenis 2 p sg (cf. inf. zenit "marry"). Thus the neoacute retraction in Cakavian is essentially that in (16) above, namely a retraction of ictus (H) on the moraic level of the syllable, much like the one in Lithuanian (Blevins 1993). There is other evidence that South Central Slavic had mora-based prosody. As discussed in chapter 1, the reflexes of contraction in some South Slavic languages also support the proposal that tone was associated with the mora. Although not as regular a development as it was further north in pre-Czech or pre-Slovak, contraction did produce new long vowels with falling or rising pitch accent. The pitch accent of the contracted vowel depended on the original place of ictus. For example, the Cakavian forms set < *s£iati "to sow" (acute) and pas < *poiasu "belt" (circumflex) show a long falling pitch accent, while

134

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

Cak. stdt < *stoiati "to stand" and bat se < *boiati se_ "to be afraid" have a long rising pitch. The fact that contracted vowels preserved the pitch contour of the original bisyllabic group as in (18) is an argument for representing tone as an autosegment and for representing tone as associated with the mora. (18)

Contraction o/*seiati "to sow" and *stoiati "to stand" G

G

G

A

G

G

i

a

G

K

\

H

Cakavian falling pitch accent reflects original accent on the first syllable (whether H, as a result of shortening acutes, or * in unaccented forms); rising pitch accent is the reflex of original accent (H) on the second syllable. These new long vowels did not shorten, so contraction apparently followed the shortening of the acutes and the neo-acute retraction. 2.2.2.2 The retraction of stress In the northern dialects of LCS the shortening of the acutes and the identification of circumflex forms as accented led to the interpretation of prominence as stress. This meant that original oxytone wordforms were understood to be stressed. In such a system the retraction of ictus could be interpreted as a retraction of stress (*). Perhaps the clearest example of such a case are the northeasternmost LCS dialects which lost all distinctions of quantity. Retraction without any pretonic lengthening may be exemplified by the Russian forms kon' "horse," konjd, gen sg, R dial, kon'; golovd "head," golov, gen pi, (< *golouu), golovka, dim. (< *golouuka); koroV "king," koroljd, gen sg and others, where the retraction is manifested as an alternation in stress. It does not show any reflexes of length and even original pretonic long vowels shortened. The retraction was simply a shift of stress to the preceding syllable (19). (19)

Neo-acute retraction in Northeastern Late Common Slavic Northern LCS North East LCS

ft - ft ft _ ft ft C V

C l,u

C V C l,u

C V C !,u

(loss of quantity)

(neo-acute retraction)

(H)

2.3 The question of quantity in prominence

135

Thus the South Slavic area seems to show evidence of tone retraction as the neo-acute shift, while the northeasternmost part of Late Common Slavic presents fairly good evidence for a simple retraction of stress. Before discussing other reflexes of the neo-acute retraction, let us look at the role of quantity in prominence. 2.3

The question of quantity in prominence

I have proposed that in those LCS dialects where moraic distinctions were still relevant to syllable structure, these distinctions also functioned in the expression of prominence. They did so in two ways: (a) by providing a domain for the expression of tone prominence, and (b) by themselves serving as a marker of prominence. In other words, long syllables were metrically significant and, it is interesting to note, also metrically ambiguous. They were ambiguous in the sense that they could either occur alone as a bearer of stress in a trochaic system [a ] or as the second constituent of an iambic foot [a a ] (and only secondarily as comprising a lower ranked iambic foot by themselves). It was precisely this ambiguity in bimoraic syllables that was central to the accentual developments of Slavic. Several innovations in Slovene accent provide evidence for the prominence of quantity and some indicate metrical reorganization in favor of an iambic foot. Traces of quantitative distinctions in Bulgarian attest to the fact that quantity was once functional in prominence even in systems which now do not have phonemic quantity. Finally, data from transitional central dialects such as Czech and Upper Sorbian show that quantity indeed played a role in a bisyllabic domain, but that here it was subordinated to trochaic metrical organization. 2.3.1 The progressive shift and the neo-circumflex in Slovene The historical development of Slovene shows that quantity was actually exploited as a prosodic marker of prominence. One of the earliest prosodic changes of Slovene was the progressive accent shift, a movement of the falling pitch contour from the initial syllable to the immediately following one. It took place in roots with an original short vowel (*boga > bogd "god," gen sg) as well as in those with an original long vowel (*zQba > zobd "tooth," gen sg). The shifted accent, found in the majority of Slovene dialects, is realized as a long falling contour in conservative dialects with pitch accent: *m$so > meso "meat"; *slouo > slovo "farewell"; *lakutu > lakat > lakdt "elbow"; *golQbi > golob "pigeon"; *morio > morje "sea"; *gorQ > goro "mountain," ace sg; *na gorQ > na goro "to the mountain"; *zlato > zlato. "gold."11 The newly stressed

136

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

vowel is always long, so linguists assume that the shift of stress was followed by lengthening (Kortlandt 1976: 2; Lencek 1982: 82; Feldstein 1982, Carlton 1991: 313).12 This progressive shift is widely recognized as a particular Slovenian development (it is not generally found in the Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, for example, though Kajkavian shares other developments with Slovene, such as the neo-circumflex). With the exception of LehrSplawiriski 1917, 1963, few have attempted to explain why or how this shift took place. In order to explain why the falling accent and not the rising one moved one syllable forward in Slovene, Lehr-Splawiriski thought that it had to do with the nature of falling intonation: a falling contour on the first syllable supposedly produced a peak on the following syllable and this was reinterpreted as stress. This phonetic interpretation does not quite explain why other instances of falling pitch contour did not exhibit a similar forward shift in Slovene. I would like to propose that the progressive shift was a consequence of reevaluating prominence. Slovene, in identifying acutes as short and circumflex as long, took quantity as the marker of word prominence for unaccented forms, thereby opposing H-JJL to JULJUL. A long syllable was prominent in an unaccented word, though short syllables could still be distinguished by being either accented (H) or not. In other words, short syllables could carry a tone marker (H) though they would not exhibit pitch contours. This is in keeping with both those analyses that want to distinguish among short syllables (Feldstein 1982) and do so by the presence of pitch and those that claim no pitch accent contours were possible on shorts (Kuryfowicz 1962, Jaksche 1965). The identification of length with unaccented forms seems to have been a South Slavic phenomenon. Recall that compensatory lengthening was common under the circumflex in this area of LCS, as in Sn bog "god," dom "home," nos "nose" sol "salt," noc "night," pec "stove" (CVC < CVCu, CVCI), but not in the neo-acute forms, e.g., kdnj "horse," bob "bean," shot "young one," stdl "stool," vdl "ox" (CVC < CVCu, CVCi), or in the original acutes, e.g., rak "crab, crawfish," brat "brother," cds "time," ded "grandfather," dim "smoke" (CVC < CVCu, CVCI). (See Timberlake 1983a: 221.) It was only in unaccented forms that length began to develop as a prominence marker. If these forms then received stress by default (*), this meant that stress was becoming associated with length, though not necessarily with tone (H). If syllable duration was emerging as a marker of prominence equal to that of tone/stress, then syllables could be marked either by H-prominence (old acutes, oxytones), by quantity prominence (circumflex), or by neither (unstressed). As has already been mentioned, prominence contrasts based on duration tend to be

2.3 The question of quantity in prominence

137

organized in iambic groups. If Slovene took duration to be phonologically significant in unaccented forms, then this might have led to the generalization of iambic metrical structure, and resulted in a transposition of quantity. This would have been interpreted as the shift of initial falling (long) accent to the following syllable. The assignment of stress to these words would have been secondary (the attraction of stress by length), in support of iambic structure. This implies that lengthening preceded the progressive shift.13 The progressive shift can be represented as in (20), with a possible intermediate stage of generalized length, in other words, an iambic foot. (20)

Progressive accent shift a.

a

ON \i

(jl)

b. -•

JLX

a JLL

a JLL JLL

c. (a -•

\i

a) [I

[i

The unaccented forms are prominent on the long (second) syllable. I think that this innovation in Slovene exploited the association of quantity with stress. It was a long syllable, not just any given mora, which attracted stress, and therefore length was equated with prominence. M. Greenberg 1992, 1994 also relates the occurence of the progressive shift in Slovene dialects to issues of syllable weight. Stressed long syllables may be realized phonetically with a slightly higher pitch at the beginning, i.e., a diminuendo contour (Allen 1973: 79) and stressed syllables with no H are always pronounced with falling pitch contour in Slovene. (21)

Stress assignment (Iambic Foot)

G

IK

G

+

(G

G)

IK

The progressive shift, in fact, argues against representing circumflex forms in Slovene with a tone marker (H). Were the circumflex represented with a high tone on the initial mora, then the progressive shift would have to be formulated as the rightward movement of high tone with an obligatory skipping of a mora in long syllables. The dissociation and reassociation of tone does not usually skip moras. And given that South Slavic is primarily characterized by retraction, a progressive shift of ictus would be an anomaly. Moreover, one would have to explain the lack of ictus advancement in the acute forms. Since acutes may have an H in the first syllable, they should in principle be as likely as

138

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

circumflex forms (if these are represented with H) to be subject to ictus advancement. Because they are not, the circumflex forms are better represented without H, and thus distinct from acutes. I do not think that the progressive shift was primarily a shift of stress. The progressive shift could have been motivated by quantity prominence and this distribution of quantity might be seen as the least marked or most favored metrical grouping, in keeping with (7) above, where the bimoraic syllable is the second syllable in an iambic foot. This analysis does not have to postulate rising vs. falling pitch contours on short vowels (RamovS 1950, Feldstein 1982) before the shift in order to move a falling (short or long) pitch accent. There is no movement of pitch accent. After the progressive shift, the Slovene system would have been very complex, for it had two competing metrical organizers: in unaccented forms word prominence was determined by quantity (apparently organized as an iambic metrical foot), while in accented forms prominence was expressed by tone/stress. At approximately the same time or soon thereafter original accented vowels (acutes) acquired a long falling contour, as in *KpQJQ > *lipo > lipo "linden tree," instr sg; *m£sQCi > mesec "month," which is referred to in the literature as the neo-circumflex. There is some question about whether this accent was actually (phonetically) different from the original falling contour of the circumflex (see Stang 1957/1965: 23-35). In several cases this metatony seems to have been morphological.14 But in most cases it is possible to consider this a phonological (or phonetically motivated) change: a neo-circumflex results when an original acute vowel in Slovene is realized with long falling pitch contour if it had been followed by a non-final weak jer or a long vowel in the next syllable, e.g.,*pravida > prdvda "lawsuit, action"; *bitika > bitka "battle"; *bratistvo > brdtstvo; "brotherhood"; *babiski > bdbski "old woman's"; *lipo > lipo with shortening of the long (contracted) vowel /6/ (see Stang 1957/1965: 28 and references therein; also Sovre 1958, Kortlandt 1976). It is not found before final weak jers (i.e., in monosyllables). It is generally believed that the neo-circumflex followed the progressive shift because the neo-circumflex did not undergo it.15 But this is not necessarily so. Another way of looking at the relationship between the two processes is to recognize that they pertain to two different types of underlying forms, inherently unaccented (circumflex) and inherently accented (acute). As Lencek 1982: 82 writes, the non-application of the progressive shift to neo-circumflex forms "may be explained if we posit a difference in the nature of both accents, or a difference in accentual classes of words." In this analysis the underlying representation is actually different: the original circumflex has no H, while the neo-circumflex has the first mora of the bimoraic group associated with H. Since it is the length prominence and not

2.3 The question of quantity in prominence

139

lexical tone prominence in the circumflex which motivates the progressive shift, one would not expect forms with H prominence to undergo it. The neo-circumflex is the result of lengthening by reassociating a mora to a preceding syllable as in (22). Note that the two changes, the progressive accent shift and the neo-circumflex, produced a bisyllabic group with a total metrical weight of three moras, but with the opposite redistribution of syllable weight. The neo-circumflex is a process which applies to inherently accented (H) forms. It may be described as a redistribution of syllable weight in support of a syllabic trochee. (22)

Neo-circumflex before internal weakjer G

G

{G

G

\i

-+

H

|Ll \i

G )

[I

H

Neo-circumflex before long vowel G

IK H

G

{G

r\

G )

r

H

The processes in (22) may be seen as examples of lengthening. The mora comes from the following unaccented syllable and the resulting group is a sequence of a high tone mora followed by one without tone. Phonetically, this sequence may be interpreted as a falling contour. At this stage Slovene had two prominence indicators, quantity and tone/stress. When the short final jers lost the ability to be associated with tone, the retraction of the ictus onto the preceding vowel resulted in the following predictable consequences: the neo-acute retraction in Slovene is manifested as a rising accent on pretonic long vowels and as simply an accent (writtenv) on pretonic shorts, e.g., kljuc "key," jundk "hero," kdnj "horse," bdb "bean," stdl "stool." This conforms to the general South Slavic neo-acute retraction formulated in (16) above. The neo-acute longs were not subject to the neo-circumflex, probably because they were already long. The absence of the neo-circumflex on short neo-acutes (e.g., kdnj, bdb) may be due to chronology. It is possible that the neo-acute retraction may have overlapped with the neo-circumflex in this area or that neo-acutes would not have been subject to this lengthening if the neo-circumflex required a bisyllabic domain in the output. The restriction of the neo-circumflex to a position before a

140

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

word-internal jer or before a long vowel and its absence before a word-final jer in bisyllabic forms supports the view that the neo-circumflex was the consequence of lengthening and it shows that a bisyllabic domain is a minimal requirement for its expression. The latter is particularly significant because the lengthening under accent cannot be seen as simply the strengthening of a prominent metrical foot in keeping with a requirement of foot binarity, e.g., CV(CV) -^ CV(C V), as postulated by Prince 1990. The final syllable could not have been extrametrical at this stage in Slovene because the absence of a post-tonic syllable inhibits this process. Slovene supported its quantitatively prominent syllables by stress (progressive shift), and its tone/stress prominence by length (neo-circumflex). This meant that prominence in general was now beginning to be associated with length. There were some remaining accented short syllables, e.g., the acutes {brat "brother," brdta, gen sg) and the neo-acute shorts (stdl "stool"), as well as unstressed long vowels (gldvd "head"). But the emerging identification of tone (H) with length and stress (*) with length led to two further changes, the first regressive shift and non-final lengthening. The first regressive shift could be interpreted as a continuation of the retraction initiated by the neo-acute, but it applied only to pretonic long vowels. It was essentially a retraction of H and the resulting accent was a rising contour as in the neo-acute, e.g., Old Slovene *krild > krilo "wing," *vrba > vfba "willow," *trava > trdva "grass," *trQba > troba "trumpet, horn," *glava > gldva "head," *zlma > zima "winter." This change is consistent with the newly emerging identification of quantity with prominence. Both the neo-circumflex and this retraction, depicted in (23), resulted in a [s-w] group, but with the accent (H) on different moras within the bimoraic syllable. Thus we expect a falling pitch contour in the neo-circumflex and a rising pitch contour as a result of the regressive shift. (23)

Regressive Shift onto Long (First Regressive Shift) o

A

o

I

a

G

A

| H | I | L l - ^ J L l | L l | L l

H

H

\

cf. Neo-circumflex

a

G

A

\

Jl Jl

H

H

The differences in pitch accent between the neo-circumflex and the regressive shift are predictable. The neo-circumflex was the result of compensatory lengthening by reassociating an unaccented mora to a preceding syllable. The regressive shift onto a long vowel, much like the original neo-acute retraction, was the reassociation of a high tone to a preceding mora, not an association of a mora to

2.3 The question of quantity in prominence

141

the preceding syllable. This analysis would predict that if length were present before accent retraction, then the resulting pitch contour would be rising, but if a short syllable was accented before it underwent lengthening, then the pitch contour would be a falling one. The former is exemplified by the neo-acute retraction and the regressive shift onto long vowels; the latter by the neo-circumflex. In cases where there was no underlying accent to be retracted, long or lengthened vowels received a falling contour by default, as in the progressive shift, because stress is assigned to the syllable itself (phonetically implemented as higher pitch in the beginning of the syllable nucleus). After the neocircumflex and the first regressive shift the association of tone/stress with length in Slovene was almost complete. Any remaining vowels not associated with either tone or stress now shortened: *stara (*staraia) > stdra "old," but some short accented vowels remained, e.g., brata. The neo-circumflex, by producing a falling pitch contour on originally accented (H) forms, led to a reconsideration of falling pitch accent because the falling pitch contour which had once been a marker of unaccented forms was no longer restricted to that atonic class. Now both H and * could be manifested as falling pitch on long syllables. Instead, word prominence of any type (H or *) came to be associated with length. As a result, a new foot type, a trimoraic bisyllabic trochee (24), develops in Slovene. (24)

Early Slovene metrical feet

(a a)

(a a)

232 Bulgarian evidence of quantity Certain changes in Bulgarian indicate that it, too, may have at one time identified quantity as relevant to prominence. Quantity is no longer distinctive and no pitch distinctions survive in either Bulgarian or Macedonian, although it is possible to relate the placement of stress in Bulgarian to original differences in pitch contour. Widespread analogical changes have obscured earlier developments, but some characteristics of Bulgarian stress reflect CS prosodic differences. As Bulaxovs'kyj 1959/1980, 1961b showed, original fixed/acute bisyllabic neuter nouns such as rdlo "wooden plow," rdloto, def, Silo "awl," siloto, def, retain stress on the same syllable in definite and indefinite forms, i.e., they have fixed stress. Original mobile/circumflex neuter nouns tend to have stress on the syllable before the definite article, e.g., mesoto "meat," testoto "dough." These differences are better preserved in the masculine paradigm, e.g., brdtdt "brother," svdtdt "matchmaker" (fixed/acute) vs. nosM "nose," leddt "ice," graddt "town" (mobile/circumflex), and are found in the masculine plurals, especially in dialects, e.g., grddove, gradovete, vrdtove

142

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

"neck," vratovete. (The standard language seems to have generalized the stress of the definite to the indefinite forms, e.g., vekove "centuries," bregove "coasts," meso, testo [Kortlandt 1982a].) Though this shift may appear to be similar to the Slovene progressive shift, Kortlandt 1982a suggests that in Bulgarian it was morphological, conditioned by the definite article (formerly, a demonstrative pronoun). It does not take place regularly in other contexts, and sometimes not even in the definite forms: compare the Bg ezero "lake," greben "comb," koren "root" and Snjezero, greben, koren forms. Carlton 1991: 196 also considers that "the similarity of this shift with that of Sin is more apparent than real" and attributes the Bulgarian shift to morphological factors, though Lunt 1963: 95 appears to consider this stress advancement to be parallel to the progressive shift in Slovene. Even if the situation in the circumflex nouns is somewhat debatable, changes in the oxytone paradigm indicate that analogy was operating on the basis of quantity distinctions and not on the basis of pitch accent. Original oxytone masculine nouns pattern in two different ways: if the root vowel was short, then the stress is fixed on the stem in the singular (cf. acutes), though it remains on the desinence in the plural, e.g., stoht "chair, stool," stolove; if the root vowel was originally long, then stress falls on the definite article or on the last syllable of the plural as in original circumflex forms, e.g., grexM "sin," grexove. In other words, the oxytone paradigm merged with the original acutes or mobiles depending on the vowel quantity (see Bulaxovs'kyj 1959/1980: 406ff., 1961b, Dybo et al. 1990).16 It appears that length may have served as a prominence indicator for unaccented forms. The Bulgarian evidence is especially interesting because the merger of the oxytone pattern with the mobile/circumflex paradigm would not be predicted on the basis of pitch contour, given that oxytones had an accent which may have been rising, while the circumflex pitch contour was falling. So older pitch contour distinctions, but not quantity, must have been lost in Bulgarian by the time these forms merged with the other paradigm types. Schallert 1993: 402 also finds a "connection between root quantity and non-etymological mobile stress" observing that length does not occur regularly before voiceless consonants in original acutes and neo-acutes. General compensatory lengthening is more common under the circumflex. Thus there is some support for the idea that the southern Late Common Slavic area was generalizing length as a prominence marker independent of tone. 233 Transitional Late Common Slavic areas: Czech and Upper Sorbian One of the peculiarities of Czech and Upper Sorbian is that unlike in any other part of Late Common Slavic this area shows reflexes of long vowels not only

2.3 The question of quantity in prominence

143

under the neo-acute, e.g., Cz vdzes "you tie," muzes "you can," US brozda "burrow," but also under the original acute accent (as Jagic 1894 pointed out), e.g., Cz krdva "cow," sila "strength," mira "measure," US droha "road," and in original liquid diphthongs (under the acute and neo-acute) in US wrona "crow," kruwa "cow," breza "birch," bloto "mud" (cf. circumflex forms, US hlowa "head," strona "side," zloto "gold," srjeda "Wednesday," drjewo "tree," as Dybo 1963 noted). There is an interesting restriction on acute length, namely, that it seems to show up only in bisyllabic forms in Czech (Bulaxovs'kyj 1953, Carlton 1991: 194). The acute-accented syllables in polysyllabic words such as Czjahoda "berry," kamene "stones" (cf. Rjdgoda) are viewed as antepenultimate vowel shortening by Horalek 1955: 123. In Upper Sorbian there apparently is no such restriction and long acutes are found in polysyllabic forms as well (Dybo 1968: 72). This length may be interpreted as the preservation of original long acutes, as it most often is (Bulaxovs'kyj 1953:16; Shevelov 1965: 509; and for Upper Sorbian, see Rytarowska 1927, Dybo 1963,1968 and references therein) or as secondary lengthening in bisyllabic forms (Kortlandt 1975: 19, 1976: 8, 1978a: 84, 1978b: 278; and Dybo 1968: 72-73, who raises this question for Upper Sorbian on the basis of alternations in reflexes of *6). Although there are reflexes of lengthening lax/short vowels under the neo-acute here as in North Central Slavic, it is not clear that these are really different from compensatory lengthening under other accents (cf. Feldstein 1978 and the reservations expressed by Timberlake 1983a: 212-213; 1985 and Lamprecht et al. 1977: 25-26).17 This area could have interpreted underlying accented (H) vowels (acutes and neo-acutes, after retraction) as long and thus different from vowels that received stress (*) by default, which were shortened or short. It is possible that the mora continued to function prosodically here much longer than in the central dialects. The retention of distinctive quantity would have enabled these dialects to carry tone distinctions at least up to the time of the neo-acute shift. They could have analyzed rising tone as a bimoraic phenomenon, much as it was in LCS. All other vowels (atonic, circumflex longs) could have then shortened. Postulating tone distinctions for Old Czech and Upper Sorbian makes the assumption that rising pitch (acute and neo-acute) had to be both monosyllabic and bimoraic. Certain developments in Czech, however, provide a clue for another explanation of the emerging prosodic distinctions in this area. First, acutes tend to show up with length only in bisyllabic forms, e.g., vira "faith," but vefiti "to believe" and when the following vowel was short (as in krdva "cow," but not in fezdni "cutting"). The vowels in rak "crayfish," cas "time," ded "old man,

144

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

grandfather," pluh "plow," hnev "anger" were once long in Old Czech and their shortness is now attributed to paradigm regularity (Carlton 1991:195). Second, under the neo-acute some syllables which are expected to be long appear with short reflexes, e.g., nosis "you wear" (< *ndslsl) or prosis "you ask." Bulaxovs'kyj 1953: 25 proposed that the exceptional absence of long vowels in the Cz neo-acutes dobry "good" (cf. Sn dobri) holy "bare," nosis, vozis "you cart, drive," and others, might be due to the presence of a long vowel in the following syllable. If this is true, then it suggests that the prosodic domain was beginning to extend over two syllables and that the presence of quantity was to some extent determined by its presence or absence in the adjacent syllable, as in the alternations sila "strength," silou, instr sg or vrdna "crow," vranou, instr sg. Thus it cannot be rising pitch contour or tone alone which governed lengthening in Czech because the initial syllable in both nosis and muzes "you can" received neo-acute accent (i.e., rising pitch or H) and acutes everywhere should then be reflected by length. Nor could it have been the presence of stress alone which determined the length because not all acute or neo-acute syllables manifest length. In other words, prosody is not contained in or constrained by the syllable itself, but instead it seems to operate on a larger domain. What appears to characterize Czech and to some extent Upper Sorbian (where the reflexes of length are found only in initial, now stressed, syllables as in kruwa "cow," mroz "frost," mroza, gen sg, slebro "silver," reka "river," hwezda "star," lekaf "doctor") is the implementation of a prosodic (generally trimoraic) foot. Lengthening processes may have been constrained by this metrical group. Just as neo-acute lengthening did not seem to take place before long vowels, the occurrence of short acutes in monosyllabic and trisyllabic forms suggests that the long syllables in bisyllabic forms may have been either preserved or derived by lengthening. Recall that monosyllabic forms are short, e.g., Cz rak "crayfish," krav "cow," gen pi. Kortlandt 1978b: 278 argues that the length in Cz krdva cannot be old: "First, the distribution of the long and short reflexes of the old acute tone can only be stated in phonological terms at a stage when the weak jers had already been lost, cf. psdti 'to write' < *pisati, etc. Second, the rule mentioned here applies to etymological o as well, e. g., muzes 'you can,' vule 'will.' Third, the Czech lengthening can hardly be separated from the same phenomenon in the adjacent Upper Sorbian language." Stang 1957/1965: 35 considers the Czech long acutes to be possibly secondary. This interpretation is consistent with the postulated general shortening of acutes throughout Slavic. For Czech one would then be able to account for the short genitive plural forms of old acutes krav "cows," sil "strengths," mer "measures," as a regular development and not have to propose a special short-

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

145

ening rule for the genitive plural, which - in the light of the morphologically conditioned genitive plural lengthening found elsewhere in Slavic - would be peculiar. In this area quantity became independent of the ictus, whether tone or stress, (acutes could be long or short; neo-acutes could be long or short), though quantity bore some relation to an adjacent syllable. This suggests that both the mora and the syllable functioned in prosody, which is consistent with the type of syllable structure postulated for this area of LCS. In a sort of mirror image to developments in Central Slovak (discussed below) where long syllables were shortened after a long syllable, it is possible that Czech did not develop length in position before a long syllable, but that it did lengthen the accented syllable in support of a trochaic (s-w) structure in bisyllabic forms. The shortening of original long circumflex syllables was probably early and shows that quantity was not being exploited as a marker of prominence here as it was in South Slavic. Because length was not regularly associated with either tone or stress nor used in support of tone or stress, the quantity distinctions in Czech remained independent. 2.4

The bisyllabic domain

There is also evidence in the northern dialects of Late Common Slavic that the expression of prosody came to require a bisyllabic domain. Significantly, the definition of the bisyllabic domain involved both length and stress, but in different ways. In the central dialects of northern LCS, length was preserved or created before stressed short syllables. In the peripheral northwestern dialects, it appears that length was preserved not just before a short stressed syllable, but also after it. In other words, a trimoraic bisyllabic grouping seemed to be the metrically stable one, at least during some stage of Slavic. The long syllable served as a prominence balance to the stressed short syllable until the retraction (or advancement) of stress created an isomorphism of stress and quantity prominence. The developments in the transitional central dialects show the intersection of quantity and stress prominence and the emergence of a bisyllabic domain for prosody. A restricted dialect area, North Central LCS, consisting of Polish, Slovak, Ukrainian and southern Belarusian today, generalized the trochaic metrical foot as the prosodic grouping. This happened before or at the time of the neo-acute retraction in this area. It not only served to preserve pretonic longs, but it may have contributed to pretonic compensatory lengthening of short vowels. There were two mechanisms for implementing the [s-w] relationship:

146

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

stress and length. Before the neo-acute retraction, the metrical pattern of Common Slavic was such that the first member of the prosodic group could be stressed (initial stress by default on short vowels), or long (pretonic longs), or quite often, both stressed and long (stress on long vowels in acute/rising, default stress on initial longs in circumflex/falling), with the exception of pretonic short (lax) vowels. All of these were [s-w] prosodic groups, either in terms of stress or length, except the pretonic short vowel sequences, which were [w-s] in stress with no compensation on the moraic level. If these root vowels lengthened before the stressed weak jer in the next syllable, that might have been a way for them to conform to the metrical [s-w] relationship in a system in which trochaic grouping seemed to predominate.18 The northwestern area of Late Common Slavic identified tone with stress and stress became the primary indicator of prominence. Stress marks a syllable as prominent within a certain domain, a metrical foot or the word as a whole. There are indications that the northwestern dialects operated with some notion of a bisyllabic foot in which stress and quantity were balanced. In Polabian the stressed syllable appears to have been short or shortened, while the adjacent syllable maintained some relationship with respect to the stressed syllable by preserving length, either as pretonic length (neo-acute) or post-tonic length (resulting in the so-called progressive shifts). Slovincian, on the other hand, shows nonfinal stress on all bisyllabic and polysyllabic words which is generally attributed to retraction. 2.4.1 Pretonic length in North Central Slavic The chronology of tone loss and the neo-acute retraction is particularly important in the North Central LCS dialects because reflexes of the neo-acute are often different from those under other accents and yet this area does not preserve pitch accent (tone distinctions). Since the neo-acute shift was so commonly found before a weak jer, some accounts tend to treat neo-acute lengthening as compensatory lengthening before a weak jer (Becker 1978, Klemensiewicz 1964: 52; Timberlake 1983a, 1983b). Others maintain that lengthening under the neo-acute was separate from and earlier than compensatory lengthening before a weak jer (BernStejn 1961:236,273; Feldstein 1978, Carlton 1991: 216), though many of these analyses tend to treat compensatory lengthening as a consequence of jer loss.19 Reflexes of lengthening under the neo-acute are found in parts of the northern LCS area, including Kashubian (Slovincian), Polish, Czech, Upper Sorbian, Slovak, Ukrainian and some Belarusian dialects (Nazarova 1975).20 Compare the following: *stohl "table" > Cz stul, US stdl, P stol, Sk stol, U stil;

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

141

*bobti "bean" > US bob, P bob, Sk bob, U bib; *konil "horse" > Cz kun, US kori, OPkori, Sk £otf, U kin'; *nozl "knife" > Cz nuz, US /irff, P noz, Skrcoz,U niz; *nogu "leg" > Cz nuh, P nog, Sk noh, U «//?; *rQku "hand," gen pi > Cz ruk, dial., P rqk, Sk r«&, U ruk; *neslu "he carried" > P niosl, Sk niesol, U nis; *vedlu "he led" > P wiodl, Sk viedol, U v/v. It does appear that in the north lengthening under the neo-acute may have been more widespread than compensatory lengthening under other accents, where it seems to have been subject to more restrictions (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b). Certain data, such as Polish words with voiced consonants immediately preceding the stressed jer, as in noz "knife" < *nozi, are necessarily ambiguous, but there are some differences in the scope of compensatory lengthening which seem to coincide with accent. For example, some reflexes of length are found even before voiceless consonants if the words were originally neo-acute forms, e.g., reka "hand," rqk, gen pi < *rQku, although compensatory lengthening is otherwise restricted to take place only before voiced consonants, e.g., woz "cart," wozu, gen sg, but nos "nose," nosa, gen sg.21 As is clear from the lack of consensus among Slavists, the question of lengthening under the neo-acute before a weak jer as being different from compensatory lengthening in this position is still being debated. Accepting the evidence for lengthening in neo-acute forms as "different" from compensatory lengthening elsewhere, I would like to propose an alternative explanation, namely, that the "neo-acute lengthening" found before weak jers in the North Central dialects of LCS was neither lengthening under rising pitch contour nor lengthening under retracted stress, but lengthening before a stressed short vowel, i.e. pretonic lengthening, and that it was an attempt to use quantity as a way of implementing a trochaic metrical foot.22 Within the North Central area the presence of stress (whether underlying or assigned by default) was already an indicator of prominence, and long vowels under the acute accent as well as those under default stress (circumflex) could shorten, and they did in Kashubian, Polish, Slovak and Ukrainian (as well as in Belarusian and Russian). But in the case of pretonic long vowels, the [s-w] relationship was maintained only by quantity. The subsequent retraction of stress from jers reinforced the trochaic pattern as in (25). (25)

Neo-acute retraction onto long vowels in North Central Slavic Northern LCS

North Central LCS *

*

a

GO

1 C

V

C i,u

/ V" —

C V

a

/ I C i,u

148

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

Lengthened vowels could occur under stress and the opposition in quantity became phonologically significant because both long and short vowels were now found under stress. In the case of pretonic short vowels, lengthening served as a marker of prominence (26), followed shortly by the retraction of stress. (26)

Pretonic lengthening Northern LCS

A / I

c

v

North Central LCS

a A / \

c r,u

/l\ / 1/

—

c v

A / I

c r,i

A related development supports the notion of pretonic lengthening in North Central Slavic. In his study of the change of/e/ to /o/ (or variants thereof) which he considers to have taken place before the loss of weak jers, Andersen 1978a finds that a major isogloss separates northeastern East Slavic (Russian and Belarusian dialects) from the southwestern (Belarusian, Ukrainian and parts of West Slavic) area. In strong position (before a syllable with a weak jer), the lax vowel /e/ is realized as [uo] with no special restrictions in the northeastern dialects, while to the west of these, the /e/ to [uo] change is restricted to pretonic syllables . For example, *medu "honey," *klenu "maple," *selu "village," gen pi, *neslu "he carried" > NE East Slavic [m'uod], [kl'uon], [s'uol'], [n'uos] vs. SW East Slavic [med], [klen], [s'uol], [n'uos]. Andersen 1978:11 notes that this isogloss "has a counterpart in the West Slavic language area, an isogloss which separates Slovak and Polish from Czech and Sorbian; the difference between the East Slavic dialects north and south of isogloss 5 is the result of a central Slavic innovation by which tonic and atonic vowels came to be pronounced appreciably shorter than pretonic vowels." Another way of looking at this isogloss is to identify it with lengthening in pretonic position (neo-acute lengthening) in the SW East Slavic (and other West Slavic) dialects. For example, Slovak shows evidence of preserved longs even without an actual retraction of stress (though word-initial stress eventually became fixed here), as in vino "wine," pldtno "cloth," hniezdo "nest," kridlo "wing," mlieko "milk," usta "lips," vrdta "gate," zdkon "law, rule," krddez "theft" (Pauliny 1963: 141), all of which show a long vowel before the historically accented one (cf. R vino "wine," polotno "cloth" gnezdo "nest," krylo "wing" with the original place of accent). The length(ening) of pretonic syllables suggests a bisyllabic prosodic

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

149

domain. Unlike in the southern dialects of LCS where no special quantity compensation developed in these pretonic syllables (and where prosodic distinctions were primarily based on tone and were therefore intrasyllabic), the North Central dialects exploited quantity in service of a bisyllabic opposition. What is particularly striking is that the result in most cases was a long syllable followed by a short one, even if the short one originally had the ictus. Thus it is not merely a question of supporting the ictus by length, but rather the establishment of a s-w prosodic grouping by whatever means were at hand, quantity or retraction of ictus. In this respect the Slovak case is interesting because it shows that quantity is constrained in adjacent syllables and that it is constrained in a trochaic (s-w) fashion. 2.4.2 The Slovak Rhythmic Law The developments in Central Slovak indicate that it may have retained its potential for bimoraic nuclei like the southern dialects and generalized trochaic metrical structure. Central Slovak has vowel shortening after a syllable with a long vowel (with some exceptions), known as the Rhythmic Law. This process shortens, among other instances, the desinental vowels in the nom pi and prep pi of forms with a preceding long vowel or diphthong in the stem, e.g., vina "wines," vinach, hniezda "nests," hniezdach, vrba "willow," vfbach (cf. pismend "letters," pismendch, zdhrada "garden," zdhraddch and hovddd "beasts," hovdddch as illustrating the presence of long desinental vowels). The Rhythmic Law does not prevent the occurrence of two long syllables in a word, e.g., zdhraddch, so long as they are not adjacent. In sequences of three or more long syllables it produces an alternating pattern: sukennik "draper," silkennicky, adj; brigdda "brigade," brigddnik "brigade leader," brigddnicky adj (with -nik and -y).23 The rise of rhythmic shortening in Central Slovak is related to the emergence of new long syllables as a result of contraction (Travni5ek 1935, Pauliny 1963, Feldstein 1990b). The pattern of a long syllable followed by a stressed short that emerged in early Slovak as the reflex of the neo-acute was disrupted in the western and eastern Slovak areas even before the changes in the jers took place when contraction produced new long syllables independent of stress or pitch contour. According to Pauliny 1963:142 this is why the Rhythmic Law does not operate in Western and Eastern Slovak: there was a model for successive long syllables here, as in Czech. The difference in the Central Slovak dialects is that these supposedly experienced changes in the jers and changes in accent before contraction. In other words, what used to be accentual differences (acute, rising vs. circumflex, falling vs. neo-acute, rising) became phonologized as an

150

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

opposition of length (neo-acute) to shortness (acute and circumflex). This meant that after a long syllable only a short one could occur, in other words, the expression of length in one syllable carried implications for the occurrence of length (i.e., its absence) in the immediately following syllable. The emergence of new long syllables would have had to conform to this intersyllabic restriction and a sequence of two long syllables would be subject to rhythmic shortening. Pauliny 1963: 142 says that this was not so much a case of actual shortening as it was a reevaluation of the role of quantity vs. stress. A pattern such as that of *otroba "entrails" with length in the first syllable and stress on the second syllable was evaluated not as unstressed-stressed, but as long-short. The fixation of initial stress in Western and Central Slovak left quantity on its own, but its old role as a marker of intersyllabic relationships is carried by the Rhythmic Law. This interpretation suggests that the distribution of quantity was once dependent on stress, not tone, because both acutes and circumflex syllables shortened, and that length was not a correlate of stress nor did it attract stress. There have been discussions about the exact nature (or the formulation) of the Rhythmic Law. Peciar 1946a proposed that in some dialects it was a weakening of consecutive strong syllables (after a syllable with heavy emphasis or intensity the following one would have normal intensity), while in others it was a question of shortening or implementing a three-mora constraint on adjacent syllables. Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 and Rubach 1993: 172ff., 183 formulate it in terms of skeletal slots, though they allude to a possible metrical analysis; Birnbaum 1981: 15 sees it as a moraic process. Jakobson 1931b/1971: 222-223 observes that "a long phoneme is shortened if the preceding syllable likewise contains a long phoneme" (p. 222) and he considers the diphthongs /ia/, /ie/, /iu/ to be "irreducible phonemes" different from sequences of 1)1 plus a vowel for no vowel shortening is found after the latter, e.g., jasny "clear." I think that the Rhythmic Law is syllable-governed and that it implements a trochaic pattern. Both intensity and quantity are relevant to the operation of the Rhythmic Law. The critical factor is that the two-mora (or two-segment) group must be tautosyllabic. Sequences of vowels which are not tautosyllabic, as in Siam, siamsky (si-am-sky) "Siamese," miliarda "milliard," miliarddm (mi-li-ar-dam), dat pi, do not provoke a change in the following syllable. It is also important to note that glide plus vowel sequences such as jasny "clear, bright," jedldm "meal," dat pi apparently do not count as rising diphthongs (cf. riekam "river, dat pi with shortened -dm) and do not cause shortening in the following syllable. Falling diphthongs, e.g., tajny "secret," strojnik "mechanic" do not participate in the Rhythmic Law either. So the tautosyllabic environment is not a

2.4 The blsy liable domain

151

sufficient condition for formulating the Rhythmic Law. The exclusion of glides in syllable onsets and codas indicates that the Rhythmic Law is based on the moraic tier, where onsets as a rule do not have representation and where codas may or may not have a mora value. It may be formulated as (27), the creation of a trochaic metrical foot (s-w) with quantity in the position of strength. (27)

Slovak Rhythmic Law (<* JI

<*) \i

JI

—^ jl

a

(a s [i

JLl

w)

(I

Peciar 1946a: 149 distinguishes between the effects of the Rhythmic Law in a syllabic and a moraic system and points out that in a syllable-based system the Rhythmic Law is interpreted as a change in intensity while in a mora-based system it would be formulated in terms of mora count. The Rhythmic Law is said to have originally been a syllable-based generalization in Old Slovak, but the participation of diphthongs in the Rhythmic Law in Central Slovak dialects today is interpreted as evidence of their having once again become mora-based systems (like Common Slavic). But I think that the Rhythmic Law is not quantity-based as much as it is intensity-based, though the intensity is realized by syllable length. (See 3.2.1 for further discussion.) In the Rhythmic Law it is the post-prominent syllable that undergoes a change in order to conform to the prevailing metrical organization of this region. The Rhythmic Law represents a trochaic structure: within a group of two consecutive long syllables it is the second one which weakens. If quantity were the basis for metrical rhythm in Slovak, then one might expect the first of two long syllables to shorten, thereby producing an iambic (quantity-based) rhythm. The fact that Slovak seems to favor a trochaic metrical rhythm and that this rhythm governs the distribution of quantity lends support to my thesis that North Central Slavic, and eventually other Slavic areas, were innovating a trochaic metrical foot. (Note that the Rhythmic Law operates from the beginning of the word.) The importance of quantity in Slovak prominence must be recognized. There were several developments in LCS that resulted in new long vowels, for example, contraction and compensatory lengthening. Since the latter often took place before a syllable with a jer, it would not have immediately presented violations of the Rhythmic Law. But contraction produced new long vowels in syllables which were preceded by long vowels, thus creating potential "inputs" to the Rhythmic Law, e.g., blely "white" (< *b£luii), bieleho, adj gen sg, mudry "wise," mudreho, adj gen sg (< -ego), cf. no shortening of contracted long vowels in dobry "good," dobreho, adj gen sg. Feldstein 1990b sees the

152

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

Rhythmic Law as a reaction to contraction. He argues that the development of the Rhythmic Law specifically in Central Slovak dialects was due to the nature of the prosodic system at the time when vowel contraction (producing new long vowels) took place. This system connected length to phonemic stress; when the ictus retracted, it resulted in lengthening of the vowel. In other words, stress and length both served as distinctive word emphasis and were limited to one per word (culminative function). When new long syllables emerged, the Rhythmic Law served as a way of dealing with a potential second "ictus" in the word. (West Slovak tends to pattern with Czech, while East Slovak dialects share many Lechitic characteristics.) But it was not just a question of another long ictus in a word; it was a question of adjacent prominent syllables. It is this restriction on adjacent prominence and the simultaneous tolerance of an alternating pattern of prominent (long) and less prominent (short) syllables in longer words, as in sukennicky, which makes the Rhythmic Law rhythmic. Here, as elsewhere in northern LCS, bisyllabic quantity relations are organized in terms of a trochaic metrical foot. Central Slovak prominence appears to be based on intensity and reinforced by quantity. 2.4.3 The pretonic syllable in Russian and Belarusian dialects In other parts of northern Late Common Slavic, the loss of quantity distinctions was concomitant with the rise of free, dynamic expiratory stress. This prosodic development had several effects on the phonological development of northeastern East Slavic. Two such developments are of particular interest to this discussion: (a) the vowel reduction found in a variety of Belarusian and southern Russian dialects, and (b) distinct reflexes of the back mid vowel [o] in northern and some southern Russian dialects. The nature and genesis of these processes have been the subject of much debate, but both vowel reduction (or akanje) and the appearance of 161 in Russian dialects have been related to the nature of the ictus and to possible length distinctions. Dissimilative vowel reduction is a change which involves two syllables. It is found in southern Russian and northern Belarusian, that is, in the area adjacent to what has been called North Central Slavic, where pretonic length(ening) is found. Vowel reduction consists of changes in the quality of the vowel in the immediately pretonic syllable. Unstressed nonhigh vowels are neutralized as either /a/ (known as akanje) or /i/ (known as ikanje), depending on the nature of the preceding consonant (unpalatalized or palatalized, respectively), as in vodoj "water," instr sg, [vadoj], nesu "I carry" [n'isu], both of which are stressed on the second syllable. In many dialects and in Contemporary Standard Russian (CSR) the nature of vowel reduction does not depend on the nature of the

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

153

stressed vowel. However, many other dialects in this area have a specific type of change in which the quality of the pretonic vowel does depend on that of the stressed vowel. This is called dissimilative akanje (after unpalatalized consonants) and dissimilative jakanje (after palatalized or palatal consonants). I will adopt the term dissimilative akanje to represent both variants here, though there are distinctions in the pretonic vocalism which suggest that there may be two subprocesses (akanje and jakanje). The relationship between the tonic and first pretonic syllable tends to be a dissimilation in terms of vowel height. There is dialectal variation along the high-low continuum. In some areas stressed /i/ and /u/ will be accompanied by a reduction of /e/, /o/, /a/ in the pretonic syllable to /a/ (otherwise pretonic /e/ is reduced to [i]) as in the Don dialects, e.g., nesld "she carried" [n'isla]; selo "village" [s'ilo]; nesu "I carry" [n'asu], uletel "he flew away" [ul'it'el], lesnyx "forest," adj [l'asnix]. In other dialects, stressed /i/, /u/, /e/, and 161 will have [a] in the pretonic syllable, while stressed /e/, /o/, /a/ will correlate with pretonic [a] (or [i] after palatalized consonants), as in the archaic or Obojansk type, e.g., vedro "pail" [v'adro]; sestrd "sister" [s'istra]. In still others, all stressed vowels except /a/ will result in pretonic [a] from /e/ and stressed /a/ will be accompanied by [a] or [i], as in the Zizdra or Belarusian type, where selo [s'alo], uletel [ul'at'el], nesu [n'asu], but nesld [n'isla]. There are also regions with what is known as strong akanje in which [a] is pronounced in the pretonic syllable regardless of the nature of the preceding consonant or following stressed vowel, e.g., nesld [n'asla], selom "village," instr sg [s'alom], velel "he ordered" [v'al'el].24 The question of vowel reduction (including its genesis, chronology, mechanism, geographical distribution, and description) is one with a very long history which will not be discussed in detail here.25 Vowel reduction had been considered a phonetic laxing or weakening of unstressed syllables, but akanje has also come to be (re)considered in phonological terms (Jakobson 1929/1971: 92-104; Kolesov 1964, Xaburgaev 1965, Halle 1965, Davis 1970) and it is dissimilative akanje in particular which represents the intersection of phonetics and phonology. Unlike the more widespread vowel reduction characteristic of Contemporary Standard Russian (which is for the most part positionally determined and consists of vowel reduction or laxing with respect to stress), dissimilative akanje implements the relationship between the stressed vowel and the pretonic one in terms of distinctive features in addition to stress (Halle 1965, Davis 1970). It is described as vowel dissimilation, a process not commonly found in Slavic. This relationship holds primarily for the pretonic and tonic syllables in the majority of dialects, though there are a few cases of what appears to be dissimilative akanje in other unstressed syllables (Avanesov and Orlova

154

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

1965: 66-68). Unstressed but not immediately pretonic syllables either remain unchanged, as inpetuxi "roosters" [p'etux'i], vynes "he carried out" [vin'es], or they undergo general vowel reduction (including the high vowels which are not normally subject to reduction in pretonic position), e.g., muziki "peasants" [m^iik'i],petuxi [p'itux'i], vynes [vin'as]. The presence of akanje has been correlated with the rise of expiratory accent and the loss of phonemic quantity distinctions in the system. Expiratory stress is usually not compatible with phonemic quantity (Jakobson 1926/1971, Trubetzkoy 1939/1967) and the presence of expiratory stress may lead to a shortening of unstressed vowels (Saxmatov 1902b, Jakobson 1929/1971, Trubetzkoy 1925a, Avanesov 1947b, 1955). This has been referred to as the reductionist hypothesis in the study of akanje. However, VajtoviC 1972, 1974 found southern Belarusian dialects with pretonic longs. She concludes that dissimilation is a secondary development, a substitution of quality for original quantity differences. Recent work by Cekmonas 1975, 1987, and elsewhere, also suggests that the relationship known as dissimilative akanje may have a basis in phonetic quantity redistribution. It has been proposed that the relative phonetic length of pretonic syllables may depend on the phonetic length of the stressed vowel (a different, but related version was originally presented in Saxmatov 1915/1967: 331-343). If dissimilative akanje is the phonetic realization of quantity-based differences, then the relationship between the tonic and the pretonic syllable may be seen as one of timing. Timberlake (1993:435-436) takes this to be an example of intersyllabic isochrony. Given that high (or closed) vowels tend to be phonetically short and shortened in Slavic under stress, he suggests that "as these vowels were shortened, pretonic vowels would have then become a longer [a-] by intersyllabic isochrony, giving, for example, [tra-vi] and [sa-vi]" (p. 435). Before an open (and phonetically longer) vowel the pretonic one would have been raised (and shortened) to [a], producing [trava] > [treva], and resulting in the pattern of [a] before stressed high or raised vowels and [a] before stressed mid and low vowels. This type of quantity-based dissimilation, according to Cekmonas 1987, most likely derived from strong akanje which means that it postdates the emergence of a strong dynamic expiratory stress and, by implication, the loss of distinctive quantity. In either case, regardless of whether dissimilative akanje is taken to be quantity-based or simply a form of quality dissimilation, it is now generally accepted (except by Filin 1972, Georgiev 1964,1968) that the loss of phonemic quantity in this area was probably a precursor to the development of akanje, a thesis which is consistent with the claim made here that northeastern LCS did not maintain a bimoraic syllable. In the instantiation of akanje the critical

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

155

factors are: (a) that the domain of this change is a bisyllabic group, and (b) that it is the pretonic (not post-tonic) syllable that undergoes the change. The former at least indicates that a bisyllabic metrical group was a functional unit in some Belarusian and southern Russian dialects. This, too, is consistent with the proposal made here, namely, that the bisyllabic metrical foot became a prosodic domain in North Central LCS. The geographical distribution of dissimilative akanje does not contradict such a proposal. In spite of the fact that Ukrainian shows no traces of dissimilative akanje, the bisyllabic relationship is prosodically significant in Ukrainian and southwestern Belarusian, where it is manifested in other ways. Note that all cases of dissimilative akanje involve LCS accented (acute or oxytone) forms. Circumflex forms with initial stress obviously did not have pretonic syllables. This does not mean that tone distinctions must be postulated for late twelfth- to early thirteenth-century East Slavic (when akanje probably developed), but it does suggest that the notion of "accented" form to some extent entailed a bisyllabic prosodic domain. While dissimilative akanje does not provide unambiguous evidence for either original quantity-sensitivity or quality differences, it does provide evidence for the critical status of the pretonic syllable in prosody, thereby providing indirect evidence for some notion of a bisyllabic domain. 2.4.4 The question of [6] in northern Russian dialects The north Russian dialects and some southern Russian ones have two reflexes of /o/, a tense, closed [6] (sometimes pronounced as a diphthong [uo]) under original rising accent (acute or neo-acute), and a lax [o] elsewhere, e.g., kon' "horse," stol "table," snop "sheaf," voids "hair," gen pi, davno "long ago," but bok "side," slovo "word," gorod "town." Most Slavists seem to have accepted Broch's 1907 and later Saxmatov's 1914, 1964a, 1964b arguments that the northeasternmost area of East Slavic, specifically the Leka-type dialects of Russian, shows evidence of tonal distinctions at least at the time of the neoacute shift and perhaps up to the loss of weak jers (Vasiljev 1929, Bulaxovs'kyj 1958, 1961a, Shevelov 1965: 534; Ivanov 1968: 59-60; Filin 1972: 149-160; Timberlake 1983b, 1993). But [6] is also found in some Belarusian dialects and it is not found in Ukrainian. This raises some questions about the origin of the Belarusian [6] and specifically about the role of tone in this alternation. The [6] vs. [o] distinction has also been taken as evidence for a length opposition (neoacute lengthening) by Vaillant 1950: 266; BernStejn 1961: 236-238; Meillet 1924/1965: 178; Nazarova 1975: 29; Feldstein 1978, Carlton 1991: 202; and others, in this area of Slavic. Zovtobrjux et al. 1979: 344 attribute the differences to phonological stress and concomitant lengthening under stress (acute

156

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

and neo-acute) with subsequent shortening. So the question is whether [6] is a reflex of tone, length or neither. If the northeastern LCS dialects indeed generalized syllables of one mora, one would not expect these dialects to show either length or tone distinctions. I think that Kurytowicz 1962, Jakobson 1963: 171-173, Garde 1974, and Zaliznjak 1985 are right in identifying the different reflexes of /o/ in these dialects as representing phonological stress (acute and neo-acute as underlying accent) versus no underlying accent (circumflex, default stress), and not a difference in tone. Timberlake 1993: 434-435 presents a phonetic account of [o] and [6] in Russian dialects, citing a difference in the location of the peak within a syllable depending on the pitch contour of the syllable. He concludes that the unaccented (circumflex) [o] "cannot have had a phonetically null accent" (p. 434). In my analysis unaccented [o] has phonological default stress, which may be realized phonetically as falling tone. Timberlake's account assumes that language change is phonetically motivated, therefore the circumflex must have differed from the acute, neo-acute and unstressed vowel. But the phonological difference between underlying stress and default stress proposed here treats language change as an adjustment of phonological status. The phonetic and phonological accounts are not necessarily incompatible, though they operate with different representations. The diphthong version of 161 need not necessarily represent a continuation of historical quantitative distinctions (LehrSplawiriski 1918b, Jakobson 1929/1971: 83-84). The [uo] could simply be the asynchronic pronunciation of labialization (phonetically, but not phonologically, long). I have suggested that the North Central dialects operated with some distinction of length which they exploited within a bisyllabic metrical foot. Whereas a bisyllabic domain might have also been operative in North East Slavic, it is not clear that quantity distinctions played a phonological role. The differences postulated here between the North Central dialects and the North East Slavic area are to some degree supported by other instances of the /e/ to /o/ change studied by Andersen 1978a. In some Russian dialects and northern Belarusian the /e/ to /o/ change takes place only under stress (cf. Filin 1972: 184-202). To the south and west, however, the /e/ to /o/ change is found in both accented and unaccented syllables. Andersen 1978a: 14 writes, "The difference between dialects outside the original Isogloss 2 area, in which the e > o change applied both to accented and to unaccented syllables, and the dialects inside Isogloss 2, in which it applied only to accented syllables, was provisionally explained as due to a difference in phonemic prosodic features: the dialects outside Isogloss 2 had a pitch accent at the time of the change, whereas the dialects inside Isogloss

2.4 The bisyliable domain

157

2 had a force accent and a concomitant marked differentiation of stressed and unstressed syllables with respect to duration." The change of pitch accent to force accent in northeast Slavic (inside Isogloss 2) must have taken place before the e > o change. This is consistent with the syllable structure analysis presented here. Although Andersen postulates pitch accent (distinctive tone) for North Central Slavic (outside Isogloss 2), this is not necessary, since the e > o change in accented as well as unaccented syllables could be interpreted as strengthening by duration within a metrical [s-w] foot. This seems all the more likely since there was no e > o change at the end of a word here at all (regardless of stress). The northeastern area, on the other hand, does show e > o wordfinally under stress. Noting that this change may have been influenced by other factors such as analogy, Andersen 1978a: 7-8 nevertheless raises the possibility that "if the e > o change inside the original Isogloss 2 area depended on the relative duration of stressed and unstressed vowels, then the absence of the e > o change in word final position south of Isogloss 3 may reflect a pronunciation rule which specified word final vowels as relatively short. As it happens, there is ample evidence of just such a pronunciation rule in those South and West Slavic languages which have preserved reflexes of the innovations in quantity that took place in the late Common Slavic period... Isogloss 3, then, can provisionally be interpreted as reflecting the difference between dialects (north of Isogloss 3 in East Slavic, west of it in West Slavic) which had not introduced the central Slavic innovation by which word final vowels came to be pronounced shorter than word internal vowels, and dialects (inside Isogloss 3) which had introduced this innovation by the time of the e > o change." Another way to look at the absence of length in final syllables is to treat this as an implementation of a strong-weak bisyllabic relationship. 2.4.5 Polabian accent shifts There is evidence that the bisyllabic domain functioned in (North) West Slavic as well. Polabian shows stress retraction from a final syllable. This contributed to a strong-weak pattern for the last two syllables in a word. More interesting, however, is the occurrence of what appears to be a progressive accent shift in Polabian. This shift differs from that found in early Slovene (2.3.1) because it took place in both originally accented and unaccented forms. (In Slovene only the unaccented wordforms show a progressive shift.) Both types of Polabian accent shifts were related to the distribution of quantity within a bisyllabic domain, but Polabian became an intensity-based system in its earliest stages and therefore it does not show iambic metrical patterning. Synchronic descriptions of Polabian accent agree that the stress falls on the last full vowel of a

158

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

word, which may be either in the last or in the penultimate syllable: I'dtu "year," d'olQb "dove," ful'ondi "knees," komdndi "oven," grdmdt "to thunder," pdtindc "bird," aikrddine "stealing" (data in the transcription of Polariski and Sehnert 1967 except for the use of i, u in diphthongs), though there is some disagreement about whether vowel quantity (Trubetzkoy 1929b) or vowel quality (Kurylowicz 1955, Micklesen 1986) determines the placement of stress.26 Polabian has reduced vowels: /a/ represents the reduction of etymological /a, £, I, u, e7 and depending on the following consonant, also /e, o/; /e/ (which Trubetzkoy writes as "a") is the reduced counterpart of /i, u, y/ and sometimes /e, o/. Reduced vowels are never stressed and full vowels may occur independently of stress (Trubetzkoy 1929b: 11-40). In synchronic terms, the Polabian vowels a, a, e, o, 6 appear as a in reduced position; /, ii, ai, oi, au appear as e. The nasal vowel a in weak final position lost nasality and became a (Suprunl987: 17-18). There is even less agreement on the historical development of Polabian accent. Kurytowicz 1955 proposed that Polabian had fixed initial stress before the changes in the jers took place and that accent was therefore not distinctive.27 Lehr-Splawiriski 1963 characterized Polabian as preserving CS free stress and argued for an intonation distinction on accented syllables, but took it to be one between original accent (acute or circumflex) and retracted accent (the neoacute and what he refers to as the "neo-circumflex"), not between the original CS acute and circumflex pitch contours.28 Kortlandt 1989, on the basis of the distribution of full and reduced vowels, reconstructs an earlier stage of distinctive quantity and fixed initial stress. Trubetzkoy 1929b took quantity to be distinctive, even in the synchronic system of the eighteenth century, and stress to be quantity-dependent. I think that the difference between original accent and retracted accent which Lehr-Splawiriski 1917, 1929, 1963 attributed to intonation (i.e., pitch contour) distinctions is better viewed as a distinction in quantity (Trubetzkoy 1929b, Kortlandt 1989). The northern LCS dialects did not retain the ability to express tone once they became syllable-based and I suspect that Polabian is no exception. I will not attempt a complete analysis of Polabian accent here, for its synchronic system has been described in some detail (Trubetzkoy 1929b, Olesch 1973, 1974, partly in Kurylowicz 1955, Micklesen 1986, and recently Luschiitzky and Reinhardt 1991 as well as Polariski 1993) and I return to it in 2.7. But two major accentual changes in Polabian bear on the original relationship of quantity and stress (or pitch accent, depending on the analysis) and are of particular interest to this discussion. The first was a fairly regular retraction of accent from a final open syllable to a preceding long one in bisyllabic forms

2.4 The bisyllabic domain

159

(here marked by stress marks), e.g., *klju£e > kVducd "keys"; *je.drd > JQdre "nucleus"; *krylo > kraidle "wing," and usually not to a preceding short, e.g., *teplo > teplii "warmth"; *sirebrd > srebrii "silver," though there are instances where retraction took place onto shorts as well, e.g., *noga > nilgd "foot"; *stidza > stddzd "path"; *bluxa > bldxd "flea." In polysyllabic words retraction appears to have been more general, e.g., *reSetd > risete "sieve";*slovesa > sluvesd "words"; *zivota > zaivd'td "life," gen sg. The second change appears to be a shift of accent to a following syllable. Unlike the one in Slovene, however, this progressive accent shift encompassed both original acute and circumflex forms, e.g., *gdlQb! > d'olQb "dove"; *vorna > vornd "crow"; *solma > sldmd "straw"; *lipa > laipd "linden tree"; *ryba > rdibd "fish" (acute) and *£ervo > crevu "entrails"; *nebo > nebii "heaven"; *boga > btigo "god," gen sg (circumflex), but not neo-acutes or forms resulting from the first regressive shift. The regressive shift appears to be similar to other such retractions throughout Slavic, especially in the preservation of pretonic length and its attraction of stress. The retraction in three-syllable words that took place regardless of vowel length indicates either that retraction was becoming more general or that final vowels were weaker in longer words, or both. (Kurytowicz 1955 maintains that retraction in three-syllable words was a consequence of fixing initial stress.) After retraction, final syllables became reduced. The progressive shift shows that original pitch contour distinctions had by this time been lost in Polabian. There is general agreement on this point. But the progressive shift is a puzzling phenomenon in Polabian. If it is interpreted as the advancement of stress, then this raises the question of its motivation, especially since the predominant movement of accent throughout LCS seemed to be the opposite, retraction. There is no apparent reason why stress should have moved forward in Polabian. But if we take Kortlandt's 1979 insight that the history of Polabian accent actually concerns the origin of the reduced vowels, then no progressive shift need be postulated at all. It is simply a case of retaining full vowels after short syllables (original shortened acutes and circumflex), e.g., *gdlQbi > d'olQb, as Kortlandt 1989 proposes. In other words, the stressed syllable identified the beginning of a metrical foot and the post-tonic syllable had special status. As in other areas of northern LCS, the bisyllabic group was the domain of prosody. Polabian appears to have preserved quantity relationships within a metrical foot: vowels were reduced if the preceding one was long, but not if it was short (acute or circumflex). Several studies of Polabian have remarked on its similarity to Slovene, particularly with respect to the so-called progressive accent shift. Lehr-Splawiriski

160

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

(1917: 63-92,1963: 87-94) goes to great lengths to provide a phonetic, intonational explanation for such a shift and to account for its different scope, i.e., acute and circumflex forms in Polabian, but only circumflex ones in Slovene.29 The shifts, however, are not necessarily related to the phonetic nature of pitch contours. In Slovene the shift was the result of emerging quantity prominence and was therefore restricted to the circumflex. In Polabian all stressed vowels shortened and post-tonic full vowels were retained. Stress was the conditioning factor for the distribution of quantity in Polabian, but there was no shift of stress per se. Kortlandt 1989: 169 assumes quantitative, not pitch, distinctions for Polabian and offers the following chronology: (a) retraction of accent from final shorts and lengthening of secondarily stressed vowels in open syllables; (b) loss of weak jers in initial syllables; (c) fixation of initial stress and redistribution of quantity distinctions; (d) reduction of vowels following a long vowel and the general loss of quantity; (e) fixed stress on final full vowel. Fixed stress is now simply placed on the last full vowel of the word. Thus early Slovene and Polabian apparently exploited a distinction in quantity but because they had different prominence indicators (tone vs. stress), the effect was slightly different (progressive shift in unaccented forms in Slovene vs. progressive shift in originally stressed forms of Polabian). Neither language had a true shift of accent, rather both exemplify the effects of quantity attracting stress. Circumflex forms in both languages appear to converge in the placement of stress, but for entirely different reasons. 2.4.6 Slovincian retraction A restriction on stress in Slovincian, a north Kashubian dialect now extinct, was also constrained by a bisyllabic trochee. In Slovincian original acutes and circumflex shortened, but new long stressed vowels appeared as a result of various accent shifts, thereby preserving a distinction of quantity (Shevelov 1965: 510).30 Since rising tone was concomitant with length and falling tone with brevity, Stankiewicz (1993: 292) postulates only expiratory stress (with a phonetic, nondistinctive rise in tone on long vowels) and this is the position that I take here. The discussion of Slovincian then will assume stress and stress shifts. With very few exceptions, Slovincian does not have final stress (though monosyllabic forms are stressed). The absence of an end-stressed (or oxytone) paradigm in Slovincian has been considered both an archaism and an innovation. Kurylowicz (1952b) considered this an archaic feature, the result of retraction in oxytones, first onto pretonic longs, then onto shorts with much additional analogical levelling. Garde 1973, 1976 cited the absence of endstressed paradigms as (archaic) evidence for the failure of the Dybo-Illic'-

2.5 Changes inprosodic domains

161

SvityC Law to operate in West Slavic (cf. Vondrak 1906), though Kortlandt 1978a disagrees. Stankiewicz 1993: 299 calls the near elimination of the oxytonic paradigm "the major innovation" in Slovincian, not an archaism. Slovincian has basically two accentual paradigms, a fixed and a mobile one. In the latter the stress alternates within the stem in polysyllabic words, not between the stem and the ending (as it does in Russian), e.g., Sin vjecor "evening," vjecorom, dat pi (cf. R vecer, vecerdm). The tendency to eliminate end-stressed paradigms in Slovincian is in keeping with the prosodic developments that characterize this area in general. First, it is a question of retracting the stress (*), not tone (H). Second, the result of the retraction was to increase the frequency of trochaic metrical groups, although stress remained relatively free. From a synchronic point of view, Slovincian appears to have generalized a [s-w] metrical relationship at the end of words in originally accented forms and initial (or medial) stress elsewhere. As expected, tone is not phonemic. And, as in most of West Slavic, the predominant prosodic relationship seems to be a syllabic trochee. Final stress is eliminated. 2.5

Changes in prosodic domains

The evolution of Late Common Slavic and its differentiation into dialects was governed by developments in syllable structure and resulted in different expressions of prominence. The southern LCS area which maintained a moraic distinction within the syllable also retained tone as the expression of prominence. The opposition between accented (with H) and unaccented (without H) syllables was reinterpreted as one of quantity. Some forms had tone prominence, others had quantity prominence. The latter tended to be organized into iambic groups in Slovene (progressive shift). In the northern dialects of LCS, where the syllable itself became the carrier of prosody, the primary marker of prominence was intensity. As such, intersyllabic relations tended to be organized trochaically. Sometimes, where distinctions in quantity (branching rimes) were possible, quantity was used either to maintain a trochaic metrical foot or to support stress within a metrical trochee. In several areas of Slavic there were significant later changes in the expression of prominence. These were primarily of two types: (a) the bimoraic metrical foot was replaced by a syllabic one, and (b) the position of prominence became fixed. The former change is exemplified by dialects of Serbian and Croatian and by Slovene; the latter is found in most West Slavic languages and in Macedonian. Slavic did not as a rule give up stress-based prominence in favor of tone (although the NeoStokavian retraction did incidentally produce

162

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

new tone distinctions) nor has it given up fixed stress systems in favor of free stress (with the possible exception of Polabian, depending on the analysis, though Polabian stress is predictable). 2.5.1 The Neostokavian accent retraction in Serbian and Croatian The NeoStokavian dialect of Serbian and Croatian differs from Cakavian dialects spoken in Dalmatia and on the islands along the Dalmatian coast in its accentual system. For example, NeoStokavian often has a rising accent on the syllable preceding the one which carries the accent in Cakavian: ndga "foot, leg," brdda "beard" vs. Cak. nogd, brddd as a consequence of an accent retraction. As a result NeoStokavian has two accentual contours and a distinction in length expressed as a long rising ('), long falling ("), short rising ( v ), and short falling (") accent, while Cakavian dialects have a pitch contrast only on long vowels ("vs.") and no such contrast on short vowels (v = ", here represented as '). These accentual differences are the result of an accent shift, known as the NeoStokavian retraction, which moved the stress one syllable towards the beginning of the word, and which was probably complete by the fifteenth century in central Stokavian.31 Contemporary phonological descriptions of Serbian and Croatian accent note differences in the accent type and placement between NeoStokavian and Cakavian dialects, but with the exception of Zee 1993 and Bethin 1994a they do not explore the reasons behind them (Halle 1971, Inkelas and Zee 1988).32 Earlier Slavic linguistics was more concerned with the reasons for the NeoStokavian shift and there were several proposals for "explaining" the retraction. The phonetic accounts proposed that the retraction of accent was due to the nature of pretonic syllables (ReSetar 1900, later Belie 1976:160 and Skljarenko 1967). The phonological explanations held that retraction of accent was due to the requirements of maintaining distinctive oppositions and constraints (Saxmatov 1901, van Wijk 1921b, 1922-1923).33 ReSetar 1900 proposed that retraction was phonetically motivated by the high pitch on the pretonic syllable. The pretonic syllable supposedly became stronger because it was anticipating the rising accent on the next syllable and it began to attract the stress. The originally accented syllable retained only the high tone (indicated as " in ReSetar 1900), e.g., rukd > rukd "hand," vodd > vddd "water." This proposal was criticized by Saxmatov in 1901, who said that the NeoStokavian retraction was actually caused by metatony (the change of rising pitch to falling pitch) as in vode > vode "water," gen sg. Many older Stokavian dialects have a falling accent in place of an original rising one, so Saxmatov postulated metatony for all Stokavian dialects, including NeoStoka-

2.5 Changes inprosodic domains

163

vian.34 He then argued that the NeoStokavian retraction was motivated by a constraint against word-internal falling pitch. This constraint was apparently characteristic only of fifteenth century NeoStokavian dialects and as a result the accent was retracted: vode > vode and voda > vodd > vdda; hvdld > hvdld > hvdla "praise," lopdta > lopdta > Idpata "spade, shovel," etc. ReSetar's explanation of a pretonic high pitch before a rising accent or Saxmatov's idea of metatony and a constraint against the occurrence of falling pitch do not offer a satisfying account of the retraction. ReSetar's 1900 phonetic proposal does not explain why a falling accent should have retracted. If we accept that Stokavian metatony {vode > vode) was an intermediate stage in this process and therefore a prerequisite for retraction, then one would have to explain the retraction of this falling accent. It is not clear in these cases whether the pretonic syllable was actually high. So one can either deny that pretonic high tone was responsible for retraction, as Saxmatov 1901: 351 did in rejecting ReSetar's explanation, or one can argue for the presence of high tone also in syllables that precede a falling accent, as Belie 1976: 160, Ivic 1965a and elsewhere, and Skljarenko 1967 have done. Another proposal is that of P. Ivic (1959: 36,1965a: 139-140), who suggests that sentence intonation had an effect in that the fundamental frequency peak moved leftward in order to resolve a potential collision between word pitch contours and phrase pitch contours in NeoStokavian. Becker 1979 also considers the NeoStokavian retraction (as well as the change of rising to falling pitch which is said to have preceded it) to be a result of intonation effects. Becker 1979: 88 claims that the neutral, unmarked contour pattern is universal or near universal and that when this pattern is superimposed on a word with a final high tone a conflict results. "One means of resolution of this conflict is the leftward movement of the high tone or of the peak of the fundamental frequency curve . . . This effect, originally found only in utterance-final position (when the utterance bears the neutral intonation), can be extended and generalized to other positions." The NeoStokavian retraction is said to represent the most general extension of this effect. There are several problems with this interpretation. First, why should a "universal" phonetic effect have been so much more compelling in Stokavian than in other Serbian and Croatian dialects? Second, why did retraction in NeoStokavian not stop with metatony (as in other Stokavian dialects)? Metatony or a change of rising to falling pitch would have been consistent with sentence intonation. But in NeoStokavian an additional retraction took place. Finally, the sentence intonation effect does not account for the commonly observed fact that retraction onto pretonic long vowels is more widespread than retraction onto pretonic shorts.

