S.A. Chugunova

/kæt/ cat. However, research in phonology in recent decades has also uncovered evidence that underlying sound shapes may also pre-specify aspects of prosody (e.g. lexical accent) or underspecify aspects of speech sound realization. Russian furnishes well-known examples of both. Unlike languages such as Finnish or Czech, where the accent falls predictably on the first syllable, the nominal accent in Russian has to be largely learned for each noun. Russian also has a class of abstract underlying vowels, the so-called yers, usually represented /E O/, which are neutralized on the surface to either a mid vowel [e o] or zero, but are distinct from both in terms of their phonological behavior.

Spelling out the syntactic structure yields a concatenation, or string, of morphemes, which is then input to two further kinds of computation, semantic and phonological, of which only the latter is relevant here. The phonology organizes input phonological shapes into larger prosodic units and makes any required contextual adjustments to the way elements are to be realized by the pe-

ripheral articulatory and perceptual systems. These– contextual adjustments include processeЬ ЬЮМС КЬ ПОКЭЮЫО МСКЧРО (Д+FЖ → [ F]), DELETION (x→ ), inser-

tion ( →x), metathesis (x1y2→y2x1), and coalescence (x1y2→z1,2). The latter process, of which more below, takes two input elements, x and y, and merges them

into a single element z in the output. The indices point to correspondence relations obtaining between the input sound shape and the output. Since, by hypothesis, the lexicon only contains objects, and spell-out can only provide the pho-

nology with combinations of sound shapes, there is no theoretically appropriate

аКв ЭШ НОЬМЫТЛО ХОбТМКХ ЩЫШЩОЫЭТОЬ ТЧ ЭОЫЦЬ ШП ЩЫШМОЬЬОЬ. ‘PШЬЭ-КММОЧЭТЧР’ ТЬ К lexical property of a certain class of nouns, but the descriptive devices that most readily come to hand are process-like (non-concatenative). In order to uphold the division between morpheme concatenation and phonological processes a representational alternative is therefore needed.

Let us briefly review the basics of the nominal accentual system. Noun roots and inflectional suffixes may both be underlyingly accented or unaccented. By way of illustrating the suffixes, the dative singular (DAT.SG) suffix {-u} is

underlyingly unaccented, but the instrumental plural (INST.PL) suffix {-ámʲi} is underlyingly accented. Noun roots have a more complex typology than suffixes because accented noun roots may be further divided into (at least) two subclasses. The basic type of accented noun root (Class A) is descriptively characterized by fixed stress on one of the root syllables throughout the paradigm, e.g.

goróx ‘ЩОК’ з goróx-u (DAT.SG) ~ goróx-ami (INST.PL). According to Morris Halle [5Ж, CХКЬЬ A КММШЮЧЭЬ ПШЫ 91.6 % ШП ЭСО НКЭК ТЧ ГКХТгЧУКФ’Ь МХКЬЬТМ ЦШЧo-

graph on Russian nominal inflection [10]. The second class of accented noun

ЫШШЭЬ, ЭСО ‘ЩШЬЭ-accentТЧР’ ЧШЮЧЬ (CХКЬЬ B), КЫО НОЬМЫТЩЭТЯОХв МСКЫКМЭОЫТгОН Лв accent on the post-stem syllable where there is a vocalic suffix, e.g. pirog-ú ‘ЩТО-

DAT.SG’ з pirog-ámi (INST.PL), and the final stem syllable where there is not, e.g. piróg. CХКЬЬ B КММШЮЧЭЬ ПШЫ 6.6 % ШП ЭСО ЧШЮЧЬ ТЧ ГКХТгЧУКФ’Ь ЬЮЫЯОв. AЬ аО ЬСКХХ ЬОО ЛОХШа, ЭСТЬ ‘ЩЫО-ЭСОШЫОЭТМКХ’ НОЬМЫТЩЭТШЧ КМЭЮКХХв КХЫОКНв МШЧЭКТЧЬ ЬШЦО

144

non-trivial implicit theoretical claims, which I shall challenge. The third class comprises noun roots that lack a lexical accent altogether (Class C). In this class the location of the accent is determined by the inflectional suffix. Word accent

surfaces on the suffix where the suffix carries an underlying accent, e.g. gorodámi ‘ЭШаЧЬ (INST.PL)’, ШЭСОЫаТse it surfaces on the initial syllable of the word,

e.g. górod (NOM.SG) ~ górod-u (DAT.SG). Class C is small (0.8 %), but it contains a large proportion of high-frequency nouns like ruká ‘СКЧН’ КЧН golová

(INST.PL)’. АСОЫО both the root and the suffix carry a lexical accent, the phonology suppresses or deletes the lexical accent of the suffix in favor of preserving

the lexical accent of the root, e.g. /ɡoróx + ámʲТ/ → [ɡʌЫябəЦʲТЖ ‘ЩОК-INST.PL’. Where neither the root nor the suffix bears a lexical accent, the phonology in-

serts a default accent on the initial syllable, e.g. /ɡШЫШН + Ю/ → [ɡяЫəНЮЖ ‘ЭШаЧ

(DAT.SG)’.

