The linguistic study of the Slavic language family, with its rich syntactic and phonological structures, complex writing
183 32 10MB
English Pages 800 [802] Year 2024
The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics The linguistic study of the Slavic language family, with its rich syntactic and phonological structures, complex writing systems, and diverse socio-historical context, is a rapidly growing research area. Bringing together contributions from an international team of authors, this Handbook provides a systematic review of cutting-edge research in Slavic linguistics. It covers phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, lexicology, and sociolinguistics, and presents multiple theoretical perspectives, including synchronic and diachronic. Each chapter addresses a particular linguistic feature pertinent to Slavic languages, and covers the development of the feature from ProtoSlavic to present-day Slavic languages, the main findings in historical and ongoing research devoted to the feature, and a summary of the current state of the art in the field and what the directions of future research will be. Comprehensive yet accessible, it is essential reading for academic researchers and students in theoretical linguistics, linguistic typology, sociolinguistics and Slavic/East European Studies. D A N K O Š I P K A is Professor of Slavic languages and linguistics at Arizona State University. His research interests include lexicography, lexicology, and cultural linguistics. Recent publications include Lexical Conflict (2015) and The Geography of Words (2021). W A Y L E S B R O W N E is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at Cornell University. His interests include Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, Rusyn, Ukrainian, Polish, and Belarusian; clitics and other syntactic phenomena; and translation. He is book review editor of the Journal of Slavic Linguistics.
Published online by Cambridge University Press
CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOKS IN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
Genuinely broad in scope, each handbook in this series provides a complete state-of-the -field overview of a major sub-discipline within language study and research. Grouped into broad thematic areas, the chapters in each volume encompass the most important issues and topics within each subject, offering a coherent picture of the latest theories and findings. Together, the volumes will build into an integrated overview of the discipline in its entirety.
Published titles The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching, edited by Barbara E. Bullock and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language, Second Edition, edited by Edith L. Bavin and Letitia Naigles The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, edited by Peter K. Austin and Julia Sallabank The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by Rajend Mesthrie The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, edited by Bernard Spolsky The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by Julia Herschensohn and Martha Young-Scholten The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics, edited by Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, edited by Marcel den Dikken The Cambridge Handbook of Communication Disorders, edited by Louise Cummings The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics, edited by Peter Stockwell and Sara Whiteley The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, edited by N.J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman and Jack Sidnell The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics, edited by Douglas Biber and Randi Reppen The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Processing, edited by John W. Schwieter The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, edited by Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin and Fanny Meunier The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multicompetence, edited by Li Wei and Vivian Cook The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, edited by Merja Kytö and Päivi Pahta The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, edited by Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, edited by Andrew Hippisley and Greg Stump The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, edited by Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, edited by Raymond Hickey The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Barbara Dancygier The Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, edited by Yoko Hasegawa The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics, edited by Kimberly L. Geeslin
Published online by Cambridge University Press
The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism, edited by Annick De Houwer and Lourdes Ortega The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine and David Schönthal The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, edited by H. Ekkehard Wolff The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning, edited by John W. Schwieter and Alessandro Benati The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes, edited by Daniel Schreier, Marianne Hundt and Edgar W. Schneider The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication, edited by Guido Rings and Sebastian Rasinger The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, edited by Michael T. Putnam and B. Richard Page The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies, edited by Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, edited by Wendy AyresBennett and John Bellamy The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics, edited by Sungdai Cho and John Whitman The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics, edited by Rachael-Anne Knight and Jane Setter The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, edited by Grant Goodall The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics, edited by Silvina Montrul and Maria Polinsky The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, edited by Karin Ryding and David Wilmsen The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language, edited by Piotr Stalmaszczyk The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, edited by Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár and Marina Terkourafi The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching, edited by Mohammed Ahmadian and Michael Long The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact: Population Movement and Language Change, Volume 1, edited by Salikoko Mufwene and Anna Maria Escobar The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact: Multilingualism in Population Structure, Volume 2, edited by Salikoko Mufwene and Anna Maria Escobar The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics, edited by Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær The Cambridge Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, edited by Chu-Ren Huang, YenHwei Lin, I- Hsuan Chen and Yu-Yin Hsu The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics, edited by Istvan Kecskes The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar, edited by Delia Bentley, Ricardo Mairal-Usón, Wataru Nakamura and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography, edited by Marco Condorelli and Hanna Rutkowska The Cambridge Handbook of Third Language Acquisition, edited by Jennifer Cabrelli, Adel Chaouch-Orozco, Jorge González Alonso, Eloi Puig-Mayenco, Sergio Miguel Pereira Soares and Jason Rothman The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, edited by Jesús Romero-Trillo