164

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

It is more likely that the NeoStokavian retraction took place in the context of a shift in prosodic domains from that of the syllable to that of a bisyllabic metrical foot. This analysis is based on Bethin 1994a. In addition to quantity distinctions, Serbian and Croatian phonology differentiates between stress and tone. In systems such as that of Common Slavic or Cakavian where pitch oppositions are found only on long vowels, the marker of prominence is tone. By implication, in these types of systems the rising accent is monosyllabic. But phonetic studies have shown that NeoStokavian rising accent is different from Cakavian.35 The difference in NeoStokavian between rising and falling pitch on a given (short) syllable depends on the tone of the following syllable, since "accented" or stressed syllables all tend to have phonetically raised pitch. Unlike Cakavian, where stress is redundant and is placed on the vowel which bears the high tone in the lexicon or is assigned to the first syllable of the word if there is no high tone in the underlying representation, in NeoStokavian stress is placed on the syllable preceding the one with high tone or on the initial syllable, by default. Thus the older Cakavian system may be described as having only tone prominence (28a), while the NeoStokavian has both tone and stress as in (28b). (28)

a. Cakavian (monosyllabic) short

o

long

c

b. NeoStokavian (bisyllabic) rising

a

o

/ 1 / 1 / K / 1 C |a

C |LI

II

C f i j i C j n

short

a

rising

c

long rising

e

a

/ 1 / 1 / K / 1 C | i C ^ i

C \i \i

C \i

I I

H H H H When stress and tone are distinguished, the NeoStokavian shift appears to have been a retraction of stress and thus different from the earlier neo-acute retraction which was a retraction of H. If we accept that the retraction was one of stress, then I suggest that the factors responsible for the movement of stress in NeoStokavian were phonological: specifically, the syllable, in addition to the mora, emerged as the carrier of prosody in NeoStokavian and stress was assigned to the strong member in a bisyllabic trochaic foot. This interpretation of the NeoStokavian retraction provides a coherent account of accentual changes in other parts of Serbian and Croatian as well. For example, the relationship between Cakavian, older Stokavian and NeoStokavian may now be interpreted as the retraction of the ictus at different levels. Stokavian dialects show a falling accent where Cakavian ones have a rising pitch contour, as in

2.5 Changes in prosodic domains

165

Cak. vode, Stok. vode, Cak. jundk "hero," Stok. jundk. Older Stokavian dialects, in fact, do not have rising accent, but distinguish only long and short (falling) accent. Compare the data in (29) given in Belie 1976: 158. The Cakavian long rising accent (here written as ~) corresponds to a long falling in older Stokavian O and to a rising accent (either long or short, depending on the length of the pretonic vowel) on the preceding syllable in NeoStokavian. The short accent in Cakavian is given here as (v). (29)

Cakavian

Stokavian

Neostokavian

Gloss

maknut potok pltat pant po£et divojka

maknuti

maknuti

potok

potok pitati paliti poCeti devojka

to move stream to ask to burn to start girl

pltati

pafI ti po£eti devojka

What is interesting about the Stokavian dialects is that what appears to be metatony (change of pitch contour) on a long syllable is really a retraction of ictus. The NeoStokavian dialects show retraction on long and short vowels and the retracted accent is rising. It is not a question of retracting the tone with redundant stress because then it would not be possible to distinguish pitch accent on short vowels, for both retracted and original stress would have the same representation, association to H (and *), as in Cakavian. The innovation in the NeoStokavian dialects was to retract ictus on the level of the syllable with respect to the high tone on a following syllable. The Stokavian system, with tone and stress on the same syllable, and the NeoStokavian one which has separated the two are compared below. (NeoStokavian long and short falling accents are not shown, but they are the pronunciation of stress and tone on the same syllable.) (30)

Older Stokavian

Neostokavian long rising short rising

short falling

long falling

(*)

(*)

*

a

a

a

A

A

A\

A

C u

C u

C u u

C u

a

A

A\

C \i

I I

C

|I|!

*

a

a

I I

H H H H The older Stokavian dialects experienced retraction of the ictus on the moraic level when compared to the Cakavian pattern above, while in the NeoStokavian ones the retraction took place on the syllable level.

166 (31)

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations a. Stokavian retraction

b. Neostokavian retraction

/\

/\

I

I

II H

I

I I I

H

H

H

There are two main characteristics of NeoStokavian retraction (Ivic 1965a: 139-140) that deserve some explanation: (a) movement is always from the end of the word towards the beginning, and (b) movement is to the immediately preceding syllable (it does not skip syllables). It is important to note that the separation of stress and tone in NeoStokavian was not completely free, for the placement of stress remains predictable from the location of underlying high tone in accented words, just as it is in Cakavian. But stress is placed on the syllable preceding the one with high tone and not on a syllable following the high tone. This relationship between stress and high tone is essentially one between a formerly tonic and pretonic syllable. If high tone occurs on the initial syllable or if there is no underlying high tone, then stress falls on the first syllable (32). The accent in NeoStokavian is realized on the stressed syllable and not on the high tone mora.36 (32)

Neostokavian stress rule *

elsewhere

I

I

H

H

*

(H)

The formulation above accounts for the two major restrictions on NeoStokavian accent: (a) rising accents are not found on the last syllable of a word and therefore not on monosyllabic words; (b) falling accents are found only on the first or only syllable of a phonological word.37 Rising accent is phonologically (as well as phonetically) bisyllabic while falling accent is monosyllabic. In NeoStokavian the tone of the post-tonic syllable determines the pitch contour. If it has high tone then the accent on the preceding syllable is rising; if it has low or neutral tone the accent on the preceding syllable is falling. On long vowels the falling contour occurs within one syllable. The Slavonian dialect, spoken in northeastern Croatia, makes use of five accent marks. Four of them are identical to those found in NeoStokavian and

2.5 Changes in prosodic domains

167

there is an additional long rising accent (as a reflex of the neo-acute). The neoacute was the result of retracting tone prominence in southern LCS. The developments in the Slavonian five-accent dialects indicate that the loss of tone distinctions was not a necessary prerequisite for the NeoStokavian retraction and that syllable-based prominence may coexist with mora-based prominence. Length attracts stress and in these dialects stress assignment seems to proceed from right to left. A long vowel with tone will be stressed, otherwise a long vowel before one with tone will receive the stress. Toneless long vowels receive initial stress by default. The five accents of Slavonian are given below as kiit "corner" or ruke "hand," gen sg, ruka, nom sg, ruku, ace sg, ndsu "nose," dat sg, nosa, gen sg. (33)

*

*

* a

o

a

* a

K

K

i

N 1

1

f l JLl \ i

1 H

H

a

i

*

a

a a

i

11

1 1 H

kiit

ru ka

ru ku

no su

nb sa

neo-acute

long rising

long falling

short rising

short falling

In this system stress and tone interact, but they are properties of different prosodic levels. I propose that the NeoStokavian retraction was due to a phonological change, the reinterpretation of relevant prosodic domains. While the older Stokavian dialects may have all shared the innovation of retraction on the moraic level (within the syllable), the NeoStokavian dialects carried out this innovation on the syllabic level (within a metrical foot). The prosodic relationship in NeoStokavian is one between stress and high tone on adjacent syllables, not necessarily on adjacent moras. Garde 1966b: 50 also distinguishes between mora-based and syllable-based dialects: "On remarquera seulement que le Stokavien «compte les syllabes», comme le russe, et non les mores, comme le cakavien." NeoStokavian dialects seem to share the central Slavic innovation of a trochaic syllable-based metrical relationship. The real innovation in NeoStokavian was the identification of the syllable as the prosodic unit. The prominence relationship then is one of a trochaic foot (s-w) in terms of stress and tone. If it were merely a question of retracting the ictus (H) and not actually separating stress from the underlying ictus, then pitch distinctions would not have been implemented on pretonic short vowels. The result would

168

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

have been only a distinction in length, as is found in some older Stokavian dialects today. This analysis does not deny the possible phonetic effects of either pretonic high tone or neutral sentence intonation in NeoStokavian. Both of these factors probably encouraged the shift. But phonological reanalysis may have been equally or more important and it is consistent with the various phonetic explanations. Moreover, the proposed reanalysis of prosodic domains in NeoStokavian is not an isolated development (or an ad hoc explanation), but a change which to varying degrees may also be found in other Slavic areas. 38 Slavonian seems to represent a transitional system between Cakavian and NeoStokavian in which both tone and stress are operative (on different levels). And the various stages of retraction found in older Stokavian dialects are eloquent evidence of a change in progress, consistent with the analysis of retraction on two different levels presented here. Retraction in general seems to be characteristic of South Slavic (Alexander 1993), but in NeoStokavian it has balanced stress and tone in a metrical bisyllabic trochee. 2.5.2 Later prosodic developments in Slovene Slovene, too, seems to have eventually preferred syllable-based prosody. Two further changes in Slovene clearly indicate that the bisyllabic group was emerging as the domain of prosodic distinctions and that quantity was now exploited in support of ictus (both H and *). The first change involved the lengthening of NW-SS short accented vowels (here given as ) in non-final position: *krava > krava, Sn krdva "cow," *rodfna > rodlna, Sn rodina "family," archaic, *vera > vera, Sn vera "faith," *s£dmi > sedam, Sn seddm "seven." The second and much later change involved the retraction of accent from a final short vowel to a preceding vowel (other than 9, but in some dialects even including a), which produced alternations in Contemporary Standard Slovene conservative dialects as follows: jelen "stag, deer," jelena, gen sg; jezik "tongue," jezika, gen sg; cesar "emperor," cesdrja, gen sg; zelen "green," zelena, fern; bogat "rich," bogdta, fern (see Valjavec 1897; Lencek 1982).39 The vowel under the retracted stress is long in the conservative dialects of Contemporary Standard Slovene: *gora > gora "mountain," *zena > zena "wife, woman." The significance of both changes is that they produce a sequence of long/stressed versus short/unstressed syllables. Had Slovene simply generalized length as concomitant with ictus, then one might have expected the final syllable in *gora, for example, to lengthen. But instead these forms undergo the second regressive accent shift. This suggests that the operative domain was really a bisyllabic

2.5 Changes inprosodic domains

169

group, organized into a trochee.40 The two changes discussed may be formulated as follows: (34)

Regressive shift onto short (Second Regressive Shift)

H (35)

H

Non-final Lengthening G

II H

G

_

G

G

/ \

I

H

The second regressive shift and non-final lengthening produce a rising contour on the accented long vowel in the older Slovene system. At first glance, it would appear that these are exceptions to the claim made previously, namely, that if length is present before retraction then the pitch contour after retraction is rising and if an inherently accented syllable undergoes lengthening then the pitch contour will be falling. But the rising contour produced by (34) and (35) indicates that lengthening processes are not all the same in Slovene. Lengthening by reassociating a mora to the preceding syllable (which already bears a marker of prominence (H)) will produce falling pitch, as in the neocircumflex. But the lengthening in (35) is not compensatory. There is no reassociation of moras. Here the length is the concomitant marker of the stress and the accented mora is reduplicated/geminated or extended in support of intensity. Thus the pitch remains the same. That these differences are not abstract theoretical constructs is supported by the distinction found in mid vowels between closed and open /e/, /o/. The closed /e/ and /o/ occur in syllables with original length (in desinences or in morphologically triggered lengthening processes) or length derived by compensatory lengthening processes.41 But when length is derived as a corollary of accent, then the mid vowels appear as open long /e/ and /o/, e.g., gdra "mountain," zena "woman." These differences, of course, reflect the chronology of the various accent retractions and lengthenings in Slovene and their interaction with the raising of the mid vowels, which apparently took place before the second regressive shift and non-final lengthening. As a result of the progressive shift, the neo-circumflex, the regressive shift onto longs, non-final lengthening, and the regressive shift onto shorts, Slovene has the following types of stressed long vowels:

170 (36)

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations Rising pitch

a.

b.

V/R JLL

\i

V/R

/\ / \

1

1 H (neo-acute and other)

Falling pitch

c.

Y^

\ H / (non-final lengthening)

d

-

* V/R

H (neo-circumflex)

n [i (progressive shift)

Types (b) and (c) occur only in non-final position. Type (a) is also most commonly found in non-final position (neo-acute), with the exception of some morphologically conditioned environments, such as the instr sg goro (from contraction) or in the gen pi. Thus in bisyllabic groups syllables with H are usually non-final. The Standard Slovene system still retains long falling pitch in final position as the result of the progressive shift (d), but everywhere else the accent is on a non-final long syllable. Thus length and accent co-occur everywhere, except on final syllables, which may be stressed but short. Descriptions of Contemporary Standard Slovene differ as to whether they postulate distinctive length and stress (Stankiewicz 1979), distinctive pitch and length (Stankiewicz 1966b/1979, 1968/1979, Rupel 1946: 21-31; RamovS 1950: 54-56), or distinctive stress (Tesniere 1929) with concomitant length. Thus while Stankiewicz 1968/1979:207 writes that "the basic prosodic features of the Slovenian phonological system are pitch and quantity," Tesniere 1929: 118 had suggested that "la variete du timbre des voyelles Slovenes exprimees par le systeme de PleterSnik est une consequence du fait que le Slovene a substitue un accent d'intensite a l'accent musical du slave commun." It is possible that, with a few morphologically conditioned exceptions, Slovene has reanalyzed underlying forms as short with length derived by various rules (Becker and Bethin 1983). On the other hand, IsaCenko 1935-36: 53 made the interesting observation that short accented syllables in Slovene are treated as unaccented in poetry, which suggests that length is prominent, at least in poetry. Short syllables are frequently unaccented in colloquial speech. What is important for purposes of this discussion is the fact that with the exception of the results of the progressive shift, length in Slovene does not occur on a final syllable. Thus Slovene seems to have reanalyzed the relationship of quantity and accent: whereas quantity at first attracted stress (progres-

2.5 Changes in prosodic domains

171

sive shift), now ictus is supported by length. This leads to a confusion of tone and stress because both are supported by quantity. The redundancy seems to have resulted in stress becoming the primary marker of prominence in Slovene. Garde (1966b: 52) writes: "Le Slovene est done une langue qui intone des syllabes qui ne sont pas phonologiquement longues, exactement comme le Stokavien, done une langue ou la notion de more est inapplicable." He later suggests that in Slovene "la quantite pourrait etre un trait accentuel" (p. 53). While the literary norm may take length to be distinctive, Stankiewicz 1979: 131 points out that in the "colloquial form of the literary language, stress alone carries a distinctive function, length being concomitant with a non-final stress." This version of colloquial Slovene strengthens a [s-w] group (in terms of stressed-unstressed) by lengthening its leftmost member. The result is a trochaic metrical relationship, both in terms of stress and length. Given these developments, the presence of final stressed long syllables would seem to be anomalous. Although bimoraic syllables alone may be interpreted as prominent in a trochaic system, the prosodic domain in Slovene is predominantly bisyllabic. One might expect to see retraction with concomitant shortening of the final syllable, i.e., the reverse of the progressive shift, in these cases as well. This situation is indeed found in several dialects of Slovene, e.g., in eastern Carinthia and northwestern Styria, in the Zilja area and in the adjacent Resian and Ter dialects to the south, as well as in a small pocket west of Ljubljana (Poljane dialect of the Rovte group) and in Bela Krajina (Stankiewicz 1966b/1979: 36-39; Lencek 1982: 83-84; Carlton 1991: 320; M. Greenberg 1992, 1994), where forms such as oko "eye" (< oko) and golob "pigeon, dove" (< golob) occur. That this change exists in several geographically noncontiguous dialects may be evidence that the bisyllabic trochaic metrical structure which seems to characterize Slovene prosody in general may have evolved independently in various places or that metrical organization is predominating over lexical anomalies.42 Slovene presents a very interesting case of reinterpreting the role of quantity in accent. At first the bimoraic syllable functioned as prominent in opposition to H prominence. The status of quantity in prominence favored an iambic metrical pattern and led to the progressive accent shift. But prominence based on intensity tends to be organized trochaically. Given that a bimoraic syllable may function as prominent in a trochaic system as well, once stress was associated with length in Slovene, length could be interpreted as concomitant with stress. In this case, the trochaic pattern would be supported by quantity [a ] or even [a a ]. Like NeoStokavian, Slovene developed a bisyllabic trochee, but unlike NeoStokavian it also analyzed quantity as concomitant with stress.

172

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

Slovene appears to be a quantity-sensitive language in which a bimoraic group [o" ] was analyzed in two different ways, as a component of an iambic metrical foot [a a ] and as a trochee [a ] which then became part of a syllabic trochee [cr a ]. Language change is in the direction of favoring an intensity-based trochaic metrical foot. The perplexing development in Slovene is the lengthening of original acutes because South Slavic generally has short vowel reflexes of acutes. Since this lengthening was dependent on what occurred in the next syllable (a jer or a long vowel) it seems that the process was a bisyllabic phenomenon, and not lengthening under stress to create a heavy prominent foot. No lengthening is found in monosyllabic forms, e.g., brat "brother." This, together with the later developments of a regressive shift onto long vowels, e.g., krilo "wing" < Old Slovene *krilo, trdva "grass" < *trava, and the subsequent retraction of final accent coupled with lengthening, seemed to produce a pattern that can be characterized as the avoidance of final stress. The distribution of length in this bisyllabic domain was such that the left branch of the metrical foot was heavy, i.e., an asymmetrical trochee. This is a problem for theory in terms of foot typology (Hayes 1985, 1994) and Rhythmic Harmony (Prince 1990), because such feet are considered highly unlikely. One can resolve the theoretical difficulty in many similar cases by reanalyzing these structures as heavy syllables followed by an extrametrical syllable. But in Slovene the postulation of final syllable extrametricality is not well-motivated, because final accent is found in some forms, e.g., slovo "word." One way to accommodate the Slovene data might be to claim that these forms have extrametrical syllables throughout a lexical derivation but that they lose extrametrical status post-lexically when they are stressed by a final stress default rule. The problem is, of course, that this accent is not really "final" as na goro "to the mountain" shows, so its default status is questionable. One might simply mark this set of forms (historically the progressive accent shift) as exceptions to final syllable extrametricality, but this seems to be an ad hoc solution. In any case, stress in Slovene is not fixed, so it may not be so much a question of foot inventory as it is an association of length and prominence. Yet it is interesting that the redistribution of length resulted in a long syllable followed by a short one in so many instances.

2.6

The evolution of fixed stress

In this section I show that all fixed stress systems of Slavic are trochaic. The West Slavic languages, with the exception of northern Kashubian (Slovincian) and the now extinct Pomeranian dialects, fixed the position of stress in a word,

2.6 The evolution of fixed stress

173

either on the initial syllable, e.g., Czech, Slovak, Upper and Lower Sorbian, southern Kashubian (Zaborian), or on the penultimate syllable, e.g., Polish and eastern Slovak.43 Polabian has been variously characterized as a language of free stress (Lehr-Splawiriski 1917,1929, Moszyriski 1965), quantity-dependent (Trubetzkoy 1929b) or fixed initial stress (Kurytowicz 1955). The only nonWest Slavic language to have fixed stress is western Macedonian where antepenultimate stress is the norm. The fixation of stress in West Slavic may have been related to the retention of quantity distinctions in the absence of tone, as Jakobson 1926/1971: 624 claimed: "if, within a phonemic system of a given language there emerges as a result of phonetic changes the coexistence of two independent elements dynamic word accent (stress) and quantity - one of these elements will be eliminated from the phonemic system." (See also Jakobson 1923: 24.) Russian and Bulgarian, for example, eliminated quantity in favor of stress. The West Slavic languages are said to have eliminated free stress in favor of maintaining quantitative distinctions, though the independence of quantity was not guaranteed (Moszyriski 1965). The Polish developments, in fact, show an interesting potential connection between stress and quantity.44 Furdal (1964: 89ff.) dates the loss of quantity in Polish to the early part of the sixteenth century and relates it to the shift of stress from the initial to the penultimate syllable of a word. He argues that in three-syllable words with initial stress such as gospoddr "master, lord" and vysokd "high," the final long vowel may have been maintained by secondary stress. When the stress moved to the penultimate syllable, it produced a stressed syllable immediately followed by a long one. In words with initial and final long syllables and a short penultimate one, as inpolnocnd "midnight," adj, the situation would have been even more complicated. Vowel shortening could solve the problem of a penultimate stress on a short vowel surrounded by two long syllables, so the loss of quantity distinctions would have been directly related to the fixation of penultimate stress. Apparently, initial stress does not interfere as much with the distribution of quantity as does penultimate stress: both Czech and Slovak with fixed initial stress also retain distinctions of quantity. Whether fixed stress was a shared innovation in the northwestern dialects of LCS or an independent development in the various languages is not entirely clear. Most West Slavic languages fixed initial stress. Polish penultimate stress may be related to a stage of initial stress (see TravniCek 1924, Jakobson 1926/1971, Stieber 1952:47-50, and others), which would make the fixation of initial stress a northwest Slavic innovation complete by the thirteenth century. There is some discussion about whether the stress simply became fixed on the

174

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

initial syllable or gradually receded towards the beginning of the word (cf. Lehr-Sptawiriski 1923, Bulaxovs'kyj 1953: 57-62). The most common explanation for the fixation of initial stress is that West Slavic at first underwent a phonetic stress retraction from an originally accented syllable to the preceding one. In bisyllabic words it ended up on the initial syllable, which decreased the dynamic phonological role of stress. Later, by analogy, stress is said to have been generalized to the initial syllable everywhere (Gebauer 1894: 575-576; also R.F. Brandt 1880, and others). Another view is that West Slavic initial stress was influenced by German stem/root initial stress. (For a summary of this view see TravniCek 1924, who rejects it, although Jakobson 1926/1971: 623ff., Bulaxovs'kyj 1953: 57ff., and others do not deny possible German influence.) The emergence of fixed stress in West Slavic, whether initial or penultimate, is clearly related to the emergence of the syllable as the carrier of prominence. This area generalized a trochaic intersyllabic relationship and the fixation of stress, whether by gradual retraction via the penultimate syllable (with secondary initial stress) or by immediate retraction to an initial syllable (with secondary penultimate stress), would in either case instantiate a trochaic metrical relationship. It is important to note that the position of stress in West Slavic is not based on quantity (iambic) even in systems which retain distinctions in quantity. In fixed stress systems the position of prominence is completely predictable. Some languages have a strong primary stress and regularly distributed secondary stresses, others have only one main word stress. In the former case one could speak of bounded or binary metrical feet (37a, b) and in the latter case of unbounded metrical feet (37c, d). Slavic fixed stress patterns may be described by (37a), as shown below. (37)

bounded a. F

unbounded b. F

K A

c. F

d.

s w w s

s w w w

(*.)(.*)

(* .

.

F w w w s

.

.

.

.

*)

The fact that the main stress may occur either word-initially or word-finally is usually interpreted as formal directionality and languages may begin their metrical count from the beginning or the end of the word. In the former, it is said that the directionality parameter is set at left-to-right, in the case of final stress the parameter is right-to-left. If a system has only one main stress, there are various ways to describe it, e.g., by unbounded metrical feet as in (37c) and (37d) or by means of the conflation of stress tiers (Halle and Vergnaud 1987,

2.6 The evolution of fixed stress

175

Halle and Idsardi 1995). If metrical feet are bounded (binary), then the directionality parameter results in the following differences in five-syllable words: left-to-right parsing produces the groupings (a a) (a a) (a); right-to-left parsing yields (cr) (a cr) (a a), and these may be organized as strong-weak or weak-strong metrical feet. Another way of looking at the metrical organization of a given language is to postulate a set of metrical feet and certain alignment constraints such that, for example, when (37a) is aligned with the right edge of a word it produces penultimate stress and alternating secondary stresses. The same metrical foot when aligned with the left edge of the word produces initial stress and a pattern of alternating secondary stresses. Slavic has several different types of fixed stress systems: initial stress, penultimate stress and antepenultimate stress. All of these may be analyzed as instantiating a metrical trochee (37a) with different directionality parameters and quantity is irrelevant to stress assignment. 2.6.1 Initial stress systems In languages with fixed initial stress, such as Czech, the prominence may be assigned by a process which constructs a trochaic foot on the initial and immediately following syllable (Hayes 1981, 1994, Prince 1983, and others). In Czech, as in many languages with fixed word stress, "after a syllable bearing a primary word stress there can occur, within a speech measure, only an unstressed syllable" (Jakobson 1926/1971: 617). Although Czech is known primarily as an initial stress language, the rhythmic organization of Czech is characterized by secondary prominence in an alternating pattern such that in three-syllable words, the first and the last are more prominent; in four-syllable words, the first and the third, and so on, with some minor variations (Gebauer 1894/1963: 576f.; Travnicek 1924). In a metrical analysis initial stress in Czech, Slovak, Sorbian and southern Kashubian (Zaborian) may be represented as the construction of a trochaic foot at the left edge of a word or as the grouping of syllables into [s-w] units in a leftto-right direction. For descriptive purposes I will use the markers (s) and (w) for strong and weak syllables, though I do not take a position here on whether stress is best described by arboreal theory, grid theory, a combination of the two, or by alignment constraints.45 An example of a fixed stress form with secondary stresses is the Czech wordfilologicky "philological" in (38), where the top level represents primary word stress and the intermediate levels show secondary stresses on the third and fifth syllables. This is true for Czech in general, e.g., voda "water," vysetrdvaci "investigative," neboj se "don't be afraid," zeleny "green," nepfltel "enemy." (I follow Gebauer 1894/1963: 572ff. in using

176

Beyond the syllable: prominence

relations

"to mark primary stress, v to mark secondary stress, and " for marking vowel length.) (38)

(s (s (s cr fi

w) w) w) (s w) a cr cr lo lo gi

(s)
The alternating pattern is most stable in Czech when the strong position coincides with length, especially in the case of secondary stresses, as in b^valy "former," byvaleho, gen sg. Czech has phonemic quantity distinctions so the widespread occurrence of unstressed long syllables potentially creates a conflict between iambic metrical organization (based on quantity) and trochaic metrical structure (based on intensity). And to some extent quantity does affect the placement of secondary stresses; in allegro speech a long vowel (or a diphthong) in the penultimate syllable will throw off the alternating word rhythm as in nejbohatejsi "richest" or nejsveddmitejsi vs. nejsvedomitejsl "most goodnatured" (Gebauer 1894/1963: 579) often retaining a trochee at the end of the word as well, producing a sequence of (s-w) (w) (s-w) in longer polysyllabic forms (Travnic'ek 1924). But Czech rhythmic structure is trochaic (Gebauer 1894/1963: 583; Jakobson 1923,1926/1971). The initial stress in Slovak, Sorbian, and southern Kashubian may for all practical purposes be derived in the same manner. In Slovak quantity does not influence stress placement at all, though it is significant that quantity is exploited in the service of a trochaic pattern by the Rhythmic Law (discussed in 2.4.2). In Upper and Lower Sorbian stress falls on the initial syllable of the word. It is apparently a strong expiratory stress because unstressed syllables are sometimes omitted, e.g., US rukajca "glove" (< *rQkavica). The stress pattern is trochaic with a three-syllable range, e.g., (' indicates stress) do mesta "to town," but a four-syllable word may have an alternating pattern, e.g., dziwadielnik "actor." Lower Sorbian appears to have a strong penultimate stress in addition to initial stress (Stone 1993: 609-610). Traces of old quantity distinctions such as the mid vowels in wera "faith" and wrdna "crow" are found only in initial position, providing support for the notion of strong initial stress. Southern Kashubian is said to have lost quantity distinctions probably by the seventeenth to eighteenth century (Topoliriska 1974: 80), and Polish, another fixed-stress language, lost quantity even earlier. 2.6.2 Polish penultimate stress Polish has fixed penultimate stress with optional secondary stress on the initial syllable in words of more than three syllables. Both may be derived by building

2.6 The evolution of fixed stress

111

a [s-w] foot, either at the right edge of a word for word stress or in a left-to-right direction for secondary stress (Franks 1985, 1991, Hayes and Puppel 1985, Hammond 1989). The rhythmic structure of Polish is a regular pattern of alternating stresses, but only in very careful speech, e.g., where is used to represent primary stress,v secondary stress in the sentence Td dziewczyna prdcowdla nd rodzicow i na siebie "That girl worked to make a living for her parents and for herself (Dluska 1947). Dhiska 1932: 71 says that Polish rhythm identifies two positions that are consistently strong, the initial and the stressed. This appears to be true even in long words such as pdgratulujemy "we will congratulate," nienagrodzona "unrewarded," stdwarzyszenie "society," especially in rapid speech. The main word stress falls on the penultimate syllable as in (39) filologiczny "philological," ciekdwy "interesting," dobry "good," interesowac si% "to be interested" (ignoring clitics). Some borrowings and certain clitic groups retain a different stress, e.g., matemdtyka "mathematics," pisdlismy "we wrote," but these are often regularized by younger speakers to matematyka and pisaltsmy. (39)

Polish word stress (s w) a a a cr a fi lo lo gi czny

There has been some discussion in the literature about the nature of the main stress rule in Polish. Technically it is possible to consider all final syllables simply unstressable or invisible to stress rules (extrametrical) and to assign word stress to the final syllable (as in filologi[czny]). (For a version of this see Hammond 1989.) In many ways this is theoretically simpler and it is often the case that languages which fix stress tend to fix it on the initial or final syllable, less often elsewhere in a word. But Franks 1985 and Halle and Vergnaud 1987 show that the nature of Polish exceptions to penultimate stress, specifically that there are no words with pre-antepenultimate stress but some lexical exceptions with stress on the antepenult, e.g., uniwersytet "university" (as in uniwersyftet] with final syllable extrametricality). When the extrametrical syllable is no longer at the end, regular stress emerges as in uniwersytetdmi, instr pi, which indicates that the main stress cannot be final stress with extrametricality. Stress in Polish is actually a [s-w] grouping on the last two syllables of a word. This means that the basic metrical unit for Polish is also the trochaic foot, whether at the end of the word for main stress or at the beginning for secondary stresses (see Idsardi 1994a, 1994b). Stress assignment is not sensitive to quantity and Polish has now lost all quantitative distinctions. The secondary stress found on the initial syllable is also part of

178

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

the rhythmic organization of Polish, though it is not discussed in detail here (see Rubach and Booij 1985). The fact that initial stress does occur is of interest and Rothstein 1993: 692 points out that "a competing tendency to wordinitial stress, first observed in emotional-rhetorical style in the 1930s, has made such inroads that for many speakers the penultimate stress has become a secondary stress." All West Slavic languages discussed so far have stress patterns determined by a syllabic trochee, though they may differ with respect to the direction for parsing: the identification of a syllabic trochee in Polish begins at the end of the word, though there seems to be some pressure for a left-to-right parsing on the model of the parsing in Czech, Slovak, Sorbian and southern Kashubian. Note that in some of these languages there was or continues to be a distinction between monomoraic and bimoraic syllables, but that this distinction (with the possible exception of allegro speech in Czech) does not affect the prominence pattern. This is because West Slavic, after the shortening of acute and circumflex syllables made them simply stressed and thus opposed to the unstressed (and long) neo-acutes, took prominence to be a question of intensity. And intensity-based prominence tends to be organized into syllabic trochees. 2.6.3 Antepenultimate stress in Macedonian The Macedonian stress pattern is a most unusual one because it seems to have fixed antepenultimate stress with no secondary stresses. For the most part, central and western Macedonian dialects that formed the basis of the literary language may be characterized as having antepenultimate stress (Koneski 1976, Koneski 1983, Lunt 1952).46 The fixed antepenultimate stress may be derived by the same mechanism as in West Slavic, i.e., a trochaic foot, but with the additional provision that all final syllables in Macedonian are extrametrical.47 The stress pattern reaches its fullest expansion in long words, e.g.,pldnina "mountain," planinata, def; tdtkovci "fathers," tatkovcite, def, tatkovinata "fatherland," def, and it appears on the initial syllable otherwise, e.g., uvo "ear," leb "bread." Koneski 1976: 156-177 pointed out that various nominal phrases are treated as accentual groups, e.g., kiselo mleko "sour milk, yogurt." (See also Lunt 1952: 52-65 and the discussion in Bulaxovs'kyj 1980 [1975-1983]: 500ff.; Franks 1987, and Alexander 1993.) The formal mechanism for deriving antepenultimate stress in Macedonian is to make the final syllable extrametrical (represented as [ ]) and to construct a trochaic metrical foot at the end of the word form (Franks 1987, 1991, Halle and Vergnaud 1987: 55-56; Hammond 1989, Halle 1990: 153-156).

2.6 The evolution of fixed stress (40)

Macedonian stress (s w) (s a a [a] cr cr pla ni na pla ni

179

w) cr [cr] na ta

Koneski 1983: 19 makes the following observation on stress: "The general tendency in most dialects has been the limitation of stress to the three syllables counting from the end of the word, i.e. the avoidance of tetrasyllable accentuation (the NE dialects constitute an exception to this). In various dialects, this phenomenon is realized in different manners. Thus, for example, the word mdscea 'stepmother' (with the old accent on the first syllable) would have the stress on the fourth syllable from the end in its definite form. In some dialects, this is avoided by the development of a secondary stress - mdscedta (Salonika and elsewhere) - so that the tetrasyllabic complex is divided into two disyllabic rhythmic units. In dialects such as that of Kastoria (Kostur), this is accomplished in a different manner: the accent in the indefinite form is shifted one syllable closer to the end so that when the word is extended tetrasyllabic stress does not occur: mascea-masceata. In the W dialectal region, tetrasyllabic accentuation is avoided by shifting the stress so that it always remains on the antepenultimate syllable: mascea-masceata. It is thus clear that there is in M a rhythmic principle which does not permit more than two syllables after the stress." This pattern may also be read as a maximal trimoraic (trisyllabic) foot with stress on the syllable containing the first mora, but then this would require the postulation of a new type of metrical foot. Some transitional Bulgarian dialects, according to Bulaxovs'kyj 1959/1980: 398, show an alternating rhythmic pattern in polysyllabic words with secondary stresses that fall on the final syllable only if it is closed: klddenec "well," kdtefica "squirrel," gdrvandv "raven," adj, but magenica "kitchen, cookhouse,"pijdvica "leech," so that final closed syllables somehow must be heavier than open ones. Perhaps there is a correlation with the perceived difference in vowels (1.5). Macedonian does not have stress on a syllable before the antepenultimate one, even in the case of lexical exceptions to stress, such as restordn "restaurant." This suggests that extrametricality is a regular component of stress assignment in Macedonian and that the trochaic foot is the unit of metrical organization. In keeping with other South Slavic languages, Macedonian prosody has a right-to-left directionality. For independent theoretical reasons it has been argued that both penultimate stress in Polish and antepenultimate stress in Macedonian are produced by bounded trochaic systems (see also Kenstowicz 1994: 577-580), a conclusion supported by this study. The larger diachronic and synchronic context shows that the trochee is the fundamental

180

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

metrical measure of Slavic, the early developments in Slovene notwithstanding. 2.7

Polabian stress

The reconstruction of Polabian accent is subject to a great deal of uncertainty and guesswork. Limited data, transcriptions with possible Germanisms, questions about the nature of "full" and "reduced" vowels, all make the reconstruction of Polabian accent problematic. It appears that a series of full (i, u, 6, o, e, a [and u in borrowings]) and two reduced vowels (e, a) may be reconstructed for Polabian (Luschutzky and Reinhart 1991). Polanski 1993: 799 also gives a, e and two nasal vowels, $, Q. Reduced vowels are never found in the initial syllable of a word (non-preposition or prefix). Stress falls on the last full vowel or diphthong of a word, as in motdi "mother," ful'ondi "knees," sariite "wide," fiindc "end," pajdvdicd "leech," s'onu "hay," sreduletne "midyear." The status of the reduced vowels has been the subject of some debate. Since full vowels occur independently of stress, the occurrence of full vs. reduced vowels is not entirely predictable from stress. As Luschutzky and Reinhart 1991: 55-56 point out, the analyses tend to be circular: stress depends on the distribution of reduced vowels; the reduced vowels are allophones in some way dependent on stress. Alternations between full and reduced vowels are found in various parts of the grammar and may be illustrated by the following: manejsd "smaller," namdnejsd I namanejsa "smallest"; diibre "good," masc, nadebrejsd "best," fern, jopt'u "apple," jopt'edob "apple tree," and between diphthongs and reduced vowels, as in kliibaucnek "hatter," kliibek "hat." Keeping in mind that reduced vowels are not found in the initial syllable, bisyllabic forms permit only a sequence of V-V and V-V (where V = full vowel, V = reduced). Trisyllabic words have the structures V-V-V-, V-V-V, V-V-V, but not *V-V-V. In four-syllable words the most common sequences seem to be V-V-V-V and V-

v-v-v. Polanski 1993: 800, following Trubetzkoy 1929b: 77-84, describes Polabian stress as predictable "from the distribution of non-reduced and reduced vowels in an accentual complex . . . if the final syllable was non-reduced, it must have carried the stress, if it was reduced, the stress was on the penultimate syllable . . . " If the underlying distinction in Polabian vowels is taken to be one between full and reduced vowels, then the stress pattern may be derived by assuming that reduced vowels at the end of a word are extrametrical (or nonmoraic). Stress would then be assigned to the last vowel in a word, in other words, this would be a case of final fixed stress with extrametricality, as in (41).

2.7 Polabian stress (41)

Final stress * a a mo tai

* a t'u

[ex] nac

a a pa ja

* a vai

181

[a]

ca

In this case Polabian would be the only Slavic language with fixed final stress. While fixed final stress is not uncommon among fixed stress languages, it does present a typological exception among the Slavic languages. And it is unusual for West Slavic. One of the problems in analyzing Polabian stress as fixed final stress with extrametricality is that one would not expect such a system to have strong initial syllables or to have ever had word-initial stress, yet the evidence adduced by Kurylowicz 1955 for such a stage in Polabian is persuasive. Initial stress would have been in keeping with general West Slavic developments, not to mention that language contact with German would have also strongly favored it (cf. Vaillant 1950: 233). There are at least two different views on the predictability of Polabian stress. One recent analysis by Luschiitzky and Reinhart 1991 takes accent to be fixed lexically and vowel reduction to be derived. Trubetzkoy 1929b, on the other hand, assumed that accent was predictable with respect to position in the word, but that it was calculated with respect to moras. To be more specific, Luschiitzky and Reinhart (1991:65) conclude that reduced vowels are the result of free accent in Polabian (which eventually became phonologically restricted), and thus they propose an analysis in which accent is lexically assigned. Reduced vowels are derived before the accent in medial syllables and after the accent in final position: V —> V/ V_ V and V —»V/ V #. In cases where the initial syllable of a three-syllable word is stressed, neither vowel reduction rule will apply and the word will have all full vowels. These statements generate the correct distribution of full and reduced vowels in polysyllabic words (with some adjustments for secondary stresses in longer polysyllabic forms either on the initial or penultimate syllable). Trubetzkoy 1929b: 167, 1939/1967: 171 postulated quantity distinctions for Polabian, counting full vowels and diphthongs as bimoraic. He proposed that stress in Polabian was assigned to the penultimate mora of a word. It appeared on the final syllable if it was long, but on the penultimate if the final vowel was short. The assignment of stress to the penultimate mora may be represented as in (42). (42)

*

*

182

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

Such a pattern, with ictus on the mora, should be phonetically realized as pitch, according to Trubetzkoy 1939/1967. Thus, given (42), one would expect to see differences (tonal or other) between long (full) syllables with stress on the first mora (as in motai) and those with stress on the second mora (as in filndc). As far as we know, no such distinctions were recorded. What really seems to matter in Polabian is not which mora the stress falls on, but which syllable stress is assigned to. The absence of any differences in the phonetic nature of the prominence (i.e., the absence of pitch contours) on the two forms given in (42) does not support a moraic analysis with stress on the mora. The distribution of full and reduced vowels in polysyllabic sequences is restricted such that (a) the initial syllable always has a full vowel or diphthong, and (b) full and reduced vowels tend to be distributed rhythmically to the extent that reduced vowels are not found in consecutive syllables (though full vowels may be). I think that Polabian is a trochaic system, but that unlike in all other West Slavic languages, stress is quantity-sensitive. Only a bimoraic syllable constitutes the head of a metrical foot [a ], [a a ]; full vowels and diphthongs are bimoraic.48 The metrical parsing of Polabian is directional, from right to left, as in Polish. A full final syllable is a trochaic foot. A reduced syllable must be grouped with a preceding one for metrical count (43), where (s) stands for a strong and (w) a weak syllable. (43)

Polabian trochee (s a

A

t'ii

w) a

(s

w)

(s

w)

(s)

(s)

I

o

o

a

o

a

a

nac

pa

N

1 LL

A

ja

vai

1

ca

N

mo

N

uu

tai

In a word with a final full vowel (e.g., motai) and in a three-syllable sequence this right-to-left directionality leaves the initial syllable unparsed. For it to be a metrical foot it must at minimum be bimoraic (or "full"). The requirement that an unparsed initial syllable be made full (or bimoraic) would have also been supported by the neighboring Germanic initial stress systems. This analysis explains the predominance of full vowels and diphthongs in word-initial position and the particular restriction on adjacent reduced vowels. The absence of the pattern V-V-V is therefore predictable. The interpretation of Polabian accent given here also has the advantage of identifying Polabian as a trochaic system, consistent with developments throughout (North) West Slavic, while at the same time recognizing that quantity distinctions may have existed and that they were used in the expression of prominence.

2.8 Conclusions 2.8

183

Conclusions

The prosodic developments in Late Common Slavic may be summarized as the reinterpretation of prominence and a reevaluation of quantity with respect to prominence. In Common Slavic tone was the marker of accented stems and initial stress occurred on unaccented wordforms. By LCS there was a dialectal differentiation between the north and the south. In the north, stress became the prominence marker while the south continued to operate with tone. Quantity was distinctive in parts of the north as well as in the south. In the (North) West LCS dialects it functioned syntagmatically, i.e., within a word. In the south it functioned both syntagmatically and paradigmatically, as an opposition of long/short within a word and as a marker of prominence in unaccented wordforms (opposed to forms with H). I have claimed that an important innovation in LCS was the shortening of the acutes. This process had the following effects: (a) it freed quantity from accent and H could occur on a monomoraic unit, and (b) it led to the neutralization of tone and stress prominence in the north. It is often said that the neo-acute retraction precipitated a reorganization of Slavic prosody. But I think that it was the shortening of the acutes that provoked the collapse of the Common Slavic system. This shortening played out differently in the various dialects of LCS because it overlapped with changes in syllable structure. If tone is taken to be the marker of accented classes of words, then forms without H are considered unaccented. These apparently used quantity to mark prominence, as happened in the southern parts of LCS where the circumflex syllables tend to be associated with length. On the other hand, if stress is identified as the prominence indicator, then the prosodic opposition is one between stressed and unstressed syllables, or acute and circumflex vs. other types. This was the change in northern LCS. The neo-acute retraction then had different effects in Slavic precisely because of the reinterpretation of prominence. In the south, the neo-acute was taken to be a retraction of high tone (H) and the pretonic syllable took on a rising pitch accent if it was long, an accent if short. In the north, the neo-acute retraction was one of stress. Perhaps the most convincing arguments for the separation of tone and stress come from Serbian and Croatian, where both tone and stress continue to function within the system. The older Stokavian dialects show a retraction of H, the NeoStokavian ones show only a retraction of stress with H remaining in the original syllable. Slavonian dialects show various combinations of tone and stress and provide additional evidence for their autonomy. Within the autosegmental framework, the various accent retractions of LCS, the progressive shift in Slovene and the

184

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

many shortenings and lengthenings in Slavic are seen as metrically coherent and phonologically consistent. A major innovation of LCS was the recognition of the bisyllabic trochaic metrical foot as a prosodic organizer, first in the North Central dialects approximately at the time of the neo-acute accent shift and then later in other areas of Slavic as well. Its spread seems to be related to the emergence of stress rather than tone as a primary prominence marker, although the presence of stress alone is not a sufficient condition for trochaic metrical structure. In Slavic quantity was sometimes used to support the strong member of the trochaic foot. The identification of a trochaic foot as a prosodic framework of North Central LCS dialects eliminates the need for postulating pitch distinctions on short vowels (short neo-acutes) and not on long ones (i.e., acutes and circumflex merged) in this area of LCS, which is somewhat problematic.49 The evolution of Slavic prosody is most often discussed in terms of phonetically motivated change. For example, the identification of length with the circumflex in southern LCS is usually attributed to the falling pitch contour, while the shortening of the acutes and circumflex syllables in the north is taken as a signal that pitch contours may have fallen together by then.50 But phonetic accounts are only partial explanations of the transformation of Slavic prosody. It was not so much the fact that falling pitch contour might have been phonetically longer than rising pitch contour which explains the generalization of quantity in southern LCS, but that quantity emerged as the designator of prominence in forms with no underlying H prominence. In fact, experimental studies show that pitch rises take more time than pitch falls (Ohala and Ewan 1973, Sundberg 1973), which contradicts the notion that falling pitch requires length. Circumflex length is related to tone, but phonologically it is more a consequence of its absence than its presence. Similarly, the identification of the syllable and stress as the marker of prominence in the north meant that all stressed forms (whether underlying acute or circumflex) came to be interpreted as prominent by stress (*). Intensity-based prominence is usually expressed as a metrical trochee. The redistribution of length in these systems was in support of this trochaic structure. One result of this study is the identification of a bisyllabic norm for LCS prosody. The bisyllabic domain of Slavic accent was identified as early as 1921 by Trubetzkoy, who analyzed the divergent developments of original rising and falling pitch contour in the various Slavic languages as a consequence of preserving either the first part or the second part of the original pitch accent by redistributing pitch contour over two syllables, either to the right or to the left of the stress peak. Both accents were said to have a rising-falling pattern, but in the

2.8 Conclusions

185

acute the ascending part was said to be longer than the short falling component, while in the circumflex, according to Trubetzkoy, the initial rise was much shorter than the fall. Serbian/Croatian are said to have taken the second part of the pitch contour of both accents with the result that the acute is identified with the shorter falling curve of the original acute contour but the circumflex identified with the longer falling curve of its circumflex contour. Czech, on the other hand, is said to have taken the first part of pitch contours as accent, and the acute in Czech is expressed as long while the circumflex is short. But this phonetic account does not really explain why Czech and Serbian and Croatian, for example, should have evaluated these accents differently. More recently, Timberlake 1993 associates length with rising pitch and notes that the preservation of pretonic length may be a consequence of isochrony. He proposes that "length was preserved best in slope syllables (those flanking a short accent; syllables preceding a circumflex or following an acute)" (p. 429). Thus medial short accent or a medial circumflex protected preaccentual length because both were "preceded by an anticipatory upslope in the preceding syllable" (p. 427). The absence of pretonic length before acutes is explained as follows: "In contrast, length was lost before a medial acute (*maliha > *malfna .. .). Since the peak of an acute occurs late in its syllable, the upslope to its peak was confined to the accented syllable . . . The syllable preceding an acute was a trough which was vulnerable to shortening" (p. 428). He concludes that "the general principle is that length was preserved in proportion to the pitch increment over the syllable: the greater the pitch increment, the more duration was allowed" (p. 430). One difficulty with the phonetic interpretation is that it does not explain why the circumflex syllable itself tends to be associated with length in the south but not in the north (where circumflex and acute both shortened). A phonological analysis, on the other hand, treats quantity as a potential marker of prominence, thereby accounting for a wide range of phenomena in LCS in a theoretically consistent way. If we dissect accent into its constituents of tone, stress, and quantity, then Slavic accentology is not nearly as hopeless as Trubetzkoy feared. And by paying attention to the role of metrical organization in synchrony and diachrony, one observes regularities within a system over time. The syllable structure changes discussed in chapter 1 had a profound effect on Late Common Slavic prosody. Recall that the distinction between branching and nonbranching rimes was considered a fundamental distinction in LCS. In monomoraic systems such as (North) East LCS quantity has no role and prominence is expressed by stress. In a system such as (North) West LCS with maximally bimoraic syllables there is a potential for quantity distinctions and

186

Beyond the syllable: prominence relations

therefore quantity-sensitive prominence. Although the bimoraic syllable was not widely used as the carrier of accent in (North) West LCS, remnants of such a system may still be found in Polabian. There the innovation was to interpret the bimoraic syllable as an independent trochaic foot (and not as a strong branch of an iambic foot). Elsewhere the preferred prosodic structure was a bisyllabic metrical foot, and language change in this area seems to have been in favor of the more highly ranked bisyllabic trochee, regardless of length. But it is not surprising to see some readjustments with respect to quantity in this area as well, such as the Rhythmic Law of Slovak. These quantity relationships tended to support a trochaic metrical group just as pretonic lengthening did in North Central LCS. Finally, the South Central dialects that were characterized by mora conservation and a fully functional quantity opposition used the moraic level in different ways with respect to prominence. But even here prominence eventually came to be a question of intersyllabic relationships. The prosodic characteristics of Late Common Slavic may be represented as follows: (44)

a. South Central LCS

b. (North) West LCS

c. (North) East LCS

G

G

(*) G

M<

00

H

00

V

This suggests that (a) tone distinctions were not preserved throughout Late Common Slavic until the fall of the jers, but probably only in those dialects which operated with distinctions on the moraic tier (and not necessarily in all of these), (b) North West and North Central LCS dialects as well as the southern LCS ones preserved a potential for quantitative distinctions at least until the fall of the jers, if not beyond, and (c) quantity was being redistributed in support of prominence within a bisyllabic domain. In other words, significant prosodic changes had already taken place in Slavic before the fall of weak jers and the presumably related neo-acute retraction, both of which are traditionally credited with producing major prosodic reorganization. Basically, the change in prosody of many LCS dialects was a change from a bimoraic to a bisyllabic prosodic group. The fundamental innovation in LCS and one which came to characterize the majority of Slavic prosodic systems was the recognition of trochaic metrical organization. This metrical organization, however, had various manifestations in northern LCS (45).

2.8 Conclusions (45)

a.

(North) Central LCS

Central Slovak, Belarusian SW Ukrainian Russian dissimilative jakanje

187

(North) West LCS

Northwestern LCS

Czech, Polish Sorbian, S Kashubian, and other Slovak

Polabian

Subsequent changes in the South Slavic languages were also in favor of generalizing trochaic metrical rhythm. Even in systems which retained quantitative and pitch distinctions, prominence became increasingly syllable-based. One such case is the NeoStokavian accent innovation of Serbian and Croatian, where stress and tone are distributed within a bisyllabic group. Some recent developments in Slovene indicate that its prosody is also becoming increasingly syllable-based, as it surely is in Macedonian. Whether quantity was interpreted as a trochee or as part of iambic metrical structure depended on whether prominence was based on intensity or duration. Today most Slavic languages, including those with pitch accent, may be characterized as having intensity-based prominence, either alone or in combination with tone. Vaillant 1950: 231 observes that "L'accent des langues slaves, comme celui du lituanien, est essentiellement un accent d'intensite, auquel peut se joindre une variation de tons plus ou moins sensible, tres sensible par exemple en serbo-croate, comme en grec ancien. Les variations de ton constituent les intonations; mais meme dans les intonations l'element d'intensite joue un role important, sinon dominant." The analysis of prosodic developments in LCS offered here is based on a hierarchical representation of prosodic relations. It takes tone to be an autosegment that may be associated to the moraic level of the syllable and stress to be marked on the syllable as a whole. The separation of tone and stress might at first glance appear to be an unnecessary complication in a system that had only one prominent syllable in a phonological word (and dubious evidence for pitch contours on unaccented syllables), but the historical development of Common Slavic shows that this distinction between tone and stress is a meaningful one. It becomes possible to explain a variety of prosodic developments in Slavic as a consequence of retracting either tone or stress. And the redistribution of quantity in Slavic was to a large extent governed by the nature of prominence in a given system.

3

Theoretical considerations

3.0

Introduction

The study of Slavic prosody in the preceding chapters assumed a certain theoretical framework and explored its implications for describing phonological change in the history of the Slavic languages. In this chapter I focus on how certain problems of Slavic linguistics have a bearing on issues of phonological representation. The discussion of selected problems in the history of Slavic in chapters 1 and 2 was based on the notion of hierarchical representation.1 This entailed a set of assumptions about the relationship between different levels of the hierarchy and about the nature of the levels themselves, including the assumption that association lines do not cross and the assumption that association between levels need not be one-to-one. Specifically, it was shown that segments may be associated to more than one mora (la), that one mora may be associated with more than one segment (lb), that a certain set of features may be associated to two syllable positions or two root nodes (lc), and that two sets of features or two features may share a node or position (Id). (1)

a. \i \ V

|i / \ V R

V

lr

JLL

/

b.

c.

C \

V /

V \

S

d.

C

/

u

Q

yu

eN

/

\

t

s c

In addition, syllables may be monomoraic or bimoraic; in the latter case, the association between the syllable and the moraic tier is one-to-many. The mora in this analysis represents a phonological timing unit that implements quantity distinctions, both in segments and in syllables. Insofar as the mora also serves as a syllable constituent and the bearer of tone it may be classified as a prosodic unit. It is a peculiarity of Slavic languages today that none really exploits a distinction between light and heavy syllables beyond that found in syllable nuclei. This makes the question of a moraic level vs. a segmental skeletal level more obscure than it might otherwise be and many of the traditional arguments for 188

3.0 Introduction

189

moraic representation (such as the weight properties of geminates) are not available. Slavic languages that have geminate consonants, such as Ukrainian and Belarusian, do not count them as moraic. For Slavic today it is a question of representing quantity more than one of representing syllable weight. Because syllable timing appears to have phonological effects, one expects that it has some phonological representation, either on the moraic tier or on the skeletal tier. Some recent proposals have argued that both a prosodic moraic tier and a segmental skeletal tier are needed in phonological representation (Hock 1986, Lahiri and Koreman 1988, Tranel 1991, Piggott 1991, Schmidt 1992, 1994, and others) or that a moraic skeleton alone cannot account for many processes (e. g. Sloan 1991, who also concludes that the CV tier is superfluous). There is some discussion about the nature of the segmental timing tier, specifically about whether the skeleton consists of CV positions or X-slots, and whether the root nodes or major class features may constitute the equivalent of a skeleton in moraic phonology. The analysis of Slavic historical phonology given in chapters 1 and 2 includes constraints that refer to prosodic and segmental properties of the syllable, and by implication it postulates the existence of at least these two components. It did not specifically address the question of whether the segmental skeleton was made up of X-slots, CV-slots, or root nodes, but because sonority sequencing restrictions hold on this level, it was assumed that some mechanism for calculating relative sonority was available to syllabification. Relative sonority of the root nodes was abbreviated as C (consonant), V (vowel), S (sonorant). Because the coda in Common Slavic was or became moraic if it was a sonorant, as in the shortening of glide and liquid diphthongs, the identification of that syllable position as [sonorant] with no restriction as to its value for the major class feature [consonantal] suggests that a skeleton which is defined as Cslots and V-slots may be too restrictive. In this respect a skeleton of X-slots that may be associated with major class features has a certain advantage. The question then is whether a timing slot (X) is needed in addition to the timing represented by the mora and distinct from the segmental timing inherent in root nodes. It seems that since each X-slot must have sonority restrictions attached before these sequences may be syllabified, the stipulation of both X-slots and root nodes might be redundant. A three-way opposition such as that found in Serbian/Croatian among V, V, and VV (Gvozdanovic 1983: 27) in zdndlrii /zonalni/ "zonal," zona /zona/ "zone," and zodloski /zooloSki/ "zoological" or the pitch accent distinctions of nina /nlna/ "Nin," gen sg, ninski /nlnski/ "pertaining to Nin," Niflnski /niinski/ "Nijinsky," may be represented as a distinction among a vowel associated to one mora (V), a vowel associated to two

190

Theoretical considerations

moras (V), and a bimoraic sequence of two vowels (VV), which also happens to be bisyllabic. The short accent on zodloski and Nijinski indicates that this vowel is treated separately from the preceding one, even though there is no morpheme boundary between them. These distinctions may be expressed as a relationship between the moraic tier and the segmental root nodes. Syllabification rules, if they operate on the moraic tier, must obviously have access to root nodes or Xslots in order to syllabify bimoraic V differently from bimoraic VV, but again this does not indicate a preference for one over the other. What it does show, however, is that the moraic tier alone is not sufficient for expressing length oppositions and that various types of "length" are found. The requirement of some skeletal representation in addition to the moraic one raises the question of how this skeleton relates to the mora, or in other words, is this relationship subject to the Strict Layer Hypothesis (Selkirk 1984b) which requires, among other things, that prosodic units be layered with respect to each other in the same plane? Since onsets which typically do not have mora value and do not (as a rule) contribute to syllable weight are represented in moraic theory as associated directly to the syllable node (but not in Hyman 1985 or Zee 1988/1994), it may be the case that the skeletal tier is in a different plane from that of the moraic tier. In other words, one might speak of a segmental syllable (defined in terms of sonority and root nodes) and a prosodic syllable (defined with respect to moras). It is not yet clear whether such a revision is necessary nor how it might be actually formalized. The representation in (2) projects two types of syllables by associating two different planes, abed and abef, with the syllable node. The segmental plane is related to the moraic plane by association on the cdef plane. (2)

C V S d Recent work in metrical phonology has proposed that the projection of stress-bearing units takes place on a plane separate from the syllable structure plane (Halle and Idsardi 1995). The extension of this proposal to syllable structure itself may yield interesting results with respect to the expression of length and phonological constraints. For example, constraints on maximal syllable weight could be expressed on (2) in terms of the abef plane, those on sonority would apply in the abed plane, and constraints on the moraicity of segments

3.0 Introduction

191

would be expressed in the cdefplane. Although this three-dimensional model of the syllable complicates the structure of underlying representations, it solves the problem faced by the Strict Layer Hypothesis when onsets are associated directly to the segmental syllable. Here the Strict Layer Hypothesis holds within the prosodic syllable because the association of onsets is not done on this plane. It also addresses the ambiguity of coda association in moraic theory, where codas which do not contribute to syllable weight may be associated to prosodic structure either through the mora of the preceding segment or directly, like onsets, to the syllable node. In some languages and dialects it appears necessary to have a special rule adjoining consonants to a preceding mora in order to avoid trimoraic syllables (Broselow 1995: 200); otherwise it is simply the definition of the syllable rime as "moraic" that guides the association of codas to a preceding mora instead of to the syllable node directly. In (2) a nonmoraic coda would be syllabified in the segmental syllable. One problem faced by moraic theory is "moraic inconsistency" where segments are moraic for some purposes in the phonology but not moraic for others (i.e., some processes treat a given sequence as monomoraic while others require it to be bimoraic). Hayes (1994) proposes that there are two levels of moraic representation for the same structure, but this seems to be an undesirable complication in (strictly layered) moraic theory. Cases such as these really seem to require a mechanism for referring to different syllable properties or constituents, perhaps a skeletal tier in addition to a moraic tier or some notion of a syllable rime as distinct from syllable nucleus. Another problem in moraic theory is that there is technically no way to represent an empty onset position (other than to postulate an empty root node), yet studies indicate that this may be a functional concept in the phonology of different languages (e.g., French as analyzed by Clements and Keyser 1983, but cf. Tranel 1995, and the data found in the volume edited by Wetzels and Sezer 1986). Slavic prothesis (discussed in 1.3.2) could be interpreted as filling an empty onset position. The threedimensional model offers a possible solution to these difficulties: a bimoraic syllable could have both moras associated to the prosodic syllable, but only one of the moras associated to the segmental one, thereby accounting for "moraic inconsistency." And an empty onset position would be defined with respect to the segmental syllable, not necessarily on the moraic plane. Another issue is whether a skeletal timing tier is needed in addition to that represented by root nodes. If it could be shown that there is a phonological distinction between two adjacent identical root nodes and one root node associated to two syllable positions beyond the nature of association to the moraic tier, then we might have evidence for a separate skeletal timing tier. The three-way

192

Theoretical considerations

length distinctions in Serbian/Croatian discussed above would represent such a case if one maintained the Obligatory Contour Principle which prohibits adjacent identical root nodes morpheme-internally. The representation of jers in the synchronic system of Slavic languages, discussed below, may be another example. On the other hand, many of these representational issues do not present a problem in a theory of constraints and constraint interaction. Section 3.1 is a presentation of several problems from Slavic that have a particularly strong bearing on theoretical issues. Questions of relative sonority involve the moraic status of a segment and its position within the syllable. Slovak distinguishes rising diphthongs from glide onsets; Bulgarian has a different implementation of moraic /r/, depending on the ranking of the Coda Constraint. Both cases exemplify the separation of the segmental level from the moraic level and from syllable constituents (onset, nucleus, coda). The moraicity of sonorants is further explored on the basis of glides in 3.1.1. In the next section I discuss the analyses of vowel-zero alternations in Slavic which derive from changes in the jers. Nonlinear representations present a variety of interesting proposals for treating these types of alternations, though none of them is entirely satisfactory. To this discussion I contribute a historical perspective, identifying the bisyllabic domain as critical to changes in the jers. I propose that jers were simply [+sonorant] root nodes with association to Place and a mora, that changes in the jers were prosodic rather than segmental, and that the changes in the jers are better described as reassociation to the moraic tier than as dissociation from it. Issues of length and gemination are discussed in 3.2 with respect to the Slovak Rhythmic Law (3.2.1), reflexes of long /e/ in Serbian and Croatian (3.2.2), and consonant gemination in Ukrainian (3.2.3). Section 3.3 treats prominence relations between stress and length in Slovene (3.3.1) and tone and stress in Serbian and Croatian (3.3.2). Constraints and constraint ranking in Late Common Slavic are reviewed in 3.4 with a view to language typology (3.5). It is a peculiar thing that while we do not yet have, and may never have, a full definition of the syllable in articulatory or acoustic terms, evidence for it as a unit of linguistic organization is overwhelming. 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. All languages have syllables and the preferred syllable type seems to be one in which sounds are sequenced according to rising sonority. The simplest abbreviation

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

193

of this is CV, though there are languages with syllabic consonants. The principle of rising sonority also tends to hold within syllable onsets, but there are exceptions to it in many languages, especially in word-initial and word-final position. 3.1

Sonority and syllable structure

One of the problems in studying syllable structure is to pry apart the relationship between the syllable and sonority. To some extent the definition of sonority is circular in that sounds are defined as more sonorous if they can function as the syllable peak and the syllable peak is defined in terms of the most sonorous segment. But patterns of relative sonority are repeated across languages and the syllable peak does not always coincide with the most sonorous segment (as determined by other characteristics). There is no question that sonority plays a major role in syllable identification and structure. It has been noted that syllable codas tend to differ less in their sonority from the preceding vowel than syllable onsets do with respect to the following vowel (Clements 1990), and that when two consonants of decreasing sonority occur between vowels, the first tends to be grouped with the preceding vowel as a syllable coda (Hooper 1976, Vennemann 1988). Languages differ greatly, however, in whether they have syllable codas and in what kinds of codas they have, in what may serve as a syllable nucleus, and in whether they make a distinction between light and heavy syllables. The importance of sonority in the identification of sounds and in the organization of speech has been recognized for a long time (Whitney 1865: 357ff.; Sievers 1881, Jespersen 1904, de Saussure 1916/1966) and there have been attempts to define it in some objective way, whether in terms of acoustic characteristics such as formant structure and intensity (cf. Price 1980) or articulatory properties (cf. Keating 1983) such as coronality (Steriade 1982/1990a), continuancy (Selkirk 1984a), voicing (Rice and Avery 1989), or other distinctive properties (Trubetzkoy 1939/1967). There is some agreement on relative sonority and the postulation of sonority scales or hierarchies (Hooper 1972, 1976, Selkirk 1984a, and others). Some linguists consider voiceless stops to be less sonorous than voiced ones and voiceless fricatives to be less sonorous than voiced (Blevins 1995), while others do not assign a significant role to voice (Clements 1990). Work in feature theory has suggested that sonority might be established on the basis of distinctive features. Blevins 1995 offers a universal sonority scale (3) in which the left branch is judged to be more sonorous than the right throughout the hierarchy.