In the currently dominant approach to phonology known as Optimality Theory [7], alterations to underlying sound shapes are assumed to be motivated by markedness constraints on output phonological structure. CULMINATIVITY is an example of precisely such a constraint. Any alterations to underlying sound shape nevertheless incur a cost. The phonological computation minimizes this cost by penalizing any divergences between the underlying sound shape and the

output form.

SТЧМО ЫШШЭ КММОЧЭ ТЬ ЩЫОЬОЫЯОН КЭ ЭСО ОбЩОЧЬО ШП КЧв ЬЮППТб КММОЧЭ, ‘ЩШЬЭ- КММОЧЭТЧР’ ЧШЮЧЬ КЩЩОКЫ ЭШ СКЯО ЭСО ШНН ЩЫШЩerty that the accent that surfaces on

the suffix is a lexical property of the root. It has proven difficult to imagine how this root lexical property can be encoded representationally. A widely invoked solution is a diacritic feature, say [+post-accenting], whose sole function is to trigger a post-accenting process that shifts the accent one syllable to the right precisely for nouns of Class B [8]. This move comes at considerable theoretical cost, however, both because diacritic features are arbitrary and have no inherent phonological content and because it effectively introduces processes into the lexicon that, on minimalist assumptions, only contains objects. For this reason, much recent work in linguistic theory has seen an effort to dispense with such diacritics and the minor processes they trigger [1, 2].

145

AЧШЭСОЫ ЩШЬЬТЛТХТЭв ТЬ ЭСКЭ ЭСО ХОбТМКХ ЫОЩЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧ ШП ‘ЩШЬЭ-КММОЧЭТЧР’ nouns require some combination of prosodic pre-specification and segmental underspecification. P. Bye and P. Svenonius [2, 3] show how lexical preand underspecification and simple phonological processes can derive something approaching the full range of non-concatenative effects in natural human language. Several of these analyses exploit coalescence to do the main share of the phonological work. While coalescence is independently motivated, it has been put to

little use in actual analytical practice. Coalescence may also be put to use in un-

НОЫЬЭКЧНТЧР ЭСО ЛОСКЯТШЫ ШП ‘ЩШЬЭ-КММОЧЭТЧР’ ЧШЮЧЬ, РТЯОЧ КЩЩЫШЩЫТКЭО КЬЬЮЦp-

tions about underlying sound shape to which we now turn. Class B nouns, I claim, end in an accented melodically empty vowel, аСТМС I ЬСКХХ КЛЛЫОЯТКЭО КЬ

V́. TСО ЩЫШЩШЬОН ЫОЩЫОЬОЧЭКЭТШЧ МШЦЛТЧОЬ ЩЫШЬШНТМ ЩЫО-specification (the vowel is lexically accented) and segmental underspecification (it has no melodic content of its own). Since both of these types of specification are independently needed in the lexical representations of some languages, there is nothing to prevent their co-occurrence in the input. Mapped faithfully onto the output, however, an accented underspecified vowel would be both unpronounceable and unperceivable. Nonetheless, given the minimal organization of language that we

are assuming constrains the space of hypotheses available to the child constructing ЭСО РЫКЦЦКЫ ШП ЭСОТЫ ЧКЭТЯО ЭКЫРОЭ ХКЧРЮКРО, КЧН ЭСО ШЛЬОЫЯОН ЩСШЧШХШРТМКХ

ОППОМЭЬ ШП СвЩШЭСОЭТМКХ ЮЧНОЫЬЩОМТПТОН ПТЧКХ V́, ЭСО ЬЭЫЮМЭЮЫО ТЬ ЧШЭ ЮЧХОКЫЧКЛХО. GЫКЧЭОН ЭСКЭ аО КХХШа ЭСО ОбТЬЭОЧМО ШП ЮЧНОЫЬЩОМТПТОН ПТЧКХ V́, I ЩЫШЩШЬО RЮЬЬТКЧ phonology deals аТЭС ТЭ ЭСЫШЮРС МШКХОЬМОЧМО аТЭС КЧ КНУКМОЧЭ ЯШаОХ. PЫОМОНТЧР К ЯШаОХ-ТЧТЭТКХ ЬЮППТб, ЭСО ЫШШЭ-ПТЧКХ V́МШКХОЬМОЬ аТЭС ЭСО ПТЫЬЭ ЯШаОХ ШП ЭСО ЬЮf-

fix. This yields a pattern where the word accent is aligned with the suffix, whether the suffix is underlyingly accented or not (1,2).