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics Edited by Danko Šipka Arizona State University
Wayles Browne Cornell University
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467 Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a department of the University of Cambridge. We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108832670 DOI: 10.1017/9781108973021 © Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 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 & Assessment. First published 2024 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library A Cataloging-in-Publication data record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-1-108-83267-0 Hardback Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Contents
List of Figures List of Tables List of Contributors Introduction Wayles Browne and Danko Šipka
page ix xi xv 1
Part 1 Prosody and Phonology 1 Word Stress Draga Zec 2 Vocalism: The Vowels Irena Sawicka 3 Consonantism: The Consonants Peter Jurgec 4 Syllable Structure Alexei Kochetov 5 Phonologically Conditioned Alternations Darya Kavitskaya 6 Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure Radek Šimík
7 9 29 45 64 87 104
Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology 7 Inflectional Endings: Declensions Marek Majer 8 Inflectional Endings: Conjugation Ian Press 9 Tense and Mood Forms Hagen Pitsch 10 Aspect in Verbs Stephen M. Dickey 11 Lexical Derivation Frank Y. Gladney 12 Lexical Composition Mate Kapović
127 129 161 179 211 234 245
Part 3 Syntax 13 Agreement Jana Willer-Gold 14 Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies Barbara Citko 15 Coordination and Subordination in Slavic Languages Milan Mihaljević 16 Numerals and Quantity Expressions Steven Franks
261 263 282
Published online by Cambridge University Press
304 337
viii
Contents
17 Placement and Ordering of the (En)clitics Franc Lanko Marušič, Petra Mišmaš, and Rok Žaucer 18 Secondary Predication Nerea Madariaga 19 Negation and Polarity Luka Szucsich 20 Null Subjects Alina Israeli 21 Voice Jasmina Milićević 22 Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure Elena Titov
365 385 405 430 447 477
Part 4 Lexicon 23 The Structure of the Lexicon Valentina Apresjan and Alexei Shmelev 24 Lexical Semantics: Insights from Lexicology Rajna Dragićević and Milan Ivanović 25 Lexical Borrowing Rajna Dragićević and Danko Šipka
499
Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches 26 Sociolinguistic Variation in Slavic Languages Serge Sharoff and Nenad Ivanović 27 False Cognates Danko Šipka and Mladen Uhlik 28 Dialectal Fragmentation Joseph Schallert 29 Language Contacts Dieter Stern 30 The Slavic Literary Micro-Languages Motoki Nomachi 31 Heritage Language Forms Oksana Laleko 32 Scripts Daniel Bunčić 33 Orthographies Daniel Bunčić
557
Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches 34 Psycholinguistics and Language Acquisition Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan and Irina A. Sekerina 35 Natural Language Processing Tomaž Erjavec
715
Name Index Subject Index
751 762
Published online by Cambridge University Press
501 529 545
559 584 595 626 641 657 675 697
717 732
Figures
4.1 Relative sonority of sounds in the syllables of the Russian words dobryj and čërnyj page 66 6.1 Fundamental frequency/f0 (vertical axis; Hz) development in time (horizontal axis; msec) of utterance (9) used non-contrastively 111 6.2 Fundamental frequency/f0 (vertical axis; Hz) development in time (horizontal axis; msec) of utterance (10) used contrastively 112 6.3 Time-normalized f0 contours for item 24 (modré balonky ‘blue balloons’) in Czech, averaged across all speakers 116 6.4 Time-normalized f0 contours for item 16 (murowane domy ‘brick houses’) in Polish, averaged across all speakers 117 26.1 The number of blog authors in GICR with respect to the year of their birth 572 30.1 Approximate geographical distributions of SLMSs in Duličenko (1981) 644 30.2 Approximate geographical distributions of SLMSs in Duličenko (2003–2004) and later publications 645 32.1 Oldest form of Glagolitic (Kiev Folia, tenth century, fol. 4r) 682 32.2 Round Glagolitic (Codex Marianus, eleventh century, fol. 36r) 682 32.3 Angular Glagolitic (Vrbnik Statute, sixteenth century, p. 2) 683 32.4 Cursive Glagolitic (Sermon on Love for Enemies, 1790, fol. 3v) 683 32.5 Ustav (Codex Suprasliensis, eleventh century, fol. 28r) 684 32.6 Poluustav (Cologne Manuscript of Isaac the Syrian, fifteenth century, fol. 2r) 684 32.7 Western Cyrillic cursive (Poljica Statute, 1665, fol. 1r) 684 32.8 Ruthenian Skoropisʹ (Debt bond, 1569; Russian National Library, Zinčenko collection No. 46) 685 32.9 Civil type (Sanktpeterburgskie vědomosti, June 1711, p. 8) 685
Published online by Cambridge University Press
x
List of Figures
32.10 Carolingian minuscule (Freising Manuscripts, Slovenian part, late tenth century, fol. 160v) 32.11 Textualis (Slovenian Rateče Manuscript, late fourteenth century) 32.12 Rotunda (Vatican Croatian Prayerbook, around 1400, fol. 22v) 32.13 Roman type (Marko Marulić, Judita, Venice 1586, fol. 3v) 32.14 Schwabacher (Czech Grammar of Náměš’, 1533, p. 10) 32.15 Fraktur (Upper Sorbian New Testament translated by Michał Frencel, 1706, Matthew 1:1)
Published online by Cambridge University Press
686 687 687 687 687 687
Tables
3.1 Late Proto-Slavic consonant inventory page 46 3.2 Phoneme inventories of contemporary standard Slavic languages, shaded by frequency 47 4.1 Positional consonant inventories for two stages of Late Proto-Slavic, Slovak, and Bulgarian 68 4.2 The composition of two-consonant onset clusters in terms of sonority classes in Late PSL, BCS, Lower Sorbian, and Russian 71 4.3 Major sonority-type combinations in two-consonant onset clusters in Slavic languages 72 4.4 Sonority plateau onset clusters with two stops/affricates in Slavic languages 74 4.5 The composition of two-consonant coda clusters in terms of sonority classes in Late PSL, BCS, Lower Sorbian, and Russian 78 4.6 Types of nuclei attested in Slavic languages 81 5.1 The outcome of jer vocalization in Slavic languages 93 7.1 Segmentability of accusative markers in masculine o-stems at different diachronic stages 131 7.2 LCS hard o-stem declension (masculine, neuter); *dǫ bъ M ‘oak’ / *lěto N ‘summer’ 134 7.3 LCS soft jo-stem declension (masculine, neuter); *rojь M ‘swarm’ / *moŕe N ‘sea’ 134 7.4 LCS u-stem declension (masculine only); *synъ ‘son’ 134 7.5 LCS i-stem declension (feminine, masculine); *kostь F ‘bone’ / *pǫ tь M ‘way’ 135 7.6 LCS hard ā-stem declension (feminine, masculine); *žena ‘woman’ 135