194 (3)

Theoretical considerations Blevins 1995 segments [-cons] [+low]

[+cons]

[-low]

[-high]

[+son]

[+high] [-nas]

[-son]

[+nas]

[+cont]

[-cont]

[+voice] [-voice] [+voice] [-voice] Clements 1990 argues that sonority is derivable from feature values (4). (4)

Clements 1990: 292, 294 Sonority scale for non-syllabics

Sonority scale for syllables

O < N < L < G

O < N < L < V

-

-

-

-

"syllabic"

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

+

vocoid

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

approximant

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

sonorant

+

+

+

3

4

0

1

2

3

1

2

Glides are non-syllabic vowels. Note that the feature "syllabic" may be omitted and that both classes may be collapsed into one. The distinction between vowels and glides is best made elsewhere, as discussed in 3.1.1, at least for Slavic. Then the sonority scale would allow syllabicity to be defined on the basis of sonority (as Zee 1988/1994: 65 points out). Dogil 1988, Harris 1990 and Rice 1992,1993 propose that sonority is related to structural complexity, though in opposite ways. More structure implies higher sonority for Rice, but less sonority for Harris. (Dogil 1988 calculates complexity with respect to number of nodes above the Place Node.) The distinction between a coronal stop and a coronal lateral is depicted by Rice 1992 as in (5). (5)

Rice 1992 Coronal stop

Coronal lateral

ROOT

ROOT

Supralaryngeal Place

Air flow

Supralaryngeal Place

Air flow

Sonorant voice Lateral

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

195

Another proposal for relating sonority is that of Zee 1988/1994, which derives sonority relations from sonority constraints on moras as well as on syllables. She identifies a language-specific set of moraic segments and a set of syllabic segments, but a universal principle that the set of syllabic segments must always be a subset of the moraic set. Moraic segments contribute to syllable weight and the moraic segment inventory may be, but need not be, equivalent to the total segment inventory. In other words, some languages include consonants and vowels in the moraic set (all potentially contribute to syllable weight), while others identify only certain segments as moraic. By restricting prominence relations between subsyllabic constituents (moras) as in (6), Zee can derive sonority sequencing as a relation between syllabic and moraic segments: only syllabic segments license the strong member of branching structure. (6)

Zee 1988/1994: 44

Thus "asymmetries in sonority exhibited by the two moras of a bimoraic syllable, as well as the subset relation between them result, first, from independent sonority conditions on moras and on syllables, and second, from the subsyllabic metrical structure" (p. 46). The independent sonority conditions on syllables may be formalized as constraints: "a. The Nucleus can dominate only those segments that appear in the set of syllabic segments; b. The Coda can dominate only those segments that appear in the set of moraic segments" (p. 57). The algorithm that assigns a mora to a segment within a given string of segments must assume that information about the relative sonority of segments is available to it. Syllabification then is either a one-to-one or a one-to-many association of syllable nodes to moras, and in the latter case there is a strong-weak relation between the tautosyllabic moras. So "two adjacent segments a and b will belong to different moras only if a is more sonorous than b\ if a is less sonorous than b, the two segments create a sequence of ascending sonority, and will therefore be grouped into a single mora" (Zee 1988/1994: 84-85). Onsets are represented as associated to the syllable through a mora. This means that bimoraic diphthongs of rising sonority should not occur. The role of sonority in the history of Slavic is of paramount importance for reasons beyond those normally cited for other languages, namely, the identification of sonority peaks as syllable nuclei and sonority sequencing constraints on onset or coda clusters. Late Common Slavic dialects were distinguished by specific requirements on which segments could be associated with a mora.

196

Theoretical considerations

Historical change in Slavic shows a trend towards syllables of rising sonority. These changes are not simply a case of retaining moraic segments in the syllable rime, for even moraic sonorants eventually disappeared from syllable coda position. The strong-weak relation postulated for moras within a syllable would account for the presence of falling diphthongs and the absence of rising diphthongs in Common Slavic. One difficulty with Zee's derived sonority relations is that rising diphthongs such as /ie/ are said to be impossible. Whereas the prothesis of glides did create sequences of increasing sonority, there is no evidence that the glide was moraic, and in fact, evidence suggests that it was not, so for Common Slavic these sonority relations seem to hold. However, if it is true that changes in the liquid diphthongs in North West Late Common Slavic did produce a bimoraic liquid diphthong, as evidence from Polish and Upper Sorbian would suggest (discussed in 1.3.1.2), then this would be a counterexample to Zee's claim about sonority relations within a syllable. Admittedly, the data from liquid diphthongs are ambiguous for none of the reflexes found in Polish or Sorbian today is necessarily bimoraic, but the existence of rising diphthongs in Contemporary Standard Slovak as distinct from glide onsets does raise questions about subsyllabic mora relations. Slovak has a series of rising diphthongs, glides plus vowels, sequences of vowels, and vowels followed by glides (7). (7)

a. Rising diphthongs piaty trieda rieka diabol b. Glide plus vowel jasny jedlo prijat' jeden jednak c. Vowel plus vowel klient piano pacient dialekt bariera d. Vowel plus glide tajga £ujny strojnik tajny

"fifth" "class" "river" "devil" "bright" "meal" "to accept" "one" "however" "client" "piano" "patient" "dialect" "barrier" "tajga" "sensitive" "mechanic" "secret(ive)

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

197

On the basis of various lengthening and shortening processes (discussed in detail in 3.2), Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 and later Rubach 1993: 185 conclude that a distinction must be made among the three types of /i/ plus vowel sequences. In a moraic analysis this would be interpreted as (8). (8)

a.

aa

b.

A

a

C

11

i e jeden

i

O

G

11 e

i e pacient

rieka

The sequence in (8b), the rising diphthong, appears to be a counter-example to sonority relations within the syllable as defined in Zee 1988/1994 because a less sonorous segment licenses the first mora and a more sonorous one the second mora. These are what Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987:480 refer to as centrifugal diphthongs that "arise from designating the second nuclear position as head." The rising diphthong must be long in order to trigger the Rhythmic Law (discussed below in 3.2.1), and in some analyses it is derived from an underlying long vowel, so there is little question about its bimoraic status. Bulgarian presents an interesting problem with respect to sonority and syllabicity. There is an alternation between dr and rd in Standard Bulgarian forms such as those in (9), taken from Scatton 1984: 395-401. 2 (9)

Singular vrax grab grak gram vrav grad krav skrab

Definite sg varxat gsrbat gsrkat garmat vravta gradta krsvta skrabta

Plural varxove garbove garci garmove varvi gsrdi karvi skSrbi

Gloss top back Greek thunder twine bosom blood sorrow

In synchronic descriptions of Bulgarian the alternation in (9) has been described as liquid metathesis and various proposals have been made for "base," "regular" and "irregular" forms. Stojanov 1964: 93-95 and Aronson 1968: 147-148 take the CRVC variant to be the regular form and derive CVRC by metathesis. Scatton 1984: 397 suggests that two syllable types, CRVC and CVRC, should be recognized for Bulgarian and that perhaps the CRVC type is to be derived from CRC by epenthesis. This is also the analysis of Zee 1988/1994, but she derives both variants by syllabification rules and epenthesis from CRC/CLC, thereby eliminating the need for metathesis. According to Zee, the placement of the vowel is determined by a syllable structure constraint

198

Theoretical considerations

which allows at most one coda consonant. Thus in /grb/ epenthesis will introduce a vowel after the liquid, grdb, leaving /b/ in the syllable coda. When there is no coda as in /gr-bat/, then epenthesis will create a CVC syllable, gdrbdt. In Zee 1988/1994 the liquid is licensed by the mora throughout the cyclic lexical derivation (and therefore it is not deleted), and syllable structure is assigned at the postcyclic lexical level, when moraic but not syllabic segments are incorporated into syllable structure with the help of epenthesis. Forms such as ddlg are exceptional: Zee postulates that they may have final extrametrical consonants.3 The interesting claim made by Zee is that liquids are moraic but not syllabic in Bulgarian. If liquids were considered syllabic, then they would have to lose syllabicity post-cyclically. The alternative account that the mora is a prosodic licenser throughout the cyclic component allows the status of moraic segments to be evaluated post-cyclically when syllabification is said to take place, i.e., it defers syllabification until fairly late in the derivation. (See also Sloan 1991, Wiltshire 1992, who propose two stages of syllabification.) But these facts could be analyzed as subject to a many-to-one association between the segmental root nodes and the prosodic (moraic) level, in other words, there appears to be no reason why monomoraic syllables cannot have the bisegmental structure in (10). (10)

\i

JLL

Several studies of syllabic [r] and schwa + [r] sequences in Bulgarian by Scatton (1987, 1993,1994) have determined that in Western Bulgarian dialects there is great fluctuation in monosyllabic forms, e.g., CaRC/CRaC/CRC, but almost no fluctuation in the environment of two consonants, where the preferred variant is CRaCC. For these dialects CRC is a reasonable phonological representation and the restriction on CRaCC may indeed be related to syllable structure (allowable syllable codas), as Zee 1988/1994 proposes. If we view this as a constraint that may be violated, then it can be established that a threesegment coda (CsRCC) would be a worse violation than a two-segment coda (CRaCC), and a one-segment coda would be most acceptable (the least violation). The variation found in Bulgarian rjdrjrd suggests that it is a case of syllable peak timing: the liquid is moraic (R) but its onset may be delayed or advanced, thereby affecting the location of the syllable peak, depending on context. Particularly noteworthy (in view of the discussion of liquid diphthongs in chapter 1) is the absence of a pleophonic /ara/ variant here. Pleophonic reflexes are the implementation of bimoraic diphthongs. In Bulgarian the /r/ is

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

199

not bimoraic, though it appears to retain an association to the mora. Given that Bulgarian does not have a phonemic length contrast in vowels (although Western Bulgarian dialects sometimes show surface length contrasts under stress as the result of the loss of /I/, e.g., vma < vslna "wave," biika < bulka "roll," and in some other instances [Mladenov 1963], one would not expect a monomoraic vs. bimoraic contrast in syllable nuclei. These /r/ nuclei which are manifested as rldrlrd illustrate the need for two different levels in syllable structure. The prosodic syllable is monomoraic, but the root nodes are organized according to relative sonority with respect to the syllable constituents of onset, nucleus and coda. There does seem to be a Coda Constraint limiting this position to one segment. Syllabic /r/ will not decompose into a vowel plus /r/ before two consonants because that would force two consonants into the coda, e.g., *gardta "bosom," def. Instead /r/ decomposes into an onset and a syllable peak, e.g., grddta "bosom"; grdm "thunder," gdrmdt "thunder," def. In the latter form it fulfills the coda role. When we consider that these /r/ nuclei are historically the result of jer plus liquid and liquid plus jer sequences (see 1.3.2 and 1.3.3), and that in South Slavic these generally lost the jer, leaving syllabic liquids, we can see that the historical change in Bulgarian is a new sensitivity to syllable codas. There was no real change in the moraic status of the liquid itself. In fact, the existence of /r/ in some dialects is evidence that there is no prohibition against moraic liquids. Under Zee's 1988/1994 analysis, the liquid is moraic but not syllabic and it is its inability to be syllabic which triggers schwa epenthesis. Critical to her interpretation is the deferral of syllabification to the post-lexical level. But it is not necessary to defer syllabification: the /r/ may be fully syllabified with respect to the prosodic syllable but constraints on syllable constituents (namely, the presence of a coda) favor certain types of structures (CVR). It appears that specific coda constraints may be ranked more highly than a constraint against syllabic liquids. Bulgarian makes an interesting comparison with the Southwestern Ukrainian dialects (1.3.3) where variants such as kyrvavyi "bloody" compared to Standard Ukrainian kryvavyi were argued to be the implementation of different syllable structure preferences in the two dialect areas (CVR vs. CRV). Neither the Ukrainian case nor the Bulgarian one discussed here is a convincing argument for metathesis. It is true that the most sonorous element in a sequence of segments will often be the one associated with the syllable peak in most languages and in recent phonological theory this has been recognized as nuclear harmony or peak prominence (Goldsmith 1990, 1993, Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993, and others). The finding that relative sonority is also contextual and not just categorical (cf. Imdlawn Tashlhiyt dialect of Berber Arabic

200

Theoretical considerations

tf.tkt "you suffered a strain," tx.znt "you stored") and that derived sonority may be different from inherent sonority (Larson 1990) encourages a view of the syllable in which sonority is calculated relative to adjacent segments. Slavic in general follows the categorical sonority hierarchy in identifying syllable peaks with vowels, but there are cases of contextual sonority with respect to liquids in some Slavic languages. For example, in Serbian and Croatian /r/ is syllabic between two consonants and non-syllabic next to a vowel, e.g., vrdt "neck" vs. vrlo "very." For analyses that operate with identifying a set of syllabic phonemes and non-syllabic ones, the /r/ is a problem. Either it must be listed in both categories, as a vowel and as a consonant, or it is a consonant which may become syllabic under certain conditions, or it is a syllabic element which may lose its syllabicity next to a vowel. The two occasions on which a syllabic /r/ is found next to a vowel, namely, after a prefix as in [zarzati] "to start neighing" or [porvati se] "to come to grips" and before /o/ which derives from /I/ as in vro "good-hearted"(< /vrl/), present an additional complication for both distributionally and contextually-determined sonority or syllabicity. Brozovic 1967: 421 argues that syllabic /r/ is not phonemic in Serbian or Croatian. A synchronic account of Serbian and Croatian /r/ and /r/ could acknowledge the special status of the prefix and stem boundary (or some type of restricted syllabification). The exceptional behavior of/r/ before /o/ < /I/ could be derived by rule ordering: the /r/ would be syllabified as a nucleus before /I/ > /o/. This appears to be necessary in any case because the /I/ to /o/ change happens only in syllable coda position: vrlo "very" vs. vro "good-hearted," gflo "throat" vs. gfoce(< /grlce/), dim. But syllabicity may be recalculated in context. It is not surprising to find variation between the trisyllabic fumro] "he died" and the preferred bisyllabic fumro], though forlstro "he wiped off," the trisyllabic version is more common than a bisyllabic one (Brozovic 1967: 421). Whether syllabification takes place on different levels, as Wiltshire 1992 proposes, or is a question of possible and preferred syllabification, remains to be determined. Serbian and Croatian examples such as groce show that some structure (r as a syllable nucleus) is preserved even after the conditioning environment changes (1 > o), and examples such as umro show that syllabicity may be recalculated in a newly derived context. In other words, the most sonorous segment in a sequence is not necessarily the syllable peak, though there is much evidence that syllabification may be based on relative sonority at fairly superficial or phonotactic levels as well as under phonologically determined conditions.

3.1.1

Glides

It was assumed in chapters 1 and 2 that a Slavic syllable must have at least one mora and one segment, usually a vowel. All Slavic languages today, as did

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

201

Common Slavic, take the [-consonantal] segments to be moraic: vowels are always potential syllable peaks. The interesting question arises on the glide/vowel interface because in Slavic the two high segments /i/ and /u/ are sometimes moraic and at other times not. By classifying them as simply [+sonorant] with no specification for the feature [consonantal] as was done in chapter 1, the glide/vowel distinction was relegated to properties of syllable structure. Consequently, they are not listed as separate elements in the phonological inventory with a mora prespecified on the vowel and none on the glide, but they are sonorants which may lose a mora depending on the phonological context. Common Slavic appears to be describable in this fashion. If /i/ and /u/ were the most sonorous segments in a sequence then they became the syllable peak; otherwise they functioned as glides. Thus no changes in feature specification are needed in order to account for alternations between [i] and [i] and between [u] and [u]. This is a property of vowels and glides in many languages (see, for example, Sievers 1881, Clements and Keyser 1983, Rosenthall 1994, Blevins 1995, and others), though there are cases that are best described as actually making a distinction among [i], [i], and [j], as in Waksler 1990. In Slavic, the back glide is historically related to the high back vowel /u/, but later phonological developments (i.e., its affrication into [v]), have obscured the connection and the /v/ is a phoneme distinct from /u/ in most Slavic languages. For these reasons, I will focus primarily on the representation of the front glide in Slavic. Slavists do not necessarily agree on the nature of the front glide in Slavic, and Common Slavic is said to have had a consonantal [j] (BernStejn 1961: 166; Saxmatov 1903b, Shevelov 1965: 292-293), a nonsyllabic [i] (Nahtigal 1938/1952, Kurylowicz 1957/1987, Cekmonas 1973,1979, Schenker 1993: 63 who uses j and v for Late Common Slavic and / and u for the earlier period), a non-consonantal, non-vocalic / j / (Velcheva 1988), or the positional variants "vocalic" / and "consonantal" j (Broch 1902,1910, Saxmatov 1903b, van Wijk 1939-1940). Some scholars distinguish two glides (Meillet 1924/1965, Cekmonas 1973,1979), others seem to use the symbols / andy interchangeably (Mikkola 1942, van Wijk 1956). The lack of a separate orthographical symbol for jod in the early Slavic alphabets has also contributed to the uncertainty about its phonemic status.4 In Bethin 1993b I proposed that the glide in Common Slavic was a nonmoraic I'll and that a consonantization of [i] to /j/ took place in some areas of Late Common Slavic. Specifically, for monophthongization of diphthongs to have taken place, the glide had to have originally been moraic /i/. In other positions, such as after a consonant and before a more sonorous vowel, the /i/ lost its association to the mora and coalesced with the preceding consonant in a process

202

Theoretical considerations

known as iotation. Since this non-moraic [i] alternates with the vowel /i/ in other forms within a paradigm (e.g., OCS pustiti "to let go" and *pusti+Q > pusto "I will let go") it may be derived from the vowel by dissociation from the moraic tier. The non-moraic segment cannot be syllabified as a vowel in the nucleus. Were the glide to be interpreted as originally consonantal [j], iotation would not be as well motivated because consonant clusters, especially those of rising sonority, were generally allowed in onset position, e.g., OCS brath. Evidence that the glide was a nonmoraic [i] also comes from the development of vowel plus nasal sequences. In position before a consonant, these had a nasal vowel alternant. Before the glide, however, no change took place, i.e., there is no form *ko..ia from *kon+i+a, indicating that the nasal was not in the syllable coda before the glide or that the nasal plus glide sequence became a palatal nasal before changes in V+N sequences took place. Other developments discussed in chapter 1, such as the occurrence of tense jers and the presence of contraction, may also be related to the nature of the glide. In those dialects where the moraic status of a sonorant depended on its position, the glide was probably taken to be a nonmoraic [i]. Thus Lencek 1982: 108 writes that in its early stages Proto-Slovene could have only had i and that "the later evolution of the sound in the dialects suggests that it probably never functioned as a full-fledged voiced palatal spirant /j/," though some peripheral eastern Slovene dialects show a strong consonantization of the glide to [d']. On the other hand, in those systems which did not allow moraic sonorants, the glide was probably reinterpreted as the consonantal /j/. A related question in Slavic is the phonemic status of [j] vs [i]. In East Slavic these are accepted as separate phonemes, a vocalic /i/ and a consonantal /j/. Although they do not occur in the same environment, they do serve to distinguish meaning in pairs such as R volcij "wolfs" and the plural form volcji. On the other hand it is not clear whether the vowel [i] and the front glide are distinct phonemes in other Slavic languages. Jakobson 1931b/1971 proposed that /i/ and 1)1 were separate phonemes in Russian, Czech and Slovak, though in the latter they were said to be phonologically the closest or, as he put it, "the i and j of Standard Slovak in their interrelation are on the very threshold of phonemic distinctiveness" (1931b/1971: 229; cf. also Peciar 1946b). While not everyone agrees (cf. Vachek 1932), there is some consensus that the status of the /i/ as a vowel or a glide is related to syllable position. Ku5era 1961: 28-29 sees this as a question of distributional restrictions on [i] vs [i] vs [j] in Czech, and the three may be analyzed as "sub-members" of the phoneme /i/, although he concludes that "it is advantageous to assign [i], [i] and [j] to two separate phonemes, /i/ and /j/, of which the latter has the allophones [i] and [j]. The phoneme /j/, however,

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

203

has a special status in the Czech phonemic system. The only feature which distinguishes I'll from both allophones of /j/ is the syllabicity vs. non-syllabicity" (p. 29). For Polish (Bethin 1992b) and Slovak (Rubach 1993) recent analyses derive the glide from the vowel by rules of syllabification or gliding. The /i/ and l]l are listed separately in the phoneme inventories of all Slavic languages described in Comrie and Corbett 1993, except in Proto-Slavic where " j " is not included in the consonant inventory. In the analysis of Late Common Slavic proposed in chapter 1, the high front I'll was identified simply as [+sonorant]. In syllable nucleus position it was moraic (vowel), in others it was not (glide). There was no phonemic contrast between /i/ and /j/ in LCS; the occurrence of [i] vs. [i] depended on syllable structure. However, in East Slavic there is some evidence that the front glide is specified [+consonantal]. For example, the gemination of consonants in Ukrainian and Belarusian after the loss of jers in -Cii- and -Cui- sequences may be interpreted as the complete assimilation of the glide to the consonant, in other words, the dissociation of the glide features and the spread of the consonant features (Bethin 1992c): U [zyt':a], BR [zyc':o] < *zyt+ii+e "life"; U [pytan':a], BR [pytan're] < *pytan+ii+e "question"; U [zbiz'ia], BR [zbozia] < *suboziie "grain" (see 3.2.3). Russian clearly distinguishes sequences of a palatalized consonant followed by a vowel from a palatalized consonant followed by a glide and a vowel: R semja [s'em'a] "seed," sem'jd [s'im'ja] "family." The acquisition of [+consonantal] specification was certainly the case for the back glide [u] throughout Slavic, not just in East Slavic, and it became a bilabial or labio-dental fricative in syllable onset position. Whether it coalesced with a preceding vowel or not depended on its status within a syllable, e.g., no coalescence in onset position: *eu > ev in Rplevat' "to spit," but coalescence when /u/ was in the coda: *eu > (i)u in Rpljuju "I spit." After coalescence any remaining glides were found only in syllable onset position. During the process of iotation /u/ appears to have functioned as a consonant because there are reflexes of epenthetic /I/ after it in certain verb classes (cf. BernStejn 1961: 195), as in OCS loviti "to hunt," IOVIJQ "I hunt." Schenker 1993: 82 points out that after the metathesis of liquids, the glide plus liquid sequences [ul] or [ur] would have changed to a more consonantal onset, [vl] or [vr], conforming to Slavic CR onset structure. The back glide apparently changed to a consonantal fricative in LCS and all Slavic languages today have the phoneme /v/, though it tends to retain some of its sonorant properties. For example, it does not trigger voicing assimilation in Russian, though it may undergo it, e.g., svoj [svoj] "own," lavka [lafka] "bench, store" and it undergoes progressive voicing assimilation in Polish much like /z/ which derives

204

Theoretical considerations

from /rV, e.g., twdj [tfuj] "your," krzyk [kSik] "shout." In some Slavic languages the /v/ is laxed to a [w] in syllable-final position, e.g., U viv [viw] "he led," vovk [vowk] "wolf." The consonantal status of/v/, however, is not in dispute and in this sense the relationship of /u/ to /v/ is not completely parallel to that of /i/ and/j/. The issue of glides in terms of segment features, phonemic status, and syllable structure is a very complex one with far-reaching theoretical implications which will not be discussed in detail here (but cf. Waksler 1990). What can be pointed out for Slavic on the basis of a general discussion is that the question of the phonemic status of /i/ and 1)1 seems to arise primarily in those languages which have been analyzed here as making distinctions on the moraic tier. Where the mora is restricted to vowels and syllables are monomoraic, as in Russian and northern Belarusian, the question does not seem to be such a pressing one. And transitional areas, such as Ukrainian and southern Belarusian, show both characteristics: (a) a consonantal /j/ which functions in gemination, and (b) a surface alternation between [i] and [i] (e.g., U vin ide "he goes," vona jde [vonaide] "she goes") which may reflect a tolerance for a syllable coda or a non-moraic glide. It has been notoriously difficult to pin down the nature of glides because in a phonemic analysis a sound must be shown to be contrastive in order to be considered phonemic. But the glides do not contrast with the high vowels in all positions and in the majority of cases the two are in complementary distribution. It has also been difficult to identify the differences between high vowels and glides in terms of distinctive features: are there two segments, one [+consonantal], the other [-consonantal] or is one segment sometimes consonantal and at other times not? What appears to be the real issue is syllabicity, and I have argued that syllable structure is the distinguishing factor between vowels and glides in many cases. Thus segments which are found in onset or coda position are pronounced as glides, those associated with the syllable nucleus are realized as vowels. One advantage of this interpretation is that the alternation between the high vowel and the glides does not require feature-changing operations, but is instead the expected outcome of a change in syllable position or moraic status. The fact that LCS experienced a similar vacillation in other sonorants and that in some Slavic languages today syllabic liquids are in complementary distribution with non-syllabic liquids suggests that the nature of sonorants (and their moraicity) may be determined by syllable structure. A model such as that employed in the analyses of chapters 1 and 2 or the three-dimensional one proposed in (2) has the flexibility of identifying glides either as non-moraic or as specifically associated with a feature [consonantal].

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

205

3.1.2 Vowel-zero alternations The postulation of separate tiers or planes in phonological representation permits a limited variety of relations to hold between them. Given this type of autosegmental or nonlinear representation, there is the theoretical possibility of a mismatch between tiers. A position on the moraic tier may or may not be associated with one on the segmental tier and vice versa. One would like to be able to show that this theoretical option is actually exploited by languages. Several cases in the linguistic literature argue for the validity of empty representational slots of one kind or another. Perhaps the best known example from the Slavic languages is the representation of the various vowel-zero alternations that resulted from the historical changes in the jers. Analyses of the vowel-zero alternation within a nonlinear framework specifically address the nature of syllable, skeletal, segmental and feature relations. This alternation has been analyzed as an empty syllable node (nucleus or rime), an empty skeletal slot (V or X), a segmental root node (specified or not), and as an unassociated feature matrix. These versions are briefly discussed below. All Slavic languages have an alternation between a vowel and its absence throughout the phonology, though there are differences among the languages with respect to which vowel alternates with zero. In every Slavic language there are vowels identical to alternating ones which do not alternate. Some representative data are given in (11). For the sake of narrative simplicity, the vowel-zero alternation in synchronic Slavic systems will be referred to as a question about the representation of "jers." (11)

Ukrainian: [son] "dream," [snu], gen sg; [den'] "day," [dn'a], gen sg; [sestra] "sister," [sester], gen pi, but [pot] "sweat," [potu], gen sg; [klen] "maple," [klena], gen sg Polish: [sen] "dream," [snu], gen sg; [3eri] "day," [dria], gen sg; [p'es] "dog," [psa], gen sg; [lalka] "doll," [lalek], gen pi; [odb'ore] "I will take away," [odebrac] "to take away," but [b'es] "devil," [b'esa], gen sg Serbian/Croatian: [san] "dream," [sna], gen sg; [pas] "dog," [psa], gen sg; [tu2an] "sad," masc sg, [tu2na], fern sg, but [pas] "belt," [pasa], gen sg

This synchronic alternation is the result of the historical change in the jers, whereby a jer in position before another jer was strong and it became a mid or low vowel, while jers in other positions (word-final or in a syllable before one with a non-jer vowel) were lost (see also 1.4.2). This is exemplified by a form such as *kuniziku "book," gen pi which shows the loss of the first and the last jer in R knizek. Although the structural effects of the changes in the jers were generally the same throughout Slavic (strong-weak relationship, loss of weak

206

Theoretical considerations

jers, merger of strong jers with some vowel), the implementation of these changes was different in the various dialect areas. One major difference is in the nature of the strong jer reflex: the back and front jers merged in South Slavic into /a/, in West Slavic their reflex is usually /e/, and in East Slavic the front/back opposition is maintained in the /e/ vs. /o/ reflexes. There are variants within each subsystem, e.g., Slovak in particular shows a wide range of jer reflexes, and in some languages the strong-weak relation is not as clear-cut as in others, e.g., Polabian often has vowels in place of weak jers, Kashubian and Slovene show the loss of strong jers in certain instances. Changes in the jers raise questions about the retention of rounding, the retention of the front/back opposition, the palatalization of the preceding consonant, and merger for Slavic historical phonology (Carlton 1991: 166). These carry over to some extent into synchronic analyses, where the resulting vowel-zero alternation confronts at least two theoretical problems. The first is how to represent this alternation and its conditions, and this is discussed in some detail below. The other is to account for the nature of the alternating vowel (the notion of a "default" or "leastmarked" vowel is often invoked with respect to this issue) but this is beyond the scope of this study. The vowel-zero alternation presents a persistent problem for synchronic analyses (cf. Lightner 1972, Melvold 1989, Farina 1991 for Russian; Hristova 1994 for Bulgarian and Russian; Foster 1966, Carlton 1974 for Ukrainian; Scatton 1983 for Bulgarian; Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987, Rubach 1993 for Slovak; Gussmann 1980, Rubach 1984, 1986, Spencer 1986, Szpyra 1992 and many others for Polish), and there is no agreement on the synchronic representation of jers in Slavic. The purpose of this discussion is to consider some relevant theoretical and representational issues raised by the vowel-zero alternation in Slavic, namely, distinctive features, skeletal representations, and syllabification. One of the questions raised by linguists is whether jers are specified by distinctive features and, if they are, by which ones? In order to distinguish those /e/s and /o/s in Russian that alternate with zero from those that never do, Lightner 1972 proposed to represent jers as [-long] or [-tense] high vowels, /I/ and /u/, thereby distinguishing them by height from /e/ and /o/ and by length from /!/ and /u/, which do not alternate. A later rule lowered /I/ and /u/ to /e/ and /o/, respectively. This approach basically took jers to be fully specified vowels and it was consistent with the linear generative phonology framework of the time. 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

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

207

become stupid," just as [d'en'] "day" and [dn'a], gen sg, or [bol'en] "sick," masc sg and [bol'na], fern sg (vowel reduction is not indicated) have derived palatalized or non-palatalized consonants from the front or back feature of the following jer. This predictability of palatalization before front vowels was relegated to a palatalization rule and it was seen as an advantage for that analysis. In languages where only one vowel alternates with zero and where palatalization is also distinctive, as in Polish (Gussmann 1980: 26), given below, the question becomes much more complicated because one has to deal with absolute neutralization and a certain abstractness. (12)

Polish vowel-zero alternations a. +deleting, -^-palatalizing [v'e]s [f]si [dze]ri [d]nia b.

-\-deleting, -palatalizing [se]n [s]nu [me]ch [m]chu

village day dream moss

c. -deleting, +palatalizing [ce]ri [ce]nia [b'e]s [b'e]sa

shadow devil

d. -deleting, -palatalizing sz[me]r sz[me]ru k[re]et k[re]ta

rustle mole

Since Gussmann 1980 derives palatalized consonants that alternate with non-palatalized ones by a rule of palatalization before [-back] vowels, he proposes that Polish has two jers in the underlying representation which are [-tense] high vowels, one a [-back] jer, the other a [+back] jer, much like Lightner's analysis of Russian. In Polish the pronunciation of both jers as /e/ is a case of absolute neutralization. But if Russian and Polish are analyzed as having a palatalized vs. non-palatalized consonant contrast in their inventory (cf. Farina 1991, Gussmann 1992, Bethin 1992b, Szpyra 1995, and others), then the front/back specification on jers may not be necessary and they may be less specified or minimally specified entities. The separation of the segment from syllable structure or from a timing slot in the skeleton opened up a new range of possible representations for jers. They may be viewed as empty skeletal slots or syllable positions with no feature melodies attached, as floating feature melodies with no skeletal representation (cf. Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 for Slovak, Melvold 1989, Yearley 1995 for Russian), or as incomplete feature melodies. All of these possibilities have been explored in the analysis of Polish jers. Spencer 1986 proposes that jers are

208

Theoretical considerations

empty vocalic slots with no features, Piotrowski 1992 postulates empty rime heads, Gussmann and Kaye 1993 have empty syllable nuclei with no skeletal association, Rubach 1986 proposes floating feature matrices, Bethin 1992b has a floating [-cons] root node, Szpyra 1992 suggests only an X-slot for jers (see Szpyra 1995: 90-135 for some discussion of relevant issues). To these may be added the possibility of relating jers in various ways to a moraic skeleton. The range of jer representations is given below.5 (13)

Jer representations in nonlinear phonology a. Syllable constituent, with or without skeletal or segmental material Rime (head) Nucleus X Y (X) b. Skeletal slot with no segmental melody X

V

|JL

I

I

I

c. Skeletal slot with partially or fully specified segmental melody, linked or not X

JLJL

X

I [-cons] ([aF])

I [-cons] ([<xF])

[-cons] ([aF])

|JL

[-cons] ([aF])

d. Feature matrices with no skeletal slot [-cons]

[—cons]

Root

I [aF] Various other possibilities may be imagined. The choice of a particular model is in part dependent on the theoretical assumptions of a given framework, but all descriptions of the vowel-zero alternation must distinguish these vowels in some way from phonetically identical non-alternating vowels and explain or predict when a vowel will actually appear. Theories that postulate a skeletal tier, either CV or X, have the option of representing jers as skeletal positions (with or without feature specifications, with or without association lines) or as feature matrices without skeletal slots. Analyses that operate with the notion of a syllable rime may postulate an empty syllable rime as a phonological entity; likewise those that identify a structural syllable nucleus (13a). In partially specified representations such as those in (13b) or (13c), phonological rules provide either association lines or features, or both. Representations with partial feature matrices (13d) allow subsequent phonological rules to assign syllable structure on the basis of major class features or the presence of a root node. The possibilities are either the insertion of syllable structure or the insertion of segment features; sometimes it is a question of relating postulated struc-

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

209

tures. The representations with segmental material have the advantage of positioning the jer within a segment sequence, thus predicting for example that a vowel appears between /t/ and /r/ in R sester [s'ist'or] and not after the -trsequence. The representation of a jer by a timing slot has the advantage of allowing jers to be invisible on the segmental level and perhaps also invisible with respect to syllabification. This turns out to be useful in explaining the selection of a syllabic allomorph in Polish comparatives where glosny "loud" becomes glosniejszy "louder" like wierny "loyal," wierniejszy, even though glosny has a jer in its underlying representation and thus no consonant cluster which normally conditions the selection of -ejsz- (Bethin 1992b). But each version of jer representation has shortcomings, as Szpyra 1995 observes for Polish. Aside from the question of whether palatalization is to be predicted from features of the jer, it is clearly difficult to motivate a notion of default segment or default features for the alternating vowel in those languages where the alternation encompasses a great variety of vowels, e.g., Sk ddzd' "rain" (< *duzdzi); chrbdt "back," chrbta, gen sg; den "day," dna, gen sg; ovos "oats," ovsa, gen sg. Another awkward component of jer analysis is the formulation of conditions for the appearance of the vowel alternant. This has been traditionally formalized as a rule of Lowering or Vocalization and it essentially recapitulates the historical development within a synchronic description in conditioning the appearance of the vowel alternant by a jer in the following syllable, as in (14).6 In Lexical Phonology this rule belongs to the cyclic component (cf. Rubach 1984, 1993). A generalized linear formulation of the rule is (14a), a nonlinear one is (14b). (14)

Jer lowering or vocalization a. Russian:

I, u —• e, o /

b. Polish:

C, {I, u}

X

v

v/ qv

The reference to a jer in the following syllable (either as I, u or V in (14)) entails a certain level of abstraction in synchronic descriptions because very often conditioning jers have to be postulated in word-final position where they are always subsequently deleted. And the claim that the appearance of the vowel somehow depends on a jer in the next syllable is theoretically awkward. This problem has led to a reconsideration of jer representation in terms of syllable structure and syllabification, and to proposals that specifically derive the

210

Theoretical considerations

vowel alternant by epenthesis (cf. Gorecka 1988, Czaykowska-Higgins 1988, Piotrowski 1992, Bethin 1992b (in borrowings) for Polish; Farina 1991 for Russian; Hristova 1994 for Bulgarian and Russian). Epenthesis is seen as a consequence of syllabification in that it provides an appropriate syllable nucleus of some type which then permits the proper syllabification of previously unsyllabified consonants. There are various opinions about whether epenthesis introduces a skeletal slot or whether it is the introduction of an association line between an existing slot and a root node (Melvold 1989, Sloan 1991, Cresti 1994, and others), but a general formulation is given in (15). (15)

Epenthesis 0 -> V /_

(*=unsyllabified)

c*

One problem with the epenthesis analyses is that there are many instances where no epenthesis is found in identical environments. Compare the following examples from Russian (Townsend 1980: 69-80) and Polish (Gussmann 1980, Szpyra 1995: 95-100), cited in transliteration for Russian. (16)

Russian:

Polish:

Nom sg laska laska doska sestra

Gen pi lasok lask dosok sester

gloss weasel caress board sister

Nomsg veter metr bobr bober kover lavr

Gen sg vetra metra bobra bobra kovra lavra

Gloss wind meter beaver beaver fur carpet laurel

Nom sg puder cedr wie,zieri przyjazri wapieri wapri kisiel mysl susel pomysl dureri cierri walec wale

Gen sg pudru cedru wi^znia przyjazni wapnia wapnia kislu mysli susla pomyslu durnia ciernia walca walca

Gloss powder cedar prisoner friendship limestone calcium jelly thought gopher idea fool thorn cylinder waltz

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

211

The vowel-zero alternation must be somehow indicated in the lexicon, but its representation must be such that it would inhibit the syllabification of the following consonant if the vowel alternant is to be derived by syllabification processes. In any case, the minimal requirements for jers, namely, (a) that they are potential syllable nuclei and therefore more vowel-like than consonant-like, and (b) that they are not automatically syllabified as nuclei like other vowels but become syllable peaks only under certain conditions, may be more readily encoded in a model of the syllable that operates with a segmental skeleton and a moraic level. It is clear that the preference of one alternative over others in (13) is to a large extent theory-dependent and it may turn out that different jer representations are needed for different Slavic languages. Vowel-zero alternations are of significant interest to phonological theory because they entail insertion/deletion phenomena which have ramifications for the representation of syllable structure. Yearley 1995 proposes an analysis within Optimality Theory that produces the vowel-zero alternation as the result of the interaction of certain phonological and morphological constraints without specifically targeting jers or referring to jers as a conditioning environment for "vocalization." Jers are represented as moraless vowels and constraints on syllable structure and prosodic alignment together with certain morphological restrictions on the nature of suffixes (cyclic or not) determine when an underlying jer is parsed. Jers also interact with the expression of tone and stress in Slavic: sometimes they are invisible for purposes of prominence or they have peculiar effects on the placement of stress or tone. Many such cases are discussed in the analyses of individual Slavic languages mentioned above, and some analyses postulate more than one type of abstract vowel (jer) in a given system. In Melvold's 1989 analysis of Russian stress, for example, vowel-zero alternations are represented by three different types of abstract vowels: one is a floating feature segment (4>-yer), another is a segmentally unspecified syllabic jer (X-yer), and the third consists of a skeletal slot as well as feature matrices but it lacks association between the two (4>X-yer). Each abstract vowel has distinct properties. The O-yer triggers and undergoes vocalization, triggers velar palatalization, cannot be lexically accented (since it has no representation on the stress plane) and suffixes with this jer do not have an effect on stress. The X-yer does not have segmental effects (no vocalization or velar palatalization), but it can be lexically accented. The <5X-yer triggers and undergoes vocalization, triggers velar palatalization, may be lexically accented, and may have effects on stress placement (Melvold 1989: 112-180). If this analysis can be defended, then it would show that a given system may exploit various representational possibilities, thereby presenting an argument for autosegmental levels and for specific requirements on their association.

212

Theoretical considerations

In Common Slavic, the vowels /I/ and /u/ would have been [+sonorant] root nodes with Place association to either Coronal (front jers) or Dorsal (back jers) and with association to the mora so long as they functioned as syllable nuclei. By Late Common Slavic jers lost the ability to carry tone and one result was the retraction of accent, e.g., *karl-i-i "king" > * kafl'i > R koroV', korol'a, gen sg (with retraction of stress) and Cz krdl, Sk krdl, SC Cak krdlj (with preservation of length as a reflex of the neo-acute). The inability of a weak jer to carry tone suggests that there might have been a change in the moraic status of jers. Recall that a sequence of jer syllables produced an alternating pattern of weak-strong syllables counting from the end of the word, e.g., *§ivici > U svec' "shoemaker," discussed in 1.4.2. (17)

Gw

Gs

Gw

Gs

s i v i c i

Gw

Gs

s i v i c a

U svec'

Us eve'a

The alternating pattern, together with the loss of tone on weak jers, indicates that changes in the jers were prosodic rather than segmental and therefore the bisyllabic domain requirement would not be unexpected. When changes in the jers are treated as purely segmental or feature changes the requirement of a following syllable seems peculiar. The other indication that changes in the jers were prosodic is directionality. The determination of relative strength proceeds from the end of the word (right-to-left). In this sense, analyses that operate with a prosodic level have an advantage in describing the changes in the jers. Assuming that the moraic tier is relevant in the calculation of strong and weak jers, there are at least two possible ways to analyze jers. The first is as dissociation: weak jers lose their association to the mora, strong jers retain it. The second is re-association: all jers lose their ability to be associated with a mora, but strong jers re-associate under certain prosodic conditions. These two possibilities are given in (18) and (19) below. (18)

Dissociation

I S

(19)

1

I V

1

+

I C

1

S

I

S

I

I V

I

V

I

+ C

I

C

I

I S

I

V

S

I

V

I

C

I

C

I

Re-association

i S

I

i V

I

i C

I

"^

t

t

t

"^

! I

3.1 Sonority and syllable structure

213

In both cases, moras that are unassociated may either associate with another vowel or delete. The difference between (18) and (19) lies in their focus: dissociation calculates prosodic weakness, re-association is based on prosodic strength. When a non-jer vowel interrupts the string of jer syllables, as does the I'll in *kunizlku > R knizek, the prosodic count begins anew. A re-association analysis might therefore be preferrable to dissociation. The dissociation analysis would not differentiate between the prosodic status of non-jer vowels and that of strong jers, and it would not easily determine that the bisyllabic grouping of (kuni-) should not be parsed the same as (-zlku) without reference to segmental features (20). (20)

Dissociation analysis (predicts wrong outcome) (s

w)

(s

w)

M-

M-

M-

M-

I

+ ^ I k u n i z i *konzek, *konizek

+ k u

One could acknowledge that jers may differ in major class features from other vowels ([+sonorant] vs. [-consonantal] or some such) and use this to account for the difference in behavior with respect to the moraic tier. It would then be necessary to recognize that [+sonorant] root nodes retain association to the moraic tier only if they are the head of a prosodic foot. For the -ziku foot in (20) this is not a problem, but it would not automatically produce the correct result for kuni-. Under the re-association analysis one would assume a categorical loss of moraicity on all jers and a re-association or metrification of unassociated moras according to a trochaic metrical foot, whereby only the head of the foot receives association/realization (21). (21)

Re-association analysis Mk u n

Mi z i

(s

w)

V

V k

u

Unassociated moras delete if they are not transferred to a preceding syllable by some other process, such as compensatory lengthening. This analysis recognizes a bisyllabic minimum for strong jer status, provides a rationale for the deletion of jers before non-jer vowels and in initial syllables of an oddnumbered sequence of jer syllables (*S!vici). It treats all jers the same in assigning them no association lines to the moraic level, thus distinguishing them from

214

Theoretical considerations

non-jer vowels which do have association to the mora. Moreover, the categorical demorification of jers (and not of other vowels) could be attributed to major class features ([+sonorant] vs. [-consonantal]), or in the case of tense /i/ and /u/, mora count. The loss of tone on weak jers is consistent with moraic dissociation. Whether this type of analysis can be employed in the description of vowel -zero alternations in the contemporary Slavic languages remains to be determined, but reference to the prosodic level in the description of the historical development of jers in Slavic does facilitate a description of the facts and it is consistent with the nature of other prosodic developments in LCS. 3.2

Length

The reorganization of Slavic prosody to a large extent depended on the interpretation of length or quantity within the LCS system. Length may be represented in different ways. In this section I present three case studies, the Rhythmic Law of Slovak and the diphthongization of £ in Serbian and Croatian, which bear on the representation of vowel/sonorant length or quantity, and a case of consonant gemination in Ukrainian. The Slavic data indicate that length may have to be represented on the segmental tier (either as X-slots or root nodes) as well as by mora count. Vowel and consonant length is distinctive in many languages. Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Serbian and to some extent, Slovene, are among those Slavic languages which have quantity distinctions in vowels (and in some cases, liquids). This is sometimes expressed as a contrast between a long and short segment, e.g., SC grdd "city" /grad/ vs. grad "hail" /grad/, prdvdd "he, she justifies" /pravda/ vs. prdvda "justice" /pravda/, gore "on top" /gore/ vs. gore "worse" /gore/, gore "mountains" /gore/; Cz dal "he gave" /dal/ vs. ddl "further" /dal/, domu "house," gen sg Idomul vs. domu "cathedral," gen sg Idomul, often as a paradigmatic alternation as in Sk srna "deer" [srna], sfn, gen pi [srn]; Sn kdnj "horse" [kori] vs. konj, gen pi [kori]; SC Jcost "bone" [kost] vs. kosti, nom/acc pi [kosti], srca "heart," nom/acc pi [srca] vs. srca, gen pi [srca]. Sometimes quantity alternations take the form of a vowel-diphthong contrast as in Cz sud "barrel" vs. soud "court"; Sk mesto "town" vs. miest, gen pi, zaba "frog," ziab, gen pi. Other languages have geminate consonant sequences, either as the result of a phonological process or morpheme concatenation, e.g., U brat "brother," brattja "brethren" /brat':a/, tin' "shade", tinnju, instr sg /tin':u/; BR /zyc':o/ "life"; Rpodderzat' "to uphold," rasskazat' "to relate," B vdzzelen "greenish," M osummina "eighth," Sn oddahniti se "to recover." In all Slavic languages, including Belarusian and Ukrainian, geminate consonants are

32 Length 215 derived, either in the sense that they are sequences of identical consonants across morpheme boundaries or the result of historical phonological processes which may remain in the synchronic phonology as an alternation between a geminate consonant and its non-geminate variant. Length is related to duration as a property of segments and to quantity or weight as a property of syllables. It is also related to tenseness as an articulatory gesture and to other motor characteristics as discussed in Allen 1973: 46-73. Phonologically length is functional in primarily two ways: as a quality that serves to contrast segments (a language may have a phonemic opposition in segment length) and as a quality that serves to contrast syllables (languages may distinguish light and heavy syllables). The representation of length as a distinctive feature [±long] in early generative phonology (Chomsky and Halle 1968) entailed a binary opposition. The interpretation of length or quantity as a metrical phenomenon is found in Ingria 1980, Leben 1980, Prince 1980, and others. More recent analyses treat length in terms of monomoraic and bimoraic syllables, though the real-time length of segments is not in a 1:2 ratio. It was Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 169-179; 1969: 173-180 who proposed that quantity could, in fact, have different phonemic/phonological representation, though he was probably not the first to note this possibility. He argued that in some languages quantity is phonologically interpreted as a sequence of elements (i.e., quantity or length is polyphonematic, VV), while in other languages quantity is best represented as a long element (i.e., quantity is monophonematic, V:). Trubetzkoy's criteria for evaluating length as a sequence of phonemes include the presence of a morpheme boundary, similar behavior of long vowels and polyphonematic diphthongs, the prosodic weight equivalency of a long vowel and a closed syllable, a pitch accent contrast on long vowels, and the division of a long syllable but not a short one into two parts by some change in articulation such as the Danish st0d. He wrote (in the Baltaxe translation of 1969: 177) that "The interpretation of long syllable nuclei as geminated, or in terms of multimember constituency in general, may be regarded as an 'arithmetic conception of quantity.' Languages in which this conception finds expression are 'mora-counting' languages since in these languages the smallest prosodic unit does not always coincide with the syllable. Opposed to these languages are 'syllable-counting' languages, in which the prosodic units always coincide with the syllables. Long nuclei, should these exist at all, are here evaluated as independent units and not as the sum of several smaller units." In many ways this understanding of length is reflected in autosegmental phonology where length has been relegated to a separate autonomous level, either the skeletal timing tier (X-slots) or the moraic weight tier (22), so that

216

Theoretical considerations

length may be seen as a sequence of elements on one level but as one element on another. Thus a long segment could be shown to contrast with a bisegmental sequence. This version is not a direct translation of the Trubetzkoyan concept, for it includes the possibility of contrasts in the representation of length within a given language (22) as well as the theoretical possibility that a language may represent length as a moraic as well as a skeletal distinction.

<22)

\ / V

t

t

V

V

\ / V

t

i

V

V

It is necessary to distinguish bisegmental geminates from long segments in many languages because phonological processes seem to differentiate between the two structures.7 There is also a significant difference between long vowels and long consonants; the former, when monosegmental, are always tautosyllabic, the latter, when monosegmental as well as when bisegmental, tend to be heterosyllabic. Exceptions to this, such as the geminates of northeastern Caucasian languages, e.g., Lakk ccan "foot" vs. can "little" or Avar ice "spring" vs. ic "moth," discussed by Trubetzkoy and cited in Allen 1973: 49-50, may be reanalyzed as tense consonants. It would be desirable to have these particular syllabification properties of long segments, both vowels and consonants, predicted by theory, and this attempt is made by moraic phonology, which distinguishes geminate consonants from non-geminates by mora value as in (23). (23)

o

o

The heterosyllabic property of geminate consonants is then taken to be the syllabification of a moraic consonant with both the syllable coda and with the following syllable onset. But it is not clear that geminate consonants are always moraic (Sloan 1991). Tranel 1991 cites cases where they must not be and concludes that "underlying geminate consonants should not be represented as inherently moraic, which is their status in Moraic Theory, but that they should be represented as linked to two positions, as they are in skeletal theories" (p. 299). In other words, there is evidence that length is not the same as weight, though they sometimes appear to coincide. It may be useful for phonological theory to provide a mechanism for such a distinction. The historical development of Slavic seems to support a distinction between segment length and syllable length. The shortening of PIE long vowels in diph-

32 Length 217 thongs which resulted in Common Slavic bimoraic and bisegmental diphthongs was a first step in establishing a bipartite structure for syllable rimes. It was also possible to have short diphthongs, as in jer plus liquid groups, opposed to long diphthongs, as in mid vowel plus liquid sequences. This in effect opened up the possibility in (24) where length could be evaluated on the moraic tier or on the segmental tier, and only one of those sequences could at any given time count as phonologically long. (24)

JI

JI

[i

The usefulness of such a distinction in Slavic phonology may be exemplified by two case studies from contemporary Slavic languages, the Rhythmic Law of Slovak and the reflex of the e in (i)jekavian Serbian/Croatian dialects. Both cases show that length may be calculated on either level, in other words, syllable length and segment length may be treated differently in the phonology. This is an unexpected development for Trubetzkoy's interpretation of languages as being either V: types (syllable-based) or VV types (mora-based) because this type of contrast is predicted not to occur within a language system. 32.1 Length in Slovak and the Rhythmic Law The Rhythmic Law of Standard Slovak and many central dialects provides an interesting perspective on the phonological representation of length.8 Recall that the Rhythmic Law (RL) disallows two adjacent long syllables. In the following paradigms (25), the desinental length of -a, -dch, -y, -eho and -u is not pronounced if the preceding syllable has a long vowel or a diphthong (Kraj£ovi5 1975, Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987). Because long vowels and diphthongs pattern together in RL, Trubetzkoy 1939/1967 classified Slovak as a mora-based language, distinct from syllable-counting Czech. (An accent mark indicates a long vowel in Slovak.) (25)

Nominal paradigm Nom sg Gen sg mesto mesta hovado hovada pismeno pismena dlato dlata vino vina hniezdo hniezda majoneza epizoda

Nom pi mesta hovada pismena dlata vina hniezda

hoc pi mestach hovadach pismenach dlatach vinach hniezdach majonezach epizodach

Gloss town beast letter chisel wine nest mayonnaise episode

218

Theoretical considerations Adjectival paradigm Masculine adj Feminine adj dobry dobra krasny krasna miidry miidra biely biela zaviaty zaviata

Masc,gensg dobreho krasneho miidreho bieleho zaviateho

Verbal paradigm lpsg 3psg 3ppl nesiem nesie nesu rastiem rastie rastii streziem strezie strezu mozem moze mozu ziabnem ziabne ziabnu volam vola volajii davam dava davaju prosim prosi prosia chvalim chvali chvalia (see below)

Gloss good beautiful wise white blown

gloss carry grow guard be able freeze call give ask praise

Although diphthongs are all actually pronounced as short, the fact that they trigger the shortening of a following long syllable and that they alternate with short vowels after a long syllable as in mozem vs. nesiem, rydza "clean, true" vs. cudzia "foreign" and rydzeho vs. cudzieho, gen sg, rydzu vs. cudziu, fern ace sg adj, indicates that they are analyzed as equivalent to long vowels by the RL, either as having a length feature (Durovi5 1973) or in terms of skeletal positions (X-slots in Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987, Rubach 1993 and moras in Birnbaum 1981). In Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 the Rhythmic Law is formulated as eliminating the first satellite X-position (26).9 (26)

Rhythmic Law (X-slot formulation) •—

/

X

I

X

N

Note that the RL respects syllable structure (here written as N for the nucleus) in that only adjacent syllable nuclei are involved, not just any adjacent X-slots. Even if the Rhythmic Law is formulated in moraic notation it still must have reference to syllable structure because adjacent heterosyllabic vowels or moras will not participate in RL. (27)

Rhythmic Law (moraic formulation) (c

o)

—•

(a

o)

3.2 Length

219

Given the regularity of RL throughout the grammar of Slovak, including some fairly recent borrowings, the list of exceptions to RL is quite instructive. The following representative categories and examples are taken from Peciar 1963: 33-34. A more complete list is given and discussed in Dvon£ 1955. (28)

a. neuter collectives, e.g., listie "leaves," listia, gen sg, listiu, dat sg, v listi, prep sg, listim, instr sg. Likewise, tfnie "thorns," priitie "twigs," skdlie "rocks," cucoriedie "hilberries, huckleberries." b. genitive plural -i variant of feminine nouns, e.g., bdsen "fable," bdsni, piesen "song," piesni, kdzen "sermon," kdzni, sien "hall," sieni, mliekdren "dairy" (the latter also has exceptionally long -ar). c. possessive adjectives from animal nouns, e.g., vtdci "bird's," masc sg, vtdcia, fern sg, vtdcie, neut sg, vtdciu, fern, dat sg, vtdcieho, masc/neut gen sg, vtdcim, masc/neut instr sg, vtdcieh, masc/neut/fem prep/gen pi. Likewise, netopieri "bat's," krokodili "crocodile's," and others. d. present tense of some -ief infinitive verbs, e.g., zmiidrief "to become wise," zmudriem, 1 p sg, zmudries, 2 p sg. Likewise, zvdznief "to become important." e. third person plural forms of some second conjugation verbs and related gerunds and participles, e.g., chvdlif "to praise," chvdlia, 3 p pi, chvdliac, gerund, chvdliaci, participle. Also kupia "they will buy," hldsia "they announce," sudia "they judge," andpisuci "writing," vlddnuci "ruling," present active participles. f. iterative verb suffix -ieva, e.g., trdpievaf "to find,"pdlievaf "to burn," chvdlievaf "to praise." g. nominal derivational suffix -dr, e.g., mliekdr "milkman,"poviedkdr "novelist," bdjkdr "story-teller," obrdzkdr "painter," bdbkdr "puppeteer." Also bdbkdrstvo "puppeteering," mliekdren "dairy." h. individual lexical items, especially compounds and prefixed nouns, e.g., tisickrdt "one thousand times," niekym "someone," instr sg, ndmietka "contradiction," zdvierka "end," zdsielka "package," suciastka "component."

Other than categories (28g) and (28h) which must be learned, exceptions may be characterized as diphthongs and the vowel /i/.10 Note that behavior is exceptional with respect to undergoing RL (lack of expected shortening) and not with respect to triggering the RL. Birnbaum 1981 claims that some forms in (28) are derived and that RL may be blocked by a derivational boundary. Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 as well as Rubach 1993:190-193 agree. In many cases the rising diphthongs are created by contraction of the suffix /i/ and a following desinental vowel. In a system with rule ordering contraction is simply ordered to apply after the Rhythmic Law. So these diphthongs are not diphthongs in the underlying representation and the vowel /!/ in this series is really HI + HI or some other variant, as shown below. But before discussing the exceptional behavior of rising diphthongs and /I/, let us consider the representation of

220

Theoretical considerations

a glide plus vowel sequence in general. Falling diphthongs, as in zajtra "tomorrow," pravda [prauda] "truth," cujny "sensitive," tdjg "taiga," gen pi, are clearly cases in which the glide occurs in the syllable coda. Some rising diphthongs must be glide onsets followed by vowels and thus distinct from other rising diphthongs which are found only word-internally. Minimal pairs are difficult to find, though IsaCenko 1968 offers obiehaf "to circulate" vs. objektiv "objective"; but see Jakobson's 193 lb/1971: 221-230 arguments for a biphonematic vs. monophonematic distinction (cf. Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 50-59; 1969: 55-65).11 Compare the rising "diphthongs" in (29) which never alternate with a short vowel and which do not trigger the Rhythmic Law to those in (30a) which occur as a result of genitive plural lengthening parallel to lengthening found in other vowels (30b). In (29) there are also examples of long vowels after the glide, which clearly indicates that the glide is in the syllable onset. (29)

(30)

jasny jednak ju2ny jod jul

"bright" "however" "southern" "iodine" "July"'

a. Nom sg 2ena osa pata koleso omeleta bomba pleco b. blato lipa srna jablko jama voda

Gen pi 2ien 6s [uos] piat kolies omeliet bomb [buomp] pliec blat lip sfn jablk jam vod

Gloss woman, wife wasp heel wheel omelet bomb shoulder mud linden tree doe, deer apple hole water

There are other glide plus vowel sequences which sometimes alternate with short vowels, but which are usually unaffected by RL. These diphthongs occur across morphemes, as in the collective noun class (31). (31) nom/acc gen dat prep instr

"bushes" chrastie chrastia chrastiu chrasti chrastim

"leaves" historical morphology listie li+o/e listia li+a listiu li+u listi listim li+im

3.2 Length

221

The diphthongs in (30) function like long vowels and they may be represented as bipositional or bimoraic sequences, much like long vowels. Since the RL considers long vowels and diphthongs an equally valid trigger, one can either derive these diphthongs from underlying long vowels, as did Kenstowicz 1972, or identify them as identical to long vowels on another level (X-slots or moras) as did Birnbaum 1981 and Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987. To explain the exceptional behavior of the diphthongs in (31) one could invoke a different underlying representation (e.g., diphthongs vs. long vowels as sources of diphthongs) as did Kenstowicz 1972, a derivational boundary, as did Birnbaum 1981, or rule ordering, as did Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987, Rubach 1993: 201-210. The representation of /!/ in these forms as /i/+/i/ has the advantage of paradigmatic parallelism where ia is /i/+/a/, iu is /i/+/u/, and so on. One of the indications that a derivational boundary or rule ordering may not be the best way to represent the exceptional behavior of forms in (31) is the actual pronunciation of these words in some western areas of Central Slovak.12 Peciar 1946a observes that the dialect of central Ponitria to the north of Topol'Cany and to the east of Banovce shortened all long vowels under the Rhythmic Law regardless of their origin (/!/ or /i/+/i/) but it did not shorten contracted diphthongs (/i/+/a/, /i/+/u/, etc.). In this dialect the neuter collectives have the forms: listie, listia, listiu but listi, listim (not listi, listim) and priltie "twigs," prutia, prut'iu but v prut'i, s priit'im; the genitive plural is short, e.g., kdzni (not kdzni)', the possessive adjectives have a short masculine singular desinence, e.g.,/hie/ (not vtdci) vs.ftdcia, fem,ftdcie, neut. The innovation in this dialect is that long vowels, no matter where they come from, are treated differently from contracted diphthongs. The Rhythmic Law simply applies to all long vowels. In other words, the Rhythmic Law appears to apply to surface phenomena, where the derivational boundary may be irrelevant. An account of the different treatment of /!/ and the diphthongs in terms of rule ordering would result in an ordering paradox because the contraction of /i/+/i/ would have to be ordered before RL and that of /i/+/a/ after RL. One solution is to give up the representation of morphological structure and to identify /i/+/i/ as /!/. There are no instances of morpheme-internal contracted diphthongs subject to RL, though genitive plural lengthening does derive diphthongs as in koleso "wheel," holies. The shortening of all long vowels in this dialect seems like a simplification.13 The formulation of the Rhythmic Law in terms of position slots is problematic because then diphthongs and long vowels would both be seen as having two positions and therefore they should be identical for purposes of RL. It could be that the RL is not a prosodic process in this dialect and that it is

222

Theoretical considerations

really the segments (or root nodes) that are counted in RL. The Rhythmic Law then becomes a type of degemination rule eliminating sequences of identical segments. Yet one would like to retain the notion that the RL in these western areas of Central Slovak is a type of rhythmic adjustment because then it would be related to the form of RL in the rest of Central Slovak. If we could distinguish three types of diphthongs, those in which glides are onsets or codas (29), those which are always involved in lengthening and shortening processes (30a) and those contracted ones which are sometimes shortened (31), then the dialectal variation found in Central Slovak would have a theoretically interesting explanation. The three representational possibilities are given in (32) for the sequence /ie/ (cf. (8) above). (32)

a. je

b. ie

c. ie

G

G

G

A

\

I

Kf

Ae

The X-slot analysis of Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987 and that of Rubach 1993 do not distinguish between the types represented in (32b) and (32c). The representation proposed here (32c) is not ad hoc for several reasons. First, the diphthongs in (32b) are derived from long vowels by a fairly late process of diphthongization, so their bimoraic status is fairly well motivated. These diphthongs regularly serve as triggers for the Rhythmic Law so they must be long for purposes of phonology. The interesting complication is that all diphthongs are pronounced short in Slovak. I would like to suggest that contracted diphthongs are also short phonologically. Historically these diphthongs come from a glide plus a vocalic suffix, e.g., list+ii+e (with loss of the jer in weak position), vtak+i+e (with iotation of the velar to /£/). There is no evidence that the glide must be moraic. In fact, the change of /i/ to /i/ in the derivation of second conjugation verbs as in chvdlif "to praise," chvdlia, 3 p pi involves the loss of a mora on the /i/. These diphthongs are monomoraic. Compare this to the genitive plural /I/ of feminine nouns (28b) whose historical source is the desinence jer plus /i+ii/: the first high vowel in this sequence would not be likely to become a glide or lose its mora; instead it coalesces with the following high vowel (probably by contraction as a result of losing the intervocalic glide, e.g., i+ii > li) into a bimoraic syllable. These are really /i/s, whose mora count is different from that of/ie/ in (32c). Although it seems that the derivational boundary is relevant

3.2 Length

223

in that the exceptional non-shortening occurs in diphthongs that come about from contraction, it is not relevant in the case of l+ii. The derivational boundary may determine when HI before another nonhigh vowel loses its association to the mora, but the issue here is countable units (moras vs. X-slots/root nodes). It seems that the western area of Central Slovak calculates length on the prosodic level, so the Rhythmic Law is probably a constraint on successive bimoraic syllables (a la (27)) more than it is a constraint on segmental timing slots (as in (26)). The different behavior of diphthongs in dialects could be interpreted as the effect of moraic status. There are bimoraic diphthongs and monomoraic diphthongs in addition to bimoraic and monomoraic vowels. Only bimoraic nuclei are subject to the Rhythmic Law in the western part of Central Slovak. Yet if a system counts nuclear root nodes (or X-slots) instead of moras, this leaves open the possibility that some dialects would shorten all diphthongs by RL. Stanislav 1932 (cited by Peciar 1946a) observed such shortening in 3 p pi verb forms, e.g., kupa (kupd) < kupia "they will buy," pdca (pdcd) < pacia "they please," rdca (rdcd) < rdcia "they want," and in possessive adjectives, e.g., vtdci, vtdca, vtdce. If these dialects calculate length on the segmental tier, they must still somehow distinguish glides in onsets from glides in the nucleus. I think that the widespread shortening of diphthongs is part of a general reinterpretation of diphthongs as onsets plus nuclei. Monomoraic diphthongs are a step in this direction. Given that Western Slovak shows no Rhythmic Law effects and no diphthongs either, and that Eastern Slovak has completely lost quantitative distinctions, it is not at all unexpected that the interpretation of quantity in Central Slovak is somewhat ambiguous. Note that there is very little difference between a glide onset followed by a vowel (32a) and a monomoraic diphthong (32c). The distribution of these in Slovak does not present a good contrastive case, so for all practical purposes they may be the same. If so, then one might expect to see new vowel lengths in original diphthongs, both (32c) and (32b) types, and this is indeed the case. Some Central Slovak dialects have new long vowels in original uncontracted diphthongs, e.g., [pjati] "fifth" (cf. spelledpiaty), [bjeli] "white" (cf. biely), [sjesti] "sixth" (cf. siesty), [muoj] "my, mine" (cf. moj), [kuori] "horse" (cf. kon), and this is a clear indication that the glide is now part of the syllable onset. Syllable length is carried entirely by the vowel.14 Forms such as [mvoj] and [kvori] are particularly significant for they show the consonantization of the glide, unambiguous evidence of its onset position. What we see in dialect gradation here is the progressive movement of the glide towards the syllable edge, yet a reluctance to give up quantitative distinctions in syllable nuclei.

224

Theoretical considerations

3,2.2 Reflexes of *e in Serbian and Croatian Another good example of the interaction between the moraic syllable and the segmental syllable comes from the Stokavian dialects of Serbian and Croatian, where there are three major reflexes of the etymologically long /e/ (*£). In the Stokavian (i)jekavian dialects spoken in Bosnia, Croatia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Southern Dalmatia and Lika, the reflex of *S is [iie] or [ie], spelled -ije- and -je-. In the ekavian Stokavian dialects spoken primarily in Serbia (but some Croatian Cakavian dialects belong to this type) one finds long or short /e/ for *S; in the ikavian dialects of western Bosnia, Slavonia (Posavian dialects), northwestern Dalmatia and on some islands off the Dalmatian coast the reflex of *S is long or short /i/. The following data are representative, but a full discussion and dialect isoglosses are given in Ivic 1958a, 1981.15 (Thev is a short rising accent, the " is a short falling accent,' is a long rising pitch accent, and " represents long falling pitch.) (33)

(i)jekavian rijeka mlijeko vrijeme svijet lijep cvijet sijeno chljeb vjera mjera mjesto bjeZati djevojka

ekavian reka mleko vreme svet

ikavian rika mliko vrime svit

lep

lip

cvet seno chleb vera mera mesto (beZati) devojka

cvit sino

Gloss river milk time light, world beautiful flower hay

-

bread vira faith mira measure misto place bliati to run divojka girl

It appears that the (i)jekavian reflex is -ije- in long syllables (corresponding to ekavian long rising -e- and long falling -e-) and -je- in short syllables (ekavian short rising -e- and short falling -e-). Traditional interpretations of the *S reflex in (i)jekavian have treated it as a bisyllabic [ije] and a monosyllabic [je], as per the orthography. But Brozovic 1967, 1973a and elsewhere argues that this is wrong and that the distinction between -ije- and -je- is not in syllable count but in mora count. This interpretation has been accepted in Browne 1993. Recall that the rising accent in NeoStokavian dialects is the realization of stress on the syllable before the one with high tone (2.5.1): mleko "milk" has stress on the /e/ and a high tone on the /o/. The correspondence between the place and type of accent in (i)jekavian vs. ekavian as in tijep (short falling) vs.

3.2 Length

225

lep (long falling) and mlijeko (short rising) vs. mleko (long rising) indicates that the place of stress is maintained with respect to a high-toned mora in the following syllable (rising accent) and that falling accent remains falling on the first syllable, but length appears to be redistributed into two syllables (34). (34)

Long rising accent

T T T

AT \ / m

l

e

k

o

m

l

i

Long falling accent *

*

G

C

j

k

o

II H

(H) - H

(i

1

I

\ / lep

e

C

/ \ (H)-»i

H

| l l

I

1

I

j

e

p

The problem with (34) is that there is no reason to expect the stress to be carried by the second syllable in -ije- but by the first one in -ije-. In some respects an analysis which derives rising and falling pitch accent from a difference in the placement of the ictus in a bimoraic syllable is more successful so long as the accent is monosyllabic. Then the break-up of a bimoraic syllable with ictus on the second mora into a bisyllabic sequence would result in ictus on the second syllable, and the break-up of a bimoraic group with ictus on the first mora would produce ictus on the first syllable. This is the development postulated for the pleophonic reflexes of liquid diphthongs in East Slavic which show the corresponding stress shift (1.3.1). Under these circumstances one would never expect pitch accent on a short vowel (assuming a one-to-one association between tone and moras), yet pitch distinctions are found on short vowels in Serbian and Croatian NeoStokavian dialects, e.g., mfesto/mesto vs. djevojka/devojka. And pitch accent in NeoStokavian is bisyllabic: although stress occurs on the /e/ in these examples, it is the high tone or lack thereof on the following syllable that plays a role in the pitch contour of the accented syllable. So one might want to find another explanation for the placement of stress in -ije-. Related to this is the actual diphthongization of the /e/ when it is itself the bearer of high tone (with stress on the preceding syllable). The -ije- functions as if it were one syllable (Kenstowicz 1972).