(1)Post-accenting root, unaccented suffix

(2)Post-accenting root, accented suffix

If there is no suffix, or no vocalic suffix capable of supporting an КММОЧЭ,

ЭСО КММОЧЭ ПКХХЬ ШЧ ЭСО ПТЧКХ ЬвХХКЛХО ШП ЭСО аШЫН. IЧ ЩШЬТЭТЧР КЧ ЮЧНОЫЬЩОМТПТОН ПТЧКХ V́ПШЫ ЭСТЬ МХКЬЬ ШП ЫШШЭЬ аО СКЯО ТЧ МШКХОЬМОЧМО К ЬТЦЩХО ОбЩХКЧКЭТШЧ ПШЫ ЭСТЬ КХЭОЫЧКЭТШЧ. АСОЧ ЭСОЫО ТЬ ЧШ ЯШаОХ ЭШ ТЭЬ ЫТРСЭ, ЭСО V́МШКХОЬМОЬ КЬ К ХКЬЭ Ыe-

sort with the nearest vowel to its left, skipping over an intervening consonant in the process (3).

(3)Post-accenting root, no vocalic suffix

146

The additional cost of coalescing non-adjacent material is the reason why, in suffixed forms, the word accent does not fall on the syllable immediately preceding the suffixal material, which would give non-occurring forms

*[pʲiró1,2ɡu], *[pʲiró1,2ɡəЦʲi].

Importantly for the way we conceptualize Class B, the accented vowel in suffixed forms is a complex exponent of both the root and the suffix. This un-

derstanding entails, of course, that the descriptive label with which we started

ШЮЭ, ‘ЩШЬЭ-КММОЧЭТЧР’, аКЬ К ЦТЬЧШЦОЫ, ЬТЧМО ШЧ ЭСТЬ КММШЮЧЭ ЭСО CХКЬЬ B ЩКЭЭОЫЧ does not entail shifting accent off the root at all, but rather a coalescence of root and suffix material. The way we frame a problem descriptively can end up constraining the way we theorize about it, precisely because our descriptions are implicitly already laden with theoretical expectations.

The Russian accent system is remarkably well studied, as well as complex, and so I venture this small contribution with some trepidation. Still, the goal of this short communication was not to improve on our empirical coverage of Russian accent phenomena but show how a process-like lexical property can be reanalyzed, bringing it into line with a restrictive morpheme-based view of language founded on a clear division of labor between objects (lexical sound

shapes) and processes (phonological operations). The proposed reanalysis of

RЮЬЬТКЧ ‘ЩШЬЭ-КММОЧЭТЧР’ ЧШЮЧЬ ТЬ ШЧО ЬЦКХХ ЬЭОЩ ЭШаКЫНЬ ЭСТЬ ЦТЧТЦКХТЬЭ МШn- ception.

Bibliography

1.Bermúdez-Otero R. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence/ R. Bermúdez-Otero // The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence/ ed. by J. Trommer. Oxford, 2012. P. 8-83.

2.Bye P., Svenonius P. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon / P. Bye, P. Svenonius // The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence/ ed. by J. Trommer. Oxford, 2012. P. 427-495.

3.Bye P., Svenonius P. The syntax, morphology and phonology of the verb stem in Sierra Miwok/ P. Bye, P. Svenonius. Ms, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, 2014. 17 S.

4.Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program / N. Chomsky. Cambridge, MA, 1995. 426 p.

5.Halle M. On Stress and Accent in Indo-European / M. Halle // Language 73 (2). 1997. P. 275-313.

6.Hayes B. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies / B. Hayes. Chicago, 1995. 455 p.

7.McCarthy J.J. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data/ J.J. McCarthy. Oxford, 2011. 328 p.

8.Melvold J. Structure and Stress in the Phonology of Russian/ J. Melvold. PhD dissertation, MIT, 1990. 322 S.

147