Published online by Cambridge University Press
xii
List of Tables
7.7 LCS soft jā-stem declension (feminine, masculine); *svěťa ‘candle’ 7.8 LCS consonant-stem declension (neuter s-stem); *slovo ‘word’ 7.9 LCS consonant-stem declension (feminine r-stem); *mati ‘mother’ 7.10 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass I noun (masculine virile/animate); ‘student’ 7.11 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass II noun (feminine); ‘card/map’ 7.12 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass III noun (feminine); productive suffix *-ost-ь 7.13 Declension of LCS first person pronouns (full and clitic where applicable) 7.14 Declension of LCS second person pronouns (full and clitic where applicable) 7.15 LCS hard pronominal declension, masculine and neuter; *tъ ‘that’ 7.16 LCS hard pronominal declension, feminine; *tъ ‘that’ 7.17 LCS soft pronominal declension, masculine and neuter; *mojь ‘my’ 7.18 LCS soft pronominal declension, feminine; *mojь ‘my’ 7.19 Declension of LCS genderless interrogative/indefinite pronouns 7.20 LCS long adjectival declension (hard subtype), masculine and neuter; *novъ ‘new’ 7.21 LCS long adjectival declension (hard subtype), feminine; *novъ ‘new’ 7.22 (Long) adjective declension in the modern Slavic languages (hard subtype where applicable) 7.23 Declension of definite forms for ‘old man’ and ‘sister’ in the dialect of Boboščica/Boboshticë, Albania 9.1 Inventory of tense and mood forms 9.2 Conjugational classes 9.3 Present tense -e-class 9.4 Present tense -i-class 9.5 Present tense -a-class (South and West Slavic) and -j-class (Lower Sorbian) 9.6 Present tense ‘be’ 9.7 Present tense ‘have’ 9.8 Present-tense inflections 9.9 Aorist and imperfect inflections 9.10 Aorist and imperfect forms 9.11 Imperfect ‘be’ 9.12 Imperfect štă ‘want’ (Bulgarian) 9.13 Periphrastic perfect/global past forms in Slavic languages 9.14 Synthetic global past-tense forms in East Slavic
Published online by Cambridge University Press
135 135 136 137 138 139 141 141 142 143 143 143 143 145 145 146 155 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 188 189 190 190 191 192
List of Tables
9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 14.1 14.2 18.1 18.2 21.1 21.2 21.3 23.1 23.2 23.3 26.1 26.2 26.3 28.1 28.2
Periphrastic pluperfect with imperfect-tense auxiliaries Periphrastic pluperfect with global-past auxiliaries Future-in-the past in Bulgarian and Macedonian Future II-in-the past (Bulgarian) Inventory of future tense forms Slavic future auxiliaries based on LCS byti ‘be’ Future auxiliaries based on LCS xotěti/xъtěti ‘want’ 2S G imperative 2P L imperative 1D U imperative 2D U imperative 1P L imperative Analytic imperative: particle + indicative verb Analytic imperative: particle + conditional Analytic imperative: particle + infinitive/supine/da-construction Conditional markers 1S G indicative and renarrative forms 3S G indicative and renarrative forms Procedural prefixation in Russian Imperfective procedurals in Russian The five situation types and the Russian P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition Overview of aspect and motion verbs in Slavic Some derivational differences between Russian and Czech Parameters of Slavic aspect Differences between [+MFS] and [−MFS] languages Differences between IP-absorption and CP-absorption languages Depictive SP encoding in Slavic Non-verbal predicate encoding in Slavic argumental SCs Twelve voices logically possible for a bivalent verb, eight of which are found in Slavic Interaction of voice, aspect, and tense in BCS Slavic oblique voices for bivalent transitive verbs per branch/ language ‘P – not P’ antonyms across Slavic languages ‘More – less’ antonyms across Slavic languages ‘Begin – end’ and ‘do – undo’ antonyms across Slavic languages Region-specific sub-corpora for Russian bloggers in Livejournal Distribution of communicative functions in three Russian corpora as compared to English Comparison of register features in Russian using ruWac Reflexes of velar palatalizations in Old Church Slavonic Relative chronology of First Velar Palatalization, monophthongization of i-diphthongs, and Second Velar Palatalization
Published online by Cambridge University Press
193 194 195 195 198 199 200 201 202 202 202 202 203 204 204 205 206 206 214 214 216 219 220 224 285 288 392 399 452 459 467 513 514 514 564 575 577 598
599
xiii
xiv
List of Tables
28.3 Summary of Slavic velar palatalizations 28.4 Reflexes of *tj, *kt’,*dj in modern Slavic dialect areas 28.5 Relative chronologies of the lenition of *g > γ and the fall of weak jers 28.6 Long : short vowel pairs in Dlhé nad Cirochou (Humenné Sotak dialect of ESk) 29.1 Balkan linguistic features 30.1 SLMLs according to Duličenko (1981) 30.2 Micro-languages added by Duličenko 30.3 Six features of LML in contrast to national standard language 30.4 Knoll’s scheme for the re-classification of SLMLs 32.1 Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts 33.1 ‘Umlaut’ graphemes 33.2 Examples of Modern Church Slavonic grammatical distinctions 33.3 Letters and digraphs: Latin script 33.4 Letters and digraphs: Cyrillic script
Published online by Cambridge University Press
599 601 608 611 630 643 644 653 654 677 699 700 704 704
xiv
List of Tables
28.3 Summary of Slavic velar palatalizations 28.4 Reflexes of *tj, *kt’,*dj in modern Slavic dialect areas 28.5 Relative chronologies of the lenition of *g > γ and the fall of weak jers 28.6 Long : short vowel pairs in Dlhé nad Cirochou (Humenné Sotak dialect of ESk) 29.1 Balkan linguistic features 30.1 SLMLs according to Duličenko (1981) 30.2 Micro-languages added by Duličenko 30.3 Six features of LML in contrast to national standard language 30.4 Knoll’s scheme for the re-classification of SLMLs 32.1 Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts 33.1 ‘Umlaut’ graphemes 33.2 Examples of Modern Church Slavonic grammatical distinctions 33.3 Letters and digraphs: Latin script 33.4 Letters and digraphs: Cyrillic script
Published online by Cambridge University Press
599 601 608 611 630 643 644 653 654 677 699 700 704 704
Contributors