226 (35)

Theoretical considerations ekavian oceniti ocenjen ocepiti ocepljen

(i)jekavian ocijeniti dcijenjen ocijepiti ocijepljen

Gloss to appraise appraised to graft grafted

In these forms the high tone originally occurs on the verbal suffix +i+, and the infinitives predictably have rising pitch accent on the preceding syllable. But the suffix +i+ loses its association to the mora in the participial derivation, becoming a glide. The high tone originally associated with the +i+ is reassociated to the preceding mora, the one associated with /e/. In the ekavian dialects the rising pitch accent on /o/ is expected (36a) if stress is assigned to the syllable before one with high tone, but the (i)jekavian forms appear irregular. One would expect a rising accent on the /i/ and not on the /o/ as shown in (36b). (36) G

G

I

y\

JLL

J I JLL

I o c

G

I

|X — H

\l e

TT

p

! i

- •

+en

G

G

I

y\

TT

|LL [I — H

JLL

I \J o c e ocepljen

b.

p

i

+en

*

a 1

o 1

o c

i

j

a 1

a

e p

i

a 1

1

+en

0

a

a 1 c

i

|-H j

1

e p i +en * ocijepljen (non-occurring)

Thus for the placement of stress the -ije- sequence behaves as if it were tautosyllabic. There are other -ije- sequences in forms such as tijem "I pour," zavijena "wrapped," fern sg, nijedan "not one," in which the glide is part of the morphological stem, e.g., tijes, 2 p sg, fije, 3 p sg, tijemo, 1 p pi, tijete, 2 p pi, fiju, 3 p pi; likewise, bljem "I beat," DijeS, Blje, etc. (cf. tresem "I shake, tremble," treses, tresey tresemo, tresete, tresu; other negatives such as riije "not," nikakav "no kind"). It was ReSetar 1891 who observed that words such as rijeka "river" have a diphthong [ie] or [ie] that may, under falling pitch accent, be pronounced as a bisyllabic sequence [iie] or [iie]. This variation is found in (i)jekavian where forms such as [liiep], [liiep] and [Hep] appear as variants for what is written as tijep "beautiful." Brozovic 1967: 423, 1973a argues that the -ije- sequence may be realized monosyllabically as [ie] and for this he postulates a separate [+tense] phoneme /£/ written "ye" and distinct

32 Length 227 from [-tense] /e/. Browne 1993 accepts this analysis and gives the long (i)jekavian variant as [ie], transcribing rijeka "river" as rijeka and Nijemac "German" as Nijemac, thereby representing syllable length on the vowel /e/. While there are several advantages to representing the phonetic and orthographic -ije- as a phonological sequence of /i/ plus /e/, the problem with Brozovic's analysis is that it postulates a phonemic diphthong for these dialects, the only such diphthong.16 The relevant question is not so much one of phonemic status as it is one of syllable structure. Given that the phonetic reflexes [iie] and [ie] correspond to long and short /e/ reflexes, respectively, in ekavian, one would suppose that a minimal distinction should be drawn in mora count: [iie] is bimoraic, [ie] is monomoraic. It is clear from borrowings that a glide is inserted after a high vowel before another vowel, e.g., dijeta [diieta] "diet." Gvozdanovic 1980:114 writes that "Except when following a boundary of a proclitic, a prefix or an enclitic, a [i] always occurs within a prosodic word between an [i] and a vowel following it, as for example in raniji = [raniii] 'earlier,' nom.sg.m. If there is an intervening boundary of a proclitic, a prefix or an enclitic, the occurrence of a [i] is not automatic, cf. e.g. ni Evropski 'neither European,' which is pronounced as [nievropski], or mi im 'we to them,' which is pronounced as [miim]. This means that a [i] which does occur in this environment must be seen as phonologically relevant, e.g. in nijedan 'none,' nom. sg. m., which is pronounced as [niiedan] . . . " Where [i] is predictable one could represent the (i)jekavian reflexes of *£ as a difference in mora count (37). (37)

(I)jekavian reflexes of *e

The monomoraic sequence is pronounced [ie] and this is reflected in the orthography, e.g., mfesto "place," djevojka "girl." The bimoraic sequence would be syllabified together in the phonology because there are multiple associations between /e/ and the moraic tier. This explains why for purposes of stress assignment in (36) dcijepljen the /ie/ functions as a unit. The /i/ may lose its association to the moraic tier and the /e/ will be more prominent, especially if there is a high tone in the next syllable (cf. the rising pitch accent in ekavian reka and (i)jekavian rijeka). If there is any tone spreading at all, as discussed in 3.3.2, then the tone would spread to the /e/ for a bimoraic high-toned accentual grouping. It is not surprising that under falling pitch accent (i.e., if word stress falls on the diphthong and there is no high tone in the following syllable) the

228

Theoretical considerations

ictus is pronounced on the initial part of the diphthong, the /i/. This would naturally lead to a separation of the two parts of the diphthong with a glide inserted for emphasis [lie]. This also indicates that the representation proposed here is to be preferred over one with a non-moraic glide onset followed by a long vowel: the vowel component /e/ does not decompose into two segments (ee). The traditional spelling of the bimoraic diphthong as -ije- then is the spelling of a phonetic variant, but it does not represent the phonological structure of this dialect. The representation of the diphthong under accent in the (i)jekavian Stokavian (NeoStokavian) dialects is given in (38). (38)

a. rising pitch accent

b. falling pitch accent

a

i-H The pronunciation of (38a) as [iie] (-ije-) and of (38b) as [lie] (-ije-) is the implementation of/ie/ and /ie/, e.g., rijeka = rijeka [rieka] and nijem "mute" = nijem [niem], and the result of the fact that stress alone (with no high tone) tends to fall on the initial part of the syllable, here the part of the diphthong that is represented by /i/.17 For this reason one would postulate rising moraic diphthongs rather than a glide onset followed by /e/. As given in (38) the bimoraic constraint of syllable nuclei in Slavic is not violated, but the monosegmental condition on bimoraic structures which evolved in South Central LCS seems to have been partly relaxed in (i)jekavian to allow for phonetic nuclear decomposition within the bounds of a C V ^ / C R V ^ syllable. The examples from Bulgarian in 3.1 and from Slovak, Serbian and Croatian show that a distinction between monomoraic and bimoraic diphthongs, in addition to a distinction of glides in syllable onsets and codas, is functional. Identical segment sequences may have different phonological structure and syllables may be "long" on one level but not on another. This explains why in the presence of a bimoraic limit and a general No Coda Constraint throughout Common Slavic, some dialects began to tolerate both long vowels and a coda in the same syllable: they were exploiting both structural possibilities, two positions (nucleus and coda) in the segmental syllable (VC)a and length in the prosodic syllable (JJLJLJL)^. A theory that allows such a distinction to be made in the phonology provides the needed flexibility for a coherent description of alternations in some contemporary Slavic languages and an explanatory account of their history.

3.2 Length 229 323

Gemination in Ukrainian

Most Slavic languages have geminate consonants as a result of concatenation (word formation) or assimilation in voicing or place of articulation, but only Ukrainian and Belarusian show gemination as the historical development of a glide effect in addition to concatenation and assimilation. Word formation creates geminates by prefixation, e.g., R pod-derzat' [pod'ierzat'] (vowel reduction not indicated) "to support," and suffixation (with jer loss), e.g., R son-n-yj [soniij] "sleepy." Assimilation in voicing, e.g., P chiop by [xwobiy] "the peasant would," and/or place of articulation, e.g., U z-zaty [ziaty] "to reap," also produce geminates. In all cases, these geminates may be analyzed as sequences of identical segments (across a morpheme boundary) and they may be broken up by epenthesis, e.g., P powinna "she should" vs. powinien "he should." These are not much different from other consonant sequences and they do not pose any particular problem for phonological theory beyond the wellexplored question of how to distinguish these sequences from other geminates (Schein and Steriade 1986, Odden 1986,1988). The geminates that developed in Ukrainian and Belarusian across a morpheme boundary before a front glide after the loss of weak jers, that is, BR zycc'o [zyc'io] "life," U zyttja [zyt'ia] from *zitiie and BR zbozza "grain," U zbizzja [zbiz'ia] from ES *suboziie, present more of a challenge to phonological theory in several respects. First, these geminates behave differently from sequences of like segments in that they do not tolerate epenthesis. Second, moraic theory assigns a mora to geminate consonants (Hayes 1989), but neither Belarusian nor Ukrainian has a distinction between light and heavy syllables, so the geminates do not appear to be moraic. Third, there is a question about the phonemic status of geminates in the synchronic systems of both languages. If there are geminates in the underlying (phonemic) inventory, then they should carry a mora. Fourth, it has been claimed that geminates are by nature heterosyllabic, yet there are differences of opinion about the syllabification of geminates in Ukrainian. Finally, geminates are restricted to palatalized coronal consonants (not /r/) in these languages. Because the data in Belarusian and Ukrainian are similar and since Ukrainian geminates have been the topic of some controversy in the linguistic literature (see Bethin 1992c), I will focus on Ukrainian. Historically, all instances of the non-concatenated geminates may be attributed to the effect of jer loss and the influence of a following glide. They are found in the instrumental singular of third declension feminine nouns (< *iiu), in neuter nouns with the suffix *-iie, and in collective plurals (< *iie). Representative data are given in (39), where geminates are indicated as long segments.

230 (39)

Theoretical considerations a. Nom sg maz' molod' vis' zustriC

Prep sg maz'i molod'i vis'i zustri5'i noCi podorozi t'in'i rozkoS'i stal'i sol'i osen'i

Instr sg Gloss maz'iu ointment youth molod':u vis'iu axle meeting zustriC'iu ni5':u night podoroz': u journey t'in':u shade luxury rozkiS'iu stal'iu steel sil'iu salt os'in'iu autumn

b. Nom sg strax'it'ia pon'at'ia zusyl'ia povstan'ia znan'ia rozdorizia zyt'ia

Datsg strax'it'iu pon'at'iu zusyl'iu povstan'iu znan'iu rozdoriziu zyt'iu

Gen pi strax'it' pon'at' zusyl' povstan' znan' rozdoriz

c. Nom sg brat volos kamin' haluza

Collective plural brat': a volos'i a kamin': a haluz'ia

niC

podoroz t'in' rozkiS stal' sil' os'in'

Gloss monster understanding effort rebellion knowledge crossroads life Gloss brother hair stone branch

Geminates are not found in labials or /r/. Palatalization is relevant to gemination because coronals are palatalizable in Ukrainian and they geminate, while neither labials nor /r/ are (beyond a very superficial phonetic level) and these do not geminate. In dialects where /r/ can be palatalized, it alternates with a geminated variant, e.g., [pir'ia] "feathers" (Shevelov 1979). Velars do not come in geminates. Compare the labials in (40) with forms in (39). The slight fronting that occurs before /i/ is not indicated. (40)

Nom sg krov l'ubov maty verf

Prep sg Instr sg krovi krovju l'ubovi l'ubovju materi materju verfi verfju

Gloss blood love mother wharf

Because geminate coronals occur under the same conditions and in the same morphological categories as labials and a glide or /r/ and a glide, it seems that all of these should be derived.18 Let us assume a process of gemination conditioned by the front glide. It is crucial to note that gemination is restricted to coronals and that the glide is not pronounced after geminates (though a glide appears in

32 Length 231 the transliteration, zyttja [2yt':a]). If gemination is complete assimilation, then these two facts receive a unified explanation. The consonant and the glide both have association to the Coronal Place node, so this might serve as a predisposition to their merger. But because the result is a geminate, some part of the glide is preserved, either a root node or a timing slot, as in (41). (41)

C+j>CC a.

Root[+cons] ,-Root[+son]

L. — — ' "

t

Place

Place

b. X

,-X

[.---" Root [+cons]

I I

f Root [+son]

I I

Coronal Coronal Coronal Coronal One of the problems with (41) is that the root node of the glide is specified as [+sonorant], so version (41a) would produce a sequence of root nodes with different major class features. In Bethin 1992c I suggested that the glide is associated with a C-slot in the skeleton and that this, in effect, ensures a consonant in that position with features identical to those of the preceding one. Version (41b) above is a variant of that proposal, by which the root node of the consonant comes to be associated with two skeletal slots. Because glides have been defined as non-moraic root nodes, there is no question of the glide leaving an unassociated mora and the geminate does not acquire a mora. It is possible that the requirement of moraic status on geminates holds only for phonemic (underlying) ones. Nevertheless, these geminates in Ukrainian must still be distinguished from the concatenated ones elsewhere in the system. One solution is to identify derived geminates as monosegmental, and the concatenated or assimilated ones as bisegmental clusters, as in (42). (42) Derived geminates Sequences of identical segments XX

XX

\

/

II

But geminates of both types have been shown to be heterosyllabic in languages (Hayes 1989: 302). This particular property of geminates is derived in moraic theory from the syllabification of these moraic consonants with two syllable positions, the coda and the onset, as in (43). (43)

Syllabification of geminates in moraic theory

V

a

a

C

V

232

Theoretical considerations

But because geminates do not contribute to syllable weight in Ukrainian, (43) does not appear to be the best representation for the situation in this language. Tranel 1991 cites several cases where geminates must not be considered inherently moraic, so Ukrainian could just be of this type. But two other solutions are available: a geminate could associate to the mora of a preceding vowel in Ukrainian and thus meet the condition for moraicity while not adding to syllable weight (44a) or geminates could syllabify as onsets (as in northeastern Caucasian languages discussed by Trubetzkoy 1939/1967). The latter solution raises the possibility that these may not be geminates at all, but some type of cluster or perhaps a manifestation of tenseness (cf. Allen 1973: 49-50) as in (44b). (44)

a. Geminates (with moraic association, no additional weight)

c

a

I

A

K/t V

C

V

b. Consonant cluster or tense segments

C C V

At first glance, version (44b) offers an interesting alternative because Ukrainian may have a tense/lax distinction in consonants (see Bethin 1987). The data in (45), however, clearly show that syllable structure and the coda position are critical to gemination. (45)

Nom sg smert Serst' lovl £est' radist'

Prep sg smert'i Serst'i zovCi Cest'i radost'i

Instr sg smert u Serst'u 2ov£'u Cest'u radist'u

Gloss death wool bile honor joy

Note that these are parallel to the instrumental singular forms in (39) and that they show the loss of the glide. However, in spite of the fact that these forms have stem-final coronals, no gemination occurs. The question is why these forms do not have gemination if the loss of the glide freed up a position for the

32 Length 233 consonant to fill. I think it is because the coda position is already filled. In a form such as smert'', the coda is filled by /r/. The absence of gemination indicates that geminates are not favored as onsets (44b). Geminates in Ukrainian do have a heterosyllabic requirement. This type of restriction is best described as a constraint, for in terms of a rule of gemination such as the one given in (41), there is no simple way to refer to outcome conditions. The rule as stated in (41) should apply because the glide deletes. This heterosyllabic condition on Ukrainian geminates is supported by other data (46), where geminates are not found in word-final position. (46)

Nom sg

pon'at'ia povstan'ia zusyl'ia straxit'ia

Gen pi pon'at' povstan' zusyl' straxit'

Gloss understanding rebellion effort monster

Historically, these are -li- suffixed nouns and their genitive plural morphology includes a zero suffix after the glide from an original weak jer (-j-0 < *ii-i). The peculiarity is that the sequence of two jers did not behave as a strong-weak group, producing -ej or -ij as in Russian ponjatije, ponjatij, gen pi. The glide was lost in Ukrainian. This should have resulted in gemination, as it did elsewhere in the paradigm of these forms, but it does not appear in the genitive plural. The restriction on geminates in word-final position falls out from the heterosyllabicity constraint. Gemination in Ukrainian makes a good case for autosegmental representation and the importance of syllable structure in phonological change. Linear phonological analyses permit various formulations of gemination, e.g., C + j > C'C'; C + j > C'C'j > C'C'; C'+j > C : + j > C : , with no principled way to choose among them. A linear account would require the postulation of a glide deletion rule and rule ordering (see, for example, Foster 1966), with special conditions on the gemination of coronals when preceded by other consonants (and in word-final position). The autosegmental analysis treats the loss of the glide and the gemination of the consonant as concomitant. Whether gemination in Ukrainian also makes a case for skeletal slots in addition to or instead of moraic structure is not so clear. What seems to be more important is a condition on the heterosyllabicity of geminates. If this condition can only be derived from moraic association on geminates, then such an association can be made without adding syllable weight if the geminate is allowed to share the mora of the preceding vowel. In effect, this disallows an intervening consonant, thus explaining lack of gemination in (45). Nevertheless, some indication of timing other than moras is needed to account for Ukrainian geminates.

234 3.3

Theoretical considerations Prominence

Evidence for the phonological syllable also comes from its role as a unit for purposes of determining prominence. Languages which have multiple word stresses may be shown to count syllables in determining the prominent ones, and this counting may be parameterized with respect to directionality (counting from the beginning or the end of a word), boundedness (metrical feet may be restricted to two constituents or not; the latter often results in one culminative stress per word), dominance or headedness (right-headed vs. left-headed feet or iambic vs. trochaic stress patterns), sensitivity to quantity (heavy syllables attract stress), and for some theories, also iterativity (prosodic parsing may take place over the entire word or not; exhaustivity). A good summary of these prosodic parameters may be found in Kager 1995 or in Kenstowicz 1994: 548-614. Hayes 1985 observed that some types of rhythmic organization are predominantly quantity-sensitive, and in subsequent work (Hayes 1987, 1994, McCarthy and Prince 1986, Prince 1990) this asymmetry has been represented by a metrical foot inventory that makes reference to syllable weight, either by mora count or branching structure. By implication, foot inventories that count moras in determining heavy and light syllables take the mora to be a prosodic unit. Those that define heavy syllables as branching must allow rules that determine foot structure to be sensitive to subsyllabic structure, perhaps a nucleus node (only long vowels count as heavy) or a rime node (long vowels and closed syllables count as heavy). The results of early work on foot inventories suggested that trochaic or left-dominant feet tend to be evenly balanced, either with respect to syllables (as a syllabic trochee) or moras (a moraic trochee, one heavy syllable). Iambic or right-dominant rhythmic organization seems to be unbalanced in favor of a light followed by a heavy syllable. This type of asymmetric foot inventory is found in Hayes 1994: 71 and a version of it is given below. (47)

syllabic trochee

*

moraic trochee

(*

iamb

0

(*)

*), otherwise (• LLLL

LL

*)or(*) LL

LLLL

A heavy syllable may be stressed in both trochaic and iambic systems, but there should be no parsing of a heavy syllable followed by a light syllable as a metrical foot, i.e., there are no quantity-sensitive uneven trochaic feet. The development of prominence relations in Slavic as analyzed in chapter 2 pre-

3.3 Prominence

235

sents a problem for the claim that there should be no uneven trochaic foot in the metrical foot inventory. There seems to be substantial evidence in the history of the Slavic languages that quantity was redistributed in favor of an unbalanced trochee. In some cases this quantity seems to be derived under stress. Linguists have found evidence in favor of an uneven trochee in other languages, e.g., Kager 1989 in English, Dresher and Lahiri 1991 in Germanic (Old English). For example, in order to explain trochaic shortening in English forms such as omen and ominous, Myers 1987 treated ominous as consisting of a trochaic foot followed by an extrametrical syllable with shortening of the /o:/ in the strong branch of a trochaic foot: [oimin] < ous > —» [dmin] ous. For trochaic shortening to have taken place, the original word-form consisting of a heavy and a light syllable sequence must have been parsed as a metrical structure. Trochaic shortening is an expected change because it is said to lead to a more canonical or preferred (recognized) foot type. Given these findings and others, it appears that a hierarchy of foot typology such as that proposed by Prince 1990 and given in chapter 2 as (7), namely, one in which the iambic harmony scale ranks a light-heavy syllable sequence as the best, a light-light or heavy syllable below that and finally a light syllable alone as the least desirable (LH > LL, H > L) and the trochaic rhythmic harmony scale ranks a sequence of two light syllables or a heavy syllable above a heavy-light sequence which in turn is preferred over a light syllable (LL, H > HL > L), may provide an alternative approach to evaluating metrical structure. The interesting cases are those which show lengthening or strengthening in the strong branch of a trochaic foot. This would mean that the uneven trochee is part of the metrical foot inventory or that prosodic change is in the direction of less favored harmonic structure. It would be worthwhile to see if these "contrary" cases could be analyzed in a different way because the lengthening of vowels under stress in what appear to be trochaic systems is a direct challenge, as Prince 1990: 373 puts it "to (a) the Hayesian claim that trochaic systems do not enhance quantitative contrast" and to Prince's claim that there is no converse of the weight-to-stress principle (i.e., if stressed, then heavy). Prince shows that two such cases which were said to exemplify an uneven trochee (penultimate syllable lengthening in Chamorro, spoken on Guam, and Italian diphthongization in penultimate position) may be reanalyzed with final extrametrical syllables. This solution then leaves a monomoraic prosodic foot, least favored in either system, which by lengthening becomes a heavy and thus a highly ranked trochaic foot. The central issue, according to Prince, is maintaining or achieving binarity (branching structure). Yet processes which strengthen stressed syllables by lengthening and which weaken unstressed syllables by

236

Theoretical considerations

shortening or laxing are common in many languages, so this presents an intriguing problem. In cases where stress is purely expiratory, as in Russian, the lengthening and shortening processes are usually at the implementation level (phonetic). But even Russian affords its immediately pretonic syllable special status by not reducing it as much as other unstressed syllables, e.g., golovd "head" [gsUva], not *[gatova]. The expression of prominence in many Slavic languages today is independent of quantity and the description of prominence relations is relatively straightforward. Thus Slavic languages with free accent must have the place of prominence in a word indicated in the lexicon, but in these systems there also is a predictable word-initial stress on forms which do not have lexically-marked prominence. The fixed stress patterns of West Slavic may be derived by a relatively simple parameter setting: initial stress with alternating secondary stresses as in Czech, Upper and Lower Sorbian, most of Slovak and southern Kashubian is the result of left-to-right parsing of left-dominant syllabic feet; penultimate stress as in Polish and eastern Slovak is the result of right-to-left parsing of leftdominant syllabic feet. Macedonian antepenultimate fixed stress was derived on the model of penultimate stress with the additional provision that final syllables are extrametrical (see 2.6.3). None of these languages today, including Czech and Slovak which maintain distinctive quantity, shows evidence of quantity-sensitivity in the placement of stress. Sometimes quantity will throw off the calculation of secondary stresses in Czech poetic meter, but its effect on primary word stress is negligible. On the other hand, the relationship between quantity and stress in a language like Slovene, for example, is of great interest because long vowels are found only under stress, though there are some short stressed syllables as well. Older standard literary Slovene also has pitch accent, which raises questions about which marker of prominence is actually distinctive. Another type of prominence relation, the interaction of tone and stress, characterizes Serbian and Croatian. These types of accent systems are discussed in more detail below. 3.3.1 Stress and length in Slovene Contemporary Standard Slovene has two prosodic norms: a more conservative one based on the archaic central dialects in which quantity and pitch accent/tone are distinctive (a "tonemic" system in Priestly 1993) and a more innovative one which operates with quantity and stress (a "non-tonemic" system in Priestly 1993; see also Lencek 1982: 158ff.) as illustrated below (48). Only a few central dialects in Carinthia and in Upper and Lower Carniola preserve pitch accent. The Littoral dialects, those of Inner Carniola, Styria and Pannonia pre-

3.3 Prominence

237

serve phonemic stress, though most have lost distinctive length (Lencek 1982: 133-157; Priestly 1993: 448-449). (48)

Tonemic system Non-tonemic system long rising e, 6; long falling e, 6 long stressed e [e, o] long rising e, o; long falling e, 6 long stressed e, 6 [e, o] long rising i, li, a, f; long falling !, u, a, f long stressed i, li, a, f short accented vowels (e.g., \ a) short stressed vowels (e.g., s)

Contemporary Standard Slovene (CSS) is said to have quantity distinctions in vowels, but no evidence that closed syllables count as heavy syllables. Accent may be found on any syllable of the word, but that syllable is long. "In other words, a noncompounded CSS word may have only one long vowel and this is always stressed. In the absence of any long vowel, the final syllable automatically receives the stress" (Lencek 1982:163-164). The more conservative pitch accent system of Slovene appears to resemble the NeoStokavian stress retraction (with later lengthening under stress) in its phonetic implementation. Acoustic studies of Slovene rising pitch accent as reported by Lencek 1982: 166 "have shown that there is no difference between rising and falling accents in the syllable under accent. The difference consists in the relative height of the melody in the syllable which follows." The critical factor for theories of prominence is that the perception of pitch accent in Slovene requires a bisyllabic domain. It was argued in 2.3.1 that the progressive accent shift in Slovene was due to prosodic reorganization in favor of iambic metrical rhythm. Later prosodic changes, however, produced the opposite effect, a left-headed metrical structure. All stressed vowels in non-final syllables are long and there is one stressed vowel per phonological word. Slovene does not have fixed accent, but the implicational relationship between accent and length makes a study of whether the weight-to-stress principle holds in Slovene worth pursuing. The innovative Slovene dialects that have lost pitch accent (Garde 1966b, Stankiewicz 1979) retain lengthening under stress. If we postulate distinctive stress and derive length(ening) under stress, then short stressed vowels would have to be considered exceptions, e.g., temen [tsman] "dark, obscure." The /a/ occurs only in a short variant, but other vowels do have long variants, so forms with a short variant under stress appear to be anomalous (here ' designates a long rising accent, * a long falling pitch accent, and v represents accent on a short vowel), e.g., brat "brother," obrat "turn" (cf. mat "mate"), med "between" (cf. med "honey"), pac "yes" (cf. pad "fall"), grdh "pea," mrdz "cold, frost" (cf. grdd "castle") or top "cannon, gun," bob "bean" (cf. tok "current," tog "stiff," tod "here") and many others. If we postulate distinctive length, then we have to account for the fact that it is distinctive under stress only in the final syllable,

238

Theoretical considerations

e.g., med vs. med. A word such as gora [gora] "mountain" (conservative norm gora) shows paradigmatic variation in length in the root vowel that is dependent on stress: goro (goro), ace sg, gore (gore), gen sg, gori (gori), dat/prep sg, goram (goram), dat pi, gordmi (gordmi), instr pi. but a short stressed vowel appears only in the last syllable of a form, as in goram. Sometimes language change reveals the nature of phonological oppositions in a system and it can be used as a diagnostic for phonology. Thus, if the relevant phonological generalization is that stressed vowels lengthen, then we might expect to see instances of lengthening in words such as brat "brother" or bob "bean," listed above. This type of change would have the additional theoretical advantage of producing a binary prosodic foot [|JLJX]F in a trochaic system. But lengthening in Slovene only seems to take place under stress in non-final syllables, e.g., rdk "crab," rdka, acc/gen sg, rdku, dat/prep sg. And it turns out that the category subject to change in Slovene is the end-stressed bisyllabic type exemplified by oko "eye," mesto "town," morje "sea," golob "dove, pigeon." They appear as oko, golob in dialects (Stankiewicz 1966b/1979: 36-39; Lencek 1982: 83-84) and mesto, morje are cited as CSS forms in Priestly 1993: 402-^03. These are clear examples of stress retraction with concomitant vowel lengthening. If one were to maintain the weight-tostress principle, then one might say that the retraction was motivated by pretonic lengthening. But there is no such general pretonic lengthening in other accented forms, so these would have to be somehow specially marked. In a sense they are special because they belong to historically unaccented paradigms, where stress was assigned by default. An interpretation which takes dialectal retraction to be a change in stress assignment, namely, the default assignment of stress to the initial syllable instead of to the second heavy syllable, makes a better case than one which postulates either pretonic lengthening or word-initial lengthening and then a weight-to-stress relationship. In other words, stress is the prosodic marker and there is no weight-to-stress operation. But is the converse true? Is there a stress-to-weight relationship in Slovene? There is the peculiar fact that lengthening happens only in non-final stressed syllables, though length may occur in the final syllable if it is stressed, e.g., med "honey," pad "fall." In other words, short stressed vowels other than /a/ may occur only in the final syllable. The predominant bisyllabic relationship looks like an uneven trochee: a heavy stressed syllable followed by a light unstressed one. In order to avoid having to postulate an unbalanced trochaic foot in the metrical inventory, one possible resolution might be to work with final syllable extrametricality and to stress the penultimate (now final) long syllable. But in the conservative pitch accent systems where rising accent depends on having a high tone on the following syllable (originally accented), the final syllable

3.3 Prominence

239

cannot be extrametrical, at least not for tone (though perhaps for stress), in bisyllabic forms such as gora "mountain." And although final syllable extrametricality might rescue the weight-to-stress principle, the absence of lengthening in monosyllables that might otherwise be expected under the binarity condition for minimal feet makes the extrametrical analysis not very well motivated. An analysis which postulates final-syllable extrametricality may be able to account for penultimate long stressed vowels in Slovene as in zena, but it will not be able to explain why long vowels occur under stress in other positions of the word, for example, word-initially in meriti "to measure," cepica "cap" or word-finally as in meso (meso) "meat" or slovo (slovo) "word." So it is probably not a case of maintaining binarity, either because other syllables are available for the calculation of prominence or because the final syllable itself receives the stress. The peculiarity of Slovene is that only non-final vowels are lengthened under stress. As already mentioned, there are short stressed vowels in monosyllabic words, e.g., brat "brother." Finally, since several dialects have lost distinctive length but retained distinctive stress, it would seem that the phonological prominence is really stress-based and that length is secondary. That stress is supported by lengthening in non-final syllables to create what appears to be an uneven trochee in some Slovene dialects seems to be an unavoidable conclusion. The question is whether length is phonologically functional in the prominence of CSS, and whether there is reason to postulate trochaic structure for CSS at all. I think that the distribution of length in Slovene is evidence that quantity was important in the history of prominence relations in Old Slovene, but that CSS is basically a language like Russian with free stress, though it does make use of distinctions in vowel length in some monosyllabic words. 3.3.2 Tone and stress in Serbian and Croatian The most interesting cases in Slavic are those in which tone and stress interact. In languages where there are several high tone accented syllables and where stress is simply realized as high tone or vice versa, it is a question of defining the stress or tone bearing unit. But in the pitch accent systems of Slavic there is only one pitch accent per word so it is a question of determining whether accent should be represented by a diacritic or by actual tone in the underlying representation. Languages that restrict pitch accent to long syllables, as do the Cakavian dialects of Croatian, may have pitch accent derived from a diacritic accent or ictus on a given mora. This is the analysis proposed for Proto-IndoEuropean by Kiparsky 1973 and for Lithuanian in Halle and Vergnaud 1987: 190-203, and it is reminiscent of Trubetzkoy's 1939/1967 observation that pitch accent and stress accent may be a consequence of the "prosodeme" (the bearer of the ictus). In the former the prosodeme is the mora, in the latter it is the

240

Theoretical considerations

syllable. He admitted that this interpretation of prominence failed in the face of the NeoStokavian dialects of Serbian and Croatian because they have a pitch contrast on short syllables. The analysis of Serbian and Croatian in 2.5.1 made the assumption that stress was a property of syllables and tone one of moras. This restriction provided for an arguably coherent analysis of prosodic phenomena in various dialects as well as for certain historical accent retractions. Thus the analysis of Common Slavic as basically a tone system even though pitch accent was most likely limited to one per phonological word is more than a theoretical choice. As Blevins 1993 shows that a tonal analysis of Contemporary Standard Lithuanian may be preferred to the Halle and Vergnaud 1987 version with diacritic accent on more than theoretical grounds because the tonal analysis also provides an account of the Zhemayt Lithuanian dialects which have two pitch accents per word (as well as a better explanation for de Saussure's Law), so I would like to argue that the historical development of Common Slavic indicates that accent was tonal. The association of tone takes place in the prosodic syllable: it is not vowels that carry tone, but syllables or syllable components that are tone-bearing. In African languages there apparently is evidence for both types of association, to the mora and to the syllable (cf. Odden 1995). In many languages the presence of tone is clearly related to prominence or stress (see the discussion in Odden 1995: 471 and references). For example, there are cases where tone is attracted to a metrically prominent position. The tendency for heavy syllables to bear tone is well attested even in Common Slavic. Sometimes tone shifts appear to be governed by metrical principles. If tone movement operates within a binary grouping or if tone in a given system is expressed on alternate syllables, then this may be an indication of metrical constituency. Such cases are rather unexpected findings for strictly tone systems and this has led to a reconsideration of the relationship between tone and stress in prominence. One analysis which attempts to formalize the connection between a metrically prominent constituent and tone in Serbian and Croatian is Zee 1993. She postulates underlying tone and a Tone Linking Rule that associates a floating high tone (H) to the stem-final syllable but only if it is short, i.e., it links H tone to the rightmost mora of a domain so long as this mora is a head mora as in (49). While this process in effect recapitulates the shortening of original acutes and the shortness of original oxytone suffixes, as a phonological rule of prominence it seems to be going against the widely attested trend for metrically prominent syllables to attract stress and/or tone. Her position entails the claim that monomoraic syllables are strong. Thus only (49) is possible and (50) does not occur. It is another way of saying that monosyllabic accent in NeoStokavian is always falling, and that is true.

3.3 Prominence (49)

(50)

a

241

a

U

Us

H

H

U

w

Non-occurring

H NeoStokavian bisyllabic rising accent is derived by Tone Spreading (51) which associates a High tone to any preceding mora, strong or weak. (51)

Tone Spread

H Tone Spread (51) always applies across the syllable boundary if tone linking is controlled by mora strength. A form such asjundk "hero" with a rising pitch accent on a syllable before a long syllable would appear to constitute a problem for (49) and (50) because it would have to have H linked to a long vowel in order to provide a rising pitch on the preceding short syllable. But Zee derives these cases by a rule of Metatony and links the High tone (H) to the word-final jer /a/ as in (52). Unlike Tone Spread, Metatony is said to respect moraic prominence and it will associate tone only to a strong mora (vowel doubling here represents moraic composition). (52)

Cycle 2:

[[junaak] a] H

Tone Linking

Jer Delinking

junaak a 1 H junaak (a)

Metatony

H junaak (a)

Neostokavian Tone Spread

junaak

T

H

H

242

Theoretical considerations

Given the proposed constituency of long syllable nuclei as (JULS - |xw) Metatony associates tone with the first mora of the long syllable, and Tone Spread then joins it to the preceding short one as well. This analysis claims that "the mora is the tone-bearing unit at all phonological levels" (p. 389) and that the restriction of H to strong moras holds only in the cyclic level of phonological derivation. It is turned off post-cyclically to allow for NeoStokavian Tone Spread, but consistent with Zee's domain hypothesis, cyclic applications of Tone Spread do obey the strong mora restriction. (In jundk with a strong monomoraic /u/, the tone could be derived at either level.) There are many interesting implications of this analysis beyond those noted by the author with respect to phonological domain issues. One is the specific correlation of metrical prominence with high tone. The odd consequence is that short (monomoraic) syllables must be evaluated as strong and therefore attractive to tone, whereas tone is usually found on heavy or long syllables. Zee does not discuss the evaluation of bimoraic syllables as necessarily |xs - JJLW and not U | LW - JULS, but I assume that this prominence relation on tautosyllabic moras is derived from her version of sonority constraints (Zee 1988/1994), discussed in 3.1. If the postcyclic application of Tone Spread produces a high tone on the weak mora of a bimoraic syllable then the fact that this syllable bears the accent or word stress in NeoStokavian means that a weak mora with H is evaluated as the more prominent of the two H moras in a word (distributed over two syllables). Obviously, one way to obtain rising pitch accent on long syllables in NeoStokavian is to allow a weak mora to undergo Tone Spread. Cyclic application of Tone Spread, which counts only strong moras, would result in the wrong accent on long vowels because a strong mora with high tone would be followed by a weak mora in the same syllable. This type of tone association should be phonetically realized as falling pitch accent. But it appears that the presence of high tone on the following syllable somehow prevents this and that regardless of where the high tone is within a long syllable, it will surface as rising pitch accent so long as there is a high tone in the next syllable. In a system which otherwise reads off its pitch contours from underlying tone placement, and where a mora with high tone followed by one without is normally interpreted as falling pitch, this structural ambiguity of long syllables is problematic. But in general NeoStokavian bisyllabic pitch accent may be seen as the result of tone linking restrictions and limits on the mechanism of spreading tone. If the prominence relation between moras is always one of strong-weak, then the word prominence relation may also be a strong-weak one and word prominence is associated with the first mora of a two-member high-toned group. This synchronic description is in agreement with diachronic developments as inter-

3.3 Prominence

243

preted in chapter 2 where it is argued that NeoStokavian is a type of trochaic system, though there it was suggested that the NeoStokavian retraction was historically a retraction of stress, not tone. In a synchronic description of Serbian and Croatian NeoStokavian dialects one could assign stress to the leftmost syllable in a sequence of two high-toned syllables to represent rising pitch accent and default stress at the left edge of a prosodic word as falling pitch accent. 3.3.3 Representing prominence The analysis of prominence in this study was based on the rhythmic model as governed by the iambic/trochaic disparity with respect to quantity. Since tone was coordinated with stress in Slavic it was taken to be a marker of prominence. Toneless or unaccented words received default stress prominence. In some systems, where quantity was distinctive, a long syllable was indeed treated as prominent and it attracted the word stress. In others the unaccented forms received initial prominence and this was realized as falling pitch accent. It has been observed that tone and stress have completely different effects on the syllable in which they occur. Stress affects the syllable as a whole, sometimes causing a lengthening of consonants as well as vowels, while tone affects only tone-bearing units. Tone may spread from one such unit to another; stress does not spread. In the contemporary Slavic languages the strengthening of prominent syllables has two manifestations. In languages that do not have quantity distinctions, such as Belarusian, Bulgarian, Russian and Ukrainian, the vowel in the stressed syllable is slightly longer and there tends to be vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. In those languages where quantity distinctions are made, such as Czech and Slovak, a stressed syllable may be strengthened by consonant gemination, e.g., Cz [jjist'e] jiste "surely, directly," [hrrozn'e] hrozne "dangerous," [rrevoltu] revoltu "revolt," dat/prep sg, [darrebak] darebdk "scoundrel, villain" (cf. Jakobson 1923: 41) and Western Slovak (with strong initial stress): srcco (cf. Standard Slovak srdce "heart"), masso (cf. maso "meat"), kassa (cf. kasa "gruel"), stojjd (cf. stoja "they stand"), plecco (cf. pleco "shoulder") as given in Short 1993.19 The other manifestation of strengthening is related to the distribution of quantity. South Slavic languages which retain pitch accent and which do have distinctive length, namely Serbian, Croatian and some older dialects of Slovene, have free accent/stress systems in which prominence tends to be supported by lengthening and shortening with respect to the accented syllable. For example, Slovene and the Kajkavian dialects of Serbian/Croatian in the northwest have shortened all post-tonic long vowels (Stankiewicz 1966b/1979: 36). Standard Slovene today has a strong implicational relationship between stress

244

Theoretical considerations

and length in non-final position. Note that these quantity restructurings did not take place solely within the accented syllable but that they critically encompass a bisyllabic domain. The same type of bisyllabic domain, of course, is relevant in NeoStokavian prosody.20 Another theoretical problem of metrical phonology is how to formulate the weight-to-stress principle that characterizes many prominence systems. Hayes 1994 claims that stress is a property of syllables, not moras, so the tendency of heavy syllables to attract stress is encoded as an ability of stress rules to have access to subsyllabic (branching) structure. But stress rules seem to be counting rules. They calculate an interval based on prominence units. It is a complication for the theory to have these types of rules look at subsyllabic structures. To solve this problem, Halle and Vergnaud 1987 proposed that syllables project stressable units on separate tiers, in effect creating metrical grids (as Prince 1983 suggested), but with constituent structure. To account for the quantitysensitivity of some stress systems, heavy syllables are said to project two stressable units. An important innovation in this theoretical approach is the provision of a language-specific property that a heavy syllable could project only one stressable unit. In many cases, this solves the problem of "moraic inconsistency" discussed in 3.1. A syllable may be light on the metrical grid, but still bimoraic for purposes of other phonological processes. The computation of stress prominence in this version of metrical theory is done in a plane (metrical grid) that is separate from the syllable structure plane. However, metrical theorists are well aware of the fact that syllable structure is respected in the calculation of stress, so theories that operate with projections from the syllable rime and not just the syllable itself (i.e., where stress may be mora-based and not just a property of syllables) must somehow mark syllable structure. In Halle and Idsardi 1995, and elsewhere, this is done by the projection of brackets to mark constituents. These brackets respect syllable structure and they in turn are respected by parsing mechanisms. Because metrical feet are binary, two stressable units will be gathered together and a heavy syllable that has projected two stressable units onto the metrical grid will always have both units parsed as a foot. Sample derivations are given below in (53-55). The proposals of Idsardi 1992 and Halle and Idsardi 1995 for deriving rhythmic structures in terms of projection, edge marking and head location appear to be able to account for Slavic stress systems, both free and fixed. Given the projection of syllable heads (and in some languages also another stressable unit in the syllable if it is heavy), the projection of syllable boundaries (right or left) of certain identified syllables (these may be marked for accent and obligatorily

3.3 Prominence

245

included in the metrical count or they may be marked as obligatorily excluded from the metrical count), a method for grouping constituents by brackets and a mechanism for projecting heads of constituents (right- or left-headed) to relate the layers of the metrical grid, and an edge-marking parameter that may be set in various permutations (e.g., a left or right parenthesis may be placed to the left or right of the leftmost or rightmost element in the metrical string, i.e., R-R-R, R-L-R, R-L-L, L-R-R, and so on), the types of stress systems found in Slavic may be described fairly well. For example, metrical derivations for Russian, Macedonian, and Polish are as follows in Kenstowicz 1994: 608-613. Russian has free stress and a set of inherently stressed and unstressed stems and suffixes (cf. also Melvold 1989). In nouns, there are three basic stress paradigms: fixed stress on a given syllable in a word (old acutes) as in komnata "room," end-stress on the first syllable of the desinence (old oxytones) as in kolbasd "sausage," kolbasii, ace sg, and a mobile pattern of initial and desinental stress (old circumflex and oxytone accented forms) as in golovd "head," but golovu, ace sg. (53)

Russian free stress komnat+a kolbas+u golov+a golov+u /# * /* */ Edge: R-R-R ) ) ) ) komnat+a kolbas+u golov+a golov+u * *( *) Bracket match (* *) (*) *) (* (*) Heads: Left (*)(*) * (* ) Conflation komnata kolbasii golovd golovu

This system also readily generates Macedonian fixed antepenultimate stress. Recall that Macedonian was analyzed as having a trochaic (left-headed) foot and final syllable extrametricality in Franks 1987, 1991, Halle and Vergnaud 1987: 55-56; Hammond 1989, Halle 1990: 153-156. The forms vodenicar "miller," vodenicdrite, def pi are analyzed as in (54). The insertion of a bracket or rightward facing parenthesis (R) to the left (L) of the rightmost (R) unit effectively eliminates that syllable from metrical parsing. This is the equivalent of extrametricality. (54)

Macedonian antepenultimate vodeni Car * * * )* Edge: R-L-R Binary parse vodeni 5ar Bracket match *(**)* * Heads: Left

stress vodeniCari te * * * * *\* vo deni £ari te

* (* *x* *> * **

246

Theoretical considerations

Conflation is said to do away with all metrical constituents that are not final, so the first asterisk in vodenicarite does not appear and antepenultimate stress results. Non-iterativity of binary parsing would also produce the required antepenultimate stress, so there is still a question about whether iterativity is a universal property of metrical parsing. Polish penultimate stress as in filologiczny "philological" and exceptional antepenultimate stress in Latin borrowings as in uniwersytet "university" may be derived in a similar fashion. (55)

Polish penultimate and lexical antepenultimate stress filologiczny uniwersy tet Binary parse R-L and Bracket match Heads: Left

fi lo lo gi czny u ni wer sy tet * (* *) (* *) (* *) (* * )* * * * * fi lo lo gi czny u ni wer sy tet * /* *\ r#

Edge:R-R-RBracket match Heads: Right

*

#\

(* *\ /* * \*

*)

( * filologiczny

*

*)

( * uniwersytet

The initial stress of Czech, Western and Central Slovak, and Upper and Lower Sorbian is simply left-headed parsing at the left edge of the word and it is not discussed here. The representation of prominence by a hierarchical model shows promise both for better descriptions of individual languages and for a better understanding of prominence itself. There is integrity between syllable structure and stress and there is also a close relationship between tone prominence and stress in the Slavic languages. These relationships as well as the role of quantity in prominence are viewed as inherent in the nonlinear theoretical representation. 3.4

Constraints and constraint interaction

The apparent teleology of sound changes or the "phonological conspiracies" (Kisseberth 1970) in the history of Slavic discussed in chapters 1 and 2 raise questions about phonological behavior, and specifically about whether it is constrained in some principled fashion with respect to prosodic organization (syllable structure and metrical parsing). Several phonological constraints were identified for Common Slavic and especially for Late Common Slavic and they were said to result in sound changes. Phonological developments could be interpreted as the avoidance of violating certain constraints, for example, the

3.4 Constraints and constraint interaction

247

loss of syllable-final non-moraic consonants eliminated violations of the Moraic Constraint in Common Slavic. The idea of "constraints and repair strategies" (cf. Singh 1987, Paradis 1988-1989, Bird 1990, Myers 1991, and others) and the concept of "harmonic changes" (cf. Goldsmith 1990,1993) both assume that languages try to achieve some state in the language that is harmonic (and that does not violate constraints). This vision of principled constraint interactions guided by reaching the best state possible under a given set of conditions is being developed as Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993, and many others since then). Within this framework, Universal Grammar is said to consist of a set of welldefined constraints, which, when ranked in different ways, describe the grammars of individual languages. One difference between Optimality Theory as currently formulated and other approaches to constraints and repairs is that while the constraints postulated in Optimality Theory are claimed to be universal, they may be violated in actual forms. Other constraint and repair theories seem to be more concerned with surface-true phenomena (see Prince and Smolensky 1993: 202-219 for a detailed comparison). In Optimality Theory, the grammar of a language is said to consist of a generator that produces a variety of candidate forms for any occurring form and of a ranked set of constraints which evaluates one candidate as better than the others. A violation of a high-ranking constraint is considered to be more serious (more marked, more costly) than a violation of a lower-ranked constraint, and sometimes a violation of a highly-ranked constraint is said to be fatal (i.e., the form does not appear in the language). Optimality Theory is still being refined (cf. Rosenthall 1994, Beckman et al. 1995), so I will not discuss it in detail here, other than to note that constraint interaction has significant implications for language change and for dialectal variation. In diachrony the precedence relations among sound changes are established primarily by time and somewhat by distance; in synchronic descriptions these types of precedence relations are represented by rule ordering in the phonology. Within Optimality Theory it is possible to describe sound change or dialectal variation by a different ranking of constraints, and it is this aspect of the theory that I would like to briefly explore here. It would be of significant interest if the changes described in Common Slavic, and especially the emergence of different syllable structures in Late Common Slavic, could be described as a change in constraint ranking. No claim was made in chapter 1 that the syllable structure constraints postulated for CS were necessarily universal, though there is no obvious reason why they could not be or why they could not be derived from other constraints. Recall that a Moraic Constraint which disallowed non-moraic syllable codas

248

Theoretical considerations

was said to have been active in CS. By LCS it seems that the Moraic Constraint was outranked by a No Coda Constraint that disallowed codas of any type. Its effect was to favor the elimination of syllable codas in LCS. Since syllable codas seemed to be more tolerated in the (North) West LCS area, the high ranking of the No Coda Constraint must have originated in the South Central dialects of LCS. There was also a constraint against liquids being moraic, the Sonorant Constraint, especially highly ranked in (North) East Slavic where liquids categorically could not serve as the peak of a syllable. Finally, a Syllable Weight Constraint limiting syllables to one mora also emerged as important in (North) East LCS. Before discussing the interaction of these constraints, let us consider whether the postulated Moraic Constraint could be reformulated as a simple No Coda Constraint in Slavic. Given that the No Coda Constraint is considered a universal constraint, this would be a theoretically simpler version of constraint formulation. The No Coda Constraint is generally interpreted as favoring the absence of syllable-final consonants. The retention of nasals and liquids in this position would constitute a violation. If we eliminated the Moraic Constraint, it would be difficult to explain why liquids and nasals were retained as codas longer than were other consonants in Common Slavic without some reference to relative sonority, either in the constraint itself or in the evaluation metric of the theory. The No Coda Constraint would then have to be sensitive to relative sonority within a major class. Second, if we have only a No Coda Constraint, then the neutralization of length distinctions specifically before glides, liquids and nasals in CS would be considered an accident or a coincidence. One could view this shortening as the elimination of trimoraic syllables, but there is no clear evidence for trimoraic syllables anywhere in Slavic and the evidence for them in the case of long diphthongs is questionable, at best. At the same time there is evidence that glides, liquids and nasals were moraic in Common Slavic. To claim that the only operative constraint was the No Coda Constraint would mean that there is no way to distinguish moraic codas from non-moraic codas and then it would be a coincidence that moraic codas were allowed to violate the No Coda Constraint, at least for a while. One could propose specific restrictions on coda consonants (sonority as in Zee 1988/1994 or other features as in Ito 1988, 1989), but in Slavic the issue seems to be sonority, so a Moraic Constraint has the advantage of being more general in favoring both open syllables and sonorant codas. Third, whereas all of Slavic allowed moraic sonorants at some point, it seems that the No Coda Constraint was not equally important in all areas of Slavic. Thus it is by no means clear that the changes in liquid diphthongs in (North) East LCS had to be motivated by a No Coda Constraint.

3.4 Constraints and constraint interaction

249

The presence of a constraint on syllable weight and one on the moraicity of liquids (or sonorant consonants) would have been sufficient to favor pleophonic reflexes. So it is of some interest that a Moraic Constraint needs to be postulated for early (North) East LCS because otherwise one would not expect pleophonic reflexes of liquid diphthongs over metathesis. Given that many languages must have a condition on the mora-value of syllable codas (in some languages codas contribute to syllable weight), a Moraic Constraint may be needed for systems other than Slavic.21 But the Moraic Constraint did not retain its prominence into LCS, where it is the interaction of the No Coda Constraint, the Syllable Weight Constraint, and the Sonorant Constraint (S * JJL) that predominates. In other words, the dialectal differentiation experienced by LCS can be described as different rankings of the relevant constraints. (Other constraints play a role in the full description of LCS dialectology, but they are not relevant to the rankings of the constraints under discussion.) The South Central LCS dialects may be compared with the (North) East LCS dialects in terms of constraint preference. The No Coda Constraint is the more highly ranked constraint in the south; the Syllable Weight Constraint (a = |x) is the more highly ranked constraint in the northeast (56). The Sonorant Constraint is also highly ranked in the (North) East LCS area, but it clearly ranked below the Syllable Weight Constraint as developments in liquid diphthongs show, e.g., CVR.C > CV.R.C > CV.RV.C. The Onset Constraint is present and highly ranked in all areas of Slavic, so it is not specifically discussed here; relatively low-ranking constraints are given in parentheses. (56)

South Central Late Common Slavic No Coda Constraint (Sonorant Constraint/Syllable Weight Constraint) Implies: CV, CR, CV, CR (North) East Late Common Slavic Syllable Weight Constraint Sonorant Constraint No Coda Constraint Implies: CV(C)

The (North) West LCS area shows some differentiation both geographically and diachronically. The peripheral northwestern dialects do not seem to have had a No Coda Constraint of any significant rank. Chronologically, the southern part of the (North) West LCS area shows evidence of a No Coda Constraint around the tenth or eleventh century, but it soon came to rank very low. Syllable

250

Theoretical considerations

codas characterize most West Slavic languages today. By the fifteenth century the Syllable Weight Constraint of the (North) East LCS dialects also came into play in the contiguous Lechitic languages. (North) West LCS may be described by different rankings of the relevant constraints, and the subsequent developments in Lechitic as a reranking (or the introduction) of the Syllable Weight Constraint (57). Recall that constraints may be violated, so the presence of a Sonorant Constraint, for example, does not necessarily eliminate syllabic liquids, though it would tend to make these structures less favored. If it ranks above other constraints, then the system would probably not tolerate syllabic liquids. (57)

Early (North) West Late Common Slavic No Coda Constraint Sonorant Constraint (Syllable Weight Constraint) Implies: CSV, CV, CR, CSV, CV, CR Later (North) West Late Common Slavic Sonorant Constraint (No Coda Constraint/Syllable Weight Constraint) Implies: CVS, CV, CVS, CV West Slavic (Lechitic) Syllable Weight Constraint Sonorant Constraint (No Coda Constraint) Implies: CVS, CV

This chronological profile of (North) West Slavic shows the influence of the South Central LCS highly-ranked No Coda Constraint at a time when the speech communities may have been in close contact. The highly-ranked (North) East LCS Sonorant Constraint seems to have become important at a later stage of (North) West LCS and resulted in the elimination of syllabic liquids. It appears that the No Coda Constraint's high ranking was an innovation in the South Central area from where it may have moved to the northwest. The Syllable Weight Constraint was highly ranked in the northeast from where it may have spread to the west and to Bulgarian and Macedonian in the southeast. The ranking of the Sonorant Constraint in the (North) West LCS area was in flux with respect to the No Coda Constraint. If the latter was dominant, then there might have been a stage of CRV (CR V ). In fact, this stage has been postulated for Lechitic in order to account for the vocalization of a preceding jer in forms such as P we gtosie. Later, in the Lechitic languages, the Syllable Weight Constraint became dominant with the result that long vowels short-

3.5 Phonological structure and language typology

251

ened. Notice how the reranking of constraints narrowed down the possible structural types. The constraints postulated for Common Slavic syllable structure, i.e., the Onset Constraint, the Moraic Constraint, the No Coda Constraint, and the Syllable Weight Constraint, were statements about possible structures and potential variations. A full analysis of Slavic in the framework of constraint interaction obviously cannot be undertaken here. Nevertheless, it seems that constraint interaction is a perspective on historical change and dialectal differentiation that is well worth exploring. If language change is seen as the spread of an innovation and if an innovation can be a change in constraint ranking, then (North) West LCS, for example, shows the interaction of competing constraints, No Coda (highly ranked in the south) and the Syllable Weight Constraint and the Sonorant Constraint (highly ranked in the northeast). 3.5

Phonological structure and language typology

In the comparative study of languages it is necessary to establish parameters for comparison and these parameters should be linguistically significant. To a large extent language typology depends on language universals (cf. Greenberg 1966a, 1978a, Comrie 1981, Croft 1990). Language universals may be of various types, phonological, morphological, syntactic, or semantic, but not all universals are useful in typology (Greenberg 1966a). For example, all languages have vowels and consonants so the presence of vowels and consonants is not in itself a useful parameter for language comparison. On the other hand, languages vary in which vowels and consonants they have, so they are often compared in phoneme inventories. If our current model of distinctive features and feature geometry represents a universal property of language, then languages may be compared with respect to which distinctive features are functional and in the implicational or markedness relations among them (cf. also Greenberg 1966b). The studies of Stankiewicz 1958 and Andersen 1978b on the typology of Slavic, for example, propose that phonemic oppositions may be ranked differently in the various Slavic systems. This study made the implicit assumption that syllable structure is a language universal that also has significant potential as a parameter for language typology. While all languages identify syllables, it is widely recognized that what actually constitutes a syllable may vary from language to language. But because this variation is constrained in fairly principled ways, one can determine the parameters of syllable structure and differences in their expression. Similarly, the metrical organization of languages may be described as variations on

252

Theoretical considerations

certain basic structures. Typologies differ, of course, depending on the criteria used for classification, and diachronic typologies based on shared genetic innovations do not necessarily correspond to synchronic typologies of the same data. Diachronic typological studies of Slavic have traditionally identified a division into West Slavic, East Slavic and South Slavic languages (van Wijk 1956, Lehr-Splawiriski 1955), although there have been proposals for an early east vs. west typology (Braun 1947), a quadruple north vs. south and east vs. west grouping (Furdal 1961, MareS 1980), as well as a division into six types (East Slavic, Lechitic, Czecho-Slovak, Serbo-Croatian-Slovene, BulgaroMacedonian, Sorbian) proposed by Lamprecht 1987. Synchronic typologies show a much greater variety. In Slavic these have been based on phonetic developments (Garde 1961), phonemic oppositions (Stankiewicz 1958), morphophonemics (Stankiewicz 1966a), phonology and morphology (cf. KopeCny 1949-50, Vendina 1990), the relationship of segments to position within a syllable (cf. Lekomceva 1968a, Tolstaja 1968a, Sawicka 1974), morpho-syntactic structures (Revzin 1967, IsaCenko 1974, Franks 1995), semantics and semiotics (Revzin 1967 and references therein), and even word-formation and phraseology (cf. articles in Mel'nyCuk 1986). Although Birnbaum (1975, 1982: 25 and elsewhere) insists that "the central component of linguistic structure to be considered in typology is not the phonology or the lexis of language, but its grammar proper, that is to say, its morphosyntactic makeup" because it is here that "the conversion from underlying abstract structure to articulated reality" is implemented (p. 26), most early work on Slavic typology was based on sound correspondences. In synchronic typologies this meant the comparison of phonemic inventories, either in terms of types and correlations, or in terms of ratios between various components. An example of the former is found in Shevelov 1965: 595ff. where the Slavic languages are compared with respect to the number and type of phonemes, e.g., Slovene is said to have 20 consonantal phonemes while Ukrainian is characterized as having 45, but a similar typology by Kolomijec' 1986 gives Slovene 5 vowels and 26 consonants, Ukrainian 6 vowels and 41 consonants. In the latter work languages are also said to differ in their vowel to consonant ratios (e.g., Slovene is 37.14 percent vocalic, Ukrainian 12.75 percent), and in their correlation of palatalized vs. non-palatalized consonant pairs (e.g., Russian is listed as having 15 pairs, Serbian and Croatian 4, Slovene 2). It is not clear what the implications are of such lists, but the classification of the Slavic languages as "consonantal" and "vocalic" has been made both in a diachronic and a synchronic sense. In the former, the terms are sometimes applied to the development of Common Slavic, originally a "vocalic" system which produced

3.5 Phonological structure and language typology

253

"consonantal" ones as a result of various palatalizations and the loss of weak jers. In a synchronic interpretation, the terms "consonantal" and "vocalic" often serve as a typological category and "consonantal" languages are said to have more consonants than "vocalic" languages and "vocalic" ones to have more vowels than "consonantal" ones. This is the sense of IsaCenko 1939b, 1939/ 1940 where Polish, with 35 consonants and 5 vocalic phonemes, is identified as the most consonantal of the Slavic languages, while Serbian and Croatian, with 24 consonants and 24 syllabic (vowels and liquids, including the various pitch accents) phonemes, is considered most vocalic. IsaCenko 1939/1940 organizes the Slavic languages into "vocalic" phonological systems (Serbian and Croatian, Slovene, Kashubian) and "consonantal" systems (Polish, Russian, Sorbian, Bulgarian) with other languages ranging between these two types. Significantly, Isa£enko assumes that the structural type of a given language will also affect its historical development, so this classification is not merely an inventory, but one which presents relationships within a system. "Vocalic" languages, for example, seem to undergo certain types of phonological changes (such as a tendency to make consonants syllabic or to simplify consonant clusters), which "consonantal" systems do not necessarily undergo. Andersen 1978b demonstrates that the relative markedness of the features [vocalic] and [consonantal] in a system may to a large extent determine the nature of phonological change in that system, thereby supporting Isa5enko's assumption that structure affects development.22 Yet this view of language change and typology presents some paradoxes. Taken as a continuum, it seems that the development of Late Common Slavic consisted of a general transformation of a "vocalic" system into a "consonantal" one. The fall of the jers is said to have actually fixed Slavic (or many of its dialects) as "consonantal" by increasing the phonemic inventory of consonants, especially with respect to the palatalized vs. nonpalatalized opposition (cf. Shevelov 1965: 460-464). At the same time it is recognized that the South Slavic languages, specifically Serbian, Croatian and Slovene, are more "vocalic" than other Slavic languages. These South Slavic languages, in fact, never became "consonantal." Serbian, Croatian and Slovene are still characterized by large vowel inventories (if length distinctions, syllabic sonorants, and pitch accent are treated as distinctive features of vowels) and open syllables (Ivic 1958b). In arguing for the syllable as a relevant phonological component of Slavic, I have assumed that syllable structure may be evaluated differently in various dialects as per Andersen 1978b: 2, where, "A. Typology operates inter alia with structural traits which are not necessarily directly reflected in the overt categories or surface regularities of a given language state. B. These traits may be

254

Theoretical considerations

evaluated differently in different parts of a speech community. C. These traits determine what possible deviations from the norms will be acceptable to the members of the speech community and, hence, what innovations will occur." Syllable structure is one such "structural trait." But there are different ways of looking at syllable structure and various possible criteria on which to base such a typology. One commonly used method is to establish the maximal number of phonemes allowed in syllable onsets and codas (though onsets and codas are too often equated with word-initial and word-final clusters) or to establish the nature of phoneme combinations in certain positions of the syllable. For example, from Greenberg's 1978b first two implicational universals one can deduce that "if syllables containing sequences of n consonants in a language are to be found as syllable types, then sequences of n-1 consonants are also to be found in the corresponding position (prevocalic or postvocalic) except that CV —> V does not hold" (Greenberg 1966a: xxv). He formulates forty universals on the nature of initial and final consonant sequences based on a 104-language sample of word-initial and word-final clusters. Such studies have been done for individual Slavic languages (cf. Bargieldwna 1950, Kurylowicz 1952a, Ulaszyn 1956 for Polish; Avanesov 1954, Trofimova 1972 for Russian; Belie 1933b, 1958, Tolstaja 1972 for Serbian and Croatian; Wisniewska 1972 for Bulgarian; Sawicka 1972 for Belarusian, Pauliny 1979: 162-207 for Slovak, and others) and as typological studies by Broch 1910, Tolstaja 1968a, Lekomceva 1968a, Kalnyn' and Maslennikova 1985, Kolomijec' 1986, and especially Sawicka 1973, 1974 and elsewhere. Sawicka 1974, on the basis of word-initial and word-final consonant clusters (specifically the ordering of sonorants with respect to obstruents), identifies two basic types among the Slavic languages: languages that have restrictions on sonority sequencing (increasing sonority towards the syllable peak and decreasing sonority away from the syllable peak) and those that allow violations of sonority in onset and coda clusters. Some transitional languages show restrictions on codas but not on onsets. To the former type belong Slovene, Serbian and Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian; to the latter, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and in part Belarusian. Czech and Slovak are considered transitional in that they are said to have sonority restrictions on codas but not on onsets (Sawicka 1974: 110). A related version of syllable typology but one which pays more attention to intrasyllabic relations is that of Lekomceva 1968a, who establishes component hierarchies in the phonological syllable in terms of acoustic features (cf. Saumjan 1962, Pauliny 1979: 162ff.) and Kudrjavceva 1991, who operates with articulatory features. Lekomceva finds

3.5 Phonological structure and language typology

255

only two significant typological isoglosses based on (a) whether a sonorant may occur between two consonants (as in CRCV and CRC) and (b) whether the vowel in one syllable has an effect on the vowel of another. In terms of the first criterion, CRCV languages are said to be Upper Sorbian (Lusatian), Polish, Czech, Serbian, Croatian, Slovak and Macedonian, of which Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Slovak and Czech allow CRC syllables as well. The second criterion separates Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Slovene and Upper Sorbian from the other languages. Lekomceva's second typological isogloss is not directly related to syllable structure, though it may be related to prosody. A second basis for syllable typology could be the comparison of constituent syllable structures themselves, as in (58) for Late Common Slavic dialects. This classification, essentially a historical one, also turns out to be fairly robust for a synchronic typology. (58)

a. Type I:CV

b. Type II: CV/CVS

c. Type III: CV G i

•'M< C

i

,'l

V) V/R

/ 1

Ci

V-'

^(S)

ci v

Type I syllable structure is found in the South Central dialects (in Serbian and Croatian, Slovene, and generally Central Slovak). Czech and other Slovak dialects (and possibly Upper Sorbian) are transitional from type I to type II in that they may have long vowels as well as diphthongs. Type II syllable structure (with S as the second element) is characteristic of the (North) West Slavic area and may be found in Polish, Kashubian, Polabian, Pomeranian, and perhaps Lower Sorbian. Southwestern Ukrainian and southern Belarusian are transitional from type II to type III. Finally, the northern East Slavic dialects, that is, Russian and northern Belarusian are type III languages (as are parts of Bulgarian and Macedonian). This typology also represents a general geographic continuum, with type I languages in the southwest, type II in the northwest, type III in the northeast. Transitional dialects are between the south and the west (types I and II) as well as between the west and the east (types II and III). If this diachronic typology is extended (with certain modifications) to the synchronic systems, then Eastern Bulgarian and Macedonian are transitional between types I and III. These categories correlate with the findings of Sawicka 1974 based on sonority restrictions in Slavic clusters. Thus languages with sonority restrictions are simply languages which prefer open syllables, whether CV or CV, that is, either type I or type III. Languages which allow sonority

256

Theoretical considerations

violations, at least in word-initial and word-final position insofar as it is relevant (and I think its relevance is only marginal, given the extrametrical status of final as well as some initial consonants), are classified as type II or type III languages here. Type II languages generally provide for the possibility of codas. For type III languages nothing is said about codas: some languages may not have them, e.g. Bulgarian and Macedonian, while others may adjoin virtually any consonant at some (phonetic?) level, at least at the end of the word, e.g. Russian and some Belarusian dialects. It is significant that Sawicka's work identifies a basic north-south division with a transitional area represented by Czech and Slovak. These findings are consistent with the proposals made here, namely, that the basic distinction within Slavic is between languages which preserve differences in syllable weight and those which do not. Transitional dialects (diachronically and synchronically) may exhibit characteristics of representations in which both tiers may be relevant, as seems to be the case for certain developments in Czech and Slovak. Third, one can compare parameters of syllable structure in terms of constraints and their ranking. Insofar as syllable structure constraints are said to belong to the set of universal language constraints, a typology based on them is a typology of constraint ranking. Languages that allow syllable codas would rank the No Coda Constraint very low, those that have syllabic nasals might rank a constraint against syllabic consonants quite low, languages that do not have epenthesis could be said to rank the Fill Constraint ("All syllable positions must be filled with segmental material") or a correspondence constraint between the input and output over others. For example, the structure CVC is preferred if the Fill Constraint dominates the No Coda Constraint because every syllable position is filled, while CV.C(V), where (V) designates an epenthetic vowel, would be preferred in a system where No Coda dominated Fill because having a coda would be a worse violation than having epenthesis and violating the lower-ranked Fill Constraint. In describing Slavic syllable structure, the relevant constraints, other than Onset, No Coda, and Nucleus (by which the syllable nucleus is associated with a mora), are the Syllable Weight Constraint (limiting syllables to one mora) and the Sonorant Constraint (S^|x). All Slavic languages rank the Onset Constraint fairly high and all may be said to have a mechanism for associating syllable nuclei with a mora, whether by coindexing (as in Rosenthall 1994) or by a variant of the Nucleus Constraint or Peak Prominence (cf. Prince and Smolensky 1993). It is not always possible to establish a relative ranking among the constraints for they do not necessarily conflict. The Nucleus Constraint is relatively independent of the Onset Constraint, but because Slavic syllables may consist of a vowel alone (thereby

3.5 Phonological structure and language typology

257

violating the Onset Constraint) one would rank the Nucleus Constraint above the Onset Constraint. In Contemporary Standard Czech, on the other hand, vowel-initial syllables often acquire a glottal-stop type of onset which might be interpreted as a preference for a syllable onset. There are very few words that begin with a vowel. In this system the Onset Constraint might be ranked above most others. If the Syllable Weight Constraint takes precedence over No Coda, then CVS structures might be tolerated over CV (assuming that other consonants and rankings do not override this). The reverse ranking would disfavor CVS. The Sonorant Constraint potentially interacts with the Nucleus Constraint in favoring vowel nuclei. Moraic sonorants might exist as syllable codas if the ranking of the Syllable Weight Constraint or the No Coda Constraint is low. This seems to have been the case in (North) West Late Common Slavic. Otherwise, the high ranking of the Sonorant Constraint would limit syllable nuclei to vowels. Syllable structure constraints entail implicational universals. In other words, the recognition that the presence of syllable codas implies the presence of syllable onsets is formalized as a positive Onset Constraint and a negative No Coda Constraint. The fact that if a system has complex coda clusters it will also tend to have simple codas may be seen as an implication of constraint violation. If the No Coda Constraint may be violated by more than one segment in coda position, then a single violation (or one segment) should be preferred over multiple violations. Likewise, a constraint of Nucleus or Peak Prominence (which identifies the most sonorant element in a sequence as the most probable syllable nucleus) implies that if nasals can be syllable peaks in a given system then vowels and probably liquids are even more likely to be syllable peaks. Typologies based on linguistic principles rather than inventories are potentially more interesting because they relate to language universals and they make claims about what is possible in language. To cite a distant example, Jakobson (1929/1971: 57ff.) observed that in Slavic an opposition in pitch (musical accent) does not co-occur with an opposition of palatalization in consonants. He explained this phenomenon in terms of the ability of speakers to perceive different elements of tonality: attention is focused either on vowel intonation distinctions or on the height of fundamental frequencies in the pronunciation of consonants (based on Stumpf 1890).23 Today the most extensive system of oppositions in terms of palatalized and nonpalatalized consonants is found in Russian and Belarusian, to a lesser degree in Ukrainian and southern Belarusian dialects, in Bulgarian (and some peripheral Macedonian dialects) due to the change of e to a, and in Polish as well as Upper and Lower Sorbian. Czech and

258

Theoretical considerations

Slovak have the opposition only in /t/, /d/, /n/ (and in Slovak, /If). Slovene, Serbian and Croatian do not have a regularly developed system of phonemic palatalization, though Serbian and Croatian do have the palatals c, d, nj, lj (Comrie and Corbett 1993). Polabian originally had an opposition of palatalization in consonants and thus belonged to the north Slavic type, as Furdal 1961: 55 points out. It was the relationship that Jakobson established for this correspondence in terms of "tonality" that focused on the issue of language structure. Thus one has a different perspective on the historical development of Slavic. The presence of distinctive palatalization in the northern LCS dialects but not in the south has also been explained as the result of the shift of some front vowels to back ones (Furdal 1961: 53), thereby transferring the frontness marking to the consonant. This is seen as a consequence of intrasyllabic harmony which apparently persisted longer in the north than it did in the southwestern LCS area (Lunt 1956). Others postulate a "syllabeme" stage in the relevant areas of LCS (BernStejn 1961: 126, 241, 257, 274-277).24 In the east (Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian), the front-back opposition was simply transferred from the vowel to the consonants after the loss of weak jers. But if the presence of distinctive palatalization is related to syllable structure, perhaps if intrasyllabic harmony is seen as a condition on the segmental syllable, then the development of distinctive palatalization in those areas where the segmental syllable conditions predominated over the prosodic or mora-based ones does not seem unexpected. And the correlation of phonemic pitch accent with no distinctive palatalization in Slavic may also be made along the same structural lines. The tone height, as it were, is interpreted as [+high] in the segmental (syllablebased) systems, but as H in mora-based systems. One result of the syllablebased analysis is that the development of distinctive palatalization need not necessarily be attributed only to the loss of weak jers. In principle, it is possible that this distinction was somewhat earlier, as Furdal 1961 suggests, and that it was to a certain extent motivated by other linguistic factors, whether tonality or syllable structure. Another type of prosodic structural typology was proposed by Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, who distinguished mora-counting and syllable-counting languages on the basis of whether they interpreted quantity "arithmetically" as the sum of two units (V + V) or as a quality of a given unit (V: ), respectively (see 3.2). Although this division into mora-counting and syllable-counting language types is not explicit enough to be used as a typology of prosodic structures, it is of substantial interest to issues of phonological representation and language typology. Prosodic typologies may also be formulated on the basis of metrical foot

3.5 Phonological structure and language typology

259

types or derived from different parameter settings on principles of projection, edge marking and location, as discussed in 3.3.3. One advantage of comparing the prosodies of language in terms of different parameter settings as a basic set of universal principles is that language structure is then seen as constrained, and learnable. The large variety of fixed stress patterns in languages, for example, may be reduced to different settings of a few fundamental prosodic parameters. The West Slavic languages are all trochaic systems with differences in the directionality of parsing, i.e., Czech and Lower Sorbian, Western and Central Slovak, and Southern Kashubian parse trochaic feet from the beginning of the word (fixed initial stress), while Polish and Eastern Slovak parse trochaic feet from the end of the word. Macedonian requires a special adjustment for ignoring final syllables, but this characteristic, too, is not uncommon among languages. Free stress systems such as Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Slovene, Serbian and Croatian belong to the set of languages with lexically marked prominence. These, too, are governed by certain regularities. For example, the loss of a stressed element will often result in stress on a preceding element in the Slavic languages, while in other types of languages the loss of a stressed element may result in stress on a following stress-bearing unit. Regardless of whether prosodic typologies are established on the basis of metrical foot inventories (Hayes 1994) or other parameters (Halle and Idsardi 1995), these typologies are more revealing than typologies based on factors such as whether prosodic features "function" or not (cf. Stankiewicz 1958) because they relate the Slavic languages to the structure of language in general in a more meaningful way. Unlike typologies based on phoneme inventories where in principle any inventory may be admitted but some never are, or the morphological typologies classifying languages into analytic, isolating, agglutinating and synthetic types which have limited implications and applications, a typology based on constraint interaction or parameterization is more dynamic. Language change may be described as the reranking of constraints or changes in parameter settings. The phonological inventory typologies and the morphological typologies have been used in historical linguistics to describe language change as the replacement of one type of system by another. For example, the synthetic system of Old English is said to have become an analytical type or the rectangular vowel system of Proto-Slavic may be described as being replaced by a dispersed triangular type, but these are statements which do not tell us much about the process of language change. A typology based on language universals (constraints or other types of implicational universals) allows us to make some claims about what type of system was likely to have existed, what kind of variation might be

260

Theoretical considerations

expected, and what structures are implied by the existence of certain other structures (Comrie 1981, Croft 1990). In identifying a set of constraints and parameters and principles governing their potential interaction - both in syllable structure and in prominence relations - we not only have a viable framework for studying language change over time and language variation in time, but we also have a fairly robust theory of language.

Conclusion

The preceding discussion argued that syllable structure changed in Slavic before the loss of weak jers and that intrasyllabic and intersyllabic reorganizations in Late Common Slavic (LCS) had a far more important role in its evolution than did the loss of jers. Not only did the reorganization of syllable structure produce major isoglosses in LCS, but it also had far-reaching implications for subsequent developments in the individual Slavic languages, both on the segmental and the prosodic level. Several new proposals were made with respect to the nature of phonological change in Common Slavic (CS). The syllable structure changes that occurred in CS were the result of several constraints. The earliest innovation was the emergence of the Moraic Constraint. It resulted in the elimination of syllable-final obstruents and in the neutralization of length in diphthongs. A No Coda Constraint came into play later in CS. Historical accounts of the Slavic languages do not distinguish between the two, citing the "law of open syllables" as responsible for the loss of syllable-final consonants or a movement of the syllable boundary. By Late Common Slavic the high ranking of the No Coda Constraint was a regional phenomenon. The developments in (North) East LCS, for example, may be described as the interaction of two other constraints, one on maximal syllable weight and another on the moraicity of sonorant consonants without reference to the No Coda Constraint. (North) West Slavic, in fact, had syllable codas as an outcome of constraint interaction in that area. It did originally share "the law of open syllables" with other areas of Slavic in the form of a Moraic Constraint, and the southern part of this area together with the South Central LCS dialects may have ranked the No Coda Constraint fairly high, but in a large part of (North) West Slavic, the No Coda Constraint was eventually ranked below other structure constraints (e.g., the Sonorant Constraint and the Syllable Weight Constraint), so codas were acceptable. One result of this analysis is that the so-called "principle of rising sonority" as a law or rule of Slavic sound change does not exist. Its status was always questionable at best. It could not be formulated as an exceptionless sound law in 261

262

Conclusion

the Neogrammarian tradition; it could not be easily written as one phonological rule in the generative framework; it was either the force behind changes or the result of changes or it was both; it was a term to describe a "phonological conspiracy"; it could be viewed as a constraint on possible changes or as a filter on output forms, and so on. It is significant, therefore, that the "principle of rising sonority" may be derived from the interaction of independently motivated and universal constraints such as the Onset Constraint and the No Coda Constraint. Exceptions and variation are then also seen as the consequence of constraint interaction. It was further suggested that prominence in Slavic developed along certain well-defined parameters. The ambiguous status of the bimoraic syllable with respect to metrical organization, i.e., its potential to be prominent in both trochaic and iambic systems, was seen to be at the center of prosodic innovations in LCS. In this respect it was the shortening of originally accented syllables (acutes) and not so much the neo-acute accent shift which provoked a reanalysis of prosodic relations. The prominence patterns of the Slavic languages today may be shown to derive from a few variations with respect to basic metrical principles. The fixed stress patterns of Slavic are all describable as the parsing of a trochaic metrical foot with parametric variation in directionality: in initial stress systems parsing begins at the beginning of the word, in penultimate stress systems parsing begins at the end of the word, in antepenultimate stress the final syllable is extrametrical and parsing is from right to left. In Polabian metrical parsing identifies a bimoraic trochaic foot. One could speak of differences in aligning metrical feet with word edges: Czech and Upper Sorbian align a syllabic trochaic metrical foot with the left edge of a word, Polish aligns a syllabic trochee with the right edge. This approach decreases the number of idiosyncratic systems that must be postulated for Slavic and variation is simply the consequence of manipulating a basic inventory of feet and alignment constraints. As a result of studying syllable structure change in Slavic we have a new perspective on the question of Slavic unity. Opinions vary about the so-called end point of Common Slavic. Many agree with Meillet 1924/1965 that one cannot speak of Common Slavic as a unified linguistic system much beyond the ninth century (Lehr-Splawiriski 1932a, Furdal 1961: 7). Others follow Trubetzkoy 1922 in assuming that it was the loss of weak jers and the appearance of newly closed syllables that really marked the end of Slavic unity (Durnovo 1932a, Horalek 1955: 128), and Jakobson 1929/1971: 56 writes: "La chute des jers faibles a ete un facteur puissant de dislocation pour le slave commun; elle a rendu plus profondes les differences existant entre la structure phonologique

Conclusion

263

des divers dialectes qu'elle a ainsi transformes en langues particularisees; c'est precisement a cause de cela qu'elle apparait, selon le juste definition de Trubetzkoy, comme le dernier evenement du slave commun." It is well-understood that a periodization of the history of Slavic depends on what is taken to be the critical parameter, i.e., which changes (or isoglosses) are considered to be significant, and that a periodization based on phonemic/ phonological developments may not correspond to one established on the basis of morphological or syntactic changes, insofar as those can be reliably reconstructed. As Andersen quite rightly notes (1985: 75), "the early development of Slavic can undoubtedly be divided into different numbers of periods depending on the language-inherent feature chosen as criterion." He then proposes a periodization of Slavic based on a typological parameter, changes in vocalism. But I think that changes in vocalism experienced by Common Slavic should be viewed in the context of changes in syllable structure and it is the latter which is the better typological parameter by which to judge the development of Slavic. By identifying a CS stage characterized by a highly ranked Moraic Constraint, a later stage during which the No Coda Constraint was more critical, and a LCS stage with significant syllable structure reorganizations, we have a tentative periodization of the evolution of Slavic. Andersen's 1985 typologically distinct periods of Slavic development correspond as follows to the analysis proposed here: Early Slavic I, the period of vowel chains [sequences], is equivalent to the period of the Moraic Constraint during which syllables had to end in a morabearing segment. This period ends with the monophthongization of oral diphthongs. Early Slavic II is characterized by the appearance of a new labial /u/ and new quantitative oppositions. Here it would correspond to changes in the relationship between the mora and the segment and it is characterized by the No Coda Constraint. Early Slavic III, according to Andersen, shows a tense/lax opposition in vowels, different development of nasal diphthongs, the backing of front vowels (Lechitic /e/, /£/, and /eV become corresponding back vowels and East Slavic /e/, /h/ > /o/), changes in weak jers with compensatory lengthening, and changes in liquid diphthongs. This period ends with the jer shift. In terms of syllable structure, this is the period of the differentiation of syllable structure types and the emergence of a bisyllabic prosodic domain. It is no easy task to define "the end of Slavic unity" because at the same time that Late Common Slavic was experiencing changes which were significantly differentiating, such as the changes in the liquid diphthongs, it was also beginning to undergo a change which took a long time and which was structurally unified throughout LCS, namely, the changes in the jers. In a sense the situation seems paradoxical: LCS was significantly enough differentiated by the ninth

264

Conclusion

century to produce regular and diverse reflexes of liquid diphthongs, yet it was sufficiently unified until the twelfth century or so (when the changes in the jers were nearing completion in the northeast) to have an innovation which was formally consistent throughout the system. Within the framework of syllable theory, this situation accurately reflects the prosodic characteristics postulated for Slavic. The differentiating changes were taking place within the syllable. At the same time, LCS was developing a special bisyllabic relationship, a prosodic metrical organization. It was within this bisyllabic prosodic domain that the issue of relative strength was so consistently played out through the changes in the jers. In the theoretical framework adopted in this study there is no real paradox. The bisyllabic norm of LCS governed the expression of prominence and set the stage for subsequent phonological changes. The nonlinear representation of phonological units facilitates our understanding of quantity relations. By identifying the mora as a prosodic element mediating between the segment and the syllable, one may treat phonemic quantity and syllable quantity as related but not necessarily the same. Thus it is possible that LCS had quantitative distinctions in syllable structure without having phonemic quantity distinctions in the segments. For example, one could say that /o/ occurred in short syllables and /a/ in long ones, thereby making a type of qualitative-quantitative distinction. The interpretation of quantity as a property of the segment and of the syllable reveals it to be the link between intrasyllabic and intersyllabic changes. It is in this role that it is liberated from the phonetic context. For example, experimental studies show that pitch rises take more time than pitch falls (Ohala and Ewan 1973, Sundberg 1973), but in Slavic quantity tends to be associated with pretonic syllables in wordforms with acute (rising) accent as well as with circumflex syllables with falling pitch accent. The former is an expected development if the duration of the pitch rise is extended over two syllables (Timberlake 1993), but the latter appears to be somewhat unusual from a phonetic point of view. If circumflex wordforms are interpreted as phonologically unaccented (regardless of their redundant word stress) and if quantity can serve as a marker of prominence in these systems, then the appearance of length in syllables correlated with falling pitch is not an instance of durational requirements on falling intonation (falling pitch accent per se), but rather an instance of quantity prominence or "accent" in lexically unaccented wordforms. The approach to the history of Slavic taken here provided a unified account of a range of phonological phenomena. An implicit case was made for viewing language change in terms of constraint interaction, a departure from previous generative models. It remains to be seen whether this theoretical framework

Conclusion

265

will yield a model of language which effectively explains not only the organization of linguistic systems but also their change over time. But by testing some current theoretical assumptions with respect to Slavic data, this study provided alternative solutions to several perplexing problems of Slavic historical phonology and it considered some theoretical implications of the Slavic data with respect to issues of syllable structure, the representation of length and prominence, and the nature of language change and language typology.

Notes

1 The syllable in Slavic: form and function 1 See, for example, van Wijk 1931, Nahtigal 1938/1952, Mikkola 1921, Martinet 1952, 1955: 349-369; BernStejn 1961,1963, Furdal 1961, Shevelov 1965, Velcheva 1988, Lamprecht 1987, among others. The presence of open syllables in CS has been variously attributed to a "tendency" (Martinet 1952, BernStejn 1961: 49ff.) and a "law" (Iljinskij 1916, van Wijk 1931,1941, Belie 1958, Nahtigal 1938/1952: 11-17; BernStejn 1963, MareS 1969, Lamprecht 1987). There has been extensive discussion about the teleology of the Law of Open Syllables in Slavic: some proposed that this CV structure was the result of the various phonological changes in CS (Vaillant 1950: 285; Zuravlev 1961: 45; Cekmonas 1979: 145, 152; Galton 1988, Shevelov 1965: 203, but see p. 205 where open syllable structure is considered a prerequisite for simplifications), others took it to be the motivation for phonological changes (Iljinskij 1916, Mikkola 1921, Abele 1924: 3; BernStejn 1963, BoSkovic 1984), still others considered it to have been both (Kuznecov 1951: 399ff.; Milewski 1956: 51). BernStejn 1963 gives a history of syllable structure studies in Slavic up to 1963 in which he strongly argues in favor of a law of open syllables. According to him, this law was reduced to a tendency for open syllables after the fall of the jers and in the Slavic languages today. Cekmonas 1979: 120-175 raises serious concerns about viewing the open syllable tendency as the internal motivator for linguistic change because open syllable structure seems to be universally preferred. He concludes that there is no reason to consider this tendency to be the cause of change in Slavic, although he acknowledges that many of the innovations experienced by Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic did result in CV structure. 2 See Whitney 1865: 357-373. An early attempt to organize Slavic words on the basis of structure for purposes of comparison was that of Joseph Dobrovsky, who in his Institutiones linguae slavicae dialecti veteris (1822) studied Slavic forms "quum apud russos, serbos aliosque ritus graeci, turn apud dalmatas glagolitas ritus latini slavos in libris sacris obtinet" in terms of root structure. He classified Slavic roots or "syllabae" into three major groups: Class I consists of vocalic and consonant plus vowel roots, e.g., H, K>, 6-fc, MA; Class II has VC and CVC roots such as VM, ior, 6OH, JJHB,flem>;and Class III contains roots with consonant clusters, e.g., ajiK, yTp, 6pB (6pOB), HpaB, HHCT, HpT (nepT). Although Dobrovsky considered the presence of a final consonant and the occurrence of consonant clusters to be significant distinguishing factors in his classification, he did not identify these as syllable structure properties or use them systematically in language comparison. But he did observe

266

Note to page 17

267

certain regular differences between languages, pointing out, for example, that "vocalis euphonica o aut e inseri nunc solet in editionibus Russicis in iis syllabis, quae olim sine vocali scribebantur. Tales sunt, quarum mediam radicalem constituunt literae JI et p. Inseritur autem o communiter ante JI: BOjraa, BOBK, IIOJIH, . . . pro BjiHa, BJIK, mm, miK,..." (p. 44). Although many Slavists have either alluded to or recognized the importance of the syllable in Common Slavic (Leskien 1909 [1919], Mikkola 1913, Abele 1924, Jakobson 1929/1971, van Wijk 1941, Kolomijec' 1963, BernStejn 1961, 1963, Shevelov 1965, Cekmonas 1979, Lamprecht 1987, and others), its role in language change has not been sufficiently explored. BernStejn 1963 observes that in spite of the generally recognized importance of the syllable in the history of the Slavic languages, after Broch 1910 very little work was done on Slavic syllable structure, with a few exceptions (cf. Belie 1933a, 1958, Avanesov 1954, Traxterov 1956, Saumjan 1962: 160-181). To these we can now add Horalek 1949 on the syllable as a phonological unit, Kurylowicz 1948/1960, Bargielowna 1950, and Ulaszyn 1956 on Polish, Lepskaja 1968, Trofimova 1972 and other work on syllabification, Kalnyn' and Maslennikova 1985 on the syllable as a phonetic entity in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish dialects, Kolomijec' 1963 on syllable structure as an important prosodic trait, Bondarko 1967, Moiseev 1975, Toporov 1971, Kudrjavceva 1991 (the latter on the interaction of syllable structure and morpheme boundaries in Russian), Pauliny 1979: 162-207 on Slovak, and a few others, mostly phonetic or orthoepic descriptions. Zuravlev 1961, and elsewhere continues to study the syllable as a phonological entity called the group phoneme (syllabeme). Theoretical contributions to syllable structure have been made by many Slavists, including Abele 1924, Belie 1933, 1958, RuziCka 1947, Kurylowicz 1948/1960, Horalek 1949, Hala 1956, Traxterov 1956, Paduceva 1958, Saumjan 1962:160-181, Lekomceva 1968a and 1968b, and others. Among Slavic linguists, BernStejn 1961, 1963 and to some extent Shevelov 1965, in particular, focus on the role of the syllable boundary in Common Slavic. Others discuss sounds with specific reference to their position within a syllable (e.g., Mikkola 1913, Jakobson 1929/1971). Studies of consonant clusters as defining possible syllable onsets and codas have been done for various Slavic languages (Bargielowna 1950, Kurylowicz 1952a, Avanesov 1954, Ulaszyn 1956, Lekomceva 1968a, 1968b, and elsewhere, Sawicka 1972, 1974, and elsewhere, Kalnyn' and Maslennikova 1985, Tolstaja 1968a, 1968b, 1972, Wisniewska 1972, and many others). More recent work in generative phonology has begun to take into account the role of syllable structure in the phonology of some Slavic languages (cf. Bethin 1992b, Rubach 1993), but it does not focus on the history of Slavic. The idea that syllable structure is hierarchical may be found in the work of Pike and Pike 1947, Hockett 1955, Kurylowicz 1948/1960, Fudge 1969, Kiparsky 1979 and is increasingly being recognized and refined by others. Studies of the syllable include Meyer 1898, van der Groot 1926, Sommerfelt 1931, 1936, Grammont 1933/1965, Stetson 1936, 1951, Hjelmslev 1937, 1939, von Essen 1951, Rosetti 1963, Fudge 1969. Work from the point of view of speech production (and language games) also offers some substantial support for syllable structure and constituents, if not necessarily for a hierarchical representation of the syllable (cf. Laubstein 1988, and references therein). Early generative and other theories operated with the notion

268

Notes to pages 18-30

of a syllable boundary (see, for example, SkaliCkova 1961, Pulgram 1970, Hoard 1971, Hooper 1972, 1976, Bell and Hooper 1978, Vennemann 1972, 1988, and others), but could not account for several known characteristics of syllables such as considerations of syllable weight or ambisyllabicity (Kahn 1976). There have also been various interpretations of syllable structure and syllabification. In cases where syllabification is done by rule, opinion differs on whether rules define a template (Kahn 1976, Clements and Keyser 1983), build one (Levin 1985, Steriade 1982/1990a) or match one (Selkirk 1982,1984a). 4 Moraic phonology does not count equally all individual segments because not all segments are associated with a mora. In this way it differs from segmental prosodic theories, in which segments are usually associated with a timing unit (X) or a position (C or V) on the prosodic tier. In moraic theory Hayes 1989 proposed a principle of weight by position: a consonant in coda position acquires a mora in some languages. Slavic does not exhibit general weight by position, though it did allow sonorants to be moraic in coda position and it has long and short syllables. All theories of syllable structure assume sensitivity to relative sonority and this is sometimes formalized as a sonority hierarchy (Jespersen 1904, de Saussure 1916/1966, Kurylowicz 1948/1960), as sonority values (Selkirk 1984a: 112; Steriade 1982/1990a, Clements 1990), or as consonantal strength (Hooper 1976, Vennemann 1988). More recently, Zee 1988/1994 proposed sonority constraints on moraic structure in the form of strong and weak relations between the moras of a syllable. 5 BernStejn (1961) concludes that the period from the first century AD to the fifth century AD was the time of greatest changes in Slavic, thus raising the question of whether one can speak of an entity called Common Slavic much past this time. Shevelov 1965 dates most of these changes to the sixth and seventh centuries. While Belie 1922 argues that Common Slavic fell apart into dialects before the ninth century, Meillet 1921,1924/1965 holds that Common Slavic (at least in the sense of a social entity) existed up to the ninth century (cf. Lehr-Splawiriski 1932a), and others (e.g., Trubetzkoy 1922:217-218,1925a: 319; Durnovo 1932a: 524-525) date its existence up to the period after weak jers were lost, approximately the eleventh century. On the periodization of Slavic, see also the discussion in Zbirka odgovora na pitanja, III Medunarodni Kongres Slavista 1939: 11-19, Trubetzkoy 1922, van Wijk 1956, MareS 1956/1965, Furdal 1961, Stieber 1979, Andersen 1985, Lamprecht 1973, 1987, Birnbaum 1987 and references therein. Lunt 1993: 363 suggests the term Middle Common Slavic for the uniform stage of Slavic which was characterized by fifteen obstruents (p, b, t, d, £, 3, c, 3, s, z, S, z, k, g, x), seven sonorants (m, n, 1, r,ri,1', r',), two glides (j, w), and eleven vowels (i, b, y, T>, U, e, o, 6, a, e., Q), plus eight liquid diphthongs (bl, T>1, br, T>r, el, ol, er, or). Furdal 1961: 45 postulates instead the syllabic sonorants /r/ /r'/, /}/, /I'/ for a total of fifteen vowel phonemes. Late Common Slavic is defined as consisting of a variety of dialects. 6 This is the position of Iljinskij 1916: 157ff.; Meillet 1906, 1924/1965: 79ff.; Pedersen 1905: 311; Vondrak 1924: 211-217; TravniCek 1928 and others. BernStejn 1961: 185 attributes prothesis to hiatus. Vaillant 1950: 178, 183 and Nahtigal 1952: 33, 41 refer to hiatus but also to the palatal or labial nature of the following vowel. Fortunatov 1919/1957: 227ff. and Saxmatov 1915/1967: 54-58 proposed that all words were pronounced with an extra sound at the beginning which evolved into [h],

Notes to pages 33-36

269

[u], or [i], depending on what followed. Other occurrences of [i] and [u] (e.g., U vivc'a "sheep" < CS *ouica or R vosem' "eight" < CS *osmi) may have other sources in Slavic, such as compensatory lengthening and/or the neo-acute retraction. Here, too, the lengthening as prior to prothesis may be interpreted as strengthening which provides material for the onset position in a syllable. 7 The dialect restrictions on this prothesis present some interesting problems with respect to the chronology of prothesis, especially in those instances where reflexes are sporadic, either within a given language or across Slavic languages. Some have assumed an early stage of prothesis in these forms as well with subsequent dialectal loss (Meillet 1924/1965: 77-85; Vaillant 1950:185ff.); others have taken these cases to represent secondary prothesis (Nahtigal 1952: 173ff.; Stieber 1935: 237; BernStejn 1961: 185-187). The prothetic consonants in the (North) West dialects (and in isolated cases elsewhere in Slavic) may have been due to segment decomposition which seems to have been favored in this area in general. For example, in Polish the palatalized labials have decomposed into sequences of a labial and a palatal glide as in [mjasto] "city." It is also possible that the appearance of the back glide before a back vowel may have been related to the loss of length distinctions and may represent decomposition, i.e., bimoraic /Q/ may have been reinterpreted as bisegmental /UQ/ word-initially. Compare OCS uxo "ear," R uxo, P/Cz/Sk ucho, Sn uho, SC uxo, M uvo, B uxo (La auris, Lith ausis, Go auso), but U vuxo, BR vuxa, Pb vauxu/vaixu, LS wucho ~ hucho, US wucho. If the word stress was also being retracted onto the initial syllable at this time, then the appearance of a prothetic glide here could be classified as syllable strengthening under stress. 8 Shevelov 1965: 253ff. refers to this tendency as a principle and claims that "there was a growing tendency to have not the phoneme but the syllable as the minimum unit of language." Furthermore, he sees the rise of intrasyllabic harmony as supported by external factors, specifically, the influence of the Altaic languages with which the Slavs came into contact from the fourth to the eighth centuries: "it seems plausible that the rise of a trend toward intrasyllabic harmony in CS during the fifth eighth centuries could have been favored by the Sl[avic] - Alt[aic] contacts" (pp. 255-256). Slavic may have been more receptive to Altaic influence due to internal developments, but the external influence is given even more prominence by Galton 1994. Cekmonas 1979: 114 allows that a form of intrasyllabic harmony or syllabemes may have characterized the transitional stage during the development of phonemic palatalization (C vs. C ) until the beginning of vowel backing processes (6 > 'a, e, > 'a, e > o). 9 Kurylowicz 1957/1987: 37 Iff., on the basis of similarity with Baltic, considers iotation a Balto-Slavic isogloss. BernStejn 1961: 167 dates the process to after the breakup of Balto-Slavic but before the loss of closed syllables (i.e., before the fifth or sixth centuries) and says that it was a long process. Shevelov 1965: 217 writes: "all sources of information, whether loan words, place names, early SI records or comparison with Rm [Romanian], point to the period of the fifth to eighth centuries as the time when rj, Ij, nj, sj, zj, kj, gj\ xj, tj, dj > r\ V, n', s\ z\ c\ *•?(> z), s', *c (c), *j (5) with the further dialectal differentiation of *c, *j falling probably into the eighth to tenth centuries." On the other hand, van Wijk 1950: 305 does not think it possible to establish a date for iotation, though he does believe that it did not precede the first

270

Notes to pages 3 7-45

palatalization of velars. Trubetzkoy 1930 postulates the following chronology for West Slavic: A. palatalization of dentals before j to *t\ *d\ *s\ *z\ *n\ *l'cooccurring with B. the Second Velar Palatalization (*k, *g, *x > *c\ *3, *s'), followed by C. *s\ *z' > *§, z, D. the change of *t', *d' > *c\ *3\ and E. the change of *c\ *3\ *s\ *z' to *c, *3, *s, *z. In East Slavic the order supposedly was A, C, B, E, D and in the south, A, C, B, E (p. 388). There has also been some disagreement about whether epenthetic /I/ appeared everywhere in Slavic, only to be lost in West Slavic at a later time. Schenker 1993: 69 and others assume the latter to have been the case. Trubetzkoy 1930: 396-402 attributes the different reflexes of labial followed by a glide in West Slavic and Bulgarian to syllabification: "in *kapja wurde das j zu i, weil es im Silbenanlaut nach einem konsonantischen SilbenschluB stand; in *pjbvati dagegen, wo das j nicht im Anlaut, sondern im Innern der Silbe stand, wurde es nicht zu /" (p. 399). When the labial plus glide sequence was tautosyllabic, iotation resulted in a labial plus liquid, as in Vplwac "to spit" < CS *piiuati; otherwise there was simply assimilation followed by simplification, e.g., CS * zeni +ia > *zemnia > P ziemia /zerria/ [zemja]. 10 One could question whether intrasyllabic harmony is a syllable-based process, for in all cases the changes involve segment adjacency, resulting in either the palatalization of consonants or the fronting of vowels. There is no corresponding generalization of other features, such as [+back] within the domain of the syllable. Van Wijk 1941, 1950 considered what he called syllable synharmony to be at most a phonetic tendency in Slavic, though Isacenko 1939-1940, MareS 1956/1965 and elsewhere, Shevelov 1965:253-255,269-270, and others, do take it to be a valid generalization or tendency in the history of Slavic. 11 It has been suggested that the nasal vowels may have been pronounced differently in LCS, as nasal vowels in some places and as asynchronic sequences of orality and nasality in others (Trubetzkoy 1925c: 37). This question has been widely debated (cf. Lehr-Splawinski 1926, Kuraszkiewicz 1932a, 1932b, Strumiriski 1961, 1962, Koneczna 1961-1962, Birnbaum 1963, Sciebora 1964, Stieber 1979: 25-27,46-48; and others) with no complete agreement among Slavists. Kortlandt 1979 writes *eN and *oN, but says that "N designates a feature of the preceding vowel and does not represent a separate segment" (p. 259), though he admits that the nasal vowels would have been positional variants since "they are not opposed phonemically to sequences of vowel plus nasal consonant up to the loss of the jers" (pp. 264-265). Furdal 1961: 4 5 ^ 6 who does not postulate a quantitative distinction for LCS, claims that the nasal vowels were only phonetically, not phonemically, long. 12 There is also the difference of behavior with respect to the progressive velar palatalization (Baudouin de Courtenay palatalization, BdC). The velars /k/ and /g/ became /c/ and /z/ after /i/ before a following nonhigh vowel, as in PS *auika > LCS *ovica "sheep." As Lunt 1990: 39 observes, this palatalization does not take place after diphthongs ending in /i/ as in *raika "river" which is CS *rSka, OCS reka, but nasals apparently were transparent to this process, e.g., PS *mesinka "month," gen sg, CS *m£seca, OCS mesqca. Lunt 1990: 39 formulates a rule with an optional intervening nasal: Cl (N) _ a. Thus high vowel plus nasal sequences allow progressive palatalization to take place, but vowel plus /i/ sequences do not. Another way to state this is to say that the high vowel component of a diphthong did not trigger palatalization.

Notes to pages 48-54

271

To explain the absence of palatalization after /ai/ and /ei/, Lunt proposes that a lowering of the second element took place, to /ae/ /ee/, so it did not meet the structural description of the rule. This problem was also faced by Trubetzkoy 1922: 229-230 who simply identified a series of velar nasals /rjk/ /rjg/ along with /k/, /g/, /x/, and said that "les gutturales (k, g, x, rjk, rjg) faiblement labialisees perdaient leur labialisation et devenaient prepalatales lorsqu'elles etaient precedees d'un I ou d'un I inaccentue, tandis que les gutturales energiquement labialisees restaient inalterees dans cette meme position" (p. 230). But the difference between V+N which permits BdC palatalization and V+i which does not may also be attributed to syllable structure. The high vowel in the V+N group is a syllable nucleus while the /i/ of the diphthong occurred in syllable coda position. 13 The notion of vowel plus liquid sequences as "diphthongs" may be found in Torbiornsson 1897, in the work of Saxmatov 1902a, 1903a, who referred to "diphthongal groupings," in Ekblom 1927-1928 who called them "semidiphthongs," and in most work since then (cf. Vaillant 1950, Jakobson 1952 and others). Among the earliest discussions of these reflexes are the proposals of MaksymovyC 1839/1880: 420, 1850, and elsewhere, who believed that the pleophonic variant found in East Slavic was the normal development from CVR.C (also Schmidt 1871-1875, who proposed a svarabhakti vowel: tarat) with subsequent loss of pleophony in the West Slavic languages, and those of Dobrovsky 1822: 218; Vostokov 1822/1856: 7; Potebnja 1866: 49-52 [cited in Miklosich 1878], Sreznevskij 1887/1959, and others who took trat to be the older form and derived trot and torot from it. Most Slavists working in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century had an opinion about the so-called "liquid metathesis" (cf. Jagic 1876, 1898, Potebnja 1874, 1876, 1878, Miklosich 1877, 1878, Leskien 1879, Torbiornsson 1897, 1901, 1903, 1906, Endzelin 1902, Saxmatov 1902a, 1903a, Vondrak 1903, Pedersen 1905, Bruckner 1909, Kul'bakin 1911-1912, Mikkola 1913, Iljinskij 1916, Rozwadowski 1915, Fortunatov 1919/1957, Ekblom 1927-1928, Lehr-Splawiriski 1921,1931, Jakobson 1929/1971, Rozov 1932, Stieber 1979, and many others). Reviews of and references to previous work on the topic may be found in Jagic 1876, Miklosich 1878, Torbiornsson 1901, 1903, 1906, Iljinskij 1916, van Wijk 1931, Peciar 1939, 1952, and others. Discussions continue to this day (see Jakobson 1952, MareS 1956/1965, BernStejn 1961, Milewski 1969, Shevelov 1965, Scatton 1968, Andersen 1972, 1973b, Feldstein 1976, Cekmonas 1979, and Bethin 1992a) without complete agreement about the evolution of liquid diphthongs in Slavic. 14 There is some evidence that lengthening in the south preceded metathesis. The tenth century dialectal Bulgarian OCS forms baltina, baltiny "swamp," maldicie "youth" and zaltarinu "goldsmith" are usually cited as evidence of lengthening because /a/ is the reflex of a long /o/ in Slavic (cf. Vondrak 1912: 356; Jakobson 1952, Jakubinskij 1953: 127; van Wijk 1956, BernStejn 1961: 220ff.; and others), though some have taken these forms to be borrowings. Rozov 1932: 680 considers these to be a special case of unaccented words with falling accent which in his view were not subject to metathesis. Shevelov 1965: 406 also points out that most of these unmetathesized forms in Bulgarian (found in the thirteenth- or fourteenth-century text, Octoechos of John Exarch of Bulgaria) involve the back vowel and original falling pitch accent, with the exception of baltina. Most Slavists assume that lengthening preceded

272

Notes to pages 56-57

metathesis (Jagic 1898, Vondrak 1903, Bruckner 1909, Iljinskij 1916, Scatton 1968). Lamprecht 1987 says the change of a > o and 6 > a followed metathesis, though this does not mean that the lengthening of the original vowel could not have been prior to metathesis. Various explanations have been postulated for unmetathesized, perhaps variant, forms such as alkati "to thirst," including the presence of some hypothetical vowel after the liquid or the influence of other languages on Slavic (cf. BernStejn 1961: 223-225; BoSkovic 1984:91). But it is not unlikely that unmetathesized forms would occur on the periphery of Slavic (cf. Lamprecht 1956, BernStejn 1961: 224-225). Forms without lengthening are also found in South Slavic texts, e.g., Codex Suprasliensis has robt, rozve. Some considered these to be borrowings (Fortunatov 1923, Vaillant 1950: 163), but BernStejn 1961: 221-223 assumes that they were native South Slavic variants. See also Rozwadowski 1915: 387; Schwartz 1927a: 361ff.; Peciar 1939, MareS 1969 for a discussion of the chronology of liquid diphthong changes. 15 Vaillant 1950: 165 dates changes in liquid diphthongs to not before the eighth century. Stieber 1979: 36-46 believes that they date to the early ninth century. Furdal 1961: 65 and Shevelov 1965: 396, 416, 634 date changes in VR.C to the period eighth - mid ninth century and those in CVR.C to the mid ninth century. BernStejn 1961: 216-217 thinks that changes in word-medial liquid diphthongs were early (third to fifth century), that they preceded changes in word-initial position and that they took place at a time when Czech and Central Slovak dialects were still in relatively close contact with the South Slavic dialects. The change in word-initial sequences came at a time when Czech was isolated from the southern LCS dialects and Central Slovak and closer to Lechitic. Thus Czech has metathesis and lengthening in word-medial position as do the South Slavic languages and two reflexes (/o/ and /a/) in word-initial position as do the Lechitic and East Slavic areas. Others (cf. Iljinskij 1916: 122-126) propose a parallel development of VR.C and CVR.C groups. Differences in pitch accent are no longer thought to have been the primary distinguishing feature in the liquid diphthong changes word-internally, but several older analyses did take pitch to be critical in the development of word-internal diphthongs as well as in word-initial position (e.g., Rozov 1932, Ekblom 1956). More recently, Skljarenko 1993 takes pitch distinctions to be reflected as length in wordmedial diphthongs of southern Late Common Slavic. 16 Upper Sorbian shows long reflexes of the vowel in some forms but not in others, e.g., US krowa "cow," bioto "swamp, mud," slebro "silver," but not in broda "beard," zloto "gold" (the length in wlos, wtosa "hair," htos, hlosa "voice" is said to be due to later compensatory lengthening). Dybo 1963 thinks that all CVR.C forms had long or tense vowels and that these shortened under the circumflex accent {broda, zloto). See also Andersen 1973b. Dybo assumes that US shared the South/Central developments of lengthening and metathesis, but that these took place at a later stage because the lengthened reflex of/o/ here is pronounced as a diphthong [uo] and spelled 6, not a. This view is consistent with the suggestion made here that mora conservation (lengthening) was spreading from the south to the central parts of LCS. It is also possible that these are later lengthenings under accent (H) as discussed in 2.3.3. 17 Differences among Slavic languages with respect to vowel/liquid groups were noted

Note to page 57

273

as early as 1822 by Dobrovsky (and by Vostokov 1822, MaksymovyC 1839/1880, Potebnja 1866, Miklosich 1878, etc.) and pondered by almost every practicing Slavist or comparativist since then. I will not discuss the various interpretations proposed for changes in liquid diphthongs in great detail, but I will mention a few representative ones. One of the more common explanations for the different development of the liquid diphthongs is a shift of the syllable boundary. BernStejn 1961 proposed that word-internally the principle of rising sonority (or tendency for open syllables) was maintained first by a general all-Slavic retraction of the syllable boundary, e.g., *ga.rdu. The resulting onset was no more acceptable than /r/ in the coda, so one solution was to move /r/ back into coda position and then to metathesize it with the preceding vowel. This is the development proposed for the South Slavic dialects. In the northwestern areas of Lechitic (here called (North) West Slavic) and in East Slavic, BernStejn, following Saxmatov 1902a, Iljinskij 1916: 113-134 and others, postulates a stage (unattested) in which the resonant (liquid) became long. Under the syllabification of *gafdu as *ga.rdu the length on the sonorant could not be preserved, so a new vocalic segment developed, e.g., *ga.rdu > go.ro.di>. In the northwest the first vowel weakened and was eventually lost, e.g., P grod. In the eastern dialects both vowels are preserved, e.g., R gorod. BernStejn 1961: 218 thus argues for an opposition between southern dialects, which allowed long vowels but only short resonants, and northern dialects, which at one stage were characterized by short vowels but long resonants and liquids. This is an intriguing analysis although it is not clear why liquids should have lengthened in those areas which did not maintain any length distinctions in syllable nuclei. BernStejn 1961: 216-217 attributes these changes in the liquid diphthongs to the period from the third through the fifth centuries in order to account for the similarities between the Lechitic and East Slavic groups (long liquids, no metathesis) as distinct from the south (long vowels, metathesis), but this chronology has not been widely accepted. Ekblom 1927-1928 analyzes developments in the liquid diphthongs by proposing a metathesis of quantity instead of a metathesis of the liquid (reminiscent of Pedersen 1905): tarst > terat everywhere in Common Slavic. In those areas with distinctive length, the resulting [a] was taken to be long, in others it fell together with the short [a] and was realized as [o]. Ekblom presupposes that the south and the north differed with respect to how they interpreted "long" vowels. Lehr-Splawiriski 1931 criticized Ekblom's analysis for, among other things, not motivating the original lengthening (or quantity metathesis) and for postulating a stage of tarat throughout Common Slavic, for which there is no evidence in the East Slavic area. Ekblom 1956: 5 (like Rozov 1932 who based his conclusions on the HI reflex found in pleophonic forms of Ukrainian) identified East Slavic pleophony as the result of two different developments under the influence of accent: under acute accent metathesis supposedly took place (e.g., in his formulation: *pafgT> > *p ra'gT> > *p'rog > porog as in U porih, Rporog), but under the circumflex he claimed that it did not (e.g., *pavrcrn> > *pavrcrrb > *por'ch > pdroch > poroch [ch ~ x]). See also Pedersen 1905: 297ff. who viewed the East Slavic pleophonic reflexes as somehow dependent on accentual differences. Lehr-Splawinski saw the issue as a question of eliminating -rC- sequences. He agreed with Ekblom that some vocalic element was epenthesized between the liquid and the following consonant everywhere in Slavic (i.e., tarat), but he restricted the "metathesis of

274

Note to page 60

quantity" (i.e., the intermediate stage of tarat) to only some dialects. MareS 1956/1965, 1969: 3Iff. (but earlier Schmidt 1871-1875 as described in Miklosich 1878) suggests the following development: all liquid diphthongs (ar) became syllabic liquids, which he represents with two svarabhakti vowels as am. In word-initial position, ara > raa > ra, as also happens word-internally in the south. Word-internal position in the north is said to have two developments. In the east f and I (ara, ala) lose syllabicity, all segments gain phonemic status and the two-mora length is retained, e.g., ES garady as in R gorod. In the northwest, the consonantal element is concentrated at the end of the syllable where it loses its syllabicity, and garady > gar'dy, as in Kashubian gard and Polabian gord. In other western dialects the first vowel weakens and the result is g'rady. In other words, MareS postulates a phonetic pleophony for all of Common Slavic with differences in phonemization, along the lines of S0rensen 1952. While this may be a plausible phonetic explanation of developments in the liquid diphthongs, it is not clear from this version why certain dialects would have chosen to phonemicize the syllabicity in different ways. (See Jakobson 1952 for a critique of S0rensen 1952, and Milewski 1969.) Torbiornsson 1897, 1901,1903 claimed that changes in liquid diphthongs were proof of CV structure, since metathesis took place everywhere (trot) and preceded vowel lengthening (also the position of Peciar 1939: 28 Iff. who postulates metathesis even for Pomeranian and Polabian), but see Vondrak 1903, Bruckner 1909: 47; Pedersen 1905: 31, and Iljinskij 1916: 132 for criticism of Torbiornsson's position. BoSkovic 1984: 89-91 attributes changes in the liquid diphthongs to the law of open syllables in Common Slavic which produced CV.RC then CV.RC > CV.R.C. Further changes are said to have resulted from the loss of syllabicity on the liquid. In the south *vo.r.na > vor.na > var.na > vrana; in the Lechitic group, *vo.r.na > vor°na > v°rona > vrona > vrona (with lengthening and subsequent shortening); in East Slavic, *vo.r.na > vor°na > vorona. In word-initial position he proposes lengthening of the vowel throughout Slavic as compensation for the loss of syllabicity on the liquid, but this lengthening in the West Slavic and East Slavic areas is said to have taken place first under rising intonation, by which *ort > *rat, and only later under falling intonation, by which *ort > ort > *6rt > rot. Schenker 1993: 74 writes that "the law of open syllables demanded their [liquid diphthong, CYB] elimination." He assumes metathesis for South Slavic and Czech/Slovak, but epenthesis of a vowel (which he equates with later jers) after the liquid in East Slavic but before the liquid in West Slavic (pp. 76-77). Cekmonas 1979: 148ff. relates changes in these forms not so much to the tendency for open syllables but to the loss of syllabicity on the liquid (proposing an intermediate stage of long syllabic phonemes /r/ and /I/ for liquid diphthongs). 18 The occurrence of the reflex /ar/ for original /or/ as in Slovincian barda "beard," vdrna "crow," pdrsq "piglet," found along with Kashubian variants brona/barna "harrow," prog/parg "threshold," wroto/warta "gates," need not be attributed to shortening or syllabic liquids (CVR.C > CVR.C or CRC) on the model of jer plus liquid sequences (cf. Rozwadowski 1912 and Rytarowska 1928) or to differences in pitch accent (cf. Rozov 1932, Milewski 1934). These may simply be unmetathesized forms with lowering of the /o/ before /r/, as Lamprecht 1956, BernStejn 1961: 225, and others have suggested.

Notes to pages 67-77

275

19 The word for "man" (R celovek, U colovik, K cluovjek', Pb cldvdk, US ciowjek, LS clowjek, P cztowiek, Cz clovek, SC cdvjek, B clovek), according to Lehr-Splawiriski 1932b: 348-349, is most likely derived from *£elov£ku with a northern variant *£elv£ki> and a southern variant *clovSkT». If this is correct, then there appears to be an interesting parallel in terms of the syllable structure types postulated here for northern and southern LCS, perhaps reflecting a preference for CV(S) in the north and a preference for C(S)V in the south. The /o/ in U solom "helmet" (with expected pleophony) from Gmc helmaz (cf. Go hilms) is attributed to the influence of the preceding palatal consonant (Shevelov 1965: 404) or to paradigmatic levelling (LehrSplawiriski 1932b: 35 Iff.). 20 Jakobson 1929/1971: 25-27 treated the liquid diphthongs and nasal vowels as subject to syllable synharmony, proposing a stage of er, el, eh, ft, II, In > er', el', eri\ IP, II', In'. He was criticized by van Wijk 1941 who claimed that the distinctions between the palatal(ized) and non-palatal(ized) sonorant are due to distinct syllabic liquids, /r/ and /r'/. For a detailed discussion of the relationship of this change to the development of phonemic palatalization in northern LCS, see Furdal 1961. 21 It is not necessary to distinguish between palatalized liquid diphthongs which retained their syllabicity (CbR.C) and nonpalatalized ones (CT>R.C > CT>R.C) which lost it sooner and as a result developed strong jers as Feldstein (1994) does, though the syllable-based analysis does not rule out Feldstein's proposed differences in chronology. Nonpalatalized liquid diphthongs could have lost syllabicity on the liquid before jer changes, thereby retaining jers and their reflexes. While it is not clear why the palatalized or nonpalatalized status of the diphthong should have such an effect, it is possible to account for such a distinction in liquid diphthongs on the basis of vowel sonority. Specifically, the /u/ could have been considered more sonorous than /I/, therefore more likely to serve as the syllable peak, eventually becoming a "strong" jer reflex /e/. The /I/ would not have the same effect and in those diphthongs the liquid would have remained syllabic somewhat longer, at least until liquids in general lost their mora-bearing ability. Thus what Feldstein observes as "the front vowel + palatalized r' sequence was less likely to undergo the r> r change than was the back vowel group" (p. 32) is restatable as: the back vowel was more sonorous than /I/ and therefore more likely to serve as the syllable peak. This difference in sonority seems to be present in Polish vowels today (Bethin 1992b). 22 Some Slavists interpreted the occurrence of jer letters (or an apostrophe) after the liquid as an orthographic compromise between East Slavic and OCS (Old Bulgarian) spelling (Saxmatov 1902a: 315-317, 1915/1967: 182-183; Jagic 1876: 360-377; Jakubinskij 1953: 147); others suggested that the spellings actually represented East Slavic pronunciation (Potebnja 1876: 101; van Wijk 1950: 310; Sobolevskij 1907/1962: 25-28; Vasiljev 1909: 311-312; Durnovo 1959: 154ff.). Lamprecht 1987: 66 postulates a stage of syllabic liquids which were accompanied by a vowel on both sides of the liquid (vYv-) from which secondary pleophony is said to have evolved. Sidorov 1953/1966: 18 claims that the jer was preserved because the following syllable was a syllabic R in CVR.C forms, e.g., CV.R.C. Saxmatov 1915/1967: 273-81 attributes secondary pleophony to length of the liquid which supposedly resulted from the loss of final weak jers. See also Grinkova 1950:

276

23

24

25

26

27

Notes to pages 81-89

218 who took -&r- ("new jat'") to be an orthographic variant of -brb, a special pronunciation of /r/. GolySenko 1962 concludes that the liquid was syllabic. Sidorov 1953/1966 is of the opinion that these sequences were reanalyzed as bisyllabic, e.g., pT>.l.na. There is some evidence that the jer plus liquid rimes were different, perhaps "longer," than jers alone because there are instances of secondary pleophony in original CVR.C forms. Whether this phonetic length should be represented as a phonological difference in mora count is not certain. Most VR sequences remained tautosyllabic in East Slavic and the second pleophony spellings may have been renditions of moraic liquids. On the other hand, Sidorov's 1966: 18ff. account postulates a syllabic liquid in addition to the jer, much like developments in CVR.C. The liquid is then said to have lost its syllabicity to the preceding jer, which lengthened and was realized as a strong jer reflex, e.g., *pt.l.na > *pol.na. When the CVR.C sequence was followed by a jer, Sidorov proposes (pp. 19-20) that secondary pleophony took place as a regular phonetic development, limited only by paradigm regularity (stems without secondary pleophony). It is not clear from his analysis why the CVR.C structures did not produce a lengthened mid vowel. The rather numerous occurrences of /e/ and /of in original CRV.C sequences in Ukrainian, e.g., bloxa "flea," xrebet "spine," sl'oza "tear," brova "eyebrow," krovi "blood," prep sg, are said to be due to morphological levelling on the basis of a strong jer reflex before a weak jer elsewhere in the paradigm (usually the nom, ace sg or the gen pi), according to Shevelov 1979: 467^470. The actual phonetic reflex of CRV.C is supposedly found in related forms such as kryvavyj "bloody," cornobryvyj "black-eyebrowed," though the position of the vowel is said to be analogical to that in the non-derived paradigm. Shevelov 1979: 367 writes: "Spellings of the new type (S + i/y) became much more frequent in the M[iddle] U[krainian] time. Obviously, anaptyxis started being applied to such words in the N[orthern] U[krainian] dialects (from which area all the examples come) approximately by the 14th c." He cites klynete "curse," 2 p pi imp, xrybet "spine," hrymyf "thunders," 3 p sg, trybux" "stomach" and others from a large variety of texts and points out that "the situation in the SWU dialects (Podolia, Bukovyna, Galicia, the Carpathian regions, probably S Volhynia) was indeed quite different" (pp. 464-465). Here we find spellings with no vowels, e.g., trvohy "alarm," gen sg, krvavy "bloody," ace pi, as well as spellings with vowels preceding or following the liquid, e.g., trybuxamy "stomach," instr pi, dryzenja "shaking," and in later texts, dyrzaly "tremble," pi past, hyrtan" "throat," and the like. Saxmatov 1903b: 36 thought that tense jers were due to the difference between [j] and [i]. Before stressed vowels he claimed that [j] was pronounced as [i] and the preceding front or back jer supposedly lengthened to /i/ or /y/. Otherwise in intervocalic position the /j/ remained and the preceding jer was lost. This interpretation seems to go against the notion of onset strengthening in a stressed syllable where one would expect [i] > [j] before a stressed vowel. The question of tense jers is problematic (see Shevelov 1976 or Carlton 1991: 167-172). Shevelov 1965: 439ff. writes that ProtoIndo-European Tand w did not change into jers before /j/. See also Stieber 1979: 52. Eventually, the high vowels or jers before the glide were treated like strong and weak jers, e.g., CS *brat+ii+a "brethren" appears as R brat'ja, B bratja, M bralca, Sn

Notes to pages 90-106

28

29

30

31

32

277

brdtja, SC braca, Cz bratfi, P bracia, with the expected loss of a weak jer before a vowel /a/ in the next syllable. Many aspects of the tense jer phenomenon remain controversial or unexplained. Other vowel plus /i/ or /u/ combinations had already monophthongized. In high vowel sequences the difference in sonority would be barely perceptible, if at all, and these diphthongs might have remained bimoraic longer, or at least until the advent of syllable restructuring. This analysis differs from that given in Bethin 1993b where a bisyllabic intermediate stage is proposed for (North) East Slavic. There are forms in North Russian dialects that appear to have experienced contraction, e.g., mat "knows" (cf. R znajet), mot "washes" (cf. R mojet), nova "new," novu, ace sg (cf. R novaja, novuju) (see Avanesov and Orlova 1965: 236-237). BernStejn 1968 took these as evidence that contraction penetrated into the northeasternmost areas of Slavic, though Marvan 1979 dismisses these data as later developments: "the NR [North Russian] process has no direct relation to contraction. It can be compared with it only as a certain analogous model" (p. 33). There is evidence to suggest that Ukrainian retains a potential for a sonorant syllable coda, though not vowel sequences. For example, peculiarities of voicing neutralization in Ukrainian may be accounted for as syllable-final laxing (Bethin 1987). Also the presence of geminate consonants in Ukrainian and Belarusian from original consonant plus /ij/ sequences, in view of their virtual absence in the other Slavic languages may be an indication that the SW-ES area tolerates branching rimes. Geminates are almost universally heterosyllabic. More significantly, they are not found in Ukrainian after a consonant, presumably because that consonant would fill the syllable coda slot, preventing the heterosyllabic syllabification of geminates. (For a fuller discussion see 3.2.3.) Belarusian and Ukrainian also exhibit instances of vowel prothesis before /r/ and a following consonant as in U irza "rust," instead of between the two segments (cf. Cz rez, Sn rja ~ reja "rust," B razda). The pronunciation of sequential jers as an alternating pattern of weak - strong weak - strong going from the end of the word to the beginning was formulated by Havlik 1889: 48 as: 1)~ ~ becomes"w (dbnb - denb), 2)~ ~ w becomes (dbnbsb dbnesb), 3)~~w~ becomes ~w~~ (Sbvbcbnrb - Sevbcenrb), where ~ represents a short vowel," represents a full vowel. Without going into a detailed study of the way this alternation may be represented in the synchronic grammars of the Slavic languages (but cf. Lightner 1972, Farina 1991 for Russian; Laskowski 1975, Gussmann 1980, Rubach 1984, Spencer 1986, Bethin 1992b, Szpyra 1992 for Polish; Rubach 1993 for Slovak, and the discussion in chapter 3), it should be pointed out that this alternation is almost always described in generative phonology as a change with a bisyllabic context (although there have been treatments of vowel-zero alternations as epenthesis conditioned by syllable structure, cf. Gorecka 1988, CzaykowskaHiggins 1988, Szpyra 1992, Piotrowski 1992). One exception to the widely held belief that the loss of weak jers cry stalized the opposition of palatalized and nonpalatalized consonants is Furdal 1961: 35ff. who argues that the transfer of the [±back] distinction from the vowels to the consonantal system by the ninth-tenth century predated the loss of weak jers. He attributes the establishment of phonemic palatalization to an earlier time and considers it to have been the fundamental cause of restructuring the phonological system of Slavic (p. 68).

278

Notes to pages 107-111

33 Brauer (1961: 79) writes: Die Abneigung des Urslavischen gegen geschlossene Silben . . . wird im allgemeinen als die Ursache dafur angesehen, daG die Liquidaverbindungen ihre urspriingliche Gestalt nicht bewahrt haben. Diese Tendenz wirkte ja aus der urslav. Zeit in die gemeinslav. Zeit hinein, und das Ende ihrer Wirksamkeit ist erst zu erkennen, als in einzelsprachlicher Zeit der Schwund der reduzierten Vokale in schwacher Stellung eintritt . . ., so da6 aufs neue geschlossene Silben moglich werden, wodurch die Silbenstruktur einer grundlegenden Anderung unterworten sind. Likewise, BernStejn (1961: 248) and Kolomijec' (1963: 17) who attribute major prosodic restructuring of Slavic to the appearance of newly closed syllables. 34 Van Wijk (1939: 32) observed that "grace a la chute des jers, toutes les langues slaves ont renonce a l'application rigoureuse du principe des syllabes ouvertes. Cependant, on peut constater jusqu'ici une certaine predilection pour cette structure syllabique, predilection qui se manifeste entre autres dans la repartition des groupes de consonnes sur les syllabes." And BernStejn 1961: 226 suggests that the open syllable principle was changing before the loss of weak jers. BernStejn 1961: 248-249; 1963: 607 cites evidence from the development of PIE liquid diphthongs in East Slavic, where the syllabicity of the liquid was lost very early and *vir-xu (with a closed syllable) was actually allowed, and data from north Lechitic dialects which tolerated sequences of a vowel plus a nasal instead of nasal vowels, e.g., CS *rQka > ranka "hand"; CS *me,so > menso "meat" as an indication that the CV tendency was weakening, if not in all areas of Slavic, then at least in some of them, before the loss of weak jers. 35 There was a general simplification of consonant clusters in most of Slavic, with the exception of tl and dl sequences. In the southern and eastern dialects tl, dl simplified to A/ as expected, but in the western part of LCS and in some Slovene dialects tl and dl remained (Tesniere 1933). Furdal 1961: 27-31 attributed the simplification of these clusters to the general tendency for eliminating closed syllables in Slavic. Reflexes of Early CS *modliti (sej "to pray" are: R molit'sja, U molytysja, SC mdliti se, M moli, B molja se and Sn mdliti (but dial, modliti, modlii) vs P modlic sie, Cz modliti se, Sk modlif sa, US modlic so; similarly, Early CS *pletlu "braided" (participle) is Rplel, Upliv, SC pleo, Bplel, OCS pleli> vs Vplotl, Cz pletl. This appears to be a fairly old isogloss. Stieber 1979: 81 dates this change to before the sixth century on the basis of the absence of tl, dl clusters in Greek borrowings from Slavic. It is widely believed that the loss of/t/, /d/ before /I/ must have taken place before the fall of the jers and before metathesis because newly derived tl and dl clusters did not undergo this change (Trubetzkoy 1925b, BernStejn 1961: 189; Schuster-Sewc 1964, Shevelov 1965: 373, but not Vaillant 1950). Furdal 1961: 31 considers the simplification of these clusters to have been contemporaneous with the Second Velar Palatalization (approximately in the period from the second to the fourth centuries), because this isogloss to a large extent corresponds to that of the kv, gv to cv, jv change (Ekblom 1928). The retention of dental stops before /I/ only in some areas of Slavic has presented a perplexing problem. Some Slavists (Leskien 1919, Trubetzkoy 1925b) attribute the tl, dl vs / isogloss to differences in syllabification. In the east and south /t/ and /d/ are said to have been syllabified as codas (CVd.1V) and thus subject

Note to page 114

279

to elimination by the principle of rising sonority, while in the west they are said to have been syllabified as onsets (CV.dlV) and therefore preserved. Thus Trubetzkoy proposes that the movement of the syllable boundary must have begun in the northwest, in other words, CV syllables were preferred. But this is the opposite of what appears to be the developing trend in this area, which later shows a preference for CVS structure. Schuster-Sewc 1964 proposes just the opposite, postulating an early shift of the syllable boundary in the south and east, thus favoring CVS in the west. Ekblom's (1928: 61) view is that the clusters were more closely bound phonetically in the east and south than they were in the west, where the release of the stop was actually articulated before the lateral: "II est evident que, dans les dialects du slave commun d'ou descend le slave de l'ouest, les combinations dl, tl ont ete unies d'une autre maniere que dans les dialectes qui ont precede le slave de Test et du sud. Dans le premier cas, on avait evidemment une union moins intime entre l'occlusive et le /, une union lache, ce qui impliquait qu'un son transitoire plus ou moins net rappellant un d se presentait entre les deux consonnes" (p. 61). BernStejn 1961: 188 accepts Ekblom's explanation (although he does not attribute the differences to syllabification because he thinks the syllable boundary was shifted everywhere in CS), but takes it to be different dialectal treatments of dl, tl onsets. Schuster-Sewc 1964 compares these sequences to later derived tl, dl clusters and to cases of dissimilation found in isolated areas throughout Slavic which appear as kl, gl sequences (Sn, Sk, LS, North Russian dialects) and concludes that the syllable boundary first shifted in the south and east. West Slavic was tolerant of tl, dl onsets, cf. P diugi, tiusty but martwy < *dulg-, *tulst-, *mirt-, while allowing potential syllable codas. 2 Beyond the syllable: prominence relations 1 The quantity-based Proto-Indo-European prosodic system was not maintained in Slavic: "Comme on le voit par la comparaison, principalement du grec et du vedique, le rhythme de l'indo-europeen reposait exclusivement sur la succession des syllabes longues et breves. II etait tout quantitatif. Ce rythme a tendance a s'alterer avec le temps dans toutes les langues indo-europeennes. La tendance generate a abreger les voyelles et la regie generale d'abregement des voyelles en finale deterioraient ce rythme des le slave commun" (Meillet 1924/1965: 160). Many accentual shifts in Proto-Slavic, Common Slavic and Late Common Slavic have been explained as involving pitch accent in unaccented syllables (e.g., the Fortunatov-de Saussure shift, the neo-acute retraction, the Slovene progressive accent shift) and many Slavists accept that Proto-Slavic may have had pitch differences in unstressed environments (see, for example, Belie 1914, Kul'bakin 1906, Lehr-Splawiriski 1917, 1918a, Meillet 1902, Pedersen 1905, Rozwadowski 1915: 334-337; Vondrak 1906, 1907, van Wijk 1923/1958). Various accent systems are reconstructed for Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic. Saxmatov 1898 proposed three expiratorymusical accents and another purely expiratory one; Meillet 1924/1965 and Vaillant 1950 reconstructed six different accents for Common Slavic; in Dybo 1981 there are four (also Horalek 1955: 125ff.). Most earlier work in Slavic accentology assumed metatony or changes of actual pitch contours for the prehistory of Slavic (Saxmatov 1898, Belie 1914, Kul'bakin 1906, Rozwadowski 1915, Lehr-Splawiiiski 1917,

280

Notes to pages 114-118

1918a, van Wijk 1916,1921a, 1923/1958, RamovS 1923/1924,1951, Vondrak 1924: 25Iff.; Horalek 1955, Nahtigal 1952: 19ff.; Shevelov 1965 and recently Ivanov 1990: 139ff., and others), and only later were there attempts to isolate the elements of accent in Slavic (among them Jakobson 1949/1971, 1963, 1965/1971, and elsewhere, Bulaxovs'kyj 1953, Kurylowicz 1958a, 1958b, Moszyriski 1965). More recent work in Slavic phonology operates with the components of stress, tone and quantity (Halle 1971, MoguS 1971, Kenstowicz 1974, Inkelas and Zee 1988, Zee 1993). Many analyses derive pitch contours from stress patterns or the placement of the ictus (Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, Kurylowicz 1931, 1958a, 1958b, Kiparsky 1973, Skljarenko 1971,1974, Garde 1976, Feldstein 1975, 1978,1990a). 2 Stang 1957/1965 showed that the neo-acute was not due to metatony (or the replacement of one pitch contour by another) and Kortlandt 1975 argued that "there never was any real metatony, in the sense of a substitution of one pitch contour for another, in Slavic" (p. ix). Among those who operate with pitch contour distinctions are Skljarenko 1967 and Timberlake 1993. Moszyriski 1965 observes that neither tone, stress, nor quantity functions alone in Slavic and proposes that accentual changes were predicated on the necessary co-occurrence of at least two of these prosodic markers. The functional role of tone and stress was further defined by Jakobson 193 la/1971 and Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, who focused on the domain of prominence as being mora-based (intrasyllabic) or syllable-based (intersyllabic). Kolesov 1979 proposes that the domain of quantity in Proto-Slavic was the vowel, the domain of tone was the syllable and that of stress, the word. His account of accentual changes in Slavic is partly based on what may be described as a change of accentual domains. 3 Early versions of metrical phonology were concerned with accounting for various stress patterns in languages and differences among them. In connection with this, the metrical foot was proposed as the domain of stress rules (Liberman 1975, Liberman and Prince 1977, Selkirk 1980, Hayes 1981, and others). Foot structure was built up from syllable rimes with strong and weak binary branching and stress assignment to the dominant (strong) node. Later revisions (Leben 1982) argued for n-ary branching in order to eliminate unnecessary structure. Then it was suggested that a metrical grid would account for rhythmic stress patterns and stress clashes in a better way (Prince 1983), though it did not represent constituency. The discussion in Halle 1987 summarizes the tree versus grid theory controversy. It became clear that constituency bracketing was present even in grid systems (Halle 1987, Hammond 1987). More recently, Idsardi 1992 and Halle and Idsardi 1995 propose a theory of stress assignment based on metrical boundaries, not universal foot inventories. See also Kager 1993 and Mester 1994.1 will represent constituents by parentheses and use the notation of (s) for strong and (w) for weak syllables or moras. Grid systems operate with prominence levels and asterisks that indicate the enhancement of a given position on a given prominence level. The relationship is hierarchical in that there may be many prominence levels and in that an asterisk on a higher level must have one below it on the immediately lower level. It is assumed that all "stressable" segments project an asterisk as an indication of their "stressability" - this level has been called the 0 level in Halle and Vergnaud 1987. One of the interesting questions in current metrical theory is, what element projects an asterisk? Hayes 1994 takes the syllable to be the stressable unit; Halle and Vergnaud 1987 project asterisks from