Valentina Apresjan (Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan) Wayles Browne (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) Daniel Bunčić (University of Cologne, Germany) Barbara Citko (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA) Stephen M. Dickey (University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA) Rajna Dragićević (University of Belgrade, Serbia) Tomaž Erjavec (Jožef Štefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia) Steven Franks (Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA) Frank Y. Gladney (University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, USA) Alina Israeli (American University, Washington, DC, USA) Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan (University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA) Milan Ivanović (University of Montenegro, Podgorica) Nenad Ivanović (University of Belgrade, Serbia) Peter Jurgec (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) Mate Kapović (University of Zagreb, Croatia) Darya Kavitskaya (University of California Berkeley, CA, USA) Alexei Kochetov (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) Oksana Laleko (New Paltz State University of New York, USA) Nerea Madariaga (University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) Marek Majer (University of Łódź, Poland) Franc Lanko Marušič (University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia) Milan Mihaljević (Old Church Slavonic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia) Jasmina Milićević (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) Petra Mišmaš (University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia) Motoki Nomachi (Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan) Hagen Pitsch (Leipzig University, Germany) Ian Press (University of St. Andrews, UK) Irena Sawicka (Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland)
Published online by Cambridge University Press
xvi
List of Contributors
Joseph Schallert (University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) Irina A. Sekerina (City University of New York, NY, USA) Serge Sharoff (University of Leeds, UK) Alexei Shmelev (Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russia) Dieter Stern (Ghent University, Belgium) Luka Szucsich (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany) Radek Šimík (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic) Danko Šipka (Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA) Elena Titov (University College London, UK) Mladen Uhlik (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) Jana Willer-Gold (University College London, UK) Draga Zec (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) Rok Žaucer (University of Nova Gorica, Slovenia)
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Introduction Wayles Browne and Danko Šipka
The present handbook seeks to provide a systematic review of relevant topics and research about them in Slavic linguistics. The review is approach-neutral and involves synchronic and diachronic perspectives. The goal of each chapter is to identify and review the following: (a) the linguistic features pertinent to Slavic languages, (b) the development of these features from Proto-Slavic to the present-day Slavic languages (to the degree appropriate for the topic of the chapter), (c) the main findings in historical and ongoing research devoted to these features, and (d) a summary of what the state of the art in the field is and what the directions of further research will be. This volume is a handbook. Just as in any handbook, here too one provides succinct and accessible information (rather than in-depth analyses). While remaining accessible to a broad circle of scholars and students in the fields of linguistics and Slavic studies, the present volume caters in particular to the following three readerships. First, it offers a review of main areas of inquiry in Slavic studies to the current and prospective students of Slavic linguistics. The brisk introductions to the field provided in each chapter are thus meant to be teasers that would help these students to select the field or fields of their specialization. Second, nowadays Slavic linguists typically specialize in one or several rather narrow areas of inquiry. The chapters discussing the fields other than one’s own offer to these scholars an accessible introduction and a chance to broaden their horizons in Slavic studies. Finally, in contrast to the previous group, non-Slavic linguists may be interested in the chapters of their specialization. For example, a scholar of inflection in Baltic or Germanic languages may want to get some introductory information about that field in Slavic languages. Given its intent and target readership, chapters are approach-neutral. Similarly, they deploy broadly known terminology. This makes the text accessible to every student of Slavic studies and linguistics, no matter what theoretical background they may have. Just like any field of human inquiry, the field of Slavic linguistics is multifaceted, with lines of investigation meandering through countless problems and topics. This made the task of selecting the topics to be included in a volume of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2
WAYLES BROWNE & DANKO ŠIPKA
a limited length difficult if not impossible. Cognizant of the aforementioned complexity of the problem, we attempted to include the most prominent problems and topics that are of relevance for the intended readership of this volume. Needless to say, other editors might have selected a different set of topics. Authors for each chapter have been selected, without fear or favor, as established experts in their particular fields. It is important that in addition to the inclusivity of the subject matter (which comes with the territory) the volume remains temporally and geographically inclusive. The former can be seen in the fact that the volume includes early, mid, and late career scholars of Slavic studies. In a way, it gives insight into the past, present, and future of Slavic linguistics. The range of places from which the authors come testifies to the latter. While, as is usual in publications in English, authors from countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom constitute the core of the contributors, there are authors from Germany and Austria, where Slavic studies are exceptionally strong, but also from other European countries, such as Belgium and Spain, and from Japan. Last, but definitely not least, there are authors from the Slavia – from Croatia, Czech Republic, Montenegro, Poland, Russia, and Serbia. This is particularly valuable given that, despite recent rapprochement processes, research traditions in English-speaking countries and those around the Slavic world still seem to live separate lives. The volume has the following structure. The first six chapters are devoted to phonology. Draga Zec, Cornell University, discusses Word Stress. Irena