Notes to pages 122-124

281

the skeleton, not the syllable node. This means that a bimoraic syllable has the option of projecting two asterisks. On the view that the syllable is the only stressable unit, it can project only one asterisk. For a detailed analysis, see Kenstowicz 1994: 548-613, Halle and Idsardi 1995, Kager 1995, and others. There has also been some discussion in the literature about whether all potentially prominent elements in a word are organized into metrical feet (also known as the Exhaustivity Condition, per Halle and Vergnaud [1987]). Previously this had been expressed as a parametric setting (± iterative) with iterative foot construction being the unmarked case (Hayes 1981,1987). Idsardi 1992 and Halle and Idsardi 1995 use the formalism of open parentheses to define metrical constituents, thus allowing open-ended structures. For Slavic historical phonology, where alternating stresses were not the norm, this issue is secondary. In any case, systems with one stress may be derived by conflation from grids which do meet the Exhaustivity Condition (Halle 1990). See also Goldsmith 1990 and Kenstowicz 1994: 548-613 for a brief summary of the development of metrical theory. Since I am not proposing an analysis of the accent systems of all Slavic languages, but rather a consideration of prominence in some of them, the notion of "strong" and "weak" should suffice for purposes of this discussion. 4 This is basically the formulation found in Jakobson 1963 with the exception that in the present analysis it is not necessary to postulate redundant high tone on pretonic syllables. In linear frameworks such as that of Halle 1971 or Kenstowicz 1974 high tone was said to occur on all pretonic syllables. This explained why high tone (accent) occurred on a preceding vowel when a vowel with high tone was lost or when the sequence of high tones was interrupted in some other way, for example, by the vocalization of /I/ to /o/ in Serbian and Croatian (cf. Kenstowicz 1974). One advantage of autosegmental phonology is that the loss of a segment does not by definition entail the loss of an autosegment (such as tone) associated with it. 5 It is generally believed that final vowels shortened in LCS (Vaillant 1950: 218; Kolesov 1979: 129, 136), though some linguists think that this change took place in CS (cf. Nonnenmacher-Pribic 1961 and references therein). See also Jakobson 1963, Garde 1976: 207-208, andDybo etal. 1990: 31-34. Saxmatov 1902a: 313 pointed out that there are no traces of quantity oppositions in final syllables; also BernStejn 1961: 232. Generally length is preserved in pretonic position of bisyllabic forms. Kolesov 1979: 130 takes the preservation of pretonic length as proof for the phonological importance of tone: a preceding syllable was necessary for the expression of rising pitch and that syllable could not shorten. Kolesov interprets the expression of tone as a bisyllabic phenomenon. In polysyllabic words it appears that pretonic length is retained in some, e.g., P wqtroba "liver," Cz, Sk utroba "viscera" (cf. R utroba "womb"), but not in all words, e.g., Sk, Cz malina "raspberry," SC malina (cf. R malina) according to Shevelov 1965: 515ff., though Ebeling 1967: 590 does not consider P wqtroba "liver," Cz, Sk utroba "viscera" to be examples of pretonic length because that assumes an acute accent on a short vowel /o/. Bulaxovs'kyj 1950: 23-24 had proposed that cases such as Cz, Sk utroba were to some extent determined by the length of the stressed vowel, i.e., long vowels before stressed short vowels remained long, e.g., Pdabrowa "oak wood" (cf. R dubrova), while long vowels before stressed longs tended to shorten, e.g., P dgbina "oak wood," Cz

282

6

7

8

9

Notes to pages 125-130

dubina (cf. R dubind). Rozwadowski 1915: 310-311 claimed that pretonic longs were phonetically the longest vowels, longer even than some accented vowels. Liidtke 1959 understood the neo-acute to be the preservation of long vowels in immediately pretonic syllables, and Shevelov 1965: 511 goes even further in claiming that the preservation of pretonic length was found throughout Common Slavic, with subsequent shortening in certain dialects. He also notes that pretonic syllables either "grew in prominence (if attracting stress) or at least they preserved their status quo" (p. 568) and suggests that the NeoStokavian retraction, Slovene retraction, Polabian retraction onto longs (dausd "soul" but rebrii "rib"), and the resistance of the pretonic syllable to vowel reduction in Russian, may all be related as pretonic strength phenomena. Reflexes of length are indicated as follows: in SC the accent * indicates a long falling pitch contour, the accent ' a long rising pitch contour, as in Sn. In Sk the u reflects a lengthened counterpart of/u/. In Cz u is a lengthened /o/ (phonetic [u]), ou represents a long /u/ (phonetic [ou]). The nasal q in Polish spells a historically lengthened or long nasal vowel, the symbol 6 stands for [u], the reflex of lengthened /o/. In U only mid vowels show a reflex of length in the form of /i/. All forms are cited in the standard orthographies if the language uses Latin script (with the exception of Polabian). Slovene, due to various later lengthenings, no longer has short vowel reflexes here, though it once did. Czech has what appear to be old reflexes of length in original acutes, e. g., krdva "cow." Kortlandt 1975: 19 and elsewhere, has repeatedly argued for secondary lengthening of these forms in Czech, which would make the shortening of acutes a general process throughout Slavic. See Dybo 1968 for a discussion of Upper Sorbian. The neo-acute shift is assumed by most Slavists to have taken place around the time of changes in the jers, but before the fall of weak jers (cf. BernStejn 1961: 234-238; Jakobson 1963; Shevelov 1965: 532ff.; Skljarenko 1971, Feldstein 1978, Timberlake 1983a, 1983b). Saxmatov 1915/1967: 71-81 dated the neo-acute to the Common Slavic period but Liidtke 1959 considers the retraction to be a later development within the individual Slavic languages. See also Garde 1976: 218-240. Kortlandt 1976: 8 dates compensatory lengthening under the circumflex, the shortening of acutes, and the neo-acute retraction to Proto-Slavic. Kolesov 1979: 139 takes the neo-acute to be the first innovation to exploit prosody in the service of the paradigm: "Only the neo-acute pitch contour, as a prosodic marker, was the first in the history of Proto-Slavic to result in the levelling of accent in a wordform within the paradigm, therefore, as a phonological phenomenon, it is only the neo-acute which goes beyond the wordform and is generalized to the word as a whole" [trans. CYB]. Nahtigal 1952: 27-32 cites examples of what he calls metatony in various morphological categories, e.g., comparatives (R doroze "more expensive, dearer," cf. ddrogo, adv and dorogoj, adj), collectives (Sn drevje vs. drevo "tree"), /-stem verbs (Sn mldtis "you grind" vs. mlatiti "to grind"). Lamprecht 1987: 145-154 gives a range of morphological categories in which metatony is found, including derived suffixed nouns such as Cak.junok, Sk jundk "youth"; Cz hlava "head," hldvka, dim; U holovd "head," holivka, dim; Sk zena "woman, wife," zienka, in the /-form of verbs as in Sk vliekol "he dragged," P wldki, niosl "he carried," Cz dial, niesol "he

Notes to pages 130-135

283

carried" vs. nesla "she carried," though Cz now has nesl, and in the collective nouns such as Cz prut "twig" vs. prouti "twigs," Sn prot, protje. Lamprecht also finds the neo-acute in genitive plural forms, e.g., Cak. zena - zen "wife," koza - koz "goat"; Old Czech noha - noh "foot, leg," hora - hor "mountain," slovo - slov "word"; P noga -nog, wrota - wrot "gates." A list of phonological and morphological environments for the neo-acute is given by Stang (1957/1965: 167-173), who concludes that it "is not due to metatony. Its origin seems in principle to be quite clear: it is due to retraction of ictus, and the vowel which acquires a neo-acute was thus previously unstressed and had no intonation" (p. 168). There are some problems with the chronology of the neo-acute. Garde 1976: 237 observes that the neo-acute retraction in verbs (from /i/, later []]) as in *ue.z-i-etu > *u$z-i-etu > Cakavian veze "he ties," the retraction from jers, and that from other vowels subject to contraction, constitute a chronological problem: "Si Ton veut admettre que les trois types de recul ont en lieu en meme temps, il faut supposer que les jers et les voyelles sujettes a contraction se sont affaiblies et ont perdu l'aptitude a porter l'accent longtemps avant de s'amuir completement, et nettement avant l'epoque v[ieux] sl[ave]." Van Wijk 1916: 321ff. suggested that neo-acute pitch contour on short vowels had to do with a following consonant plus glide /j/ cluster, but some exceptions in the conservative dialects of Slovene, e.g., morje "sea,"po//e "field," led Bulaxovs'kyj 1946a to propose that the neo-acute was really a pitch contour on long vowels and appeared by analogy on short vowels, though later (1961a) he offered a morphological explanation. Kolesov 1979: 131 considers the neo-acute to be retraction only from jers. It resulted in a marked rising accent which was functionally opposed to the old acute; the two rising accents were thus opposed to the unmarked falling pitch contour. This situation supposedly resulted in the shortening of old acutes (Jakobson 1963: 164). 10 The lengthened reflexes found before sonorants in Serbian and Croatian as in krdj "edge" vs. kraja, stdrca "old man," gen sg, are a later development (see Vondrak 1924: 291-292). The older forms in Sn bog "god," nos "nose" are due to compensatory lengthening. 11 Not all Slovene dialects have the progressive shift. Lencek 1982: 83 says that the majority of Slovene dialects participated in the shift and the peripheral dialect areas of the northwest (Zilja, Rezija, Ter), the eastern Carinthian area, the Bela Krajina in the southeast and the Poljane dialect (Rovte) experienced retractions of the progressive shift sometime after the eighteenth century. Stankiewicz 1986: 93-103 argues that the Resian dialect never had the progressive shift. What appears to be a corresponding progressive stress shift in Bulgarian, e.g., glas - glasdt, def., may have another origin and is discussed below and in Carlton 1991: 196-198. Kortlandt 1976: 2 dates the progressive shift to the tenth century, though it has sometimes been dated to before the shortening of the old acutes because, according to Jaksche 1965: 36, had the acutes already shortened {cdsa "time," gen sg > cdsa), they would have been indistinguishable from other short stressed vowels (short circumflex) and should have therefore undergone the change. But this is true if one operates with surface forms only. Becker and Bethin 1983 show that the progressive shift may be accounted for by a change in the rule which assigns stress to unaccented forms (mobile classes). It would not apply to forms which have a tone/stress mark in the underlying representation. RamovS 1950 dates the shortening of the acute to the

284

Notes to pages 136-138

seventh-eighth centuries and the progressive shift to the tenth, so it could have been contemporaneous with or shortly after the neo-acute in this area. The two processes are complementary. Carlton 1991: 313, observing that there are no forms with preserved accented final jers and that in some cases an epenthetic vowel receives the progressive shift, e.g., vozdl "knot" < *QZ1I, proposes that the progressive shift must post-date the loss of weak jers. There is some evidence from the Freising Fragments to suggest that changes in the jers in this part of LCS were early, probably by the tenth century (cf. Saxmatov 1915/1967: 203-216). Stankiewicz 1966b distinguishes between long tense and short lax vowels which undergo the shift and short tense ones (krava) which do not. See also the discussion in Feldstein 1982 where a distinction of pitch on short vowels is proposed. 12 Some do not take a position on this question. Lencek 1982: 82 considers this process to be two separate changes: "one of these consisted in a shift of the nonrising accents (the old long and short falling) by one syllable toward the end of the word [e.g., *zlato > *zlato, . . . *boga (gen. sg.) > *boga, *slovo > *slovo . . .]; the other is a lengthening of such nonrising accents (e.g., *zlato > zlato, *slovo > slovo)." Since it did not affect *duxu or *gradu, Lencek considers the progressive shift to have been more recent than the loss of jers and puts both in the vicinity of the tenth century. But it is more likely that final jers could not be lengthened, so they could not undergo the progressive shift. Garde 1976: 253 says that "reaccentuation" in Slovene fell on the second syllable and one need not speak of accent advancements. 13 Greenberg 1987: 294 writes that "the post-tonic vowel must have first been lengthened, thereby attracting the stress (i.e., CS *'zolto > SSL. * zlato > *'zlato > Slov. zlato). Such an interpretation would be more consistent not only with the general Slovenian development in which long vowels attract the stress but also with S-Cr. where the final closed syllables of circumflex stems became long." Neighboring Kajkavian dialects, however, do not show evidence of a progressive shift. 14 The occurrence of the neo-circumflex in the genitive plural has been the subject of some speculation. Stang 1957/1965: 24-25 takes metatony in the genitive plural to be a Proto-Slavic phenomenon and wonders whether it was different in nature from the "old" circumflex, concluding that "at any rate, the gen. pi. does not provide a clear example of 'neo-circumflex'" (p. 25). He also claims that the neo-circumflex spread to other cases in the plural, such as the nominative/accusative of forms like leta "years," from the genitive plural, instrumental plural and locative plural (pp. 29-30, 82). Kortlandt 1976: 5 does not accept a phonetic motivation for the neocircumflex in the genitive plural, though he does see it as possibly compensatory lengthening of a "stressed short vowel either before a non-final weak jer, which was lost, or a following long vowel, which was shortened" (p. 2). Becker and Bethin 1983: 66 take the neo-circumflex to be generated by lengthening rules. An earlier morphological explanation for the neo-circumflex by Kurytowicz 1960 was criticized by Jaksche 1962, who later himself proposed morphological factors as being responsible for the neo-circumflex in environments before a long vowel in the following syllable (Jaksche 1965: 23-29). Stankiewicz 1966b, 1968 considers the neocircumflex to be phonologically conditioned ("assimilative lengthening") in many circumstances, though he allows for morphological factors as well. That the lengthening rule has to be morphologically conditioned in the genitive plural is indicated

Notes to pages 138-142

285

by the comparison of nom sg forms with gen pi forms in the paradigm of "horse," e.g., nom sg konj (<*konii) and gen pi konj (< *kodnii < *konii). The rising accent of gor "mountain," gen pi, may be derived by a morphological rule of gen pi lengthening before a stressed mora, e.g., *gooru > Sn gor. Another analysis involving rule ordering is given in Becker and Bethin 1983. Kortland 1975: 13-19 attributes the length in the gen pi to analogy on the basis of the Sn gor paradigm type. The short genitive plurals of Czech acutes, e.g., krdva "cow," krav; sila "strength," sil; mira "measure," mer; leto "summer," let; dilo "work," del, have in the past been grouped with Cakavian krdva "cow," krdv, delo "act," del and Slovene lipa "linden," lip, delo "act," del as examples of neo-circumflex (e.g., Lamprecht 1987: 146ff.) with the expected short reflexes of the circumflex in Czech, as were other occurrences of falling pitch contour for an original rising one, but this is not universally accepted (cf. Stang 1957/1965:23-35). Early accounts of the neo-circumflex may be found in Valjavec 1897 and references there. Saxmatov 1915/1967: 92ff. considered a following long syllable to be relevant to this change, as does Stang 1957/1965: 28-29 who postulates "a broader phonetic foundation" for the neo-circumflex in Slovene, one which would include at least the environment of a closed syllable or a following long vowel. Kortlandt 1975: 11 writes that "compensatory lengthening is the only source of the Slovenian neo-circumflex. It is not strange that lengthening yielded a falling vowel because at the time there was no pitch contour on short vowels" and he (1976) takes the neo-circumflex as evidence for post-tonic quantity (since it did not occur before non-jer short vowels), with Slovene "as our main source of knowledge about post-tonic quantity in Proto-Slavonic" (p. 6). The non-occurrence of the neocircumflex before final weak jers in rdk "crab," cas "time," brat "brother," is interesting because it is not immediately obvious why the neo-circumflex (or compensatory lengthening) did not take place here if it did occur before non-final weak jers as in brdtstvo "brotherhood." It might be that the neo-circumflex was constrained by trochaic structure and here the loss of final jers would have produced monosyllabic forms, i.e., not [s-w] groups, but this is speculative. In any case, acute accented forms remained opposed to circumflex forms. 15 Stang 1957/1965: 26 postulates a difference in pitch contour: "As no movement of the ictus to the following syllable has been caused by this circumflex in Slovene, it must be assumed that in Slovene a separate pitch contour once existed, which we may reasonably call neo-circumflex." Kortlandt's 1976: 8 chronology is as follows: progressive accent shift in oko "eye," rise of neo-circumflex in bitka "battle," rise of neo-circumflex in leta "years," retraction of stress in diisa "soul," lengthening of the stressed vowel in leto "year," introduction of the neo-circumflex in vina "wines," retraction of stress in zena "woman." Lencek 1982 dates the neo-circumflex to slightly later than the shortening of old acutes and the neo-acute retraction, but see also R. Greenberg 1987: 292. There are proposals in the literature that the neocircumflex was a Proto-Slavic phenomenon (see, for example, Lehr-Splawiriski 1917,1923 on Pomeranian), but this view is antiquated and Stang 1957/1965: 31-35 specifically argues against it. 16 Bulaxovs'kyj 1959/1980: 408 writes that this "could have happened, for example, when pitch contour distinctions were lost and the length of the root vowel was the same in both types" [trans. CYB]. However, oxytone neuters do not always follow

286

Notes to pages 143-146

this pattern and some retain their original place of stress, e.g., veslo(to) "oar," vedro(to) "wooden pail," sedlo(to) "saddle," krilo(to) "wing," cislo{to) "number," while others show a retraction of stress, e.g., vino(to) "wine," mljdko(to) "milk," seloito) "village," sukno(to) "broadcloth," ddno(to) "bottom," regardless of the length of the stem vowel. The latter Kortlandt (1982a: 93) attributes to an early Bulgarian retraction of stress from final open syllables to a preceding open syllable (with some analogical developments in krilo and siikno), which he believes also accounts for the alternation of stress in old f-stem nouns, e.g., kosttd "bone" (with no retraction onto a closed syllable) and kostite (< *kostite) in neuters, e.g., mesoto "meat," testoto "dough," in plurals, e.g., gradovete "towns," vratovete "necks," and probably for retraction in pronominals, e.g., mine, tebe, sebe, nego, nemu, togo, nikogo, i.e., this retraction was originally morphophonemically conditioned. The absence of retraction in mobile nouns (circumflex or a-stem oxytones) he attributes to the presence of long vowels in the desinences from which retraction apparently did not take place (p. 95). In verbs retraction seems to be morphologized. 17 The claim that Upper Sorbian e and 6 represent old length, either original acutes or neo-acutes, or the effects of compensatory lengthening was made by several Slavists, among them Saxmatov 1917, Lehr-Splawiriski 1923, Rytarowska 1927, and more recently Dybo 1963, 1968. Dybo showed that reflexes of strong jers were subject to differences in original accent: under the neo-acute strong jers may appear as 6, e, while under an original circumflex accent, the jers are realized as o, e, for example, boz "lilac," boza, gen sg; moch "moss," mocha, gen sg\pos "dog,"psa, gen sg. vs. wos "louse," wse, gen sg; wjes "village, country," wse, gen sg. He writes (1968: 68): "The distribution of 'lengthened' and 'unlengthened' reflexes of jers in Upper Sorbian to a sufficient degree strictly correspond to the distribution of the two accent types in Slovene and (to a somewhat lesser degree) in Serbo-Croatian" and that these differences "may be considered as deriving from Proto-Slavic and reflecting the difference between two Proto-Slavic accentual paradigms b and c (according to Chr. Stang) in these nouns" [trans. CYB]. Bulaxovs'kyj 1953 considers lengthening under the neo-acute in Czech to have been originally very much akin to that in Slovak in that it took place regardless of the nature of the intervening consonant, whereas compensatory lengthening otherwise is restricted by the nature of the consonant. In some instances there is no lengthening: Cz nosis "you wear," volis "you select, vote," while in others it seems to have taken place: vule "will." Upper Sorbian has reflexes of length in original strong jers if they had neo-acute accent, e.g., boz "lilac," boza, gen sg. 18 It is curious to note that although Slovak generally shortened acutes, some forms with original long vowels retained length: sldva "fame," miera "measure," viera "faith," kliatba "curse," priadza "spun yarn," dielo "work, matter," mrdz "frost," tiaz(a) "burden," trud "drone, dunce," drdha "road." TravniCek 1935 takes these forms to be similar to the preservation of acute length in Czech and short acutes to be a secondary development. Pauliny 1963: 138-139 explains some as borrowings from Czech, others as cases of singular lengthening with no genitive plural length contrast, and trie ska "splinter" as diminutive lengthening, and therefore takes none to be evidence for preserved length in acutes. 19 Neo-acute lengthening seems to have been restricted to vowels in position before a

Notes to pages 146-147

287

weak jer. This might be due to phonetic factors, as Timberlake 1983b shows, because the length of the preceding vowel could have been somehow "deducted" from the jer. There generally is no lengthening before other stressed vowels, except in some paradigms such as Sk bob "bean," bobu gen sg or P krol "king," krola gen sg, where length was probably extended by analogy or inherited. It is also possible that all lax vowels in pretonic position were (phonetically) lengthened, but it was only when the stress retracted from the jer that this length became phonemic. The stress on non-jer vowels may have remained for a longer time in this area of Slavic, though in other parts of Slavic, e.g., Slovene and Polabian, there was a more general later retraction. But if compensatory lengthening also took place before a weak jer (and not after jer loss), then the environment for neo-acute lengthening would have been the same as that for general compensatory lengthening, namely, one which required the presence of a weak jer in the following syllable. The only additional factor would be that for neo-acute lengthening the jer must have been originally stressed. Many feel that the lengthening in neo-acute forms was different from compensatory lengthening elsewhere and have sought ways to represent this distinction. BernStejn 1961: 236 attributes compensatory lengthening to the loss of weak jers, as do many others, who describe compensatory lengthening as taking place in closed syllables (Zylko 1963, Ivanov 1968: 289ff.; Garde 1974, 1976: 285; and often, Feldstein 1978, 1990b). On the other hand, Nazarova 1975 proposes that neo-acute lengthening in Ukrainian took place before compensatory lengthening and that even the latter occurred before weak jers, not in closed syllables. It is fairly clear that lengthening must have taken place in a two-syllable group before the jer was lost. It was "compensatory" for the weakening of the jer, as Timberlake 1983b analyzes it. Although some Slavists claim that lengthening took place in newly closed syllables, this version is problematic for several reasons, among them the need to distinguish between the strong jer reflexes, /e/ and /o/, in East Slavic which do not undergo lengthening and the original /e/ and /o/ which do. See also Filin 1972: 221-233 who argues against the closed syllable environment for compensatory lengthening. 20 The discussion of compensatory lengthening reflexes in Slavic given by Timberlake 1983a includes Kashubian and southern Belarusian reflexes, and shows that while compensatory lengthening is less restricted in Kashubian than in Polish, its reflexes in suffixed Kashubian forms may be a function of accent (p. 220). In Ukrainian and Belarusian CL reflexes are more common with /o/ than /e/, though not everyone accepts compensatory lengthening for Ukrainian (Kurylo 1928a, Garde 1974, 1985, Shevelov 1979: 331-332), primarily because Ukrainian does not have phonemic contrast in vowel length. Bulaxovs'kyj 1936, 1946a, 1946b, 1961a and elsewhere, proposed that the /i/ reflex found in pleophonic forms, e.g., U holova "head," holiv, gen pi, is due to the neo-acute accent. (See also Carl ton 1974, Nazarova 1975, and Zaliznjak 1985.) In Cz the reflex of a long /o/ is /u/, P and US show /u/ spelled as 6, in Sk the lengthened /o/ is a diphthong [uo] which is spelled 6 (length in noh, ruk may be morphologized) lengthened /e/ appears as the diphthong [ie], and in U /i/ is the reflex of a lengthened mid vowel. (US orthography no longer distinguishes between o and 6, but US does have a raised [o] in neo-acute forms, though it does not have length reflexes in the /-forms.) 21 The majority of lengthened reflexes in Polish (i.e., the alternation of /o/ and /u/

288

Note to page 147

spelled 6) are found before voiced consonants, e.g., noga "leg," nog, gen pi, noz "knife," noza, gen sg, giowa "head," glow, gen pi. But Rozwadowski 1915: 323ff. also gives rqk, wrot, miqs as examples of neo-acute lengthening, with an alternation between /e./ and /Q/ spelled q. He considers voicing of the following consonant to have become relevant at a later period. See also van Wijk 1916: 35Off. Lengthening before a voiceless consonant is found in forms such as r$ka ~ rqk "hand," cnota ~ cnot "virtue," and the dialectal osa ~ 6s "wasp," siostra ~ siostr "sister," sierota ~ sierot "orphan," all genitive plural forms in which lengthening could be due to morphological factors. (In Sk, for example, and in some South Slavic languages there is a rule of lengthening in the genitive plural.) Evidence of compensatory lengthening in nasal vowels is problematic and Abele 1925/1926: 440-441 considers length in the genitive plural forms before voiceless consonants not to be good evidence of the neo-acute. The presence of the lengthened reflex in verbs such as klocic "stir" (cf. R kolotit') is often attributed to the neo-acute (Shevelov 1965: 516). But Timberlake 1983a: 217-218 does allow that there is evidence for neo-acute length in Polish, especially when dialectal data and length reflexes in the past tense oxytone forms niosl "carry," gnioti "press" are taken into account: "when the evidence of the /-participle of dental stems is combined with the nominal evidence of kosz and stopa/stop, it is possible to conclude with a fair degree of certainty that CL applied originally under the NAct regardless of the intervening consonant." See also BernStejn 1961: 236. In Slovak pretonic lengthening took place regardless of the nature of the intervening consonant (Kul'bakin 1903: 159) and if stress was on a jer, this may have been the case in Old Czech as well (Bulaxovs'kyj 1953: 26). 22 The analysis proposed here is based on Bethin 1993a and follows Timberlake 1983b in accepting that lengthening under the neo-acute was different from compensatory lengthening even in the northern dialects and Feldstein 1978 in claiming that tone distinctions were lost in north central Slavic before the neo-acute retraction took place. But it does not need to postulate either the presence of tone in all LCS dialects (cf. Timberlake 1983b) or two separate neo-acute retractions (cf. Feldstein 1978, 1990b). Feldstein 1978 does not distinguish between lengthened neo-acutes and other compensatory lengthening in north Slavic. Czech, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Polish and Ukrainian are said to show reflexes of lengthening "regardless of whether the noun originally belonged to the oxytonic accentual paradigm . . . or mobile" (p. 356). Feldstein suggests that tone must have been lost in Lechitic (Polish) and Ukrainian before the neo-acute retraction, but that it must have been present in peripheral southcentral, western (Czech and Upper Sorbian) and northeastern (Russian) dialects when the neo-acute retraction took place. Central Slovak is said to have experienced neo-acute retraction onto short vowels when they still had tone distinctions, but by the time the neo-acute retraction took place on long vowels, tone is said to have been lost. Feldstein must postulate two separate neo-acute retractions, onto long vowels and onto short vowels: "The isogloss for neo-acute retraction to a long vowel was moving in a west-to-east direction, while the retraction of stress to a short vowel possessed an east-to-west isogloss" (p. 382). Feldstein 1990b proposes a different chronology within Central Slovak, namely a retraction onto longs everywhere followed by a retraction onto preceding shorts from jers, the latter at a time when phonemic stress was accompanied by lengthening. A difficulty with consider-

Notes to pages 149-153

289

ing neo-acute lengthening to be separate from compensatory lengthening is the need to actually distinguish the neo-acute from both the circumflex and the acute which did not lengthen in this environment. One way to do this is to claim that pitch accent distinctions existed until compensatory lengthening took place (Timberlake 1983b), or that originally stressed and newly stressed syllables were somehow different (Nazarova 1975). The first proposal is problematic because there is no clear evidence of tone in all LCS dialects at the time of jer loss or compensatory lengthening. The primary evidence for pitch contour distinctions is from compensatory lengthening itself and the various pronunciations of/o/ in Russian dialects. (See, for example, Saxmatov 1915/1967: 187-192; Trubetzkoy 1925a, BernStejn 1961: 238; Ivanov 1968: 298-300; and Timberlake 1983b.) This would imply that for some time the north Slavic dialects must have maintained a distinction of pitch on short vowels (to distinguish acute/circumflex from neo-acute which lengthened) and no such opposition on long vowels (Timberlake 1983b: 309), a rather strange situation. Many have argued that tone distinctions were lost either in part or completely before the elimination of quantitative distinctions or the loss of weak jers (Jakobson 1929/1971, Liidtke 1959, Moszyriski 1965, Garde 1974, Nazarova 1975 and others). The other solution to the problem is to take stress (not pitch accent) as relevant to neo-acute lengthening, but this position cannot readily explain how speakers distinguish between original stress and new (retracted) stress in a given wordform. The notion of pretonic lengthening requires neither a distinction in pitch accent nor a distinction in stress types. 23 There are some morphological exceptions to the Rhythmic Law, for example, there is a rule lengthening the theme vowel /e/ in the infinitive as in mudry "wise," mudrief "to be wise" (Isa5enko 1964), and there seems to be consecutive shortening in iterative forms such as citavam "I read" < *5itavam (Browne 1970). Dvon£ 1955 lists entire categories of what appear to be exceptions and some of these are discussed in 3.2.1. Without analyzing the data in detail here, some apparent exceptions may be a question of chronology, though even in this case there are different opinions. For example, the absence of shortening in the final syllable in denominal adjectives such as kohiiti "rooster's," masc sg, kohutia, fern sg, or in collectives such as priitie "twigs" (cf. prut) has been attributed to rule ordering by Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987, who claim that the Rhythmic Law precedes contraction. See also Rubach 1993: 172ff. But Peciar 1946a: 149 writes that the Rhythmic Law must have followed contraction and preceded the later Slovak diphthongization of long vowels since contracted forms participate in it. The issue of chronology also concerns the loss of jers. Pauliny 1963 has a different chronology for contraction and jer loss in Slovak dialects, and thinks that the loss of jers before contraction in Central Slovak actually motivated the Rhythmic Law in the tenth century (but Marvan 1979 disagrees). 24 There are many transitional dialect types in addition to the ones mentioned here, including assimilative-dissimilative types in which the presence (or absence) of "reduction" depends on the nature of the stressed vowel. In some areas /o/ and /a/ are neutralized only if the stressed vowel is /a/ (okanje with dissimilative akanje) as in Moscow, Vladimir, Gorky and Kalinin regions; in others the vowel changes everywhere except before /o/ (akanje with assimilative okanje). There also is variation in

290

Notes to pages 153-158

the vocalism found after palatalized (or palatal) and unpalatalized consonants. A more detailed description of akanje/jakanje types and their geographical distribution may be found in Avanesov and Orlova 1965: 36-68; Durnovo 1917, VajtoviC 1968, 1972, 1974, and elsewhere, Sidorov 1966: 98-158; DABM 1963, Avanesov et aL, 1957, DARJa 1989. Other systematic descriptions of akanje may be found in Saxmatov 1915/1967, Trubetzkoy 1925a, Jakobson 1929/1971: 92-104; Rudelev 1963, Halle 1965, Xaburgaev 1965, 1980, Kolesov 1964, Davis 1970, Cekmonas 1975. 25 There is significant disagreement about whether akanje is a more general and older Proto-Slavic development of Proto-Indo-European (Meillet 1924/1965, Vaillant 1950, Georgiev 1963, 1964, 1968, and elsewhere, Filin 1972) or a later, more local East Slavic one (Saxmatov 1902b, 1915/1967, Trubetzkoy 1925a, Jakobson 1929/1971, Avanesov 1947b, 1955). There are also questions about the relationship of the various types of akanje to each other and to the unstressed vocalism of other Slavic languages, e.g., Slovene (Rigler 1964) or Bulgarian dialects (Stojkov 1968), and other languages (Lithuanian, see Cekmonas 1975). Questions of absolute and relative dialect chronology have been explored and a variety of scenarios for the mechanism and history of this change postulated by Saxmatov 1915/1967, Trubetzkoy 1925a, Jakobson 1929/1971, van Wijk 1934-1935, Kurylo 1928b, Avanesov 1947b, 1952, 1955, Shevelov 1953, Ivanov 1968: 211-218, 1990: 203-218; Cekmonas 1975,1987, and elsewhere, and a series of articles on this topic appeared in Voprosy Jazykoznanija in the mid 1960s (e.g., Kuznecov 1964, Kolesov 1964, Georgiev 1963, 1964, Xaburgaev 1965, Rigler 1964, Rudelev 1963, among others). Filin 1972: 97-149, Borkovskij and Kuznecov 1965: 146-157, and GorSkova 1972: 119-133 give a summary of some relevant research. One of the problems with taking dissimilative akanje to be the older form and/or the source for other forms of akanje is that the type of change represented by dissimilative akanje is fairly rare in languages, while the more general type of vowel reduction is not unknown in systems with strong expiratory stress. 26 Polabian has been extinct since approximately the middle of the eighteenth century. It was spoken southeast of Hamburg (near Liineburg) in Germany. For a general account of the language, see Polariski 1993. Source material may be found in R. Olesch, Vocabularium Venedicum von Christian Hennig von Jessen (Koln - Graz, 1959) and in his Thesaurus linguae dravaeno-polabicae (Slavistische Forschungen, Bd. 42), 4 vols. (Koln - Vienna, 1983-87) and elsewhere. Other sources are given in Lehr-Splawiriski 1929, 1963, Trubetzkoy 1929b, Kurylowicz 1955, Olesch 1968, 1973, 1974, 1979, Micklesen 1986, Suprun 1987, Kortlandt 1989, and Polariski 1993. Trubetzkoy 1929b proposed that accent was assigned to the penultimate mora and that Polabian had phonemic length distinctions. This position was criticized by Kurylowicz 1955 and by Lehr-Splawiriski 1963, who felt that it did not explain the evolution of Polabian accent. Micklesen 1986 attributes all early Polabian changes in accent to the loss of weak jers. 27 Finding that jers tended to be realized as full vowels even in weak position if they were in the initial syllable (e.g., *kuto > katti "who," *pisa > pasai "dog") and that with the exception of some prefixes and prepositions, reduced vowels do not appear in initial syllables, Kurylowicz 1955: 349 concluded that Polabian had fixed initial

Notes to pages 158-162

28

29

30

31

291

stress. In four-syllable words, Polabian is said to exhibit an alternating pattern with secondary stresses because full vowels are perceived as redundantly long and as carrying some prominence, either primary or secondary. Lehr-Splawiriski 1963 revised his earlier opinion on the role of pitch contour in unaccented syllables in Polabian stress, accepting Kurylowicz's 1958a and Vaillant's 1950 position that pitch contour distinctions did not exist in unaccented syllables by Late Common Slavic, but he still thought that Polabian accentual developments depended on pitch, postulating pitch contour ("intonation") distinctions between original (acute and circumflex) and retracted (neo-acute) accent, as well as possible distinctions between the "new" intonations of neo-acute and neo-circumflex (1963: 101). Originally Lehr-Splawinski 1917, 1929 was of the opinion that the progressive shift in Slovene depended on the pitch contour of the accented vowel (circumflex), while in Polabian it depended on the pitch contour of the post-tonic vowel (circumflex of unaccented syllables), but later, accepting the position that pitch contours were only distinctive in accented syllables, he (1963: 88-94) proposed that the motivation for the shift lies in the nature of the falling contour, which, according to him, tends to develop a secondary peak on the following syllable. This secondary rise supposedly becomes the stress. He claimed that the progressive shift assumes both a difference in chronology (retraction must have been first) and pitch contour differences (between retracted and non-retracted accent). For Polabian he postulated a falling together of acute rising and circumflex falling contours in favor of falling pitch, and then explained the progressive shift as a probable phonetic consequence of the falling pitch contour. This phonetic explanation naturally raises the question of why progressive shifts were not more widespread in Slavic, especially in the southern LCS dialects which maintained pitch distinctions. Jakobson 1929/1971: 65 attributes a stabilization of accent to quantitative developments (though Bubrix 1924 claimed a morphologization of accent). Lorentz 1903 marked tone in his phonetic descriptions of field work with North Kashubian dialects and Jakobson 1929/1971: 67 interpreted this as a reintroduction of pitch accent in northern Kashubian (Slovincian), noting that "la restitution, qu'on constate en kachoube septentrional, des correlations musicales, est un fait exceptionnel dans le monde slave." See also descriptions by Bubrix 1924, Rudnicki 1913, Kurylowicz, 1952, Lehr-Splawinski 1917, 1923, and Stankiewicz 1993: 327. Lehr-Splawinski 1917, 1923: 178-182 proposed that in Slovincian (Pomeranian) accent is retained in its original position if it was neo-acute or neo-circumflex and cited this as evidence of a Proto-Slavic phenomenon. He writes (1923: 179): "La difference entre les intonations primaires et secondaires a servi de base a la transformation du systeme d'accentuation en pomeranien, ou l'accent a recule vers le commencement des mots dans tous les cas ou la syllabe accentuee avait une intonation rude ou douce primaire. Au contraire tous les mots dont la syllabe accentuee avait une intonation douce ou rude secondaire ont conserve l'accent a la place ou il se trouvait en slave commun." In the fifteenth century a community of Herzegovian dialect speakers migrated westward to Lika and Krbava and retained unretracted accent. Today all Herzegovian dialects except this western one show retraction, so Belie 1976: 161 dates the retraction to the fifteenth century. Older Stokavian and some peripheral

292

32

33

34

35

Notes to pages 162-164

Stokavian dialects today have only long and short accented vowels with falling pitch contour (cf. also Belie 1906). See the study of Lehiste and Ivic 1982, which compares the phonetic nature of Cakavian, Slavonian, and NeoStokavian accents, but makes "no assumptions as to what might have prompted the accent shift in the first place" (p. 205), though the acquisition of relatively high pitch, greater duration and intensity by the pretonic syllable is considered to have been part of this process. IsaCenko 1939a: 179 suggested that the NeoStokavian retraction had to do with the "vocalic" nature of Stokavian as compared to Cakavian and other Slavic languages, and specifically that Stokavian preserved pitch accent because vocalic languages tend to preserve quantity and tone distinctions. NeoStokavian then appears to resemble Common Slavic with the ictus on the rising syllable and on the first mora of the word if there was no rising syllable, where it was pronounced as an expiratory accent. See also Vondrak 1924: 287-290 for a review of different proposals. Saxmatov 1901: 346-347 writes: "What would have been the cause of shifting stress in such cases? Obviously, it should not be sought in some primordial relationship between the stressed and the preceding syllable. The primordial relationships in which they found themselves were destroyed as a result of the change of accent from one type to another. Thus there is reason to suppose that this very change was the reason for the shift of accent onto the preceding syllable" [trans. CYB]. This interpretation was strongly supported by van Wijk 1922/1923: 201: "Together with A. A. Saxmatov . . . I think that the stress shifted as a result of the change of old rising intonations v ' into falling intonations " ".In the Stokavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian the same process that at one time had happened in Proto-Slavic was repeated: falling accent could occur only on the initial syllable of the word, and where for whatever reason it was found on another syllable, it shifted to the preceding one" [trans. CYB]. Belie 1910: 297ff. identified two types of Stokavian dialects: the Herzegovian ones in which the retraction of accent is independent of its position in a word and other southern and eastern Stokavian dialects where retraction takes place only from final syllables. According to Belie, in the former (central) dialects the pretonic syllable was high and accent was expiratory; in the latter there was only final syllable weakening. Van Wijk 1921b: 34-35 objected and said that these differences were not necessarily due to separate processes. Belie 1976: 160 later argued for pretonic high tone as the cause of stress retraction. Taking into account views which proposed an intermediate stage of metatony (change from rising to falling pitch) before the NeoStokavian retraction, he postulated high tone on syllables preceding those with falling accent (as well as those with rising accent) in order to account for the leftward movement of stress. Leskien 1899: 398, Porzeziriski 1911: 19 and others cited in van Wijk 1921b: 37 interpret the shift of accent in genitive plural forms such as besjedd < besjedd from the older besjed "speech" to the fact that a falling accent occurred on the second (i.e. noninitial) syllable. See Lehiste and Ivic 1963, 1973, 1982, Ivic and Lehiste 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972, and their book, Word and Sentence Prosody in Serbocroatian (Lehiste and Ivic 1986). The bisyllabic nature of NeoStokavian rising accent was noted by Leonhard Masing 1876 and it is described in Lehiste and Ivic 1982: 200 as follows: "Our descriptive studies show that the main difference between falling

Notes to pages 164-168

293

accents and rising accents lies in the relationship between the accented syllable and the posttonic syllable." This bisyllabic nature of NeoStokavian pitch contours has been analyzed in different ways in recent phonological descriptions. Browne and McCawley 1965 represent rising accents with a mark on the following syllable. Garde 1966a took rising accent to be the signal of prominence on the following syllable. Halle 1971 and Kenstowicz 1974 assign stress to the penultimate high tone vowel (after leftward redundant tone spread). Gvozdanovic 1980, 1982 postulates a [rising] feature on the syllable which receives the accent. Inkelas and Zee 1988 propose a constraint on high tone in Stokavian dialects, and Zee 1993 attributes the difference to tone spreading. Other analyses are briefly discussed in Lehiste and Ivic 1986: 238-258. The NeoStokavian dialect was considered to be an anomaly by Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 190-194 because it did not meet his criteria for mora-counting languages, yet its free accent is realized as pitch accent, even on short vowels. Pitch accent, according to Trubetzkoy, may be derived by accenting either the first or the second mora of a long syllable. Therefore, it should be impossible for pitch accent to occur on short syllables. Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 194 concludes that Serbian/Croatian belong to syllable-counting languages. 36 "There is no doubt that the syllable now considered accented (and provided with an accent mark in transcriptions) is perceived as the most prominent syllable of a word or close-knit phrase" but "differences in the type of accent cannot be conclusively identified on the basis of properties of the stressed syllable alone" (Lehiste and Ivic 1982: 197-198). Since the "accented" syllable in NeoStokavian is said to be characterized by increased duration (with some ambiguity in the case of short vowels which are followed by longs) according to Lehiste and Ivic 1963: 29, stress is not strictly dynamic. Gvozdanovic 1980 tried to show that accent was independent of duration but correlated with the position of the fundamental frequency peak, but even in that interpretation the following syllable is critical because the feature [rising] can be nonfalling nonrising in both types of accent. And she notes (1982: 44): "The rising tone is characterized by a high pitch in the next following syllable." 37 There are some exceptions to the claim that falling pitch accent is found only in word-initial position, e.g., compound forms (poljoprivreda "agriculture") or borrowings (lavabo "washstand," asistent "assistant," televizija "television," cirkuzant "circus performer"), and other isolated cases (verovatno "probably,"jedva "barely," taman "just") (Belie 1951b, Bidwell 1963, Lehiste and Ivic 1986: 293). All of these, with the exception of compounds, have a variant with a rising accent and that is the one given in dictionaries. 38 Gvozdanovic 1980, 1982, and elsewhere, expands on Trubetzkoy's 1939/1967 distinction between mora-counting and syllable-counting languages, concluding that NeoStokavian has the inherent feature [+ rising] of tone and that "Standard SerboCroatian is a syllable-counting language in which accent is predictable on the basis of the [+ rising] tone..." (1982:44). But her analysis views the NeoStokavian retraction as "a reinterpretation of distinctive accent placement in terms of distinctive tone" (p. 44) and it would not allow for the connection between the older Stokavian dialects and the NeoStokavian ones to be interpreted as retraction. Inkelas and Zee 1988 distinguish between the syllable and the mora as the bearer of prosody in Serbian/Croatian. They postulate an underlying high tone in the lexicon of most

294

Notes to pages 168-169

phonological words and a rule of leftward high tone spread on moras with a constraint on the underlying representation, which prohibits a high tone on the second mora of a long syllable, in essence, postulating only falling pitch on long vowels in the underlying representation. This corresponds to the Stokavian metatony which Saxmatov 1901 and van Wijk 1921b took as the motivation for the NeoStokavian shift, although Inkelas and Zee do not make this connection. A revised analysis by Zee 1993 proposes a Tone Linking rule instead of a constraint and this rule associates tone only with stem-final short syllables. Tone spreading takes place only onto a preceding short syllable. The older Stokavian and NeoStokavian are said to differ with respect to rule domains, with the consequence that some tone rules apply to the syllable while others apply to the mora. I think that heterosyllabic rising accents may be simply derived by stressing the syllable before the one which has underlying high tone. Tone spreading may occur and it may constitute a metrical group, but it is not a necessary condition for stress placement. All stressed syllables have phonetically high(er) tone, even those stressed by default on the initial syllable. Zee 1993 must label moras as strong and weak and restrict tone (H) to strong moras in order to account for various retractions. I think that the strong-weak relationship is actually an intersyllabic one. 39 Some dialects do not show this change, preserving either unretracted stress (north, northwest Sn) or short vowels under retracted stress (western Carinthia, western Pannonia). See Jaksche 1965: 44; RamovS 1950: 21; Lencek 1982: 96-97; Carlton 1991: 317. Even in dialects with retraction there are unretracted forms, such as the personal pronouns mene, tebe, forms with the suffix -Ije, e.g., barje "marsh," klasje "ears," etc. (Valjavec 1897). Lehr-Splawiriski 1917: 81-90 thought that closed syllables had an effect on retraction. Bulaxovs'kyj 1983 attributed some unretracted forms to analogy (e.g., bogdt "rich" on the feminine bogatd) and semantics, saying that productive suffixes tend to resist retraction. 40 Non-final lengthening seems to have originated in the southwest and spread northward for it characterizes most Slovene dialects with the exception of Pannonia (NE) and Western Carinthia (Carlton 1991: 315). In fact, Pannonia seems to show a regressive shift with no lengthening and it eventually loses pitch distinctions as well (as do the southwestern dialects). It appears that the second regressive shift may have originated in the southeast because there are unretracted areas in the north and northwest. The non-final lengthening and the regressive shift may have overlapped in the central Slovenian dialects, which means that for some areas the regressive shift may have preceded non-final lengthening. In terms of rules this could be described as a rule reordering, whereby the second regressive shift creates inputs for non-final lengthening. See also Rigler 1963,1967. 41 If the closed mid vowels are taken as an indication of compensatory lengthening, then it may be an argument for an intermediate long stage (*slovo) from which the long vowel under the progressive shift in slovo "word" would have taken its mora. This would represent a type of progressive compensatory lengthening: |JL(JL - |JL > |JL fX|jL, parallel to *m|so > meso "meat" with a long first syllable. It is of interest that bisyllabic neo-acute forms show both a rising pitch and the closed mid vowel: zenski "woman's" (< *zeniski) vs. bdbski "old woman's" (< *bablski). In zenski the /e/may be associated to the high tone of the following mora, which suggests a retraction

Notes to pages 171-178

42

43

44

45

46

295

earlier than that of zena, or neo-acute lengthening in non-final syllables as in volja "will." The peculiarity of final short stressed syllables in Slovene is for the most part restricted to monosyllabic forms or forms with /a/ in which the tone/stress must be marked in the lexicon, since these are either reflexes of old acutes or neo-acutes (brat, bob) or forms which did not undergo retraction (mdgla "mist")- The latter often show retraction in dialects: ddska "board," mdzda "wages," stdza "path." (Other variants are given in Stankiewicz 1979: 130; Lencek 1982, and elsewhere.) The data from Pomeranian (Lechitic dialects once spoken along the Baltic coast on the left bank of the Vistula, now extinct) are too scarce for any conclusive work on accent, although the surviving northern Kashubian (Slovincian) dialect would indicate that stress had remained relatively free in this northwestern area. Central Kashubian apparently has free stress with the restriction that it may not occur on a final open syllable and northern Kashubian has mobile stress with no restrictions (Topoliriska 1974: 127-135). Southern Kashubian is a fixed-stress system. Descriptions of north Lechitic dialects may also be found, for example, in the work of Lorentz 1903,1927-1937, Lehr-Splawiriski 1917, 1929, Kurylowicz 1952b. The loss of length in Polish has been dated to manuscripts of the period 1510-1520 by W. Cygan, "Slady iloczasu w glownych zabytkach je.zyka polskiego XIV i XV wieku," Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jezykoznawczego XI (1952), p. 18 (cited in Furdal 1964). Topoliriska 1974: 87 points out that "it seems that wherever an initial stabilization was attained, it preceded the loss of quantity" and "that - on the contrary - the penultimate stabilization, in some areas at least, results from the levelling carried out after the loss of quantity." She then suggests that since length was most frequent on the penultimate this position became the prosodic center of the word, and when quantity was lost, prominence was expressed by the only remaining means - stress. Contrary to others, Topoliriska would probably not postulate an intermediate stage of initial stress for Polish. Stieber 1979: 65 dates the loss of quantity in Polish to approximately 1500 and the fixation of stress prior to that. See note 3. The representation of stress and the issue of arboreal versus grid theories of stress have been extensively discussed in the linguistic literature (Hayes 1986, 1994 and elsewhere; Halle 1987, Halle and Vergnaud 1987, Prince 1983, McCarthy and Prince 1986, Halle and Idsardi 1995, and many others). Franks 1985, 1987, 1991, Rubach and Booij 1985, Hayes and Puppel 1985, Hammond 1989, and Mel void 1989 deal specifically with Slavic problems. More recent analyses in terms of constraints and alignment are McCarthy and Prince 1993, Prince and Smolensky 1993, and references therein. Macedonian written documents of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries already show retracted stress. On the basis of evidence from vowel reduction, it is thought that the Macedonian accentual system was probably established by the thirteenth century (Koneski 1983: 19). The origin of antepenultimate stress has been attributed to Balkan influence. Koneski 1983: 19 writes: "The limitation of stress to the last three syllables is an old characteristic of the non-Si Balkan languages. We have such accentuation in Gr, Rm, and Alb. The appearance of the same situation in M cannot be separated from the broader linguistic context. The adaptation of the rhythm in question characteristic of the Balkan linguistic milieu was taken over along with

296

Notes to pages 178-184

certain Balkan sentential models. The formation of M accentual types took place under this influence." See also Alexander 1993:197, who attributes the idiosyncratic antepenultimate fixed stress of Macedonian to a convergence of eastern and western South Slavic isoglosses and Balkan influence: "The model proposed here envisages first a mixture of the two distinct South Slavic types of change - phonetic retraction from final (and possibly medial) syllables, and productive extension of certain types of paradigmatic mobility. At this point, the intense and intimate multilingualism among speakers of Slavic, Romance, Greek and Albanian that was characteristic of Macedonia began to have its effect, such that general Balkan rhythmic prosodic patterns crystallized numerous of these phonetic/morphophonemic mixes as phrases with double accent... The final impetus which led to the fixing of stress on the antepenultimate syllable was again probably Balkan - most likely a generalization of the Greek/Latin system in which accent was limited to the last three syllables (or morae) of the word..." (See also Mladenov 1929: 178ff.; Conev 1940: 350-402 for extensive dialect data and Alexander 1993 for a unified account of South Slavic prosodic developments.) Bulaxovs'kyj 1958/1980: 497ff. attributes the antepenultimate stress to retraction, similar to that in NeoStokavian, but one which took place in two separate stages. There are eastern Macedonian dialects which have retraction only from the final open syllable and others with fixed penultimate stress (Conev 1940: 380-384). 47 Extrametricality is bound by two main conditions: 1) it is peripheral, either at the beginning or the end of a prosodic domain (Harris 1983: 91-130), and 2) it is nonexhaustive, i.e., the entire stress domain cannot be extrametrical (see Hayes 1981 and others). In Macedonian, syllables with inherent (lexical, exceptional) stress cannot be extrametrical, e.g., klise "cliche." It has been claimed that Macedonian is a language without secondary stresses (Franks 1987: 105), so it is not clear that metrical parsing must take place across the whole word, though Halle 1990 argues that Macedonian is subject to the Exhaustivity Condition. 48 The distinction between full and reduced vowels is often expressed as one between heavy and light syllables for purposes of stress assignment (Hayes 1981: 57). In Polabian, many full vowels are realized as diphthongs. Polabian was also one of the few Slavic languages to preserve nasal vowels (which were long) for a significant period of time. As Micklesen 1986 notes, the early field transcriptions of Hennig designated Polabian closed syllables as long. 49 Zaliznjak 1985: 160 writes: "With respect to etymologically short vowels it is even less likely that there was a purely intonational opposition between the neo-acute (for example, in * bdbT>, *ndsi$i) and the old accent (for example, in *selo, *gotovT>, *dobrota). Apparently the difference here could have consisted only in that the short vowel under the neo-acute lengthened, however, this lengthening was not regular and in some dialects it was probably completely absent" [trans. CYB]. The more general occurrence of length under the neo-acute in North Central Slavic may be simply a case of pretonic length, and thus different from stressed environments. This analysis also provides a reasonable explanation for the shortening of original long stressed vowels in this area of LCS: the shortening of long vowels under the acute or circumflex is not unexpected because the trochaic metrical group could still be maintained by stress.

Notes to pages 184-198

297

50 Tesniere 1929: 94-95 relates the length found before weak jers to the falling accent and proposes such lengthening for all circumflex syllables, including those later subject to the progressive shift: CS *slouo > *slovo > Sn slovo "word." In a study of compensatory lengthening Timberlake 1983a, 1983b finds that in north Slavic lengthening was much more consistent (unrestricted) under the neo-acute accent, while in the south compensatory lengthening was more general under the circumflex accent. He accounts for the effect of accent by postulating a different evaluation measure for tone in the north and the south. But it is not quite clear why the north (west) would have evaluated rising as long and falling as short (or for that matter why acute rising was reinterpreted as falling) nor why this area should have paid any attention to tone, especially after the original acute and circumflex merged (as falling tone in Timberlake's interpretation). 3 Theoretical considerations 1 The structure of phonological representations has been of great importance to all theoretical frameworks, and allusions to nonlinearity were made in the work of Trubetzkoy 1939/1967: 78 who conceived of projecting features on different planes, in that of Harris 1944, Hockett 1942, 1955, Haugen 1949, Firth 1948, 1957, Hill 1961, and others. Exploration of nonlinear representation may be found in Leben 1973, Williams 1976, Goldsmith 1976/1979, as well as the papers in van der Hulst and Smith 1982, 1985, 1988, and in a great number of phonological analyses since then. 2 Most analysts consider dl and h part of the same alternation (Stojanov 1964: 93-95; Aronson 1968: 147-148; Scatton 1983: 165-200, 1984: 395-101; Zee 1988/1994: 90-111), but the actual number of alternating forms with A/ is far smaller and it tends to involve derivational morphology, e.g., ddlg "debt," dhzen "obliged," mhk "quiet!," mdlcanie "silence," zdlt "yellow," zldtna se "to appear, gleam yellow." I think that there may be a difference in how South Slavic languages treat liquids: /I/ does not remain a syllable peak, cf. SC A/ > /o/ as in sto "table" (< stoo), stola, gen sg, beo "white," masc sg, bela, fern sg; Sn ddlg "debt," solza "tear," volk "wolf; M volk "wolf," solza "tear"jabolko "apple" (< *jablko), while /r/ often does, e.g., SC vrlo "very," also vro the short form adjective of vrli "good-hearted," grba "hill," kfma "feed," kfnj "broken, damaged" short form of krni; M grlo "throat," krv "blood," krst "cross"; Sn kft "mole," kfst "baptism," vrh "summit." In Bulgarian the A/ must have lost its syllabicity before /r/ because the h and dl reflexes do not alternate and in general they tend to reflect the original order of jer plus liquid or liquid plus jer sequence, e.g., vdlk "wolf," vdlkdt, def, ddlg "debt," ddlgdt, def., stdlb "post," stMbat, def, pht "flesh," phttd, def, zhc "bile," zhctd, def. So it is not clear that a syllabic A/ need be postulated for Bulgarian. See also the extensive study of Duma 1990. 3 Monomoraic rising diphthongs are apparently relatively common, but Kaye 1989: 133-138 claims that bimoraic diphthongs must be of falling sonority. One reason for the bimoraic minimum on falling diphthongs is that they are rarely found in closed syllables. Bulgarian does not have quantity distinctions, so the sequence /ar/ cannot be bimoraic. The question then is whether it is a monomoraic bisegmental nucleus or a nucleus with /r/ in the coda. As far as I can determine, the /r/ in /sr/ may be

298

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

Notes to pages 201-219

interpreted as a coda in Bulgarian, although historically the diphthong comes from a syllabic liquid, so the /r/ must have been moraic at some point. Shevelov 1965: 292 writes: "Originally j was but a positional consonantal allophone of the vowel /." Similarly, van Wijk 1939-1940: 80: "Dieselbe Unterscheidung zwischen anlautenden und postvokalischen / (j), welche in sovielen Sprachen vorliegt, haben wohl auch gewisse slavische Sprachen in ihrer vorlitterarischen Periode gekannt." Meillet 1924/1965: 40 considers the absence of an orthographical symbol significant: "Si les createurs de l'alphabet glagolitique avaient senti ley comme une consonne autonome, ils lui auraient affecte un caractere..." Lunt 1974: 26 observes that "in the absence of clear orthographical evidence, it is not easy to determine the distribution of the phonetic jod (j) and its phonemic function. The contrasts u/ju, Q/JQ and a/ja suffice to illustrate that the jod was phonemic, though it may have been a non-syllabic variant of /, and not an independent phoneme. For purposes of grammatical discussion, however, we will write this non-syllabic variant with the letter y and treat it as a consonant." Likewise, Schenker 1993: 82, "there are no compelling reasons to consider/ phonemically independent of /." In Slavic morphophonemics the vowel-zero alternation is represented as # (cf. Worth 1968) or by slashes (cf. Townsend 1980). There are other conditions as well, and for Russian Lightner 1972:41 identifies them as being a position under stress, the present tense of some verbs, before a zero desinence, etc. Some of these environments in Polish have been reformulated by Gussmann 1980 as containing jers. The nature of geminates and the many implications of geminate representation have been extensively discussed in the linguistic literature, e.g., Kenstowicz 1970, McCarthy 1986, Schein and Steriade 1986, Odden 1986, 1988, Yip 1988, Hayes 1986, Tranel 1991, and many others. Within recent theory length has been treated as mora-count (Hyman 1985, Hayes 1989), as a sequence of root nodes (Selkirk 1990), or as both (Hagberg 1990). The western Slovak dialects do not have rhythmic shortening or diphthongs and the eastern Slovak dialects do not have distinctive quantity (see Short 1993:588-591 for a synopsis of Slovak dialect features). The western Slovak forms are mudri, lukdm, ddvd, pdli, sudzd, pruci/prilcje, all of which show rhythmic shortening in Central Slovak. Phonetic accounts of the origin of RL such as that of Jozef LiSka, K otdzke povodu vychodoslovenskych ndreci (1944) which take the observed slightly shorter pronunciation of a long syllable after a long one to have motivated RL cannot explain why this shortening does not happen in languages where this type of adjustment is found, as Pauliny 1963: 143 points out. Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987: 479 claim that "syllable nuclei are metrical constituents, in which an obligatory head governs an optional syllable slot" and they assume that "if the more sonorous one is associated with the nuclear head, we understand why the glide consistently appears on the left in the underlying inventory [ie, uo, i a ] . . . the shortening of [ie uo ia] toe o a can be interpreted as simply the elimination of the governed nuclear slot." The suffix -dr is particularly resistant to shortening and in many forms the constraint on two adjacent long syllables will operate by shortening the first vowel, e.g.,pisaf "to write," pisdr "writer," drot "wire," drotdr "brazier," stol "table," stoldr "joiner,"

Notes to pages 220-223

299

slovnik "dictionary," slovnikdr "lexicographer," kosik "basket," kosikdr "basketmaker," umyvafto wash," umyvdren "washroom," liecif "to heal," lekdr "doctor." The shortening of the vowel before -dr tends to be an older variant, as is the shortening in fiizy "mustache," fuzdc "mustachioed man" and some others (cf. Pauliny 1961: 105); newer pronunciations tend to preserve length, e.g., frezdr "cutter, milling machine" or to lose length as per RL, e.g., krdjac "tailor, cutter." Particularly intriguing are the comparative forms which have a shortened first syllable, e.g., biely "white," belsi "whiter," riedky "rare," redsi "rarer," uzky "narrow," uzsi "narrower." Perhaps these are the traces of an older quantity adjustment where the constraint was not yet specified as to the shortening of a certain syllable. The development of RL would argue for a notion of directionality in its implementation. Peciar 1946a observes that the orthoepic norms do not necessarily represent actual current pronunciations. Central Slovak dialects apparently have shortened forms in kiipa "they will buy " pada "they please," niekym, niecim, vdsni, basni, kohuti "rooster's," vtdci, pisuci, and others. 11 There has been much discussion about the "monophonematic" and "biphonematic" nature of Slovak diphthongs. Vachek 1932, Novak 1933-1934, Trubetzkoy 1939/1967, Pauliny 1961: 69, 73, and Isacenko 1968: 166-168 consider diphthongs to be the combination of two vowels. It was Jakobson 1931b/1971: 221-230 who first proposed a monophonematic interpretation of Slovak diphthongs, arguing that "the phonemic length belongs to the diphthongs ia, ie, iu as wholes, not to their syllabic components: if the non-syllabic part of the diphthong is lost as a result of assimilation to a preceding j , the syllabic part is identified with a short vowel (e.g., vojak, stojaj'em)" (p. 223). On the other hand, the falling diphthongs au, eu, iu and ou are said to consist of two autonomous phonemes. The vowels in these diphthongs may appear long and they are not affected as diphthongs by RL: za nizkou hriadkou. In Slovak, rising diphthongs are correlated with short vowel alternants, e.g., kon kona "horse," zena - zien "woman, wife," while in Czech, as Jakobson 1931b/1971: 226 points out, "a short phoneme frequently alternates with a non-correlative long

phoneme: o-u,e-l,u-ou

(kone-kun, klep-klipek, mukou-mouka)" D'uroviC

1973 proposes (mono)phonemic diphthongs in the inventory of Slovak. 12 Another historical problem is that other desinences which do undergo the Rhythmic Law are also the result of contraction, e.g., suchy "dry" < suchy < *suxuii, hlupeho "foolish, stupid," masc/neut gen sg (< *glupaiego), shovdras se "you talk, converse" (< *sugovaraieSI sej. 13 Peciar 1946a claims that this dialect is becoming syllable-based in the sense that length is calculated as V: and not as VV (cf. Trubetzkoy 1939/1967). But because diphthongs do condition RL elsewhere in this dialect (as far as I can determine from Peciar's account), they must be exceptional only in not undergoing RL in certain morphological categories. 14 Peciar 1946a suggests that the Rhythmic Law sometimes functions as a corollary of intensity (where it is restricted to long vowels) and at other times as a corollary to quantity (where long vowels and diphthongs are treated the same). He postulates that Slovak was restructured from a syllable-based system (V: in the sense of Trubetzkoy 1939/1967) to a mora-based system (length = VV) with a return to the intensity-based syllable system in some dialects.

300

Notes to pages

224-249

15 After /r/ the reflexes are slightly different: in CReC-stems the vowel is short /e/, e.g., hren "horseradish," otherwise if the /r/ is word-initial or stem-initial, the reflex is -je-, e.g., rjesdvati "to solve," razrjesdvati "to release" (Browne 1993). 16 Significantly, the pronunciation [ie] tends to predominate in Croatian poetry, so [rieka] is preferred to [riieka] and [riieka], though all are heard. Gvozdanovic 1980: 115-119 suggests that pronunciation rules for /ie/ sequences are conditioned by morpheme boundaries and that variation ([iie], [iie] and [ie]) is found morphemeinternally. It is curious for her interpretation that borrowings never show variants: dijeta "diet" is almost always [diieta], higijena "hygiene" is [xigiiena]. To explain the exceptional lack of variants in what is morpheme-internal position, Gvozdanovic postulates a morpheme boundary for /di+et+a/ and /xigi+en+a/. 17 Trubetzkoy 1939/1967 writes that the falling accent in Serbian and Croatian is primarily expiratory: "The falling musical movement is only perceptible more or less clearly if the syllable on which it occurs is long. The 'short-falling' accent, on the other hand, is very often realized only as an expiratory increment, with the tone movement being musically level on a relatively low register" (1969 Baltaxe translation, p. 194). Its function is said to be purely demarcative (cf. also Jakobson 1931a/1971). 18 Those who argued for the phonemic status of geminates in Ukrainian relied on a few minimal pairs such as Zilja, proper name vs. zillja "herbs," pana "lord's" vs. panna "miss" without paying attention to morpheme structure (cf. Shevelov 1963b: 453; Kovalyk 1973, and others). In Shevelov 1993: 951-952 the consonant inventory does not give phonemic geminates. Kalnyn' 1962, Foster 1966 and Kostruba 1969 do not consider geminates to be phonemic in Ukrainian. 19 Eastern Slovak which has lost distinctive quantity does not show this type of strengthening and Central Slovak prominence is complicated by the Rhythmic Law. In these examples of consonant gemination there is no addition of a mora. This is phonetic segment strengthening and it would not provide evidence for the postulation of a separate X-slot tier in addition to the moraic one. 20 The various accent retractions and quantity redistributions throughout Slavic history seem to have depended on a bisyllabic domain. Phonetic explanations for accent shifts based on pitch contours are problematic and contradictory. For example, in order to explain the movement of ictus to a following syllable in Slovene and in Polabian, Lehr-Splawiriski 1917, 1963 proposed that falling intonation was the cause. In Slovene this shift took place only in unaccented or circumflex forms with falling intonation, so the intonational explanation may hold, but in Polabian the shift happened in originally accented (acute) forms with rising intonation as well as in circumflex forms with falling intonation. Lehr-Splawiriski's recourse was to claim that the rising intonation of acutes must have become falling. But if we analyze both cases in terms of quantity prominence, then it can be shown that a short-long syllable sequence is a favored iambic foot. A corresponding reorganization of bisyllabic quantity relations could result in a stress or accent shift, given the tendency for quantity to attract stress. 21 In theory it is possible to postulate complex nuclei in which two segments are associated with one syllable position though not necessarily with one mora. In that case the No Coda Constraint might have been sufficient to eliminate PIE syllable-final

Notes to pages 253-258

301

obstruents in Proto-Slavic while not affecting syllable-final moraic sonorants. The latter would have been syllable nuclei. The problem with this version is that these syllable-final sonorants were also eventually eliminated and if their elimination is not due to the No Coda Constraint, then some other constraint, possibly a special Rising Sonority Constraint or a constraint against diphthongs (as Rosenthall 1994 proposes) would have to be postulated in the grammar. Yet most cases of rising sonority may be due to a No Coda Constraint. 22 Andersen (1978b) in attempting to define what structural characteristics make a language "consonantal" or "vocalic" and to determine what part of the phonology may be subject to different interpretations by speakers suggests that "one of the most important criteria in phonological typology is the ranking of phonemic oppositions" (p. 2) and that "the difference between vocalic and consonantal languages resides in the different ranking of the diacritic categories which define vowels and consonants" (p. 3). Thus "vocalic" languages have vowels as the least marked segments, which gives the following hierarchy: glides are the most marked segments ([-voc] (M), [-cons] (M)), followed by consonants ([-voc] (M), [+cons] (U)), liquids ([+voc] (U), [+cons] (M)), and vowels ([+voc] (U), [-cons] (U)), while in "consonantal" languages consonants are the least marked, sonorants are ([+voc] (M), [+cons] (U)), followed by vowels and glides in order of increasing markedness. These hierarchies are said to account for the various phonological developments by the reinterpretation of markedness. For example, the change of/r/ to 111 in Polish and the rhotacism of *z to /r/ in Slovene and Serbo-Croatian are described as parallel simplifications by Andersen (1978b: 7) because in a "vocalic" system (i.e., SC and Sn) the 11/ which is ([-voc] (M), [+cons] (U)) becomes then unmarked in the higher ranking vocalic category as /r/ ([+voc] (U), [+cons] (M)), while in a "consonantal" system such as Polish the change of /r/ to 111 is one in which the segment becomes unmarked in both categories ([+cons] (U), [+voc] (M)) > ([+cons] (U), [-voc] (U)). 23 Jakobson 1929/1971 notes that this is not necessarily a linguistic law since Japanese apparently makes both distinctions. 24 Lunt 1956, who attributes the phonemization of this distinction to the fall of the jers, assumes that the synharmonic syllable was lost in Pre-Slovene and Pre-SerboCroatian before the jers were lost, while Czech "underwent a number of changes in syllable types before the loss of the jers and the appearance of independently sharp consonants. The early loss of 3 (attested in the Kiev Fragments, i.e., late tenth century) led to the creation of syllables like z'ii, z'a, Z'Q, (e.g., medja > me3d > mez'd, kbnzsti > kbnez'u, vidjQ > vi$Q > VIZ'Q), which in the synharmonic syllabic system must be phonemically /zii za ZQ/. This type of syllable was strengthened by frequently occurring combinations of phonetically sharped consonants + new long ii d Q resulting from loss of intervocalic j and contraction... Thus the phonemic pairs u ii, a-d and o - Q were distinguished after most consonants" (p. 313).

References

Abele, Anna. 1924. K voprosu o sloge. Slavia 3.1: 1-34. 1925-1926. PrispSvek k otazce o zdlouzeni kratkych samohlasek v zavrenych slabikach v polStinS. Slavia 4.3: 433^145. 1954. Zur Weiterentwicklung urbaltischer Liquida-Diphthonge im Lettischen: Parallelen zum slavischen TORT/TOROT. Slavic Word 10:429^35. Abernathy, Robert. 1968. The Slavic liquid metathesis. In H. KuCera, ed., American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists, Vol. I. Linguistic Contributions, pp. 9-27. The Hague: Mouton. Alexander, Ronelle. 1993. Remarks on the evolution of South Slavic prosodic systems. In Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 181-201. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Allen, George. 1975. Speech rhythm: its relation to performance universals and articulatory timing. Journal of Phonetics 3: 75-86. Allen, W. S. 1953. Phonetics in Ancient India. London: Oxford University Press. 1958. Some problems of palatalisation in Greek. Lingua 7.2: 113-133. 1913. Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge University Press. Andersen, Henning. 1969a. Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 553-574. 1969b. A study in diachronic morphophonemics: the Ukrainian prefixes. Language 45: 807-830. 1970. Kashubian dobetk, dobytek' and its kind. Die Welt der Slaven 15: 61-76. 1972. Diphthongization. Language 48: 11-50. 1973a. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 765-793. 1973b/p.c. Prosodic innovations and the development of liquid diphthongs in Early Slavic. Abstracts of the Seventh International Congress of Slavists, Warsaw 1973. 1978a. Perceptual complexity and abductive innovations. In J. Fisiak, ed., Recent Developments in Historical Phonology, pp. 1-22. The Hague: Mouton. 1978b. Vocalic and consonantal languages. In H. Birnbaum, Lubomir DuroviC, Gunnar Jacobsson, Nils-Ake Nilsson, Anders Sjoberg, and Dean S. Worth, eds., Studia Linguistica Alexandro Vasilii Filio Issatschenko A Collegis Amicisque Oblata, pp. 1-12. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. 1985. Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic - questions of periodization and terminology. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31/32: 67-82. 1993. Capitolo 14: Lingue slaviche. In Anna Giacolone Ramat and Paolo Ramat, eds., LeLingue indoeuropee, pp. 441^80. Bologna: II Mulino. 302

References

303

Anderson, John, and Colin Ewen. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge University Press. Anderson, John, and C. Jones. 1974. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10: 1-23. Anderson, Stephen. 1982. The analysis of French schwa, or how to get something for nothing. Language 58: 534-573. Archangeli, Diana. 1991. Syllabification and prosodic templates in Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 231-283. Aronson, Howard. 1968. Bulgarian Inflectional Morphology. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 70.) The Hague: Mouton. Arumaa, Peeter. 1964. Urslavische Grammatik. (Einfiihrung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen.), vol. I: Einleitung. Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Atlas ukrajins'koji movy [AUM]. 1984-1988. Vol. I. Polissja, Serednja NaddniprjanSdyna i sumezni zemli, Vol. II: Volyn' ,Naddnistrjanscyna, Zakarpattja i sumizni zemli. Compiled by I. H. Matvijas et al. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Avanesov, R. I. 1947a. Iz istorii russkogo vokalizma. Zvuki / i y. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 1: 41-57. 1947b. Voprosy obrazovanija russkogo jazyka v ego govorax. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 9: 109-158. 1952. Lingvistic'eskaja geografija i istorija russkogo jazyka. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 25^7. 1954. O slogorazdele i stroenii sloga v russkom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 88-101. 1955. Problemy obrazovanija jazyka velikorusskoj narodnosti. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5: 20-42. Avanesov, R. I., S. V. Bromlej, L. N. Bulatova, eds. 1957. Atlas russkix narodnyx govorov central'nyx oblastej k vostoku otMoskvy, 2 vols. Moscow: AN SSSR. Avanesov, R. I., and V. G. Orlova, eds. 1965. Russkaja dialektologija, 2nd edn. Moscow: Nauka. Bargielowna, M. 1950. Grupy fonemow spolgloskowych wspolczesnej polszczyzny kulturalnej. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jgzykoznawczego 10: 1-25. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1870. O drevnepol'skom jazyke do XIV-go stoletija. Leipzig: Behr and German. (Rpt. 1970 as Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 257. The Hague: Mouton.) Also in Dziela Wybrane, vol. II (1976), pp. 23-218. 1875/1989. Opytfonetiki rez'janskix govorov. Warsaw: E. Wende; St. Petersburg: D. E. Kozan&kov. Reproduced in Dziela Wybrane, Vol. Ill, pp. 283-426. 1881. Nekotorye otdely sravnitel'noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 5: 265-344. 1927/1990. Ilosciowosc w mysleniu jezykowym. Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol. I, pp. 3-18. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff. Reproduced in Dziela Wybrane, vol. IV, pp. 546-563. 1974-1990. Dziela Wybrane. vol. I (1974), vol. II (1976), vol. Ill (1989), vol. IV (1990), vol. V (1983), vol. VI (1983). Warsaw: PWN. Becker, Lee. 1978. The effects of the fall of the jers on the prosodic system of ProtoSerbo-Croatian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

304

References

1979. A contribution to an explanation of the Neo-Stokavian accent retraction. Zbornik zafilologiju i lingvistiku 22.1: 87-94. Becker, Lee and Christina Y. Bethin. 1983. On the historical development and synchronic nature of the Slovene prosodic system. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27:63-79. Beckman, J., S. Urbanczyk, and L. Walsh, eds. 1995. Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18. Amherst, MA: GSLA. Beckman, Mary, Jan Edwards, and Janet Fletcher. 1992. Prosodic structure and tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics. In Gerard J. Docherty and D. Robert Ladd, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, pp. 68-86. Cambridge University Press. Belie, A. 1906. Dialektologifceskaja karta serbskago jazyka. In V. I. Lamanskij, ed., Statjipo slavjanovedeniju, II, pp. 1-59. St. Petersburg: ImperatorskajaAkademija Nauk. 1909a. Osnovne cite istorijskog razvitka srpskog jezika. Godisnjak SKA, 22 fur 1908 (1909): 106-110. 1909b. Zametki po Cakavskim govoram. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 14: 181-266. 1910. Commentary on "Zur Frage liber die Gruppierung der serbokroatischen Dialekte, M. ReSetar, JAXXX, pp. 597-625."Rocznik slawistyczny 3: 283-306. 1911. Review of Broch, Serbische Phonetik (1910). Rocznik slawistyczny 4:189-199. 1912. Review of Prilog za slavenski akcenat, Stjepan IvSic (RAD CLXXXVII [1911], pp. 133-207). Rocznik slawistyczny 5: 164-178. 1913. Promene akcenataupraslovenskomjeziku./wz«6>5/ove/i5/:////(9/6>g 1: 38-66. 1914. Akcenatske studije, I. (Filosofski i filoloSki spisi, knjiga 11.) Belgrade: Srpska Akademia Nauk. Posebna izdana knjiga 42. 1922. O praslovenskom jeziku. Slavia 1: 8-11. 1929. Granice sloga u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. In MiloS Trivunac, ed., Zbornik u cast Bogdana Popovica, pp. 273-286. Belgrade: IzdavaCka knjizanica Gece Kona. 1933a. Sur la valeur linguistique de la syllabe. Actes du deuxieme congres international de linguistes, Geneve, 25-29 aout 1931, pp. 176-180. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient. 1933b. Granica sloga i sastav re£i u srpskoxrvatskom jeziku. Glas SKA 156: 101-122. 1935. O Cakavskoj osnovnoj akcentuacji. Glas SKA 168: 1-39. 1951a. Savremeni srpskohrvatski knjizevni jezik, vol. I: Glasovi i akcenat. Belgrade: Nau£na knjiga. 195lb. Iz novije akcentuacije. Na$ jezik 2: 229,233. 1958. Kakova byla struktura sloga v praslavjanskom jazyke. IV Medunarodni kongres slavista. Odgovori jugoslovenskix slavista na pitanja nacionalnog slavistifckog komiteta u Moskvi. DodatakJuznoslovenskomu Filologu 22: 11. 1976. Osnovi istorije srpskohrvatskog jezika. Fonetika. 4th edn. Belgrade: NauCna knjiga. Bell, Alan. 1977. Accent placement and perception of prominence in rhythmic structures. In L. Hyman, ed., Studies in Stress and Accent. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4, pp. 1-13. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

References

305

Bell, Alan, and Joan Bybee Hooper, eds. 1978. Syllables and Segments. Amsterdam: North Holland. BernStejn, S. B. 1961. Ocerk sravniteV noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov, vol. I. Moscow: AN SSSR. 1963. K istorii sloga v praslavjanskom jazyke. In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanije. V Mezdunarodnyj s"jezd slavistov, Sofia, 1963, pp. 53-69. Moscow: Nauka. 1968. Kontrakcija i struktura sloga v slavjanskix jazykax. In V. V. Vinogradov, S. B. BernStejn, and N. I. Tolstoj, eds., Slavjanskoe jazykoznanije. VI Mezdunarodnyj sffjezd slavistov, Praga 1968, pp. 19-31. Moscow: Nauka. Bethin, Christina Y. 1987. Syllable-final laxing in Ukrainian. Folia Slavica 8.2-3: 185-197. 1992a. The syllable in Slavic: evidence from liquid diphthongs. Die Welt der Slav en 37.1-2:296-343. 1992b. Polish Syllables: the Role of Prosody in Phonology and Morphology. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1992c. Iotation and gemination in Ukrainian. Slavic and East European Journal 36: 275-301. 1993a. Neo-acute length in the North Central dialects of Late Common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1: 219-250. 1993b. The glide i/j in Late Common Slavic. In Robert Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 230-250. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1994a. On the phonology of the NeoStokavian accent retraction in Serbian and Croatian. Die Welt der Slaven 39.2: 277-296. 1994b. On TRUT reflexes in Ukrainian. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 18.1-2: 125-136. Bezpal'ko, O. P., M. K. BojCuk, M. A. Zovtobrjux, S. P. Samijlenko, and I. J. Taranenko. 1957. Istorycna hramatyka ukrajins'koji movy. Kiev: Radjans'ka Skola. Bidwell, Charles. 1963. The phonemics and morphophonemics of Serbo-Croatian stress. Slavic and East European Journal 7: 160-165. Bilodid, I.K., ed. 1969. Sucasna ukrajins'ka literaturna mova. Vstup. Fonetyka. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Bird, Steven. 1990. Constraint-based phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh University. 1991. Feature structures and indices. Phonology 8: 137-144. Birnbaum, David. 1981. Rising diphthongs and the Slovak Rhythmic Law. In G. Clements, ed., Harvard Studies in Phonology, vol. II, pp. 1-16. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Birnbaum, Henryk. 1963. Reinterpretacje fonologiczne nosowek slowianskich (Na podstawie materialu praslowianskiego, staroslowiariskiego i polskiego). In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963, vol. I: Linguistics Contributions, pp. 2 7 ^ 8 . The Hague: Mouton. 1966. The dialects of Common Slavic. In H. Birnbaum and J. Puhvel, eds., Ancient Indo-European Dialects, pp. 153-197. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1970. Zur Problematik der zeitlichen Abgrenzung der Urslavischen. (Uber der

306

References

Relativitat der Begriffe Baltoslavisch/Friihurslavisch bzw. Spatgemeinslavischer Dialekt/Ureinzelslavine.) Zeitschriftfur slavische Philologie 35: 1-62. 1975. Typology, genealogy, and linguistic universals. Linguistics 144: 5-26. 1979. Common Slavic: Progress and Problems in its Reconstruction. Rpt. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1982. The Slavonic language community as a genetic and typological class. Die Welt der Slavenll: 5^43. 1987. Some terminological and substantive issues in Slavic historical linguistics. (Reflections on the periodization of the Slavic ancestral language and the labeling of its chronological divisions.) International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 299-332. Blevins, Juliette [Levin]. 1993. A tonal analysis of Lithuanian nominal accent. Language 69: 237-273. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 206-244. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Bondarko, L. V. 1967. Struktura sloga i xarakterystiki fonem. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 34-46. Borkovsky, V. I., and P. S. Kuznecov. 1965. Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. BoSkovic, R. [BoSkoviC]. 1984. Osnovy sravnitel'noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov: Fonetika i slovoobrazovanie. Translated into Russian by N. M. Elkina. Moscow: VysSaja Skola. Brandt, R. F. 1880. Nacertanie slavjanskoj akcentologii. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk. Brauer, H. 1961. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft, vol. I: Einleitung. Lautlehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Braun, M. 1947. Grundziige der slawischen Sprachen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Braxnov, V. M. 1970. Javysca asymiljaciji v konsonantyzmi ukrajins'koji movy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Brentari, Diane and Anna Bosch. 1990. The mora: autosegment or syllable constituent. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 1-15. Chicago Linguistic Society. Broch, O. [Brok]. 1902. O isfceznovenii mezduglasnogo i, i. Rossijskij Filologiceskij Vestnik 18 [Sbornik statej posvjaSCennyj F. F. Fortunatovu]: 134-139. 1907. Opisanie odnogo govora iz jugozapadnoj casti Totemskago ujezda. (Sbornik otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 83.4.) 1910. Ocerkfiziologii slavjanskoj reci. (Enciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, 5.2.) St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk. Also in a German translation as Slavische Phonetik. Heidelberg, 1911. Broselow, Ellen. 1995. Skeletal positions and moras. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 175-205. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Broselow, Ellen, and Alice Niyondagara. 1989. Feature geometry of Kirundi palatalization. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 20: 71-88.

References

307

Browman, Catherine, and Louis Goldstein. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219-252. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonology. Phonology 6: 201-251. 1990. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, pp. 341-376. Cambridge University Press. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49: 155-180. Browne, Wayles. 1970. The Slovak rhythmic law and phonological theory. Slavica slovaca 5: 253-256. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 306-387. London and New York: Routledge. Browne, Wayles, and James McCawley. [McCawley, 1965] trans. 1973. Serbo-Croatian accent. In E. Fudge, ed., Phonology, pp. 330-335. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Translation of "Srpskohrvatski akcenat." Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 8 (1965), pp. 147-151. Brozovic, Dalibor. 1967. Some remarks on distinctive features, especially in Standard Serbo-Croatian. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, 3 vols. Vol. I, pp. 412^426. The Hague: Mouton. 1973a. O ortoepskoj vrijednosti dugog i produzenog ijekavskog jata. Jezik 20.3: 65-74; 20.4: 106-118; 20.5: 142-149. 1973b. O fonoloSkim sustavima suvremenih juznoslavenskih standardnih jezika. Makedonski jazik 24: 7-31. Bruckner, A. 1909. Zur slavischen Metathesenfrage. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung aufdem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 42: 39-52. Bubrix, D. V. 1924. Severno-kasubskaja sistema udarenija. (Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 27: 1-194.) 1926. Du systeme d'accentuation en slave commun. Revue des etudes slaves 6: 175-215. 1930. Neskol'ko slov o potoke re£i. K voprosu o proisxozdenii re£i. Bjuleten' Leningradskogo obscestva issledovatelej kul'tury finno-ugorskix narodnostej 5: 4-17. Buckley, Eugene. 1992. Kashaya laryngeal increments, complex segments, and the moraic tier. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 487^96. Bulanin, L. L. 1970. Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: VysSaja Skola. Bulaxovs'kyj, L. A. [Bulaxovskij]. 1924. AkcentologiCeskie etjudy. Juznoslovenski filolog 4: 114-150. Rpt. in Vybranipraci vpjati tomax, vol. IV (1980), pp. 11^48. [Bulachovskij]. 1925. Die Akzentzuriickziehung im Slovenischen. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 2: 400-415. 1936. Porivnjal'no-istoryCni rozvidky v dilanci ukrajins'koho naholosu. Movoznavstvo 7: 66-70. [Bulaxovskij]. 1946a. VostoCnoslavjanskie jazyki kak istoCnik rekonstrukcii obSCeslavjanskoj akcentologic'eskoj sistemy. Izvestija otdelenija literatury i jazyka Akademii Nauk 5.6: 467—477. Rpt. in Vybrani praci vpjati tomax, vol. IV (1980), pp. 234-247. 1946b. Z istory£nyx komentariv do ukrajins'koji movy. Holosni povnoho utvorennja. Naukovi zapysky Kyjivs'koho Universytetu 5.1: 89-111.

308

References

1947. Sxidnoslovjans'ki movy jak dzerelo vidbuduvannja spil'noslovjans'kqji akcentolohic'noji systemy. Movoznavstvo 4/5:7-17. [Bulaxovskij]. 1950. Akcentologiceskij kommentarij k pol'skomu jazyku. Kiev: Izd. Kievskogo Gosudarsvennogo Universiteta im. T. Sev£enko. 1951. Kurs sucasnoji ukrajins'koji literaturnoji movy. Kiev: Radjans'ka Skola. [Bulaxovskij]. 1953,1956. Akcentologiceskijkommentarijk cesskomu jazyku. Vypusk I. Kiev: Izd. Kievskogo Gosudarsvennogo Universiteta im. T. Sev£enko, 1953. Vypusk 2,1956. 1955. Narysy z istoriji ukrajins'koji movy. Do pytannja pro movu starodavn'oho Kyjeva ta KyjivSCyny. Movoznavstvo 13: 30-46. 1956. Pytannja poxodzennja ukrajins'koji movy. Kiev: Akademija Nauk. [Bulaxovskij]. 1958. Istoriceskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku. Kiev: Radjans'ka Skola. [Bulaxovskij]. 1959/1980. Sravnitel'no-istoriCeskie zametki k makedonskomu udareniju. In Vybrani praci v p'jati tomax, vol. IV (1980), pp. 496-504. Originally published in Trudy Uzbekskogo Universiteta. Novaja serija, no. 92 (1958), pp. 5-15. [Bulaxovskij]. 1959. Sravnitel'no-istoriCeskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju. Ucenye zapiski Instituta Slavjanovedenija 17: 3-72. Rpt. in Vybrani praci v pjati tomax, vol. IV (1980), pp. 393-474. [Bulaxovskij]. 1961a. Otrazenija tak nazyvaemoj novoakutovoj intonacii drevnejSego slavjanskogo jazyka v vostoCnoslavjanskix. In Issledovanija po leksikologii i grammatike russkogo jazyka, pp. 3-13. Moscow: AN SSSR. Part 1 was first published in Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2 (1958), pp. 87-92. [Bulaxovskij]. 1961b. Bolgarskij jazyk kak istoCnik dlja rekonstrukcii drevnejSej slavjanskoj akcentologic'eskoj sistemy. Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju, pp. 235-272. Moscow: AN SSSR. [Bulaxovskij]. 1975-1983. Vybrani praci v pjati tomax, ed. I. K. Bilodid, Ju. L. Bulaxovs'ka, V. A. Dybo, T. B. Lukinova, O. S. Mel'nyCuk, and O. M. TrubaCov. Vol. I: Zahal'ne movoznavstvo (1975). Vol. II: Ukrajins'ka mova (1977). Vol. Ill: Slavistyka. Rosyjs'ka mova (1978). Vol. IV: Slovjans'ka akcentolohija (1980). Vol. V: Slovjans'ka akcentolohija (1983). Kiev: Naukova Dumka. [Bulaxovskij]. 1983. Ottjazka udarenija v slovenskom jazyke. In Vybrani praci v pjati tomax, vol. V (1983), pp. 427-^37. Cairns, Charles, and Mark Feinstein. 1982. Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 193-226. Carlton, Terence R. 1974. Ukrainian ikavism as a reflex of Proto-Slavic neo-acute. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Channon, Robert. 1972. On the place of the progressive palatalization of velars in the relative chronology of Slavic. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Cekmonas, V N. [Cekman]. 1973. Genezis i evoljutsija palatal' nogo rjada v praslavjanskom jazyke. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. 1975. Akanie. Istota zjawiska i jego pochodzenie. Slavia Orientalis 3: 283-305. 1979. Issledovanija po istoriceskoj fonetike praslavjanskogo jazyka (Tipologija i rekonstrukcija). Minsk: Navuka i texnika.

References

309

1987. Territorija zarozdenija i etapy razvitija vostoCnoslavjanskogo akan'ja v svete dannyx lingvogeografii. Russian Linguistics 11: 335-349. Cekmonas, V. N. [Czekman] and Elzbieta Smulkowa. 1988. Fonetyka i fonologija jgzyka biatoruskiego z elementamifonetyki ifonologii ogdlnej. Warsaw: PWN. Chene, B., de and S. R. Anderson. 1979. Compensatory lengthening. Language 55: 505-535. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York, Harper and Row. Cernyx, P. Ja. 1952. Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: UCpedgiz. Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 223-252. 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, pp. 283-333. Cambridge University Press. 1991. Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: a unified theory. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5: 77-123. To appear in B. Laks and A. Railland, eds., LArchitecture et la geometrie des representations phonologiques. Paris: Editions du CNRS. Clements, George N., and Elizabeth V. Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 245-306. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Clements, George N., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1983. CV Phonology: a Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. University of Chicago Press. Comrie, Bernard, and Greville G. Corbett, eds. 1993. The Slavonic Languages. London and New York: Routledge. Conev, Ben'o. 1934-1940/1984-1985. Istorija na bdlgarskij ezik, 3 vols. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. 1940. Istorija na bdlgarskij ezik, 2nd posth. edn, St. Mladenov and K. Mirc'ev, eds., vol. I: Obsca cast. Sofia: Pridvorna peCatnica. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1973. Sincronia, diacronia e historia. El problema del cambio linguistico, 2nd edn, rev. and corr. Madrid: Gredos. 1979. Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie. In his Sprache: Strukturen und Funktionen; XII Aufsdtze zur allgemeinen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, with Hansbert Bertsch and Gisela Kohler, ed. Uwe Petersen, pp. 77-90. Tubingen: Narr. Originally published as Sincronia, diacronia y tipologia. In Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de Linguistica y Filologia Romdnicas, Madrid 1965, vol. I, pp. 269-283. Madrid, 1968. Cresti, Diana. 1994. Extending Sloan (1991): Complexity in syllable structure. In Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley with Tony Bures, eds., Papers on Phonology and Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, pp. 109-142. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge University Press. Czambel, Samo. 1902. Rukovdf spisovnej reci slovenskej. Tur£iansky Sv. Martin. 1906. Slovenskd rec ajej miesto v vodine slovanskych jazykov. I. Oddelenie: Osnovy a

310

References

iny material recovy. I. Ciastka: Vychodnoslovenske ndrecie. TurCiansky Sv. Martin. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1988. Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Czekanowski, Jan. 1932. Roznicowanie si$ dialektow praslowiariskich w swietle kryterjum ilosciowego. In Sbornik praci I. sjezdu slovanskych filologu v Praze 1929. II. Predndsk, pp. 485-504. Prague: Orbis. DABM - Dyjalektalahicnyj atlas belaruskaj movy, 1963, compiled by R. I. Avanesau [Avanesov] et al. Minsk: Instytut movaznaustva. DARJa - Dialektologiceskij atlas russkogo jazyka. Centr evropejskoj casti SSSR, 2, 1986-1989, compiled by R. I. Avanesov and S. V. Bromlej. Moscow: Glavnoe upravlenie geodezii i kartografii pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR. Akademija Nauk SSSR. Institut russkogo jazyka. Davis, Philip. 1970. A classification of the dissimilative jakan'e dialects of Russian. Orbis 2.19: 360-375. Dell, Francois, and Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1985. Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal ofAfrican Languages and Linguistics 7:

105-130. Dhiska, Maria. 1932. Rytm spolgloskowy polskich grup akcentowanych. (Prace Komisji Je,zykowej, 20.) Cracow: Polska Akademja UmieJQtnosci. 1947. Prozodia jqzyka polskiego. (Prace Komisji Je,zykowej, 31.) Cracow: Polska Akademja Umiej^tnosci. Also as Prozodia jgzyka polskiego. Warsaw: PWN, 1974. Dobrovsky, J. [Dobrowsky, Josephi]. 1822. Institutiones linguae slavicae dialecti veteris quum apud russos, serbos aliosque ritus graeci, turn apud dalmatas glagolitas ritus latini slavos in libris sacris obtinet. Vindobonae: Antonii Schmid. Docherty, Gerard J., and D. Robert Ladd, eds. 1992. Papers in Laboratory Phonology II. Gesture, Segment, Prosody. Cambridge University Press. Dogil, Grzegorz. 1988. Phonological configurations: natural classes, sonority and syllabicity. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, eds., Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes (Part 1), pp. 79-103. Dordrecht: Foris. Dolobko, M. 1927. NoC - nodes', osen' - osenes', zima - zimus', leto - letos'. Slavia 5: 678-717. Dresher, B. Elan, and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 251-286. Duanmu, San. 1993. Rime length, stress, and association domains. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 1-44. 1994. Syllable weight and syllable duration: a correlation between phonology and phonetics. Phonology 11: 1-24. Duma, Jerzy. 1990. Rozwoj sonantow zgloskotworczych w gwarach poludniowo-wschodniej slowianszczyzny. (Prace Slawistyczny PAN, 83.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Dunaj, Boguslaw. 1966. Wzdiuzenie zastepcze wjezykupolskim. (Zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Prace JQzykoznawcze PAN, 17.) Warsaw and Cracow: PWN. 1985. Grupy spoigioskowe wspoiczesnej polszczyzny mowionej (wjgzyku mieszkancow krakowa). (Zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Prace JQzykoznawcze PAN, 83.) Warsaw and Cracow: PWN.

References

311

Durnovo, N. N. 1902/1969. Vvedenie v istoriju russkogo jazyka. Rpt. Moscow: Nauka. 1917. Dialektologiceskie razyskanija v oblasti velikorusskix govorov. Parti. Juznovelikorusskoe narecie. Vyp. 1 and 2. Moscow: Sinod. tipog. (Trudy Postojannoj Komissii po Dialektologii Russkogo Jazyka Akademii Nauk, vyp. 6-7.) 1932a. K voprosu o vremeni raspadenija obSCeslavjanskogo jazyka. In Sbornik praci I. sjezdu slovanskych filologu v Praze 1929. II. Pfedndsky, pp. 514-526. Prague: Orbis. 1932b. Manuscrits russes distinguant l'ancien o acute et To d'une autre origine. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientarum Fennicae, Sena B. Band 27: 7-13. 1959. Ocerk istorii russkogo jazyka. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 227. The Hague: Mouton. D'urovic\ L'ubomir. 1973. Vokalicky system sloven&ny. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 22-^4-2. Dvonc\ Ladislav. 1955. Rytmicky zdkon v spisovnej slovencine. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. DvonC, L., G. Horak, F. Miko, J. Mistrik, J. Oravec, J. RuziCka, and M. UrbanCok. 1966. Morfoldgia Slovenskeho jazyka. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. DvonCova, J., G. Jen£a, and A. Krai'. 1970. Atlas slovenskych hldsok. Bratislava: SAV, t. TlaC.SNP Martin. Dybo, V. A. 1958. O drevnejSej metatonii v slavjanskom glagole. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 55-62. 1963. Ob otrazenii drevnix kolifcestvennyx i intonacionnyx otnoSenij v verxneluzickom jazyke. In L. E. Kalnyn', ed., Serbo-luzickij lingvisticeskij sbornik, pp. 54-83. Moscow: AN SSSR. 1968. O nekotoryx nejasnyx voprosax otrazenija praslavjanskix akcentno-intonacionnyx i koliCestvennyx otnoSenij v verxneluzickom jazyke. In H. Fasske and R. Lotzsch, Pfinoski k serbskemu recespytej, pp. 64-73. Bautzen: VEB Domowina. 1971. K klassifikacii srednebolgarskix akcentnyx sistem. In E. I. Demina, E. I. Zelenina, N. I. Tolstoj, and E. V. CeSko, eds., Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju, pp. 63-70. Moscow: Nauka. 1981. Slavjanskaja akcentologija. Moscow: Nauka. Dybo, V. A., and V. M. Illi£-Svityc\ 1963. K istorii slavjanskoj sistemy akcentuacionnyx paradigm. In V. V. Vinogradov, ed., Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. Vmezdunarodnyj s"jezd slavistov, pp. 70-87. Moscow: AN SSSR. Dybo, V. A., G. I. Zamjatina, and S. L. Nikolaev. 1990. Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii. Moscow: Nauka. Ebeling, C. L. 1967. Historical laws of Slavic accentuation. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, 3 vols., vol. I, pp. 577-593. The Hague: Mouton. Ekblom, R. 1918. Le developpement des voyelles originairement nasalisees dans le moyen bulgare. Le Monde Oriental 12: 177-225. 1924. Zur Cechischen und serbischen Akzentuation. Slavia 3: 35^44. 1927-1928. Zur Entwicklung der Liquidaverbindungen im Slavischen, 1-2. Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska Vetenskops-Samfundet i Uppsala 24.9 (1927), pp. 3-49; Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska Vetenskops-Samfundet i Uppsala 25 A

(1928), pp. 3-29. 1928. Le developpement de dl, tl en slave. In Symbolae grammaticae in honorem loannis Rozwadowski, vol. II, pp. 57-70. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff.

312

References

1956. Die ostslavische Pleophonie. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 24: 1-9. Endzelin, J. 1902. Izsledovanija v oblasti kaSubskago jazyka. Rossijskij filologiceskij vestnik 18 [Sbornik statej posvjaSCennyj F. F. Fortunatovu]: 530-561. Essen, Otto von. 1951. Die Silbe - ein phonologische Begriff. Zeitschrift fiir Phonologie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 199-203. Farina, Donna. 1991. Palatalization and jers in modern Russian phonology: an underspecification approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Fasske, Helmut. 1993. Pst. tert/telt-skupiny a zmSna *e do o w serbScinje. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists in Bratislava, August 30 September 9,1993. Feldstein, Ronald F. 1975. The prosodic evolution of West Slavic in the context of the neo-acute stress. Glossa 9: 63-78. 1976. Another look at Slavic liquid diphthongs. Lingua 38: 313-334. 1978. On compensatory and neo-acute lengthening in the dialects of Slavic. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3: 355-398. 1982. The relative chronology of the Slovene progressive stress shift. Slovene Studies 4.2: 91-96. 1990a. On the structural motivation for Dybo's Law. Indiana Slavic Studies 5: 43-60. 1990b. Praslovanske prozodicke pozadie vzniku rytmickeho zakona v sloven&ne. Slavica slovaca 25: 41^t9. 1994. On the evolution of jer + liquid diphthongs in Polish and West Slavic. In Charles E. Gribble, Richard Pope, Charles E. Townsend, Ronald Feldstein and Cornelius van Schooneveld, eds., James Daniel Armstrong in Memoriam, pp. 25^41. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Filin, F. P. 1962. Obrazovanie jazyka vostocnyx slavjan. Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR. 1972. Proisxozdenie russkogo, ukrainskogo i belorusskogo jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka. Firth, J. R. 1948. Sounds and prosodies. Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 127-152. Rpt. in F. R. Palmer, ed., Prosodic Analysis, pp. 1-26. Oxford University Press, 1970. 1957. Papers in Linguistics, 1934-51. Oxford University Press. Flier, Michael S. 1988. Morphophonemic consequences of the development of tense jers in East Slavic. In Alexander M. Schenker, ed., American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists. Sofia, September 1988. Linguistics, pp. 91-105. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1990. Sonorant cluster variation in Russian. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 25/26: 127-143. 1993. Final sonorant clusters in East Slavic. In Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 251-269. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Fortunatov, F. F. 1880. Zur vergleichende Betonungslehre der lituslavischen Sprachen. Archiv fiir slavische Philologie 4: 575-589. 1890. Phonetische Bemerkungen, veranlasst durch Miklosich's Etymologisches Worterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Arc hiv fiir slavische Philologie 12: 95-103.

References

313

1900. Uber die schwache stufe der uridg. -a- vocale. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung aufdem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 36: 38-54. 1919. Lekcii po fonetike staroslavjanskogo (cerkovnoslavjanskogo) jazyka. posth. edn. Petrograd: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti russkoj akademii nauk. Rpt. in Izbrannye trudy. (Also available in vol. II (1956-1957).) 1923. Ein Brief von Fortunatov. Slavia 2: 294-303. 1956-1957. Izbrannye trudy. Vol. I (1956), II (1957). Moscow: Ucpedgiz. Foster, James M. 1966. Some phonological rules of modern standard Ukrainian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Franks, Steven. 1985. Extrametricality and stress in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 144-151. 1987. Regular and irregular stress in Macedonian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 93-142. 1991. Diacritic extrametricality vs. diacritic accent: a reply to Hammond. Phonology 8: 145-161. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Fudge, E. C. 1969. Syllables. Journal ofLinguistics 5: 253-286. Furdal, A. 1961. Rozpad jezyka prasiowianskiego w swietle rozwoju glosowego. (Prace Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, series A, no. 70.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1964. O przyczynach zmian giosowych w jezyku polskim. (Prace Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, series A, no. 94.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Galton, Herbert. 1979. Syllabic division and the intonation of Common Slavic. In Harry Hollien and Patricia Hollien, eds., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 9, pp. 261-265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1980a. Teologische Sprachbetrachtung (an slavischem Material). Folia Linguistica 14: 83-102. 1980b. Uber den Sinn der slavischen offenen Silbe. In B. Brogyanyi, ed., Festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, pp. 265-281. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 11.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1988. PoCemu otkrylis' praslavjanskie slogi? In A. M. Schenker, ed., American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1988. Linguistics, pp. 141-151. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1994. The phonological influence of Altaic on Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2: 77-91. Garde, Paul. 1961. Reflexions sur les differences phonetiques entre les langues slaves. Word 17: 34-62. 1966a. Les proprietes accentuelles des morphemes serbo-croates. Scando-Slavica 12: 152-172. 1966b. Fonction des oppositions tonales dans les langues slaves du sud. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 61: 42-56. 1968. LAccent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1973. Le paradigme accentuel oxyton est-il slave commun? Revue des etudes slaves 49: 159-171. 1974. K istorii vostoCnoslavjanskix glasnyx srednego pod"ema. Voprosy jazykoznanija3: 106-115. 1976. Histoire de Vaccentuation slave. 1-2. Paris: Institut d'Etudes Slaves.

314

References

1985. Le my the de l'allongement compensatoire en ukrainien. In Jacob P. Hursky, ed., Studies in Ukrainian Linguistics in Honor of George Y. Shevelov, pp. 69-81. (The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., 39/40.) Gauthiot, R. 1900. Etudes sur les intonations serbes. Societe Linguistique de Paris. Memoires 11: 336-353. Gebauer, Jan. 1894/1963. Historicka mluvnice jazyka ceskeho. 2 vols. Prague: Ceskoslovenska Akademie VSd. Georgiev, V. I. 1963. Russkoe akanje i ego otnoSenie k sisteme fonem praslavjanskogo jazyka. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2: 3-29. 1964. ObSCeslavjanskoe znafcenie problemy akanja. Pis'mo v redakciju. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 151-152. 1968. Praslavjanskij vokalizm i problema akanja. In V. I. Georgiev, V. K. Zuravlev, F. P. Filin, and S. I. Stojkov, Obsceslavjanskoe znacenie problemy akanja, pp. 7-38. Sofia: Balgarska Akademia Nauk. Gerhardt, D. 1951. Die Fiktion der Phonetik. Zeitschriftfilr Phonologie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 5: 181 -199. Goldsmith, John. 1976/1979. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph. D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. New York: Garland Press, 1979. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1992. Local modeling in phonology. In Steven Davis, ed., Connectionism: Theory and Practice, pp. 229-246. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. Harmonic phonology. In John Goldsmith, ed., The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations, pp. 21-60. University of Chicago Press. ed., 1995. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Goldsmith, John, and Gary Larson. 1990. Local modeling and syllabification. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 129-141. Chicago Linguistics Society. GolySenko, V. S. 1962. K voprosu o ka5estve plavnogo v kornjax vosxodjaSCix k *turt, *tirt, *tult v drevnerusskom jazyke XII-XIII vv. In R. I. Avanesov, ed., Istoriceskaja grammatika i leksikologija russkogo jazyka, pp. 20-28. Moscow: AN SSSR. Gorecka, Alicja. 1988. Epenthesis and the coda constraints in Polish. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. GorSkova, K. V. 1972. Istoriceskaja dialektologija russkogo jazyka. Moscow: ProsveSCenie. Grammont, M. 1933/1965. Traite dephonetique. Paris: Delagrave. Greenberg, Joseph H., ed., 1966a. Universals of Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1966b. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 59.) The Hague: Mouton. 1974. Language Typology: a Historical and Analytic Overview. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 184.) The Hague: Mouton. 1978a. Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In Joseph H. Greenberg,

References

315

Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, eds., Universals of Human Language, vol. I: Method and Theory, pp. 61-92. Stanford University Press. 1978b. Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, eds., Universals of Human Language, vol. II: Phonology, pp. 243-280. Stanford University Press. Greenberg, Marc L. 1992. Circumflex advancement in Prekmurje and beyond. Slovene Studies 14.1: 69-91. 1994. Archaisms and innovations in the dialect of Sredisce (Southeastern Prlekija, Slovenia). Indiana Slavic Studies 7: 90-102. Greenberg, Robert. 1987. From Common Slavic to Slovenian: on the margins of Lencek's The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 285-298. Grinkova, N. P. 1925-1926. OCerki po russkoj dialektologii (I—III). Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 30: 226-267; OCerki po russkoj dialektologii (IV). Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 31: 303-326. 1950. O slu£ajax vtorogo polnoglasija v severo-zapadnyx dialektax. Trudy Instituta Russkogo Jazyka Akademii Nauk 2:211-227. Groot, A. W. van de. 1926. La syllabe: essai de synthese. Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris 27: 1^42. Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in Abstract Phonology. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 4.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1992. Back to front: non-linear palatalization and vowels in Polish. In Jacek Fisiak and Stanislaw Puppel, eds., Phonological Investigations, pp. 5-66. (Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 38.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gussmann, Edmund, and Jonathan Kaye. 1993. Notes from a Dubrovnik cafe: the yers. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3: 427^62. Gustavson, S. 1969. Accent Paradigms of the Present Tense in South Slavonic. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Gvozdanovic, Jadranka. 1980. Tone and Accent in Standard Serbo-Croatian, with a Synopsis of Serbo-Croatian Phonology. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1982. Development of tones in languages with distinctive tonal accents. In J. Peter Maher, Allan R. Brombard, and E. F. Konrad Koerner, eds., Papers from the Third International Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 39^t9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1983. On the relation between segmental and prosodic analyses. Folia Linguistica 17: 25-49. 1985. Language System and its Change: on Theory and Testability. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 30.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Hagberg, Larry. 1990. Syllabification of long vowels in Mayo. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 159-173. Chicago Linguistics Society. Hala, B. 1956. Slabika, jejipodstata a vyvoj. Prague: Ceskoslovenska Akademie VSd.

316

References

Halle, Morris. 1965. Akan'e: the treatment of unstressed, non-diffuse vowels in southern Great Russian dialects. In Symbolae Linguisticae in Honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, pp. 103-109. Cracow and Wroclaw: PolskaAkademiaNauk. Komitet J^zykoznawczy. 1971. Remarks on Slavic accentology. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 1-19. 1983. On distinctive features and their articulatory implementation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 91-105. 1987. Grids and trees in metrical phonology. In Wolfgang U. Dressier, Hans C. Luschiitzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, eds., Phonologica 1984: Proceedings of the Fifth International Phonology Meeting, Eisenstadt, 25-28 June 1984, pp. 79-93. Cambridge University Press. 1990. Respecting metrical structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 149-176. 1992. Phonological features. In William Bright, ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. Ill, pp. 207-212. Oxford University Press. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 1^6. Halle, Morris, and William Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 403-443. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Halle, Morris, and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1980. Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.83-105. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hammond, Michael. 1987. Accent, constituency, and lollipops. In Anna Bosch, Barbara Need, and Eric Schiller, eds., Twenty-third Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Part Two: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, pp. 149-166. Chicago Linguistics Society. 1989. Lexical stress in Macedonian and Polish. Phonology 6: 19-38. Hancov, V. 1923. Xarakterystyka polis'kyx dyftonhiv i Sljaxy jix fonetyCnoho rozvytku. UJcrajins'ka Akademyja Nauk. Zapysky istorycno-filolohicnoho viddilu 2/3 (1920-1922), 116-144. 1924. Dialektolohi£na kljasyfikacyja ukrajins'kyx hovoriv. Ukrajins'ka Akademyja Nauk. Zapysky istorycno-filolohicnoho viddilu 4: 80-144. Hankamer, J., and J. Aissen. 1974. The sonority hierarchy. In A. Bruck, R. A. Fox, and M. W. LaGaly, eds., Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, pp. 131-145. Chicago Linguistics Society. Harris, James. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: a Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, John. 1985. Phonological Variation and Change: Studies in Hiberno-English. Cambridge University Press. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological change. Phonology 7: 255-300. Harris, Zellig. 1944. Simultaneous components in phonology. Language 20: 181-205. Haugen, Einar. 1949. Phoneme or prosodeme? Language 25: 278-282. Havlik, A. 1889. K otazce jerove v stare ceStine. Listy filologicke 16: 45-51, 106-116, 248-258, 342-353,436-445. Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

References

317

1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In M. Niepokuj, M. Van Clay, V. Nikiforidou, and D. Feder, eds., Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11: 429-^46. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62: 321-351. 1987. A revised parametric metrical theory. In J. McDonough and B. Plunkett, eds., Proceedings of NELS 17, vol. I: 274-289. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253-306. 1990. Diphthongization and coindexing. Phonology 1: 31-71. 1994. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press. Hayes, Bruce, and Stanislaw Puppel. 1985. On the rhythm rule in Polish. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, eds., Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, pp. 59-81. Dordrecht: Foris. Hermann, Eduard. 1923. Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in dem anderem indogermanischen Sprachen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hill, Archibald. 1961. Suprasegmentals, prosodies, prosodemes. Language 37: 457-468. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1937. La syllabation en slave. In Zbornik lingvistickix i filoloskix raspravaA. Belicu, pp. 315-324. Belgrade: Mlada srbija. [Melanges linguistiques et philologiques offerts a M. Aleksandar Belie par ses amis et ses eleves a l'occasion du quarantieme anniversaire de son activite scientifique.] 1939. The syllable as a structural unit. In Edgard Blancquaert and Willem Pee, eds., Proceedings of the Third International Congress ofPhonetic Sciences, Ghent 1938, pp. 266—272. Ghent: Laboratory of Phonetics of the University. Hoard, J. E. 1971. Aspiration, tenseness and syllabification. English Language 47: 133-140. Hock, Hans H. 1986. Compensatory lengthening: in defense of the concept "mora."

Folia Linguistica 20: 431^60. Hockett, Charles. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18: 3-21. 1955. A Manual of Phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Hodge, C. T. 1958. Serbo-Croatian stress and pitch. General Linguistics 3: 43-54. Hooper, Joan B. 1972. The syllable in phonological theory. Language 48: 525-540. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Horalek, Karel. 1949. Slabika jako jazykovSdny problem. Slovo a slovesnost 11: 23-29. 1955. Uvod do studia slovanskych jazyku, 2nd edn. Prague: Ceskoslovenska Akademie VSd. 1992. An Introduction to the Study of the Slavonic Languages, 2 vols., trans. Peter Herrity. Nottingham: Astra Press. Hristova, V. 1994. Nominal vowel/zero alternations in Bulgarian and Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware. Huffman, Marie K., and Rena A. Krakow, eds. 1993. Phonetics and Phonology, vol. V: Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum. New York: Academic Press. Hujer, Oldrich. 1924. Uvod do dejin jazyka ceskeho, 2nd edn. Prague: Nakl. Jednoty Ceskych Filologu.

318

References

Hulst, Harry van der. 1989. Atoms of segmental structure: components, gestures and dependency. Phonology 6: 253-284. Hulst, Harry van der, and Norval Smith, eds. 1982. The Structure of Phonological Representations, Parti and Part II. Dordrecht: Foris. eds. 1985. Advances in Nonlinear Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. eds. 1988. Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris. Hulst, Harry van der, and Jeroen van de Weijer. 1995. Vowel harmony. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 495-534. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Hume, Elisabeth. 1992. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Hyman, Larry. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. (Publications in Language Sciences, 19.) Dordrecht: Foris. Idsardi, William. 1992. The computation of prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1994a. Optimality, alignment and Polish stress. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Boston. 1994b. Prosodic contrasts and Optimality Theory. Paper presented at the MOT Conference on Contrast in Phonology. University of Toronto. Iljinskij, G. A. 1916. Praslavjanskaja grammatika. Nezin: V. K. Melenevski. 1926. Review of O. Hujer, Uvod do dejin jazyka ceskeho. Praha 1924. In Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 31: 349-352. Ingria, Robert. 1980. Compensatory lengthening as a metrical phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 465-495. Inkelas, Sharon, and Draga Zee. 1988. Serbo-Croatian pitch accent. Language 64: 227-248. Isa£enko, A. V. 1935-1936. Der slovenische funfftissige Jambus. Slavia 14: 45-57. 1939a. Zur phonologischen Deutung der Akzentverschiebung in den slavischen Sprachen. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8: 173-183. 1939b. PokuSaj definicije svix glasovnix sistema slovenskix jezika prema odnosu samoglasniCke i suglasniCke sisteme. In Zbirka odgovora na pitanja, no. I. Ill Medunarodni Kongres Slavista, pp. 76-80. Belgrade: Izd. IzvrSnog Odbora. [Issatchenko]. 1939-1940. Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen. Linguistica Slovaca 1/2: 64-76. 1964. The morphology of the Slovak verb. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 183-201. 1966. Review of E. Pauliny, Fonologicky vyvin slovenciny (1963). Slavia 35: 121-127. 1968. Spektrografickd analyza slovenskych hldsok. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. 1974. On "have" and "be" languages (a typological sketch). In Michael S. Flier, ed., Slavic Forum: Essays in Linguistics and Literature, pp. 43-77. The Hague: Mouton. Ito, Junko. 1986/1988. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published by Garland Press, 1988.

References

319

1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 217-259. Ivanov, A. I., and E. D. Polivanov. 1930. Grammatika sovremennogo kitajskogo jazyka. Moscow: Institut Vostokovedenija imeni Narimanova pri CIK SSSR. Ivanov, V. V. 1968. Istoriceskajafonologija russko go jazyka. Moscow: ProsveSCenie. 1990. Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. 3rd rev. edn. Moscow: ProsveSCenie. Ivic, Pavle. 1958a. Die serbokroatischen Dialekte, ihre Struktur und Entwicklung. Allgemeines und die stokavische Dialektgruppe. The Hague: Mouton. 1958b. Osnovnye puti razvitija serboxorvatskogo vokalizma. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1:3-20. 1959. Die Hierarchie der prosodischen Phanomene im serbokroatischen Sprachraum. Phonetica 3.23-38. 1965a. Glavne linije razvoja prozodijskog sistema s-h. jezika. Studia z filologii polskiej i slowianskiej 5: 129-144. 1965b. Prozodijski sistem savramenog srpskohrvatskog standardnog jezika. In Symbolae Linguisticae in Honorem Georgii Kurytowicz, pp. 136-144. Cracow and Wroclaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet Je.zykoznawczy. 1974-1975. Die prosodischen Typen in den serbokroatischen Dialekten. Die Welt der Slaven 19/20: 199-209. ed. 1981. Fonoloski opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenackih i makedonskih govora obuhvacenih opsteslovenskim lingvistickim atlasom. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Posebna izdanja, knjiga LV, otdjeljenje druStvenih nauka, knjiga 9. 1987. Pravci razvoja prosodickog sistema u slovenskim jezicima. Juznoslovenski filolog 43: 1-16. Ivic, Pavle, and Use Lehiste. 1961. Some acoustic correlates of accent in SerboCroatian. Phonetica 7: 114-147. 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972. Prilozi ispitivanju fonetske i fonoloSke prirode akcenata v savremenom srpsko-hrvatskom [knjizevnom] jeziku. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 6: 31-71; 8: 75-117; 10: 55-93; 12: 115-165; 13: 225-246; 15:95-137. IvSic, Stjepan. 1911/1971. Prilog za slavenski akcenat. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti 187: 133-208. Rpt. in Izabrana djela iz slavenske akcentuacije, pp. 83-159. (Slavische Propylaen, Band 96.) Munich: Wilhelm Fink. 1913a, 1913b/1971. DanaSni posavski govor. Rad Jugoslav enske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti 196: 124-254; 197: 9-138. Rpt. in Izabrana djela iz slavenske akcentuacije, pp. 2\l-4%2 (Slavische Propylaen, Band 96.) Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Jagic, V. 1876. Uber einige Erscheinungen des slavischen Vocalismus. Archivfiir slavische Philologie 1: 337-^12. 1894. Zur Wiener Philologenversammlung. Indogermanische Forschungen 3: 251-254. 1898. Einige Streitfragen, III: zur ort-, ert- und tort-, tert- Formen. Archiv fur slavische Philologie 20: 48-53. Jakobson, Roman. 1923. O Cesskom stixe (preimuscestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim).

320

References

Berlin and Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo RSFSR. Rpt. Brown University Slavic Reprint, 6. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1969. 1926/1971. Contributions to the study of Czech accent. Slavia 4: 805-816. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 614-625. The Hague: Mouton. 1929/1971. Remarques sur revolution phonologique de russe comparee a celle des autres langues slaves. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 2. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 7-116. The Hague: Mouton. 193la/1971. Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 164-182. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 117-136. The Hague: Mouton. 1931b/1971. Phonemic notes on standard Slovak. In Studies Presented to Albert Prazak. Bratislava: Slovenska Miscellanea. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 221-230. The Hague: Mouton. 1949/1971. On the identification of phonemic entities. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhagen 5: 205-213. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I:. Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 418^425. The Hague: Mouton. 1952. On Slavic diphthongs ending in a liquid. Word 8 (Slavic Word 1): 306-310. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 443-448. The Hague: Mouton. 1958/1971. Typological studies and their contributions to historical comparative linguistics. In Eva Sivertsen, Carl Hj. Borgstr0m, Anne Gallis, Alf Sommerfelt, eds., Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 5 August 1957, pp. 17-25, discussion pp. 25-35. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 523-532. The Hague: Mouton. 1963. Opyt fonologiCeskogo podxoda k istoriCeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii. Pozdnij period slavjanskoj jazykovoj praistorii. In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress ofSlavists, vol. I: Linguistic Contributions, pp. 153-178. The Hague: Mouton. Also in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 664-689. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. 1965/1971. Information and redundancy in the Common Slavic prosodic pattern. In Symbolae Linguisticae in Honorem Georgii Kuryiowicz. Cracow and Wroclaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet J^zykoznawczy. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 693-699. The Hague: Mouton. ed. 1975. N. S. Trubetzkoy's Letters and Notes. Prepared for publication by Roman Jakobson, with the assistance of H. Baran, O. Ronen, and M. Taylor. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 47.) The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Jakobson, Roman, G. Fant, and M. Halle. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: the Distinctive Features and their Correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. 1956a/1971. Phonology and phonetics. In their Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 464-504. The Hague: Mouton. 1956b. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. 1964/1971. Tenseness and laxness. In D. Abercrombie D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott and J. L. M. Trim, eds., In Honour of Daniel Jones, pp. 96-101.

References

321

London: Longman. Rpt. in Selected Writings, vol. I: Phonological Studies, 2nd exp. edn., pp. 550-555. The Hague: Mouton. Jaksche, H. 1962. Probleme der slovenischen Akzentforschung. Die Welt der Sloven 7: 97-103. 1965. Slavische Akzentuation, II. Slovenisch. Wiesbaden: Bibliotheca Slavica. Jakubinskij, L. P. 1953. Istorija drevnerusskogo jazyka. Moscow: UCpedgiz. JakuSau, E. G. 1973. Ab akustyfcnyx xarakterystykax nacisku u belaruskaj move. Belaruskaja lingvistyka 4: 16-21. Janin, V. L., and A. A. Zaliznjak. 1993. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste. Iz raskopok 1984-1989 godov. Moscow: Nauka. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner. Kacnel'son, S. D. 1983. Lingvistic'eskaja tipologija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 9-20; 4: 19-34. Kager, Rene. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381^32. 1995. The metrical theory of word stress. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 367-402. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. Kalnyn', L. E. 1962. Korreljacija tverdyx i mjagkix fonem v ukrajinskom jazyke. Udenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenijaANSSSR 23: 63-102. 1970. Iz istorii nizneluzickogo vokalizma. In L. E. Kalnyn', ed., Issledovanijapo serboluzickimjazykam, pp. 3 ^ 3 . Moscow: Nauka. Kalnyn', L. E., and L. I. Maslennikova. 1985. Opyt izucenija sloga v slavjanskix dialektax. Moscow: Nauka. Karskij, E. F. 1955. Belorusy. Jazyk belorusskogo naroda, 1: Istorideskij oderk zvukov belorusskogo jazyka. Moscow: AN SSSR. Kaye, Jonathan. 1989. Phonology: a Cognitive View. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaye, Jonathan D., and Jean Lowenstamm. 1981. Syllable structure and markedness theory. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi, eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, pp. 287-315. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. 1984. De la syllabicite. In F. Dell, D. Hurst, and J.-R. Vergnaud, eds., Forme sonore du langage, pp. 123-159. Paris: Hermann. Kaye, Jonathan D., Jean Lowenstamm, and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1985. The internal structure of phonological segments: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 303-326. Keating, Patricia. 1983. Comments on the jaw and syllable structure. Journal of Phonetics 11: 401-406. ed. 1994. Papers in Laboratory Phonology III. Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form. Cambridge University Press. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1970. On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3: 73-113.

322

References

1972. The morphophonemics of the Slovak noun. Papers in Linguistics 5: 550-567. 1974. Inflectional accent of the Serbo-Croatian noun. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 4:80-106. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory. New York: Academic Press. 1979. Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63:463-497. Kingston, John, and Mary E. Beckman, eds. 1990. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge University Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. The inflectional accent in Indo-European. Language 45: 794-849. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 421^142. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 640-670. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291-306. Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1964. Gramatyka historyczna j^zyka polskiego. Warsaw: PWN. KoCubinskij, A. A. 1877, 1878. K voprosu o vzaimnyx otnoSenijax slavjanskix nareCij. Osnovnaja vokalizacija plavnyx soCetanij kons. + 1, r + i>-b + kons. Zapiski Imperatorskogo Novorossijskogo Universiteta 23: 1-222,25: 1-90. 1882. Itogi slavjanskoj i russkoj filologii. Zapiski Imperatorskogo Novorossijskogo Universiteta 33: 237-^76. Kolesov, V. V. 1963. Razvitie vtorogo polnoglasija v russkix severno-zapadnyx govorax. Ucenie zapiski LGU. Serijafilologiceskixnauk6S, no. 322: 148-159. 1964. O nekotoryx osobennostjax fonologic'eskoj modeli razvivajuSCej akanje. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 66-79. 1968. K fonetic'eskoj xarakteristike reducirovannyx glasnyx v russkom jazyke XI v. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 80-86. 1972. Istorija russkogo udarenija. 1. Imennaja akcentuacija v drevner usskom jazyke. Leningrad: Izd. Leningradskogo Universiteta. 1979. Otnositel'naja xronologija prosodiCeskix izmenenij v praslavjanskom. In S. D. Kacnel'son, ed., Issledovanija v oblasti sravniteVnoj akcentologii indoevropejskix jazykov, pp. 111-142. Leningrad: Nauka. Kolomijec', V. T. 1962. Sporidnenist'slovjans'kyxmov. Kiev: Radjans'ka Skola. 1963. Vzaimodejstvie fonematiceskoj i prosodiceskoj sfer v istorii zvukovyx izmenenij slavjanskix jazykov. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. V mezdunarodnyjs"jezd slavistov. Kiev:ANURSFR. 1986. Fonetyka. In A. S. Mel'niCuk, ed., Istoriceskaja tipologija slavjanskix jazykov, pp. 23^46. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Komarek, M. 1973. Kontrakce v CeStinS, slovenStinS a ostatnih zapadoslovanskych jazycich. In Ceskoslovenske pfedndsky pro VII mezindrodni sjezd slavistu (ve Varsave 1973), pp. 15-27. Prague: Lingvistika. KondraSov, N. A. 1955. Slavjanskie jazyki. Moscow: UCpedgiz. Koneczna, Halina. [Kone£na].1958. Assimiljacija i dissimiljacija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3:90-95.

References

323

1961-1962. Samogloski nosowe w JQzykach slowiariskich. Zbornik matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 4-5. 175-180. 1965. Charakterystykafonetyczna jazyka polskiego. Warsaw: PWN. Koneski, Blaze. 1965. Istorija na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje: Ko£o Racin. 1983. A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Koneski, Bozidar. 1976. Gramatika na makedonskiot liter atur en jazik. Skopje: Kultura. KopeCny, Fr. 1949-1950. K otazce klasifikace slovanskych jazyku. Slavia 19: 1-12. Kortlandt, F. 1975. Slavic Accentuation: a Study in Relative Chronology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. 1976. The Slovene neo-circumflex. Slavonic and East European Review 54: 1-10. 1978a. A history of Slavic accentuation (review of Garde 1976). Lingua 44: 67-91. 1978b. On the history of Slavic accentuation. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 269-281. 1979. On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 259-272. 1982a. Sravnitel'no-istoriCeskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 25: 91-96. 1982b. Review of J. Marvan, Prehistoric Slavic Contraction (1979). Lingua 56: 98-100. 1982c. Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic, I. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 2: 177-192. 1983. Linguistic theory, universals, and Slavic accentuation. Folia Linguistica Historical 27-43. 1989. Der polabische Wortakzent. Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 49: 163-179. Koschmieder, E. 1958. Schwund und Vokalisation der Halbvokale im Ostslavischen.

DieWeltderSlaven3: 124-137. Kostruba, P. P. 1969. Fonolohi&ia systema ukrajins'koji literaturnoji movy. In I. K. Bilodid, ed., Sucasna ukrajins'ka literaturna mova, pp. 218-260. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Kovalyk, I. I. 1973. Pro dovhi pryholosni fonemy v su£asnij ukrajins'kij literaturni movi. VisnykL'vivs'koho Universytetu. Serijafilolohicna 8: 3-12. Kozevnikov, V. A., and L. A. Cistovic\ eds. 1965. Rec': artikuljacija i vosprijatie. Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka. Kraj£ovic\ Rudolf. 1974. Slovencina a slovanske jazyky: praslovanskd geneza slovenciny. Bratislava: Slovenske pedagogicke nakladatel'stvo. 1915. A Historical Phonology of the Slovak Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Krai, Josef. 1909. Ceskdprosodie. Prague: J. Otty. Kramsky, Jifi. 1966. On the phonological law of incompatibility of free quantity and free stress. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2: 133-145. Kucera, Henry. 1961. The Phonology of Czech. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 30.) The Hague: Mouton. Kudrjavceva, Valentina. 1991. Struktura sloga v sostave russkix mnogosloznyx prilagatel'nyx. Katowice: Silezskij Universitet. Kul'bakin, S. M. 1903. K istorii i dialektologii pol'skogo jazyka. Sbornik otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti, 73, pp. 1-224. 1906. Zametki o slovjanskom koliCestve i udarenii. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 11: 245-317.

324

References

1911-12. Drevne-cerkovnoslavjanskij jazyk, 2 vols. Xarkiv: Tipografija i litografija M. Zil'berberga and S-vja. Kuraszkiewicz, W. 1931. Z badari nad gwarami polnocnomaloruskiemi. Rocznik Slawistyczny 10: 175-209. 1932a. Nowe problemy w badaniach nad samogloskami nosowemi w je.zykach slowiariskich. In Sbornik praci I. sjezdu slovanskych filologu v Praze 1929. II. Predndsky, pp. 561-571. Prague: Orbis. 1932b. Studia nadpolskiemi samogloskami nosowemi. Rezonans nosowy. (Rozprawy Wyddzialu Filologicznego Polskiej Akademii Umieje.tnosci, 63.3.) Cracow: Polska Akademia Umieje,tnosci. 1934. Gramoty halicko-woiynskie XIV-XV wieku. Studium jezykowe. Cracow: Prace Polskiego Towarzystwa dla Badari Europy Wschodniej i Bliskiego Wschodu, 7. 1955. Ugrupowanie je,zykow wschodnioslowiariskich. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jgzykoznawczego 14: 92-102. Kurylo, O. 1928a. Sproba pojasnyty proces zminy e, o v novyx zakrytyx skladax u pivdennij hrupi ukrajins'kyx dialektiv. (Zbirnyk no. 80.) Kiev: Istory£no-Filolohi£nyj Viddil Vseukrajins'koji Akademiji Nauk. 1928b. Do pytannja pro umovy rozvytku dysymiljatyvnoho akannja. Zapysky istorycno-filolohicnoho viddilu Ukrajins'koji Akademiji Nauk 16: 48-72. 1932. Les voyelles o et e en ukrainien et leur transformation dans les syllabes fermees nouvelles. Revue des etudes slaves 12: 77-88. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1931. Le probleme des intonations balto-slaves. Rocznik Slawistyczny 10: 1-80. 1948/1960. Contribution a la theorie de la syllabe. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jgzykoznawczego 8: 80-114. Rpt. in Esquisses linguistiques, pp. 193-220. (Prace J^zykoznawcze, 19.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1952a. Uwagi o polskich grupach spolgloskowych. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jgzykoznawczego 11: 54-69. Rpt. in Esquisses linguistiques, pp. 221-232. (Prace Je,zykoznawcze, 19.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1960. 1952b. Akcentuacja slowiriska (pomorska). Rocznik Slawistyczny 17: 1-18. 1955. Akcentuacja polabska. Studia zfilologiipolskiej i siowianskiej 1: 349-374. 1956. Lapophonie en indo-europeen. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1957/1987.0 jednosci JQzykowej balto-siowianskiej. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jgzykoznawczego 16: 71-113. Rpt. in Studia jgzykoznawcze, pp. 355-397. Warsaw: PWN. 1958a. Uaccentuation des langues indo-europeennes, 2nd edn. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1958b. Na marginesie ostatniej syntezy akcentuacji siowianskiej. Rocznik Slawistyczny 20: 40-53. 1960. L'intonation "neodouce" et l'accentuation en Slovene. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 3: 79-88. [KuryloviC]. 1962. O nekotoryx fikcijax sravnitel'nogo jazykoznanija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 31-36. Kuznecov, P. S. 1951. Review of A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparee des langues slaves, vol. I (1950). Izvestija Otdelenija Literatury i Jazyka Akademii Nauk SSSR. 10: 393^03.

References

325

1958. O povedenii sonantov na granice osnov glagolov III i IV klassov v slavjanskix jazykax. Slavjanskajafilologija 3: 5-37. 1964. K voprosu o proisxozdenii akan'ja. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 30-41. Lahiri, Aditi, and Jaques Koreman. 1988. Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 217-228. Lamontagne, Gregory A. 1993. Syllabification and consonant cooccurrence conditions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Lamprecht, A. 1956. Neskol'ko zameCanij o razvitii fonetiCeskoj sistemy praslavjanskogo jazyka. Sbornikpracifilosofickefakulty Brn$nske university, RadaA, Rodnik

5,4:19-23. 1966. Vyvoj fonologickeho systemu ceskeho jazyka. Brno: Universita Filosoficka Fakulta. Spisy, 117. 1973. K chronologii foneticko-fonologickych zm6n v praslovanStine. Slovo a slovesnost 34: 115-122. 1987. Praslovanstina. Brno: Universita j . e. PurkynS. Lamprecht, ArnoSt, Dusan Slosar, and Jaroslav Bauer. 1977. Historicky vyvoj ceStiny: hlaskoslovf, tvaroslovf, skladba. Prague: Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi. Larson, Gary N. 1990. Local computational networks and the distribution of segments in the Spanish syllable. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers From the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 257-272. Chicago Linguistics Society. Laskowski, Roman. 1975. Studia nad morfonologiq wspolczesnego jazyka polskiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Laubstein, Ann S. 1988. The nature of the "production grammar" syllable. Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University. Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1980. A metrical analysis of length. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 497-509. 1982. Metrical or autosegmental? In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part I and Part II, pp. 177-190. Dordrecht: Foris. Lehiste, Use, and Pavle Ivic. 1963. Accent in Serbo-Croatian: an Experimental Study. (Michigan Slavic Materials, 4.) Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. 1967. Some problems concerning the syllable in Serbo-Croatian. Glossa 1/2: 126-136. 1973. Interaction between tone and quantity in Serbo-Croatian. Phonetica 28: 182-190. 1982. The phonetic nature of the Neo-Stokavian accent shift in Serbo-Croatian. In J. Peter Maher, Allan R. Brombard, and E. F. Konrad Koerner, eds., Papers from the Third International Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 197-206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1986. Word and Sentence Prosody in Serbocroatian. (Current Studies in Linguistics, 13.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

326

References

Lehiste, Use, and K. Popov. 1970. Akustische Analyse bulgarischer Silbenkerne. Phonetica2l:4&-4%. Lehr-Splawiriski, T. 1917. Ze studjow nad akcentem slowiariskim. Cracow: Naklad. Akademii Umiej^tnosci. 1918a. O prastowiariskiej metatonji. (Prace Komisji Je.zykowej, 3.) Cracow: Akademia Umiej^tnosci. Rpt. in Studia i szkice wybrane, pp. 52-95. Warsaw: PWN. 1918b. Slady dawnych rdznic intonacyjnych w je,zykach ruskich (z powodu prac Szachmatowa, Rozwadowskiego i Endzelina). Rocznik Slawistyczny 8: 250-264. 1921. Stosunki pokrewieristwa je,zykdw ruskich. Rocznik Slawistyczny 9: 23-71. 1923. De la stabilisation de l'accent dans les langues slaves de l'ouest. Revue des etudes slaves 3: 173-192. 1926. Les voyelles nasals dans les langues lechites. Revue des etudes slaves 11: 54-65. 1928. Najstarsze prastow. prawo cofania akcentu. In Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol. II, pp. 85-100. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff. 1929. Gramatyka polabska. Lviv: Nakad. K. S. Jakubowskiego. 1931. O t.z.w. "przestawce plynnych" w j^zykach slowiariskich. Rocznik Slawistyczny 10: 116-137. 1932a. O dialektach praslowiariskich. In Sbornik praci I. Sjezdu slovanskychfilologu v Praze 1929. II. Predndsky, pp. 577-585. Prague: Orbis. 1932b. O mieszaniu praslowiariskich polaczeri telt z tolt w j^zykach pdlnocnoslowiariskich. Prace filologiczne 15: 345-361. 1955. Problem ugrupowania j^zykow slowiariskich. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jezykoznawczego 14: 112-121. 1963. Z rozwazari o powstaniu akcentuacji polabskiej. Studia z filologii polskiej i siowianskiej 4: 73-102. Lekomceva, M. I. 1968a. Tipologija struktur sloga v slavjanskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka. 1968b. K tipologii fonologiCeskix struktur slova v slavjanskix jazykax. In V. V. Vinogradov, S. B. BernStejn, and N. I. Tolstoj, eds., Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. VI mezdunarodnyj s"jezd slavistov, pp. 277-295. Moscow: Nauka. Lekomceva, M. I., D. M. Segal, D. M. Sudnik, T. M. Sur, and S. M. Sur. 1963. Opyt postroenija fonologiCeskoj tipologii blizkorodstvennyx jazykov. In V. V. Vinogradov, ed., Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. V mezdunarodnyj s"jezd slavistov, pp. 423^476. Moscow: AN SSSR. Lencek, Rado. 1982. The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Lepskaja, N. 1.1968.0 fonologiCeskoj interpretacii slogodelenija (po dannym afazii). In V. A. Zvegincev, ed., Semanticeskie i fonologiceskie problemy prikladnoj lingvisti/ci, pp. 232-240. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Leskien, A. 1879. Review of Fr. Miklosich, Ueberden Ursprung der Worte von derForm altslov. trut. Review of Fr. Miklosich, Ueber den Ursprung der Worte von der Form altslov. tret und trat. Review of Fr. Miklosich, Ueber die Steigerung und Dehnung der Vocale in den slavischen Sprachen. Archivfur slavische Philologie 3: 696-713.