Sawicka (Copernicus University, Toruń) presents Vocalism, and Peter Jurgec (University of Toronto) discusses Consonantism. Alexei Kochetov of the same University is next with his analysis of the Syllable Structure. Next, Darya Kavitskaya, of University of California Berkeley, addresses Phonologically Conditioned Alternations. The final chapter in this section, penned by Radek Šimík (Charles University, Prague), is devoted to Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure. The next section comprises four chapters focusing on inflectional morphology and two exploring lexical morphology. Marek Majer (University of Łódź) discusses Declensions, while Ian Press (University of St. Andrews) presents Conjugations. Hagen Pitsch (Leipzig University) writes about Tense and Mood Forms. In a final chapter, Stephen Dickey (University of Kansas) explores Aspect in Verbs. In the first chapter devoted to lexical morphology, Frank Y. Gladney (University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana) discusses Lexical Derivation. The section on morphology is concluded by the chapter on Lexical Composition written by Mate Kapović (University of Zagreb). A cohort of chapters treating syntax is next. Jana Willer-Gold (University College London) discusses Agreement. In the next chapter, Barbara Citko (University of Washington) analyses Wh-Dependencies. Milan Mihaljević (Old Church Slavonic Institute, Zagreb) is next with his presentation of Coordination and Subordination. In the following chapter, Steven Franks (Indiana University) discusses Numerals and Quantity Expressions. Then,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Introduction
there is a chapter by Franc Lanko Marušič, Petra Mišmaš, and Rok Žaucer (University of Nova Gorica) about the Placement and Ordering of the (En)clitics. Nerea Madariaga (University of the Basque Country) analyses Secondary Predication in the next chapter. Luka Szucsich (Humboldt University, Berlin) is next with his discussion of Polarity. Then Alina Israeli (American University) presents Null Subjects. Jasmina Milićević (Dalhousie University) presents Voice in the next chapter. Finally, Elena Titov (University College London) discusses Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure. The next section presents three chapters devoted to the lexicon. Valentina Apresjan (Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan) and Alexei Shmelev (Moscow State Pedagogical University) discuss the Structure of the Lexicon. Rajna Dragićević (University of Belgrade) and Milan Ivanović (University of Montenegro) analyze Lexical Semantics. Rajna Dragićević (University of Belgrade) and Danko Šipka (Arizona State University) are next with the presentation of Lexical Borrowing. The next section includes chapters addressing sociolinguistics, broadly understood, and geographical approaches. Serge Sharoff (University of Leeds) and Nenad Ivanović (University of Belgrade) discuss Sociolinguistic Variation. Danko Šipka (Arizona State University) and Mladen Uhlik (University of Ljubljana) address False Cognates. Joseph Schallert (University of Toronto) is next with his presentation of Dialectal Fragmentation. In the following chapter Dieter Stern (Ghent University) discusses Language Contacts. Next, Motoki Nomachi (Hokkaido University, Sapporo) addresses Slavic Micro-Languages. Oksana Laleko (New Paltz University) addresses Heritage Language Forms. There follow two chapters on epilinguistic issues of relevance in Slavic languages, both penned by Daniel Bunčić (University of Cologne). The first discusses Scripts, the second Orthographies. The final section is devoted to prominent applied linguistic fields in Slavic linguistics. In the first chapter, Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan (University of California Los Angeles) and Irina A. Sekerina (City University of New York) discuss Psycholinguistics and Language Acquisition. In the second, Tomaž Erjavec (Jožef Štefan Institute, Ljubljana) addresses Natural Language Processing. The authors in this volume were encouraged by the editors to use the terms all prospective readers of the volume will be familiar with. All terms used without defining them are intended to be approach-neutral and in common use. The editors have sent a list of such terms to the authors. Anything that is not likely to be familiar to every Slavist and linguist who is a potential reader of the volume is defined in a footnote the first time it is used. For some concepts, where there were competing terms, the editors decided on the following: Belarusian (rather than Belorussian, Belarusan), Finnic (rather than Fennic), Finno-Ugric (rather than Ugro-Finnic), jer (rather than yer; definitely not jor), Kashubian (rather than Cassubian), Lekhitic (rather than Lechitic), Lower Sorbian, Upper Sorbian (rather than Lower Lusatian, Upper Lusatian; not Wendish), Slavic (rather than Slavonic); but: Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavonic. In the politically charged issue of Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian/
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
3
4
WAYLES BROWNE & DANKO ŠIPKA
Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian) we left the decision what to use to the authors. All examples are transliterated into the Latin script, translated, and glossed, where appropriate. The following conventions were used. The ‘scientific system’ in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_transliteration_of_Cyrillic was used, except in the following cases: For Ukrainian, ji was used (not ï). For Ukrainian and Belarusian, the advice was not to transcribe Ukrainian and Belarusian apostrophe and, instead, write two marks ´´ (as for the Russian hard sign). For Belarusian Ў we used ŭ. For OCS and common Slavic vowels, ь and ъ were written (rather than ĭ and ŭ). For OCS, št was used both for шт and for щ. For Ц, c was always used. For X, x was written (except: Serbian and Macedonian, where h was used).
The authors were discouraged from using: ISO 9, the official Ukrainian romanization, the Bulgarian ‘Streamlined System’, the Library of Congress system. The authors were encouraged to use the Leipzig glossing rules and recommended abbreviations (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/GlossingRules.pdf). In addition, the following abbreviations for language names were recommended. BCMS BCS Bel. Bos. BSL Bul. Cro. Cze. Ksb. LSo. Mac. Mon. OCS PIE Pol. PSL Rus. Scr. Ser. Slk. Sln. Sor.
Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Belarusian Bosnian Balto-Slavic Bulgarian Croatian Czech Kashubian Lower Sorbian Macedonian Montenegrin Old Church Slavonic Proto-Indo-European Polish Proto-Slavic Russian Serbo-Croatian Serbian Slovak Slovene Sorbian
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Introduction
Ukr. USo.
Ukrainian Upper Sorbian
This volume is equipped with a subject and person index. Since the following three languages, Russian, Polish, and Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian/Croatian/ Montenegrin/Serbian), appear very frequently in each chapter, they have not been included in the index. The idea for this volume came from Helen Barton of Cambridge University Press. We are most grateful to her for the idea and for entrusting its execution to us. Throughout the project we have enjoyed the support of student associates. McKenna Kellar, an undergraduate student of Slavic studies at that time, helped us with targeting potential authors and corresponding with those who came aboard. Mary Murphy, also an advanced undergraduate student, then worked corresponding with the authors, finding reviewers, corresponding with them, sending editor and reviewer feedback to the authors, and collecting revisions, securing final versions of each chapter all the way to pre-production activities. Gina Scarpete Walters, a graduate student of linguistics, has created topic and person indexes, as well as worked on and coordinated preproduction activities. We are grateful for financial support to Arizona State University (Melikian Center and School of International Letters and Cultures) and to Cornell University. We are also grateful to Cambridge University Press for a financial advance that helped us in the execution of the project. Various colleagues from around the globe have selflessly contributed their time and expertise to provide reviews of the chapters in each volume. We are indebted to them for their feedback, which has significantly improved the volume. They are as follows: Maria Alley, Tanja Anstatt, Jakub Banasiak, Sandra Birzer, Petr Biskup, Krzysztof Borowski, Bożena Cetnarowska, Bernard Comrie, Greville Corbett, Florian Coulmas, Bartłomiej Czaplicki, Jürgen Fuchsbauer, Ljudmila Geist, Frank Gladney, Yaroslav Gorbachov, Nikolay Hakimov, Axel Holvoet, Alina Israeli, Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan, Nenad Ivanović, Hakyung Jung, Tomasz Kamusella, Mate Kapović, Alexei Kochetov, John Leafgren, Kristian Lewis, Nerea Madariaga, Anna Malicka-Klerparska, Stela Manova, Marjan Markovikj, Franc Lanko Marušič, Jasmina Milićević, Petra Mišmaš, Olga Mladenova, Tore Nesset, Đorđe Otašević, Hagen Pitsch, Ljudmila Popović, Ian Press, Ljiljana Progovac, Roman Roszko, Irena Sawicka, Joseph Schallert, Irina Sekerina, Serge Sharoff, Marko Simonović, Piotr Sobotka, Dieter Stern, Radek Šimík, Elena Titov, Mladen Uhlik, Rosti Vana, Jana Willer-Gold, Rok Žaucer, and Anton Zimmerling.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
5
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.001 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Part 1
Prosody and Phonology
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
1 Word Stress Draga Zec
1.1 Introduction One of the central properties of words, from a phonological perspective, is their prominence structure. A word corresponds to a sequence of sounds, grouped into syllables that vary in the degrees of prominence, with the most prominent syllable characterized as the bearer of stress. The stressed syllable possesses phonetic properties that set it apart from its unstressed counterparts, such as an increase in intensity and duration. Stress is not a universal prosodic property, yielding a classification of languages into those that are, and those that are not characterized by this feature (see e.g. Hyman 1977). All Slavic languages clearly exhibit word stress but vary with regard to its typological properties. From a typological perspective, stress can be fixed or free (see Trubetzkoy 1939, Hayes 1995: 31, among others). In fixed stress systems, the stress-bearing syllable occurs in a predictable position within a word, such as initial, final, or penultimate, while in free stress systems, stress may fall on any syllable, and thus, being unpredictable, calls for lexical specification (see e.g. Revithiadou 1999: 11 and references therein). This classification is highly relevant for Slavic stress systems, which can be exhaustively classified as belonging to a fixed or free stress type (see e.g. Bethin 1998: 112). As shown in example (1), West and South Slavic groups include languages with fixed as well as free stress, while all East Slavic languages are of the latter type. The two pitch accent languages, BCS and Slovenian, the only ones in Slavic, have been classified as free stress systems due to the many traits they share with other Slavic systems of free stress. The classification in (1) for the most part refers to standard languages, with the situation in non-standard dialects often departing from the standard idiom.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10
DRAGA ZEC
(1)
Typology of Slavic word stress (Bethin 1998: 112, 175–177) East Slavic West Slavic South Slavic Fixed Czech Macedonian Polish Slovak Southern Kashubian Upper Sorbian Lower Sorbian Free Belarusian Northern Kashubian Bulgarian Russian Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) Ukrainian Slovenian
Within this general classification, Slavic languages exhibit a diversity of stress patterns which is consistent with the broader, cross-linguistic range of attested systems of word stress. We will show this relying on metrical phonology, a subarea of theoretical phonology that investigates the universal properties of stress systems as well as modes of their cross-linguistic variation (for detailed surveys, see Hyman 1977, Hayes 1995, Revithiadou 1999). This aspect of Slavic word stress will be addressed in Sections 1.2 and 1.3, with Section 1.2 dedicated to the phonological organization of fixed, and Section 1.3 to the organization of free stress systems. Another important aspect of Slavic word stress, to be addressed in Section 1.4, is its diachrony, that is, how its diverse properties evolved over time, which has been researched by reconstructing its earlier structural stages.
1.2 Fixed Stress A crucial property of fixed stress systems in general, as well as in Slavic, is that the distribution of stress is for the most part regular, and is unaffected by the morphological composition of words. According to Trubetzkoy (1939), fixed stress primarily performs a delimitative function, marking off the edges of word units. Cross-linguistically, fixed word stress predominantly falls on the initial, final, or penultimate syllable, and much less so on the syllable in peninitial or antepenultimate position, that is, second from the word’s beginning and third from the word’s end respectively (as reported in Hyman’s 1977 broad typological survey of stress systems). Only some of these systems are evidenced in Slavic: those with initial, penultimate, and the rarely occurring antepenultimate stress. These three types of fixed stress have been characterized in metrical phonology as having trochaic organization (see Hayes 1995, Bethin 1998: 175). That is, a trochaic foot, which corresponds to a disyllabic grouping with prominence on its leftmost syllable, is associated with one of the word edges: initial in systems with initial stress, and final in systems with penultimate and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
antepenultimate stress. (The two fixed stress systems that do not occur in Slavic, final and peninitial, are iambic.)
1.2.1 Initial Stress in West Slavic Systems with initial stress predominate in Slavic, occurring in Czech, Slovak, Southern Kashubian, as well as in Upper and Lower Sorbian (Stone 1993a, 1993b, Short 1993a, 1993b, Bethin 1998: 175). In these languages, stress invariably falls on the word’s first syllable. Initial stress in Czech and Slovak is illustrated in (2)–(3). This type of stress, as noted earlier, is analyzed in metrical phonology by matching a trochaic foot, that is, a disyllabic unit with initial prominence represented as ('o o), with the word’s left edge, as in voda → ('voda), resulting in the initially stressed 'voda (2a). (2)
(3)
Czech (Bethin 1998: 175, 176) a. 'voda ‘water’ d. ‘bývaˌlý b. 'zeleˌný ‘green’ e. ‘bývaˌlého c. 'nepříˌtel ‘enemy’
‘former’ ‘former-G E N . S G ’
Slovak (Rubach 1993: 41–42, based on Letz 1950) a. 'učiˌtel ‘teacher’ b. 'záhradˌník ‘gardener’ d. 'nepoˌveziem ‘I won’t carry'
c.