References

327

1888-1893. Untersuchungen uber Quantitat und Betonung in den slavischen Sprachen. Koniglich Sdchsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Abhandlungen derphilologisch-historischenKlasse 10: 69-220; 13: 527-610. 1899. Untersuchungen iiber Betonungs- und Quantitatsverhaltnisse in den slavischen Sprachen. Archivfiir slavische Philologie 21: 321-398. 1909. Grammatik der altbulgarischen Sprache. 1st edn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1914. Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1919. Grammatik der altbulgarischen Sprache. 2nd, 3rd edns. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1989. The autonomy of the skeleton: evidence from Micronesia. Ms. University of Texas at Austin. Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249-336. Lightner, Theodore M. 1966. On descriptions of Common Slavic phonology. Slavic Review 24: 679-686. 1972. Problems in the Theory of Phonology, vol. I. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Lindblom, B. 1983. Economy of speech gestures. In P. F. MacNeilage, ed., The Production of Speech, pp. 217-245. New York: Springer. Lindstedt, Jouko. 1991. The notational fallacy in CS phonology. Scando-Slavica 37: 108-122. Lorentz, F. 1903. Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Commissionaires de l'Academie imperiale des sciences. 1919. Kaschubische Grammatik. Gdansk: Gedania. 1927-1937. Gramatykapomorska, 5 vols. Poznari: Gebethner and Wolff. Los, J. 1922. Gramatykapolska, vol. I: Glosownia historycma. Lviv: Ossolineum. 1928. Prsl. *tort > pol. *turot? In Symbolae grammaticae in honorem loannis Rozwadowski, vol. II, pp. 373-380. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff. Ludtke, H. 1959. Das prosodische System des Urslavischen und seine Weiterentwicklung im Serbokroatischen. Phonetica (supplementum ad vol. 4): 125-156. Lunt, Horace G. 1952. Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje: DrZavno knigoizdatelstvo na NR Makedonija. 1956. On the origin of phonemic palatalization in Slavic. In For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 11 October 1956, compiled by Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, Hugh McLean and Cornelius H. van Schooneveld, pp. 306-315. The Hague: Mouton. 1963. On the study of Slavic accentuation. Word 19: 82-99. 1974. Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 6th edn., rev. with an epilogue. The Hague: Mouton. 1987. The progressive palatalization of early Slavic: opinions, facts, methods. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 251-290.

328

References

1990. The progressive palatalization [of] Early Slavic: evidence from Novgorod. Folia Historica Linguistica 10.1-2: 35-59. 1992. Common Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Pan-Slavic: what are we talking about? Ms. to appear in International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics. 1993. From late Indo-European to Common Slavic phonology. In Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress ofSlavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 363-376. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Luschiitzky, Hans Christian, and Johannes M. Reinhart. 1991. Vokalprozesse im Polabischen - Akzentunabhangige Reduktionen? Phonetica Francofortensia 5: 51-66. Lytkin, V. I. 1965. E§£e k voprosu o proisxoZdenii russkogo akanja. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 44-52. Magner, Thomas F., and Ladislav Matejka. 1971. Word Accent in Modern SerboCroatian. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. MaksymovyC, M. 1839/1880. Istorija drevnej russkoj slovesnosti. In Sobranie sodinenij, vol. Ill: Jazykoznanie. Istorija slovesnosti, pp. 346-479. Kiev: E. T. Kerer. 1850. O vaZnejSix osobennostjax luzickix nareCij. Razsuzdenie Ev. Novikova, M. 1849 g. v 8-ku, str. 136. Moskvitjanin 1.4: 19-28. Malkova, O. V. 1966. K istorii reducirovannyx glasnyx ii i i v juznyx govorax drevnerusskogo jazyka. Izvestija Otdelenija Literatury i Jazyka Akademii Nauk 23.3: 240-246. 1981. O principe delenija reducirovannyx glasnyx na sil'nye i slabye v pozdnem praslavjanskom i v drevnix slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 98-111. MareS, F. V. 1956/1965. The Origin of the Slavic Phonological System and its Development up to the End of Slavic Language Unity, trans. J. F. Snopek and A. Vitek. (Michigan Slavic Materials, 6.) Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Originally published as "Vznik slovanskeho fonologickeho systemu a jeho vyvoj do konce obdobi slovanske jazykove jednoty," Slavia 25: 443^95. 1969. Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Fru'h- slavischen. (Slavistische Beitrage, Band 40.) Munich: O. Sagner. 1980. Die Tetrachotomie und doppelte Dichotomie der slavischen Sprachen. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 24: 33—45. Markov, V. M. 1961. K istorii soCetanij reducirovannyx s plavnymi v russkom jazyke. Naudnye doklady vyssej Skoly. Filologiceskie nauki 4: 117-123. 1964. K istorii reducirovannyx glasnyx v russkom jazyke. Kazan': Izd. Kazanskogo Universiteta. Martinet, A. 1952. Langues a syllabes ouvertes: le cas du slave commun. Zeitschrift fiir Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 6.3/4: 145-163. 1955. Economie des changementsphonetiques. Berne: Francke. Marvan, Jiri. 1979. Prehistoric Slavic Contraction, trans. Wilson Gray. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Masing, Leonhard. 1876. Die Hauptformen des serbisch-chorwatischen Accents. Memoires de VAcademie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersburg, 7th series, vol. 23, no. 5.

References

329

Matthews, W. K. 1957-1958. The phonetic basis of pleophony in East Slavonic. Slavonic and East European Review 36: 94-99. McCarthy, John. 1979/1985. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published by Garland Press, 1985. 1986. OCP effects: gemination and anti-gemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 207-263. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43: 84-108. McCarthy, John, and A. Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209-283. 1993. Prosodic morphology, I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Rutgers University. To be published by MIT Press. Meillet, A. 1902. O nekotoryx anomalijax udarenija v slavjanskix imenax. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 48: 193-222. 1906. Sur l'initiale des mots vieux slaves ese et a. In V. I. Lamanskij, ed., Statji po slavjanovedeniju, 2, pp. 387-391. St. Petersburg: ImperatorskajaAkademijaNauk. 1921. De l'unite slave. Revue des etudes slaves 1: 7-14. 1922. Des innovations caracteristiques du phonetisme slave. Revue des etudes slaves 2: 206-213. 1924/1965. Le Slave commun. 2nd edn. rev. and aug. Paris: Champion. Mel'nyCuk, O. S. 1966. Vstup doporivnal'no-istorydnoho vyvcennja slovjans'kyx mov. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. [Mel'mCuk, A. S.], ed. 1986. Istoriceskaja tipologija slavjanskix jazykov. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Melvold, Janis. 1989. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mester, R. Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.1: 1-61. Meyer, E. A. 1898. Die Silbe. Die Neueren Sprache 6: 479-494. Micklesen, L. R. 1986. Polabian accentology. Wiener Slavistischer Almanach 17: 365-381. Mikkola, J. J. 1903. Baltisches und Slavisches. Helsinki: Sonderabdruck aus Finska Vetenskaps-Societatens forhandlingar, 45.4. 1913. Urslavische Grammatik, vol. I: Vokalismus. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1921. La question des syllabes ouvertes en slave commun. Revue des etudes slaves 1: 15-19. 1942. Urslavische Grammatik, vol. II: Konsonantismus. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Miklosich, F. 1875-1883. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, 4 vols., 2nd edn. Vienna: W. Braumuller. 1877. Uber den Ursprung der Worte von der Form aslv. trut. Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historisch Klasse 27: 261-307. 1878. Uber den Ursprung der Worte von der Form aslv. tr6t und trat. Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historisch Klasse 28: 1-52.

330

References

1879. Uber die langen Vokale in den slavischen Sprachen. Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historisch Klasse 29: 75-140. Milewski, Tadeusz. 1931. O powstaniu praslowiariskich samoglosek nosowych. Rocznik Slawistyczny 10: 80-115. 1932. Rozwqj fonetyczny wyglosu praslowiariskigo. Slavia 11: 1-32; 2: 225-264. 1934. O zastQpstwie ps. grup tart, talt, tert, telt w je.zykach lechickich. Slavia Occidentalis 12: 96-120. 1956. Review of A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparee des langues slaves, vol. I (1950). Rocznik Slawistyczny 18: 39-87. 1969. Zasie.g terytorialny slowianskiej przestawki pfynnych. In his Z zagadnien jgzykoznawstwa ogotnego i historycznego, ed. Jan Safarewicz and Franciszek Slawski, pp. 327-341. Warsaw: PWN. MirCev, K. 1963. Istoriceska gramatika na bdlgarskija ezik, 2nd edn. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Mladenov, M. S. 1963. Dalgi glasni v bslgarskija ezik. Ezik i literatura 18.6: 23-28. Mladenov, S. 1929. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. 1935. Istorija na bdlgarskijat ezik. Sofia: Fakel. MoguS, Milan. 1971. Fonoloski razvoj hrvatskogjezika. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska. Moiseev, A. I. 1975. Tipologija slogov v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 109-115. Moszyriski, L. [MoSinskij]. 1965. K fonologii prosodiCeskix elementov v slavjanskix jazykax (o fonologiCeskoj nerelevantnosti izolirovannogo prosodi£eskogo priznaka). Voprosy jazykoznanija 2: 3-14. Mucke, K. E. 1891/1965. Historische und vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der Niedersorbischen (Niederlausitzisch-wendischen) Sprache. Preisschriftenfurstlich jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Nr. 28 der historisch-nationalokonomischen Sektion. Rpt. Zentral Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Murray, Robert. 1988. Phonological Strength and Early Germanic Syllable Structure. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Murray, Robert, and Theo Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59: 514-528. Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 485-518. 1991. Persistent rules. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 315-344. Nahtigal, Rajko. 1938/1952. Slovanski jeziki I. 2nd corn edn. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Filosofska Fakulteta. Originally published in 1938. Nazarova, T. V. 1975. Zaminne podovzennja v ukrajins'komu areali na tli sxidnoslovjans'kyx prosodyCnyx peretvoren'. Movoznavstvo 6: 22-32. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Newton, B. E. 1971. Modern Greek postconsonantal yod. Lingua 26: 132-170. Ni Chiosain, Maire. 1994. The representation of place features. Phonology 11.89-106. Nonnenmacher-Pribic, E. 1961. Die baltoslavischen Akzent- und Intonationsverhdltnisse und ihr quantitativer Reflex im Slovakischen. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Novak, L'udovit. 1933-1934. Fonologia a Studium sloven£iny. Slovenskd rec 2: 97-107, 143-157, 161-171.

References

331

Odden, David. 1986. On the role of the Obligatory Contour Principle in phonological theory. Language 62: 353-383. 1988. Anti antigemination and the OCR Linguistic Inquiry 19:451^475. 1991. Vowel geometry. Phonology 8: 261-290. 1995. Tone: African languages. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 444^475. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Ohala, John and W. G. Ewan. 1973. Speed of pitch change. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica 53: 345. Olesch, R. 1968. Bibliographie zum Dravaeno-Polabischen. Cologne and Graz: Bohlau. 1973. Der dravanopolabische Wortakzent. Teil 1. In Johannes Holthusen, ed., Slavische Studien zum VII Internationalen Slavistenkongress, pp. 389^18. Munich: Trofenik. 1974. Der dravaenopolabische Wortakzent. Teil II. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 13.) Mainz and Wiesbaden: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. 1979. Je,zyk drzewian polabskich. Prace j^zykoznawcze, 63. Zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego 532: 7-21. Osten-Sacken, W. 1912. Zur slawischen Liquidametathese. Archiv fiir slavische Philologie 33: 1-7. Padgett, Jaye. 1994. Stricture and nasal place assimilation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:465-513. Padluzny, A. F. 1969. Fanalahicnaja sistema belaruskaj literaturnaj movy. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. PaduCeva, E. V. 1958. Opredelenie sloga metodami teorii informacii. In L. R. Zinder, ed., Voprosy statistiki reci: materialy sovescanija, pp. 100-111. Leningrad: Izd. Leningradskogo Universiteta. Paradis, Carole. 1988. On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6: 71-97. Paradis, Carole, and Jean-Francois Prunet, eds. 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. (Phonetics and Phonology, vol. 2.) New York: Academic Press. Pauliny, Eugen. 1961. Fonologia spisovnej slovenciny. Bratislava: Slovenske pedagogicke nakladatel'stvo. 1963. Fonologicky vyvin slovenciny. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. 1979. Slovenskdfonologia. Bratislava: Slovenske pedagogicke nakladatel'stvo. Peciar, Stefan. 1939. Otazka metathese likvid a klasifikace slov. jazykii. Casopis pro modernifilologii 25: 272-285. 1941. Vznik praslovan. slabiCnych likvid 1, r. Linguistica Slovaca 3: 49-53. 1946a. Slovenska kvantita a rytmicky zakon. Slovenskd rec 12.5/6: 137-152. 1946b. K otazke fonologi£keho pomeru i a j v sloven£ine. Linguistica Slovaca 4-6: 107-120. 1952. Kriticky prehl'ad prac o tzv. metateze likvid. Jazykovedny sbornik 6: 59-93. 1963. Pravidld slovenskeho pravopisu. 4th edn. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. Pedersen, H. 1905. Die nasalprasentia und der slavische Akzent. Zeitschrift fur verglei-

332

References

chende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 38: 297^421. Phillips, Colin. 1994. Are feature hierarchies autosegmental hierarchies? In Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley with Tony Bures, eds., Papers on Phonology and Morphology, pp. 173-226. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21.) Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Piggott, G. L. 1991. Apocope and the licensing of empty-headed syllables. The Linguistic Review 8: 287-318. Pike, K., and E. Pike. 1947. Immediate constituents of Mazateco syllables. International Journal of American Linguistics 13: 78-91. Piotrowski, Marek. 1992. Polish yers in non-linear phonology. In Wolfgang U. Dressier, Hans C. Luschutzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, eds., Phonologica 1988: Proceedings of the Sixth International Phonology Meeting, pp. 215-227. Cambridge University Press. PleterSnik, M. 1894-1895. Slovensko-nemSki slovar. 2 vols. Ljubljana: KnezoSofijstvo. KatoliSka tiskarnia Antona Alojzija Wolfa. Polariski, Kazimierz. 1982. Some remarks on the development of jers in Polabian. In K. Naylor, H. Aronson, B. Darden, and A. Schenker, eds., Studies for Edward Stankiewicz on his Sixtieth Birthday 17 November 1980, pp. 379-381. (International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 25/26.) 1993. Polabian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 795-824. London and New York: Routledge. Polariski, Kazimierz, and J. A. Sehnert. 1967. Polabian-English Dictionary. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 61.) The Hague: Mouton. Porzeziriski, W. K. 1902. Zametki po jazyku polabskix slavjan. Ot£et o pojezdke v Germaniju letom 1901 goda. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 1: 192-203. 1911. Die baltischslavische Sprachgemeinschaft. Rocznik Slawistyczny 4: 1-26. 1912. Oderk sravnitel'noj fonetiki drevne-indijskago, greceskago, latinskago i staroslavjanskago jazykov. Moscow: KuSnerev. 1914. Sravnitel'naja grammatika slavjanskix jazykov. Vyp. 1. Vvedenie. OMceslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Tipolitografija T-va I. N. 1. Potebnja, A. A. 1866. Dva issledovanija o zvukax russkogo jazyka. I. O polnoglasii. II. O zvukovyx osobennostjax russkix nareCij. Filologiceskie zapiski 1864-1865. 1874. Zametki po istoriCeskoj grammatike russkogo jazyka. V: Gluxie zvuki u i I pri plavnyx r, 1 me2du dvumja soglasnymi. Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 172: 103-127. VI: Dva u ili I po obe storony r ili 1 me2du drugimi soglasnymi. 172: 372-389. VII: Pervoe polnoglasie. 175: 253-269. 1876. K istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka. VII. Pervoe polnoglasie (oro = ra i pr.). Filologiceskie zapiski 15.110-127. [This volume includes a corrected and expanded reprint of material published in the Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvesdenija for 1873 and 1874 as "Zametki po istoriCeskoj grammatike russkogo jazyka" under the title "K istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka" on pp. 1-127.] 1878. Zametki o malorusskom narecii. Razbor so£inenija R. Ziteckogo, Ocerk zvukovoj istorii malorusskogo narecija (Kiev 1876). Addendum to Zapiski ImperatorskojAkademii Nauk 33: 764-839.

References

333

1879. Ueber einige Erscheinungsarten des slavisches Palatalismus. Archiv fur slavischePhilologie 3: 358-381; 594-614. Price, P. J. 1980. Sonority and syllabicity: acoustic correlates of perception. Phonetica 37: 327-343. Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 388-451. London and New York: Routledge. Prince, Alan. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511-562. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19-100. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 355-398. Chicago Linguistics Society. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and the University of Colorado at Boulder. To be published by MIT Press. Prokopova, L. I. 1958. Pryholosni fonemy sudasnoji ukrajins'koji literaturnoji movy. Kiev: Vyd. Kyjivs'koho derzavnoho universytetu. Pulgram, E. 1970. Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton. RamovS, F. 1921. O slovenskem novoakutiranem 6 > o, Q, Q. Juznoslovenski filolog 2: 227-239. 1923-1924. K poznavaniju praslovanske metatonije. Slavia 2: 205-231. 1950. Relativna kronologija slovenskih akcentskih pojavov. Slavisticna revija 3:16-23. 1951. O praslovanski metatoniji. Slavisticna revija 4: 157-161. ReSetar, M. 1891. Zur Aussprache und Schriebung des e im Serbokroatischen. Archiv fiir slavischePhilologie 13: 591-597. 1900. Die serbokroatische Betonung sudwestlicher Mundarten. (Schriften der Balkankommission. Linguistische Abteilung, 1.) Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1907. Der stokavische Dialekt. (Schriften der Balkankommission. Linguistische Abteilung. 8.) Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1909. Zur Frage iiber die Gruppierung der serbokroatischen Dialekte. Archiv fiir slavische Philologie 30: 597-625. Revzin, Isaak. 1967. Metod modelirovanija i tipologija slavjanskix jazykov. Moscow: Nauka. Rice, Keren. 1989. On eliminating ^syllabification into onsets. Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 331-346. Stanford University Press. 1992. On deriving sonority: a structural account of sonority relationships. Phonology 9: 61-99. 1993. A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]: the status of "sonorant obstruents." Language 69: 308-344. Rice, Keren, and Peter Avery. 1989. On the interaction between sonority and voicing. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 65-92. Rigler, J. 1963. Pregled osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavisticna revija 14: 25-78.

334

References

1964. K probleme akanja. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5: 36-45. 1967. Pripombe k pregledu osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavisticnarevija 15: 129-152. Rosenthall, Samuel. 1994. Vowel/glide alternation in a theory of constraint interactions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Distributed by GSLA, Department of Linguistics, UMass-Amherst. Rosetti, A. 1963. Sur la theorie de la syllabe. 2nd edn. The Hague: Mouton. Rothstein, Robert. 1993. Polish. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 686-758. London and New York: Routledge. Rousselot, P.-J. 1891. Les Modifications phonetiques de langage: etudiees dans le patois d'unefamille de Cellefrouin (Charente). Paris: H. Welter. Rozov, Vladimir. 1932. ES£o o formulax TORT, TOLT, TERT, TELT. In Sbornik praci 1: sjezdu slovanskychfilologuv Praze 1929, vol. II: Pfedndsky, pp. 668-695. Prague: Orbis. Rozwadowski, Jan. 1909. K voprosu o pol'skom ro. Rocznik Slawistyczny 2: 186-189. 1912. Przyczynki do historycznej fonetyki JQzyka polskiego, I: O zastepstwie grupy tort; II: O zaste,pstwie praslow. e. Rocznik Slawistyczny 5: 37-56. 1915. Historyczna fonetyka czyli glosownia je.zyka polskiego. Encyklopedya polska 2, pp. 289^422. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiej
References

335

Sadnik, Linda. 1959. Slavische Akzentuation, vol. I: Vorhistorische Zeit. Wiesbaden: Biblioteca Slavica. Sagey, Elizabeth C. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: an Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916/1966. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sawicka, Irena. 1972. Sylaba biatoruska. Studia z filologii polskiej i slowiariskiej 2: 255-270. 1973. Miejsce spotglosek sonornych w systemach dystrybucyjnych je_zykow slowiariskich. Prace jgzykoznawcze. Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego 40:

49-54. 1974. Struktura grup spotgtoskowych wjgzykach slowianskich. Wroclaw: PAN. Scatton, Ernest. 1968. On the loss of proto-Slavic liquid diphthongs. In Charles E. Gribble, ed., Studies Presented to Professor Roman Jakobson by his Students, pp. 281-288. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. 1983. Bulgarian Phonology. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Rpt. of 1975 edition. 1984. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1987. Syllabic [r] and schwa-[r] sequences in northwestern Bulgarian dialects. Ezik i literatura 41: 35^X1. 1993. Syllabic-[r] and vowel/[r] sequences in southwest Bulgarian dialects I, II. Ms. 1994. Syllabic-[r] and vowel/[r] sequences in Bulgarian dialects: 1. The Northwest. In Charles E. Gribble, Robert A. Rothstein, Edythe C. Haber, Hugh M. Olmsted, Robert Szulkin, and Charles E. Townsend, eds., Alexander Lipson: in Memoriam, pp. 232-249. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Schallert, Joseph. 1993. The historical accentuation of the definite singular masculine form in Balkan Slavic dialects with free stress. In Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 392-407. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Schane, Sanford. 1984. The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology 1:129-155. Schein, Barry, andDonca Steriade. 1986. On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17:691-744. Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. Proto-Slavonic. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 60-121. London and New York: Routledge. Schmidt, Deborah. 1992. Compensatory lengthening in a segmental moraic theory of representation. Linguistics 30: 513-534. 1994. Phantom consonants in Basaa. Phonology 11: 149-178. Schmidt, J. 1871-1875. Zur Geschichte des indo-germanischen Vocalismus. 2 vols. in one. Weimar: Bohlau. Schuster-Sewc, H. 1964. Noch einmal zur Behandlung der Liquidaverbindungen tl, dl in den slawischen Sprachen. Slavia 33: 359-368. 1968. Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rece, vol. I: Fonematika a morfologija. Bautzen: VEB Domowina. 1978-1989. Historisch-etymologische Worterbuch der ober- und niedersorbischen Sprache. 4 vols. Bautzen: VEB Domowina.

336

References

Schwarz, Ernst. 1921a. Zur Chronologie der slavischen Liquidenumstellung in den deutsch-slavischen Beriihrungsgebieten. Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 4: 361-369. 1927b. Zur Chronologie von asl. a > o.Archivfiir slavische Philologie 41: 124-136. 1928. Zur Geschichte der Nasalvokale im Slovenischen, Cechischen und Sorbischen. Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie 5: 124-134. Sciebora, Alina. 1964. O monoftongicznej wymowie polskich samoglosek nosowych. Pracefilologiczne 18: 101-110. SeliSCev, A. M. 1928. Kriti£eskie zamefianija o rekonstrukcii drevnejSej sud'by russkix dialektov. Slavia 7: 3 3 ^ 3 . 1941a. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, vol. I: Zapadno-slavjanskie jazyki. Moscow: UCpedgiz. 1941b. Kritic'eskie zametki po istorii russkogo jazyka. Ucenye zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogiceskogo Instituta 1.5: 175-196. 1951-1952. Staroslavjanskij jazyk, vol. I: Vvedenie. Fonetika, vol. II: Teksty. Slovar'. Ocerki morfologii. Moscow: Ucpedgiz. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563-605. 1982. The syllable. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations, Parti and Part II, pp. 337-383. Dordrecht: Foris. 1984a. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Mark Aronoff and Richard Oehrle, eds., Language Sound Structure: Studies in Phonology Dedicated to Morris Halle by his Teacher and Students, pp. 107-136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1984b. Phonology and Syntax: the Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1990. A two-root theory of length. In Elaine Dunlap and Jaye Padgett, eds., Papers in Phonology, pp. 123-171 (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 14). Amherst, MA: GSLA, Department of Linguistics. Saumjan, S. K. 1962. Problemy teoreticeskoj fonologii. Moscow: AN USSR. Saxmatov, A. A. 1887. K istorii serbsko-xrvatskix udarenij. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 19: 157-228. 1898. K istorii udarenij v slavjanskix jazykax. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 3.1: 1-34. 1901. Review of ReSetar 1900. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti

6.1/2:339-353. 1902a. K istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 1 A: 280-318; 7.2: 303-382. 1902b. Russkoe i slovenskoe akanje. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 48.1-91. (Sbornik statejposvjascennyx F F Fortunatovu.) 1903a. K istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 8.1: 297-356; 8.2: 312-346. 1903b. K voprosu o razli£enii iota i neslogovogo i v istorii slavjanskix jazykov. Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 50: 161-181. 1914. Opisanie lekinskogo govora Egorjevskogo ujezda Rjazanskoj gubernii. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 18.4: 173-220. 1915/1967. Ocerk drevnejsego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka. (Enciklopedija slav-

References

337

janskoj filologii, 11.) Petrograd: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk. Rpt. 1967. The Hague: Europe Printing. Distributed by Mouton. 1916. Zametki po istorii zvukov luzickix jazykov. Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti, 21.2. St. Petersburg. 1929. O znaCenii kamory v nekotoryx drevnerusskix pamjatnikax XVI-XVII vekov. K voprosu o proiznoSenii zvuka o v velikorusskom nareCii. Leningrad: AN SSSR. The introduction and parts \-A first appeared in Russkij filologiceskij vestnik 78 (1918). 1952. Prilozenie. Cerkovnoslavjanski elementy v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. 9. Glasnye y, i na meste naprjazennyx u, i. In V. V. Vinogradov, ed., Iz trudov Saxmatova po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku, pp. 245-266. Moscow: UCpedgiz. 1964a, 1964b. Diftongi uo i ie v velikorusskix govorax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 13.5: 110-120; 13.6: 109-118. SCerba, L. V. 1912/1983. Russkie glasnye v kacestvennom i kolicestvennom otnosenii. St. Petersburg: Jurij N. Erlix. Rpt. Leningrad: Nauka. 1915. Vostocnoluzickoe narecie. Petrograd: Zapiski istoriko-filologiCeskogo fakul'teta Imperatorskogo Petrogradskogo Universiteta, 128. Shevelov, George Y. [Serex, Ju.]. 1951. Narys sucasnoji ukrajins'koji movy. Munich: Molode zyttja. [Serex, Ju.]. 1953. Problems in the Formation ofBelorussian. Supplement to Word 9. Monograph no. 2. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. 1963a. Prothetic consonants in Common Slavic: an historical approach. In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, vol. I: Linguistic Contributions, pp. 243-262. The Hague: Mouton. 1963b. Sound system. In V. Kubijovyc\ ed., Ukraine: a Concise Encyclopedia, pp. 448^57. University of Toronto Press. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. 1976. On the problem of the participation of Y and I in the loss of jers. Juznoslovenski filolog 32: 121-141. 1919. A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1985. Aremark on extra-systemic vowel lengthening in Slavic: the cases of Ukrainian and Macedonian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31/32: 385-398. 1993. Ukrainian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 947-998. London and New York: Routledge. Short, David. 1993. Slovak. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 533-592. London and New York: Routledge. Sylo, H. F. 1949. JavySCe protezy v slovjans'kyx movax. In Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 2, pp. 229-247. Lviv: Izd. Xarkivs'koho Derzavnoho Universytetu. Sidorov, V. N. 1953/1966. Reducirovannye glasnye u i I v drevnerusskom jazyke XI v. In V. N. Sidorov, ed., Iz istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka, pp. 5-37. Moscow: Nauka. Originally published in Trudy Instituta Jazykoznanija AN SSSR 2. 1966. Umerennoe jakanje v srednerusskix govorax i severnorusskoe jokanje. In V. N. Sidorov, ed., Iz istorii zvukov russkogo jazyka, pp. 98-140. Moscow: Nauka. Sievers, Eduard. 1881. Grundziige der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel.

338

References

Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Wolfgang U. Dressier, Hans C. Luschutzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, eds., Phonologica 1984: Proceedings of the* Fifth International Phonology Meeting, Eisenstadt, 25-28 June 1984, pp. 273-285. Cambridge University Press. SkaliCkova, Alena. 1954. K otazce podstaty slabiky. Slovo a slovesnost 15: 19-24. 1961. The problem of the syllable boundary and the identification of sounds. Zeitschrift fiir Phonologie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 14.4: 321-327. Skljarenko, V. H. 1967. Praserbs'ka dvoskladova intonacija. In V. T. Kolomijec', T. B. Lukinova, O. S. Mel'nycuk, M. J. OnySkevyC, O. B. Tkacenko, and K. K. TrofimovyC, eds., Struktura i rozvytok slovjans'kyx mov, pp. 45-55. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 1971. Do pytannja pro novoakutovu intonaciju. Movoznavstvo 1: 49-56. 1974. Do pytannja pro pryrodu praslovjans'kyx intonacij. Movoznavstvo 3:45-51. 1985. Poxodzennja praslovjans'koji oksytonovanoji akcentnoji paradyhmy. Movoznavstvo 5: 55-60. 1988. K voprosu o proisxozdenii slavjanskoj oksitonirovannoj akcentnoj paradygmy. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie, pp. 61-68. Moscow: AN SSSR. 1991. K istorii slavjanskoj podvyznoj akcentnoj paradigmy. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 64-77. 1993. DyftonhiCni spoluCennja v balto-slovjans'kij i praslovjans'kij movax. In V. M. Rusanivs'kyj ed., Slovjans'ke movoznavstvo. Dopovidi. XI Miznarodnyj Zjizd slavistiv, pp. 64-74. Kiev: AN URSR. Sloan, K. D. 1991. Syllables and templates: evidence from southern Sierra Miwok. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Smolensky, Paul. 1986. Information processing in dynamical systems: foundations of Harmony Theory. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group, eds., Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. I: Foundations, pp. 194-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and Bradford Books. Sobierajski, Z. 1968. Zwiazki JQzykowe hizycko-slowiriskie. In H. Fasske and R. Lotzsch, eds., Pfinoski k serbskemu recespytej, pp. 52-63. Bautzen: VEB Domowina. Sobolevskij, A. I. 1891/1910. Drevnij cerkovno-slavjanskij jazyk. Fonetika. Moscow: Universitetskaja tipografija. Published in 1910 in Kiev: Izd. Stud, filologov universiteta sv. Vladimira. 1907/1962. Lekcii po istorii russkogo jazyka, 4th edn. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 37.) The Hague: Mouton. Solmsen, F. 1902. Review of Torbiornsson, Die gemeinslavische Liquidametathese I. Archivfiir slavische Philologie 24: 568-579. Sommerfelt, A. 1931. Sur l'importance generate de la syllabe. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 156-160. 1936. Can syllable divisions have phonological importance? In Daniel Jones and D. B. Fry, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (London 1935), pp. 30-33. Cambridge University Press.

References

339

Sorbische Sprachatlas, vols. 1-14. 1967-1993. Institut fiir sorbische Volksforschung. Bautzen: Domowina. S0rensen, H. Chr. 1952. Die sogenannte liquidametathese im slavischen. Acta Linguistica 7.1/2: 40-61. Sovre, D. 1958. Zum Neozirkumflex. Stockholm: Filologiska meddelanden fran Ryska Institutet vid Stockholms Hogskola. Drottninggatan 95B. Nr. 1. Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A non-linear analysis of vowel - zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22: 249-280. Sreznevskij, I. I. 1887/1959. Mysli ob istorii russkogo jazyka i drugix slavjanskix narecij, 2nd edn. St. Petersburg: V. S. BalaSev. Rpt. Moscow: UCpedgiz. Stang, Chr. S. 1957/1965. Slavonic Accentuation. Oslo: Det Norske VidenskapsAkademie. Rpt. by the Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stanislav, Jan. 1932. Liptovske ndrecia. TurCiansky sv. Martin: Matica slovenska. 1953. Slovenska vy slovnosf. Martin: Osveta. 1956. Dejiny slovenskeho jazyka, vol. I. Bratislava: Vyd. Slovenskej Akademie Vied. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1958. Towards a phonemic typology of the Slavic languages. In American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress ofSlavists, Moscow, September 1958, pp. 301-320. The Hague: Mouton. 1966a. Slavic morphophonemics in its typological and diachronic aspects. In Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. Ill: Theoretical Foundations, pp. 495-520. The Hague: Mouton. 1966b/1979. The Common Slavic prosodic pattern and its evolution in Slovenian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10: 29-38. Also in his Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology, pp. 32^41. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 1968/1979. The accentual pattern of the Slovenian declension. Zbornik zafilologiju i lingvistiku 11: 257-266. Also in his Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology, pp. 206—226. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 1973. The historical phonology of Common Slavic (review article). International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 179-192. 1979 (1959). The prosodic features of Modern Standard Slovene. In E. Stankiewicz, Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology, pp. 127-132. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Originally published as "The vocalic systems of Modern Standard Slovene," International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1/2: 70-76. 1986. The dialect of Resia and the "Common Slovenian" accentual pattern. In E. Stankiewicz, ed., The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity, pp. 93-103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993. The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages. Stanford University Press. Steele, Richard D. 1973. The segmental phonology of contemporary standard Polish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Steinhauer, Hein. 1973. Cakavian Studies. The Hague: Mouton. Steriade, Donca. 1982/1990a. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published by Garland Press, 1990.

340

References

1990b. Gestures and autosegments: comments on Browman and Goldstein's paper. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, pp. 382-397. Cambridge University Press. 1990c. Moras and other slots. Formal Linguistic Society of Midamerica 1: 254-280. Madison: Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin. 1993. Closure, release and nasal contours. In Marie K. Huffman and Rena A. Krakow, eds., Phonetics and Phonology, vol. V: Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum, pp. 401-470. New York: Academic Press. Stetson, Raymond H. 1936. The relation of the phoneme and the syllable. In Daniel Jones and D. B. Fry, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (London 1935), pp. 245-252. Cambridge University Press. 1951. Motor Phonetics: a Study of Speech Movements in Action, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: North Holland. Stevanovic, M. 1964. Savremeni srpskoxrvatski jezik. Belgrade: NauCno delo. Stieber, Zdzislaw. 1934. Stosunki pokrewienstwa jgzykow luzyckich. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff. 1935. Naglosowe o w dialektach zachodnioslowiariskich. Slavia occidentalis 14: 235-240. 1952. Rozwojfonologiczny jgzykapolskiego. Warsaw: PWN. 1969. Zarys gramatyki porownawczej jgzykow stowianskich. Fonologia. Warsaw: PWN. 1973. A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 1979. Zarys gramatyki porownawczej jgzykow siowianskich. Warsaw: PWN. Stojanov, S. 1964. Gramatika na bdlgarskija knizoven ezik. 2nd corr. edn. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Stojkov, Stojko. 1968. Bdlgarska dialektologija. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Stone, Gerald. 1993. Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, pp. 593-685. London and New York: Routledge. Strumiriski, Bohdan. 1961. O ukazywaniu sie, elementu u w wymowie polskich samogtosek nosowych. Poradnikjgzykowy 3: 133-134. 1962. Jeszcze o elemencie u w nosdwkach. Poradnikjezykowy 2: 69-79. Stumpf, C. 1890. Tonpsychologie II. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Snir, L'udovit. 1846. Nauka reci slovenskej. Pressburg [Bratislava]: Nakladom Tatrina Cislol. Sundberg, J. 1973. Data on maximum speed of pitch changes. Quarterly Progress and Status Reports, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Stockholm, 1973/4: 3 9 ^ 7 . Suprun, A. E. 1987. Polabskij jazyk. Minsk: Izd. Universitetskoe. Szober, Stanislaw. 1963. Gramatyka jgzykapolskiego, 6th edn. Warsaw: PWN. Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. Ghost segments in nonlinear phonology: Polish yers. Language 68:277-312. 1995. Three Tiers in Polish and English Phonology. Lublin: UMCS. Tesniere, L. 1929. L'accent Slovene et le timbre des voyelles. Revue des etudes slaves 9: 89-118. 1933. Les diphones tl, dl en slave: essai de geolinguistique. Revue des etudes slaves 13:51-100.

References

341

Timberlake, Alan. 1983a. Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 1: Conditions and dialect geography. In Vladimir Markov and Dean S. Worth, eds., From Los Angeles to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 1983, pp. 207-235. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1983b. Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic reconstruction. In Michael S. Flier, ed., American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 1983, vol. I: Linguistics, pp. 293-319. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1985. The metathesis of liquid diphthongs in Upper Sorbian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31/32: 417^430. 1993. Isochrony in Late Common Slavic. In Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, eds., American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, pp. 425^439. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Tolstaja, S. M. 1968a. Na£al'nye i koneCnye so£etanija soglasnyx v slavjanskix jazykax. Ph. D. dissertation, Moscow State University. 1968b. FonologiCeskoe rasstojanie i sofcetaemost' soglasnyx v slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 66-81. 1972. NaCal'nye i koneCnye soCetanija soglasnyx v serboxorvatskom jazyke. In R. V. Bulatova, ed., Issledovanija po serboxorvatskomu jazyku, pp. 3-37. Moscow: Nauka. Topoliriska, Zuzanna. 1964. Stosunki iloczasowepolsko-pomorskie. (Prace JQzykoznawcze, 39.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. 1968. Zakres i chronologia tzw. wzdhizenia zast^pczego w je,zykach zachodnioslowiariskich. In H. Fasske and R. Lotzsch, eds., Pfinoski k serbskemu recespytej, pp. 75-83. Bautzen: VEB Domowina. 1974. A Historical Phonology of the Kashubian Dialects. The Hague: Mouton. ToporiSic\ Joze. 1966-1968. Slovenski knjizni jezik. 3 vols. Ljubljana: ZaloZba Obzorja Maribor. Toporov, V. N. 1971. O distributivnyx strukturax konca slova v sovremennom russkom jazyke. In F. P. Filin, ed., Fonetika, Fonologija, Grammatika, pp. 152-162. Moscow: Nauka. Torbiornsson, Tore. 1897. Liquida-metathese in den slavischen Sprachen. Beitrdge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 20: 124-148. 1901, 1903. Die gemeinslavische Liquidametathese, 2 vols. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift. 1906. Antikritische Bemerkungen zur slavischen Metathesenfrage. Beitrdge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 30: 62-99. 1909. Przestawka plynnych, dyspalatalizacya i skracanie w JQzyku polskim. Materialy Polskiej Komisji Jgzykowej 4: 2 4 ^ 0 . 1922. Metathese des liquides et voyelles nasales en slave commun. Revue des etudes slaves 2: 214-216. Townsend, Charles E. 1980. Russian Word-Formation. Corr. rpt. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 1993. Review of T. R. Carlton, Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages (1991). Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1: 375-388. Trager, G. L. 1940. Serbo-Croatian accents and quantities. Language 16: 29-32.

342

References

Trager, G. L., and Bernard Bloch. 1941. The syllabic phonemes of English. Language 17: 223-246. Tranel, Bernard. 1991. CVC light syllables, geminates and Moraic Theory. Phonology 8: 291-302. 1995. Current issues in French phonology. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 798-816. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Trautmann, R. 1923. Baltische-Slavische Worterbuch. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. TravniCek, F. 1921. De la quantite en tcheque. Revue des etudes slaves 1: 204-227. 1924. Pfispevky k nauce o ceskem pfizvuku. Brno: Spisy filosoficke fakulty Masarykovy University, 7. 1926. Pfispevcich k ceskemu hldskovi. Brno: Spisy filosoficke fakulty Masarykovy University, 16. 1928. Prothese ci hiat? In Symbolae grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol. II: pp.139-151. Cracow: Gebethner and Wolff. 1935. Historickd mluvnice ceskoslovenskd. Uvod, hldskovi a tvaroslovi. Prague: Melantrich. Traxterov, A. L. 1956. Osnovnye voprosy teorii sloga i ego opredelenie. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 15-32. Trofimova, E. B. 1972. Ocerki teorii foneticeskogo i intuitivnogo slogodelenija. Samarkand: AKD. Trubetzkoy, N. S. [Troubetzkoy]. 1921. De la valeur primitive des intonations du slave commun. Revue des etudes slaves 1: 171-188. [Troubetzkoy]. 1922. Essai sur la chronologie de certains faits phonetiques du slave commun. Revue des etudes slaves 2: 217-234. 1925a. Einiges tiber die russische Lautentwicklung und die Auflosung der gemeinrussischen Spracheinheit. Zeitschriftfiir slavische Philologie 1: 287-319. 1925b. Die Behandlung der Lautverbindungen tl, dl in den slavischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 2: 117-122. [Troubetzkoy]. 1925c. Les voyelles nasales des langues lechites. Revue des etudes slaves 5: 25-37. [Trubeckoj]. 1929a. K voprosu o xronologii stjazenija glasnyx v zapadno-slavjanskix jazykax. Slavia 7: 805-807. 1929b. Polabische Studien. (Philosophisch-historisch Klasse, 211. Band 4. Abhandlung.) Vienna: Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. 1930. tiber die Enstehung der gemeinwestslavischen Eigentumlichkeiten auf dem Gebiete des Konsonantismus. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 7: 383^06. 1938. Die phonologischen Grundlagen der sogenannten "Quantitat" in den verschiedenen Sprachen. In Scritti in Onore di Alfredo Trombetti, pp. 155-174. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli. 1939/1967. Grundziige der Phonologie. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.) 4th edn. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Trans, by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe, Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. 1954. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Schrift-, Laut- und Form- system. (Philosophisch-historisch Klasse, 228. Band 4. Abhandlung.) Vienna: Sitzungsberichte der Osterr. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.

References

343

Ulaszyn, H. 1956. Ze studiow nad grupami spolgloskowymi w jezyku polskim. (Prace JQzykoznawcze PAN, 8.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Vachek, Josef. 1932. Fonologicky pomSr hlasek / ay v £estin6 a v slovenStinS. Slavia 11: 265-273. 1968. Dynamika fonologickeho systemu soucasne spisovne destiny. Prague: Academia. Vaillant, A. 1950. Grammaire comparee des langues slaves, vol. I: Phonetique. Lyon: IAC. VajtoviC, N. T. 1968. Nenaciskny vakalizm narodnyx havorak Belarusi. Minsk: Navuka i texnika. [VojtoviC]. 1972. K voprosu o putjax razvitija akanja v vostoCnoslavjanskix jazykax. In R. I. Avanesov, S. B. BernStejn, S. K. Pozarskaja, and F. P. Filin, eds., Obsceslavjanskij lingvisticeskij atlas. Materialy i issledovanija 1970, pp. 17-39. Moscow: Nauka. [Vojtovic']. 1974. K voprosu o putjax razvitija akanja v vostoCnoslavjanskix jazykax (II). In E. I. Demina, E. I. Zelenina, N. I. Tolstoj, and E. V. CeSko, eds., Obsceslavjanskij lingvisticeskij atlas. Materialy i issledovanija 1971, pp. 32-41. Moscow: Nauka. Valjavec, M. 1897. Glavne to£ke o naglasu knjizevne slovenStine. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti 132: 116-213. Van Campen, Joseph. 1966. On the appearance of a new work on Common Slavic phonology (a review article). International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10: 52-81. Vasiljev, L. L. 1909. Odno soobrazenie v zaS£itu napisanij -bpt-, t p t - , tpb-, tJiij- v drevnerusskix pamjatnikax kak dejstvitel'nyx otrazenij vtorogo polnoglasija. ZurnalMinisterstva Narodnogo Prosvescenija 22.8: 294-313. 1929. O znacenii kamory v nekotoryx drevnerusskix pamjatnikax XVI-XVII vekov. K voprosu o proiznosenii zvuka o v velikorusskom narecii. Leningrad: Sbornik po russkomu jazyku i slovesnosti AN SSSR. Vasmer, Max. 1950-1958. Russisches Etymologisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Velcheva, Boryana. 1988. Proto-Slavic and Old Bulgarian Sound Changes. Trans, and ed. Ernest A. Scatton. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Vendina, T. I. 1990. Differenciacija slavjanskix jazykov po dannym slovoobrazovanija. Moscow: Nauka. Vennemann, Theo. 1972. On the theory of syllable phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18: 1-18. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1990. Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twentysixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 399^412. Chicago Linguistics Society. Vidoeski, Bozo. 1962. Kumanovskiot govor. Skopje: Institutzamakedonskijazik. 1971. Sud'ba slogovogo r v govorax makedonskogo jazyka. In E. I. Demina et al., eds., Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju: sbornik v cest' sestidesjatiletijaprofessora S. B. Bernstejna, pp. 305-313. Moscow: Nauka.

344

References

Vondrak, V. 1903. Zur Liquidametathese im Slavischen. Archivfiir slavische Philologie 25: 182-211. 1906. Slavische Akzent- und Quantitats- Studien I. Beitrdge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 30: 100-153. 1907. Slavische Akzent- und Quantitats- Studien II. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung aufdem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 41: 133-153. 1912. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. 2nd edn. Berlin: Weidmann. 1924-1928. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, vol. I: Lautlehre und Stammbildungslehre, vol. II: Formenlehre und Syntax. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Vostokov, A. 1822/1856. Razsuzdenie o slavjanskom jazyke. Ucenye zapiski vtorogo otdelenija ImperatorskojAkademii Nauk 2.1: 1-27. Waksler, Rachelle. 1990. A formal account of glide/vowel alternation in prosodic theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Wetzels, Leo and Engin Sezer. 1986. Studies in Compensatory Lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris. Wexler, Paul. 1977. A Historical Phonology of the Belorussian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Wheeler, Deirdre W, and David S. Touretzky. 1990. From syllables to stress: a cognitively plausible model. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, eds., Papers from the Twenty-sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, pp. 412-^427. Chicago Linguistics Society. Whitney, W. D. 1865. The relation of vowel and consonant. (Part 2 of "On Lepsius's standard alphabet: a letter of explanations from Prof. Lepsius, with notes," by W. D. Whitney, pp. 335-373.) Journal of the American Oriental Society 8: 357-373. van Wijk, N. 1916. Zur sekundaren steigenden Intonation im Slavischen, vornehmlich in ursprimglich kurzen Silben. Archivfiir slavische Philologie 36: 321-377. 1918. Belie, Akcenatske Studije I. Rocznik Slawistyczny 8: 171-187. 1921a. O prastowiariskiej metatonji. Rocznik Slawistyczny 9: 78-109. 1921b. Du deplacement de l'accent en serbocroate. Revue des etudes slaves 1: 28-39. 1922-1923. O perenose udarenija v serbo-xorvatskom jazyke i v vosto5nolitovskix govorax. Slavia 1: 200-205. 1923/1958. Die Baltischen und Slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme. (Janua Linguarum 5.) Mouton: The Hague. Originally published in Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks. Deel 23.2. 1924. Remarques sur le groupement des langues slaves. Revue des etudes slaves 4: 5-15. 1930. Die alteren und jiingeren r, 1 im Ostslovakischen. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 7:362-372. 1931. Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, vol. I: Laut- und Formenlehre. (Grundriss der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, ed. by Reinhold Trautmann and Max Vasmer.) Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Russian translation: Istorija staroslavjanskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izd. Innostrannoj Literatury, 1957.

References

345

1934. O skroceniu samoglosek e, 6 w niektorych je,zykach slowiariskich. Lud Stowiariski 3: 287-291. 1934-1935. Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Akanje und Jakanje. Slavia 13: 650-664. 1937. Le genese de la mouillure des consonnes dans les langues slaves. Slavia 15.24-42. 1939. L'etude comparative des systemes phonologiques des langues slaves. Govori i predavanja. Ill Medunarodni Kongres Slavista. Belgrade: Izd. IzvrSnog Odbora, no. 4. 1939-1940. Zu den Phenomen i/j und u/w/v, speciell im slavischen. Linguistica Slovaca 1/2: 77-84. 1941. Zum urslavischen sogenannten Synharmonismus der Silben. Linguistica Slovaca 3 : 4 1 ^ 8 . 1942. Die slavischen Metatonien im Lichte der Phonologic Indogermanische Forschungen 59: 51-66. 1949-1950. Les groupes *br, br, T>1, bl en slave commun et en russe. Juznoslovenski filolog 18: 39-47. 1950. K istorii fonologifceskoj sistemy v obSCeslavjanskom jazyke. Slavia 19: 293-313. 1956. Les langues slaves: de Vunitea lapluralite, 2nd corr. edn. The Hague: Mouton. Williams, Edwin. 1976. Underlying tone in Margi and Igbo. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 463^84. Wiltshire, Caroline R. 1992. Syllabification and rule application in harmonic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Wisniewska, Maria. 1972. Grupy spotgloskowe we wspolczesnym literackim je.zyku butgarskim. Studia zfilologiipolskiej i stowiariskiej 11: 313-332. Woo, Nancy H. 1969. Prosody and phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Woodrow, Herbert. 1909. A quantitative study of rhythm. Archives of Psychology 14.1: 1-66. 1951. Time perception. In S. Stevens, ed., Handbook ofExperimental Psychology, pp. 1224-1236. New York: Wiley. Worth, Dean S. 1968. Vowel-zero alternations in Russian derivation. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 11: 110-123. Xaburgaev, G. A. 1965. O fonologiCeskix uslovijax razvitija russkogo akanja. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 55-63. 1980. Stanovlenie russkogo jazyka (posobie po istorideskoj grammatike). Moscow: VysSaja Skola. Yearley, Jennifer. 1995. Jer vowels in Russian. In J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk, and L. Walsh, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory, pp. 533-571 (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18.) Amherst, MA: GSLA. Yip, Moira. 1988. The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity'. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 65-100. 1995. Tone in East Asian languages. In John A. Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 476-494. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Zales'kyj, A. M. 1968. Z istorii ukrajins'koho vokalizmu. Movoznavstvo 5: 25-32.

346

References

Zaliznjak, A. A. 1985. Otpraslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj. Moscow: Nauka. Zbirka odgovora napitanja, III Medunarodni Kongres Slavista, 1939. Beograd: Izdanja IzvrSnog Odbora, No. 1. Zee, Draga. 1988. Bulgarian 3 epenthesis: a case for moraic structure. NELS 18.2: 553-566. 1988/1994. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Published by Garland Press, 1994. 1993. Rule domains and phonological change. In Sharon Hargus and Ellen Kaisse, eds., Phonetics and Phonology, vol. IV: Studies in Lexical Phonology, pp. 365^405. New York: Academic Press. Zovtobrjux, M. A., V. M. Rusanivs'kyj, and V. H. Skljarenko. 1979. Istoryja ukrajins'koji movy. Fonetyka. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Zuravlev, V. K. 1961. Formirovanie gruppovogo singarmonizma v praslavjanskom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 33-45. 1965. Genezis protezov v slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 3 2 ^ 3 . 1966. Gruppofonema kak osnovnaja filologiCeskaja jedinica v praslavjanskom jazyke. In S. K. Saumjan, ed., Issledovanija po fonologii, pp. 79-96. Moscow: Nauka. 1977. Pravilo Gavlika (Havlika) i mexanizm padenija slavjanskix reducirovannyx. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 30-43. Zylko, F. T. 1963. Vozniknovenie diftongov v ukrainskom jazyke (Drevnye o,e\ novyx zakrytyx slogax). In P. A. Dmitriev, Ju. S. Maslov, M. I. Privalova, G. V. Stepanov, and A. V. Fedorov, eds., Voprosy teorii i istorii jazyka: Sbornik v cest' professora V. A. Larina, pp. 112-119. Leningrad: Izd. Leningradskogo Universiteta. 1966. Narysy z dialektolohiji ukrajins'koji movy, 2nd edn. Kiev: Radjans'ka Skola.

Index

acute, 53, 56, 97, 102, 114, 122-123, 125-129, 130-131,134,136, 137, 138, 141-142, 143-146, 147, 149-150, 155-156, 158, 159, 160, 172, 178, 183, 184, 185, 240, 245, 262, 264, 273 n. 17, 281 n. 5, 282 n. 7, 282 n. 8, 286 n. 17, 286 n. 18, 288-289 n. 22, 291 n. 29, 291 n. 30, 295 n. 42, 296 n. 49, 297 n. 50, 300 n. 20 akanje, 152-155, 187, 289 n. 24, 290 n. 25 alternations, 35, 197, 286 n. 16, 287-288 n. 21, 297 n. 2; see also palatalization; vowel alternations assimilation, 14, 34, 38, 43, 68, 91, 106, 109-110, 203, 229, 231, 231, 270 n. 9, 299 n. 11 Belarusian, 46, 56, 67, 76, 78, 80-84, 90, 96, 99, 100, 110, 112, 126, 146, 147, 148, 152-155,187,189,203,204, 214, 243, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 287 n. 20 borrowings, 59, 61, 76, 177, 180, 210, 219, 227, 246, 271-272 n. 14, 278 n. 35, 286 n. 18, 293 n. 37, 300 n. 16 Bulgarian, 46, 56, 69, 84, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 108, 112, 126, 130, 139, 141-142, 173, 179, 192, 197-199, 206, 210, 228, 243, 250, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 270 n. 9, 271 n. 14, 275 n. 22, 283 n. 11, 286 n. 16, 290 n. 25, 297 n. 2, 297-298 n. 3 Cakavian, 97, 125, 133-134, 168, 224, 239, 283 n. 9, 285 n. 14, 292 n. 32, 292 n. 33 circumflex, 53, 56, 97-98, 102, 103, 114, 115, 121-123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130-131, 132, 133, 134, 136-141, 141-142, 145, 146,147,149, 150, 155-156, 158, 159, 160, 178, 183-185, 245, 264, 272 n. 16, 282 n. 8, 283 n. 11, 284 n. 13, 284-285 n. 14, 285 n. 15, 286 n. 17, 288-289 n. 22, 291 n. 28, 291 n. 29, 296 n. 49, 297 n. 50, 300 n. 20 clusters, consonantal 12, 27, 59, 80, 83, 105, 106, 108, 109, 195, 202, 209, 231, 232, 253,

254, 266-267 n. 2, 278-279 n. 35; tl, dl, 111, 278-279 n. 35 coalescence, 36, 39-40, 41-42, 43,44-46, 51, 72,201,203 compensatory lengthening, 19, 25, 27, 43, 95-104, 108, 136, 140, 142, 143, 146-147, 169, 213, 269 n. 6, 272 n. 16, 282 n. 8, 283 n. 10, 284-285 n. 14, 288 n. 21, 289 n. 23, 294 n. 41, 297 n. 50 contraction, 25, 27, 31,43, 91-95, 100, 108, 133, 134, 149, 151, 202, 219, 221, 222, 223, 277 n. 29, 283 n. 9, 289 n. 23, 299 n. 12, 301 n. 24 Croatian, see Serbo-Croatian Czech, 46, 56, 62, 67, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78-79, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 110, 112, 126, 133, 139, 142-145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 173, 175-176, 178, 185, 187, 202-203, 214, 217, 236, 243, 246, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 272 n. 15, 274 n. 17, 274 n. 18, 275 n. 21, 275 n. 22, 282 n. 7, 283 n. 9, 285 n. 14, 299 n. 11, 301 n. 24 deletion, 91, 211, 213; consonant, 106 ; glide, 43, 233; liquid, 83; vowel, 31 diphthongs, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 86, 91, 100, 101, 150, 151, 155, 156, 176, 180, 181, 182, 192, 196-197, 201, 214, 215, 216, 217-223, 225-228,248, 249, 255; liquid, 12, 23, 25, 26, 30, 38, 39, 40, 46-84, 108, 126, 143, 189, 196, 198, 248, 268 n. 5, 270-271 n. 12, 271 n. 13, 271-272 n. 15, 212-21A n. 17, 275 n. 20, 275 n. 21, 278 n. 34; nasal, 39, 40, 44-46; oral, 38-44, 149, 270-271 n. 12, 272 n. 16, 277 n. 28, 287 n. 20, 289 n. 23, 296 n. 48, 297-298 n. 3, 298 n. 8, 299 n. 11, 299 n. 13, 299 n. 14, 300-301 n. 21 epenthesis, 82, 106, 110, 197, 199, 210, 229, 256, 274 n. 17, 277 n. 31; see also prothesis extrametricality, 140, 172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 198, 235, 236, 238, 245, 256, 296 n. 47

347

348

Index

fronting, 35; consonants, see palatalization; vowel, 12, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 68, 270 n. 10 geminates, gemination, 17, 90, 189, 192, 203, 204, 214-217, 229-233, 243, 277 n. 30, 298 n.7,3OOn. 18, 300 n. 19 glides, 21, 28, 29, 30-34, 35, 36, 3 8 ^ 0 , 43, 85, 89-93, 95, 151, 192, 194, 196, 200-204, 220-223, 226-229, 230, 232, 233, 248, 269 n. 7, 270 n. 9, 283 n. 9, 298 n. 9, 301 n. 22; in contraction, 91-95; and tense jers, 89-91, 105, 276-277 n. 27; see also prothesis Havlik's Law, 70, 72, 78, 80, 105, 277 n. 31 intrasyllabic harmony, 12, 24, 34-38, 68, 258, 269 n. 8, 270 n. 10; see also syllable synharmony iotation, 34-38, 41, 202, 203, 269-270 n. 9 jers, changes in, 27, 37, 38, 45, 71, 72, 78, 79, 80-84,92, 95, 96, 104-107, 123, 125, 129, 138-139, 144, 147, 148, 158, 186, 192, 205-206, 276 n. 23, 277 n. 31, 282 n. 8, 282-283 n. 9, 290-291 n. 27, 297 n. 50; and compensatory lengthening, 97-99; in liquid diphthongs, 68-78, 80-82, 199, 217, 273-274 n. 17, 275 n. 21; after liquids, 78-84; loss of weak, 12, 15, 37, 38, 45, 71, 79, 80, 82, 96, 98, 104, 107, 111, 144, 146, 158, 186, 199, 203, 229, 233, 253, 258, 266-267 n. 1, 268 n. 5, 270 n. 11, 275-276 n. 22, 277 n. 32, 278 n. 34, 278-279 n. 35, 283-284 n. 11, 284 n. 12, 284-285 n. 14, 287 n. 19, 288 n. 22, 289 n. 23, 290 n. 26, 301 n. 24; representation of, 192, 205-214; tense, 25, 89-91, 101, 105, 108, 201, 276 n. 26; 276-277 n. 27; vocalization, strong jers, 59, 72, 73, 78, 80, 81, 95-96, 250, 286 n. 17 Kashubian, 46, 56, 60, 67, 84, 85, 96, 98, 105, 112, 146, 147, 160, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 187, 206, 236, 253, 255, 258, 259, 273-274 n. 17, 274 n. 18, 287 n. 20, 291 n. 30, 295 n. 43 Lower Sorbian, 46, 56, 59, 67, 74, 75, 79, 112, 126, 173, 175,176, 178,187, 236,246,254, 255, 257, 258, 288-289 n. 22 Macedonian, 46, 56, 69, 70, 78, 84, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 108, 112, 126, 130, 141, 161, 173, 178-179, 187, 236, 245, 250, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 295-296 n. 46, 296 n. 47 metathesis, liquid, 23, 29,47-50, 52-60,

62-63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 75, 82, 108, 110, 111, 197-199, 203, 249, 271 n. 13, 271-272 n. 14, 272 n. 16, 212-21A n. 17, 278 n. 35; other, 43, 46 metatony, 129, 130, 138, 162, 163, 165, 241, 279-280 n. 1, 280 n. 2, 282-283 n. 9, 284-285 n. 14, 292 n. 34, 293-294 n. 38 monophthongization, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 39-46,48, 63,72, 201; of nasal diphthongs, 25, 44-46; of oral diphthongs, 25, 29, 35, 3 9 ^ 4 , 277 n. 28 neo-acute, 27,97-98, 102, 114, 121, 125-126, 129-135, 136, 139-141, 143-150, 155-156, 158, 159, 164, 167, 170, 178, 183-184, 186, 212, 262, 268-269 n. 6, 279 n. 1, 280 n. 2, 281-282 n. 5, 282 n. 8, 282-283 n. 9, 283-284 n. 11, 285 n. 15, 286 n. 17, 286-287 n. 19, 287 n. 20, 288 n. 21, 288-289 n. 22, 291 n. 28, 294 n. 41, 295 n. 42, 296 n. 49, 297 n. 50 neo-circumflex, 114, 121, 135-141, 158, 169-170, 284-285 n. 14, 285 n. 15, 291 n. 28, 291 n. 30 open syllables, law of (tendency for rising sonority), 12, 13, 15, 16, 27, 30, 43,44, 45, 49, 57, 70, 71, 91, 106, 107, 111, 261-262, 266 n. 1, 273-274 n. 17, 278 n. 34, 278-279 n.35 oxytone, 122, 124, 125, 131, 134, 136, 142, 155, 160, 161, 240, 245, 285-286 n. 16, 288 n.21 palatalization, 12, 14, 31-38, 41, 68, 85, 106, 110, 206, 207, 209, 230, 252, 257-258, 269 n. 8, 270 n. 10, 275 n. 20, 277-278 n. 32, 289-290 n. 24; velar, 34, 35, 41, 270 n. 8 first velar, 35, 41, 67, 269-270 n. 9 - second velar, 35, 269-270 n. 9, 278-279 n. 35 third velar, progressive, 24, 35, 41, 270-271 n. 12 pleophony, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 77, 78, 85, 111, 198, 225, 249, 271 n. 13, 273-274 n. 17, 275 n. 22, 276 n. 23, 287 n. 20 Polabian, 46, 56, 60, 67, 76, 84, 86, 99, 105, 112, 113, 129, 146, 157-160, 162, 173, 180-182,186-187,206, 255, 257, 258, 274 n. 17, 281-282 n. 5, 282 n. 6, 287 n. 19, 290 n. 26, 290-291 n. 27, 291 n. 28, 291 n. 29, 296 n. 48, 300 n. 20 Polish, 20, 33,46, 50, 56, 67, 69, 73-76, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 94, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 126, 146, 147, 148, 173, 176-178, 179, 182, 187, 196, 203, 206-207,

Index 209, 210, 236, 245, 246, 253, 254, 255, 257, 259, 267 n. 2, 269 n. 7, 275 n. 21, 277 n. 31, 282 n. 6, 287 n. 20, 287-288 n. 21, 295 n. 44, 298 n. 6, 301, n. 22 polnoglasie, see pleophony Pomeranian, 46, 56, 67, 76, 172, 255, 273-274 n. 17, 285 n. 15, 291 n. 30, 295 n. 43 progressive accent shift, 135-141, 146, 157, 159-160, 161, 170-172, 183, 237, 279 n. 1, 283-284 n. 11, 284 n. 12, 284 n. 13, 285 n. 15, 291 n. 29, 294 n. 41, 297 n. 50 prothesis, 12, 15, 27, 30-34, 38, 192, 196, 268-269 n. 6, 269 n. 7, 277 n. 30 reduced vowels, 50, 60, 106, 152; in Polabian, 157-160, 180-182, 290-291 n. 27, 296 n. 48; see also akanje; jers regressive accent shift, 140-141, 157, 168-169, 172, 294 n. 40 Russian, 46, 56, 61, 67, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 95, 99, 101, 112, 116, 126, 134, 147-148, 152-156, 161, 173, 187, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211, 233, 236, 239, 243, 245,252,253,254,255,256, 257, 258, 259, 267 n. 2, 277 n. 29, 277 n. 31, 279 n. 35, 288-289 n. 22, 298 n. 6 Serbian, see Serbo-Croatian Serbo-Croatian, 14, 37, 46, 56, 70, 72, 82, 93, 94, 98, 102, 106, 112, 115, 116, 126, 129, 136, 162-168, 183, 185, 187, 189, 192, 200, 205, 214, 217, 224-228, 239-243, 252, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259, 281 n. 4, 283 n. 10, 286 n. 17, 292 n. 34, 292-293 n. 35, 293-294 n. 38, 300 n. 16, 300 n. 17, 301 n. 22, 301 n.24 Slovak, 46, 56, 62, 67, 76, 78, 79, 82, 84, 94, 96, 97, 98, 102, 112, 126, 130, 133, 145, 146,147, 148, 149-152, 173, 175, 176, 178, 186, 187, 192, 196, 202-203, 206, 207, 214, 219-223, 228, 236, 243, 246, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 267 n. 2, 272 n. 15, 274 n. 17, 277 n. 31, 286 n. 17, 286 n. 18, 288 n. 21, 288 n. 22, 289 n. 23, 299 n. 11; Rhythmic Law, 149-152, 217-223, 298 n. 8, 298-299 n. 10, 299 n. 14, 300 n. 19 Slovene, 14, 37, 46, 56, 69, 70, 84, 88, 106, 112, 126, 129, 135-141, 157, 159, 160, 161,

349

168-172, 180, 183, 187, 202, 206, 214, 326-339, 243, 252, 253, 254, 255, 259, 278 n. 35, 279 n. 1, 281-282 n. 5, 282 n. 7, 283 n. 9, 283-284 n. 11, 284 n. 12, 285 n. 14, 285 n. 15, 286 n. 17, 287 n. 19, 290 n. 25, 291 n. 29, 294 n. 40, 295 n. 42, 300 n. 20, 301, n. 22, 301 n.24 Slovincian, 67, 73, 84, 112, 146, 160-161, 172, 274 n. 18, 291 n. 30, 295 n. 43 sonority, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18-25, 27-29, 38, 40, 43,46, 52, 53, 63, 65, 70, 72, 80, 83, 98, 103, 189-197, 199, 200, 201, 241, 248-249, 254-255, 268 n. 4, 275 n. 21, 277 n. 28, 297 n. 3, 301 n. 21 Sorbian, see Upper and Lower Sorbian Stokavian, 162-168, 187, 224-228, 243, 282 n. 5, 291-292 n. 31, 292 n. 32, 292 n. 33, 292 n. 34, 292-293 n. 35, 293 n. 36 293-294 n. 38, 296 n. 46 syllabeme, 13, 14, 24, 34, 37, 92, 107, 110, 258, 267 n. 2, 269 n. 8 syllable synharmony, 12, 13, 24, 34-35, 270 n. 10, 275 n. 20; see also intrasyllabic harmony tort, turt formula, see diphthongs, liquid; jers and liquids typology, 110, 192, 235, 251-259, 301 n. 22 Ukrainian, 46, 56, 64, 67, 76, 78, 79, 80-84, 90, 91, 96, 98, 100-101, 102, 103, 109, 110, 112, 126, 146-148, 155, 187, 189, 192, 199, 203,204, 205, 206, 214, 243, 252, 254, 255, 257, 259, 267 n. 2, 273 n. 17, 276 n. 24, 277 n. 30, 287 n. 19, 287 n. 20, 288 n. 22; geminates, 229-233, 300 n. 18 Upper Sorbian, 46, 56, 59, 67, 74, 75, 79,94, 96, 98, 101, 102, 112, 126, 135, 142-145, 146, 173, 175, 176, 178, 187, 196, 236, 246, 255, 272 n. 16, 282 n. 7, 286 n. 17, 288-289 n.22 vocalization, see jers voicing, 102, 103, 106, 109-110, 193, 203, 229, 277 n. 30, 288 n. 21 vowel alternations, 96, 98, 101, 102, 105, 143, 155, 168, 180, 201, 204, 214; vowel-zero, 192, 205-214, 277 n. 31, 298 n. 5

Russian NORTHEAST LCS

NORTHWEST LCS Upper \ \

SOUTHERN LCS Afa

C

Bulgarian

Approximate distribution of Late Common Slavic dialects