'silnejˌší ‘stronger’
Both Czech and Slovak allow multiple stresses in a word. Stress on the first syllable, which counts as primary, is followed by alternating secondary stresses on successive odd-numbered syllables (see e.g. Bethin 1998, Rubach 1993). Note that long vowels (designated in orthography with an acute diacritic), which in both languages are contrastive, may occur not only in stressed but also in unstressed syllables, such as í in the second syllable of (2c) and the diphthong in the last syllable of (3d). Secondary stress in Czech has been described as optional (Hayes 1995, Kučera 1961: 54, Palková 1994: 287). According to Kučera (1961: 54), it is mostly absent “in more casual pronunciation.” But according to Bethin (1998), long vowels can reinforce the alternating trochaic rhythm, which is “most stable in Czech when the strong position coincides with length, especially in the case of secondary stresses” (Bethin 1998: 176). The distribution of secondary stress in Slovak has received multiple characterizations in the literature (see Rubach 1993: 41–42 and references therein). In addition to the alternating pattern in (3), a less regular distribution has also been reported, with secondary stresses separated by more than one unstressed syllable and absent word-finally.
1.2.2 Penultimate Stress in Polish In Polish, stress regularly falls on the penultimate syllable in words of at least two syllables (see Comrie 1976, Dogil 1979, Rubach & Booij 1985, Franks 1985, Halle & Vergnaud 1987, Hammond 1989, Hayes 1995, Idsardi 1992,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
11
12
DRAGA ZEC
Bethin 1998: 176–177, and references therein). Penultimate stress persists through all forms within a paradigm, as illustrated in (4), regardless of whether the stem is bare, as in (4a), or combines with a suffix (-a in (4b) and -ami in (4c)); and regardless of how many syllables the suffix has (one in (4b) and two in (4c)). (4)
Polish (from Franks 1985: 145) a. 'język ‘language-N O M . S G ’ b. ję'zyka ‘language-G E N . S G ’ c. języ'kami ‘language-I N S T . P L ’
Systems with penultimate stress manifest trochaic organization, just like systems with initial stress (see Section 1.2.1). In this case, a trochaic foot is matched with the right edge of the word, as shown in (5), thus assigning stress to its penultimate syllable: (5)
Stress assignment in Polish Input Trochaic foot ('o o) assignment język ('język) języka ję('zyka) językami języ('kami)
Output 'język ję'zyka języ'kami
There are, however, exceptions to the regular penultimate stress, exemplified in (6) and (7), which are the norm of the standard language but not observed by all speakers. Note that the exceptional forms, (6a) and (7b), are stressed not on the penultimate but on the antepenultimate syllable. What is puzzling here is that only some members of the paradigm have antepenultimate stress; and that (6) and (7) differ in which forms are exceptional in this fashion. (6)
Exceptional stress in Polish 1 (Franks 1985: 146) a. uni'wersytet ‘university-N O M . S G ’ b. uniwersy'tetu ‘university-G E N . S G ’ c. uniwersyte'tami ‘university-I N S T R . P L ’
(7)
Exceptional stress in Polish 2 (Franks 1985: 148) a. mate'matyk ‘mathematician-N O M . S G ’ b. mate'matyka ‘mathematician-G E N . S G ’ c. matematy'kami ‘mathematician-I N S T R . P L ’
This pattern of exceptional antepenultimate stress is treated in metrical phonology as a special case of penultimate stress (see Rubach & Booij 1985, Franks 1985, 1991, Hayes 1995, Halle & Vergnaud 1987, among others). What is exceptional about the stem in (6) is that its final syllable is invisible to stress assignment, or extrametrical, to use the technical designation. Thus, as shown in (8), the nominative singular form (6a), which corresponds to the bare stem, enters the phonology with its final syllable marked as extrametrical (designated by angled brackets). A trochaic foot is then right-aligned with the penultimate syllable sy, assigning stress to the immediately preceding syllable wer, which occupies the antepenultimate position within the word.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
(8)
Exceptional stress assignment in Polish: class 1 Input Trochaic foot ('o o) assignment uniwersy uni('wersy)
Output uni'wersytet
Note, however, that extrametricality is licensed only in word-final position. If a suffix is added, as in (6b) and (6c), the stem-final syllable is no longer wordfinal, so extrametricality cannot take effect and stress is penultimate, assigned in a regular fashion. The peculiarity of the exceptional forms in (7), which are restricted to loanwords from classical languages, is that extrametricality is assigned to the syllable immediately following the stem. As shown in (9), the genitive ending -a in (7b) is marked as extrametrical, and the trochaic foot is aligned with the immediately preceding syllable, placing stress on ma, which occupies antepenultimate position. (9)
Exceptional stress assignment in Polish: class 2 Input Trochaic foot ('o o) assignment matematyk mate('maty)k
Output mate'matyka
But, if the ending is disyllabic, as in (7c), the syllable immediately following the stem is not word-final, so that extrametricality cannot take effect and stress is assigned to the penultimate syllable. Stress is also penultimate in (7a) since there is no post-stem syllable to be made extrametrical. We now turn to further properties of Polish stress, including its phonetic realization. Polish has been described as allowing more than one stress per word: stress on the penultimate (or exceptionally antepenultimate) syllable, which counts as primary, can be preceded by one or more secondary stresses. As illustrated in (10), secondary stress falls on all odd-numbered syllables excluding the one that immediately precedes the bearer of primary stress (Hayes & Puppel 1984, Rubach & Booij 1985, Franks 1991, Hayes 1995, Kraska-Szlenk 2003). (10)
Secondary stress in Polish (from Kraska-Szlenk 2003: 13) a. ˌAmery'kanin ‘American-N O M . S G ’ b. ˌAmeˌryka'nami ‘American-I N S T . P L ’ c. ˌzameˌrykaˌnizo'wany ‘Americanized’
Furthermore, secondary stress occurs not only in longer words but also in larger domains that include function words (Rubach & Booij 1985 and references therein). Phonetic realization of stress in Polish has been addressed in several experimental studies. Their findings, however, only partially confirm what has been claimed in the phonological accounts. It has been found that syllables bearing primary stress have robust acoustic cues, which include increase in duration and intensity as well as relatively high pitch (Dogil 1999, Newlin-Łukowicz 2012, Malisz & Żygis 2018). But according to NewlinŁukowicz (2012) and Malisz & Żygis (2018), no clear acoustic evidence for secondary stress can be detected. With quite a few phonological studies that
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
13
14
DRAGA ZEC
investigate secondary stress (as noted above), it remains for future research to determine how this phenomenon relates to the realm of phonetic realization.
1.2.3 Antepenultimate Stress in Macedonian In Macedonian, regular stress falls on the antepenultimate syllable in words that are minimally trisyllabic, as in (11), and is otherwise initial. This stress system has been analyzed in a number of studies (see Franks 1987, 1989, 1991, Hammond 1989, Halle & Kenstowicz 1991, Idsardi 1992, Beasley & Crosswhite 2003); here we follow the account in Franks’s work. (11)
Regular stress in Macedonian (from Franks 1991: 146) vo'deničar ‘miller’ vode'ničari ‘millers’ vodeni'čarite ‘the millers’
This is a rare type of stress system which is treated in metrical phonology as a special case of penultimate stress (as noted in the discussion of Polish, Section 1.2.2). In both penultimate and antepenultimate stress systems, a trochaic foot is aligned with the right edge of the word. However, in the case of antepenultimate stress, the word-final syllable is marked as invisible, that is, extrametrical, which redefines what counts as the word’s right edge. But while in Polish antepenultimate stress is exceptional, in Macedonian it constitutes a regular stress pattern. The extrametricality of the word-final syllable is a uniform structural feature that has to be marked by a regular rule (Franks 1987, 1989, 1991). Thus, forms in (11) are assigned stress as shown in (12): the right-alignment of a trochaic foot is preceded by the extrametricality marking which makes the word-final syllable unavailable for footing. As a result, stress falls on the antepenultimate syllable in all forms, regardless of their morphological setup. (12)
Regular stress in Macedonian (Franks 1991: 146) Input Extrametricality Trochaic foot assignment vodeničar vodeni vo('deni) vodeničari vodeniča vode('niča) vodeničarite vodeničari vodeni('čari)
Output vo'deničar vode'ničari vodeni'čarite
There are two types of exceptions to regular antepenultimate stress. One type corresponds to stems that attract stress to their final syllable, as in (13), and the other to those attracting stress to the penult, as in (14). While both types include loanwords, the latter also includes native forms such as verbal adverbs (see Koneski 1982); the locus of stress attraction is marked with an asterisk. In (13), stress invariably falls on the syllable containing the asterisked vowel, which is word-final in (13a), penultimate in (13b), and antepenultimate in (13c).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
(13)
Exceptional stem kandi'dat (Franks 1991: 147) Input Stress assignment Output a. kandida*t kandi'da*t kandi'dat b. kandida*ti kandi'da*ti kandi'dati c. kandida*tite kandi'da*tite kandi'datite
‘candidate’ ‘candidates’ ‘the candidates’
In (14), however, the syllable containing the asterisked vowel does not bear stress in all cases. This syllable is stressed if it occurs in either the penultimate or the antepenultimate position, as in (14a) and (14b), respectively, but not when it occurs further towards the word’s left edge, as in (14c). Note that the form in (14c), televi'zorite, is assigned regular antepenultimate stress. (14)
Exceptional stem tele'vizor (Franks 1991: 147) Input Stress assignment Output a. televí*zor tele'ví*zor tele'vizor b. televí*zori tele'ví*zori tele'vizori c. televí*zorite televí*'zorite televi'zorite
‘television’ ‘televisions’ ‘the televisions’
What emerges as a likely generalization is that stress in Macedonian, regular as well as exceptional, has to fall within the three-syllable window at the word’s right edge. That is, exceptional stress can only be realized within the domain of regular antepenultimate stressing. This complex stress pattern seems to defy the resources of metrical phonology, and is hard to capture in a straightforward fashion; for an insightful account of exceptional stress in Macedonian as well as its relatedness to regular antepenultimate stress, see Franks (1987). A further interesting property of Macedonian stress, found mostly in the non-standard dialects, is that its domain is larger than the word, and includes the surrounding clitics (for details, see Rudin et al. 1999; also Franks 1989, Bennett et al. 2018, among others).
1.3 Free Stress Slavic languages with free stress are found in all three major groups, and include one West Slavic, three South Slavic, and all East Slavic languages (see table in (1)). The general property of free stress systems is that no position within a word is predictably designated for stress. According to Trubetzkoy, free stress is potentially contrastive, that is, may serve as the sole basis for differentiating meanings of words, as in the Russian minimal pair ‘muka ‘torture’ vs. mu'ka ‘flour’ (Trubetzkoy 1939: 188). Nonetheless, Slavic free stress exhibits a significant measure of systematic, and thus predictable, organization. This becomes obvious if a substantial role is assigned to the morphological component: the place of stress is marked not on morphologically complex forms but, rather, on their simplex subparts; that is, on stems and affixes. Such markings, generally referred to as accent, are of an abstract nature: which accentual mark within a morphologically complex form is realized as stress depends on the accentual properties of the participating
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
15
16
DRAGA ZEC
morphemes as well as the principles of their combination (see Garde 1976, Halle 1971, Revithiadou 1999, among others).
1.3.1 Free Stress in Russian A paradigm case of a stress system based on accentual organization is that of Russian, in which both stems and affixes are classified into accented, unaccented, and postaccenting (cf. Halle 1973, Garde 1976, Halle & Vergnaud 1987, Melvold 1990, Idsardi 1992, Revithiadou 1999, Alderete 1999, among others). How such simplex entities combine into morphologically complex forms is illustrated with the basic accentual types of the Russian nominal declension in (15). The barytone class has stress fixed on one of the stem syllables in all case forms, the oxytone class has stress fixed on the ending (or on the stem’s last syllable if the ending is null, as in the genitive plural form gos'pož), and in the mobile class stress is on the stem’s initial syllable in some case forms, and on the ending in others. The four case forms in (15) are representative of the entire paradigm. (15)
Russian accentual classes Barytone Oxytone N O M S G ko'rova gospo'ža D A T S G ko'rove gospo'že A C C S G ko'rovu gospo'žu N O M P L ko'rovy gospo'ži ‘cow’ ‘lady’
Mobile boro'da boro'de 'borodu 'borody ‘beard’
The patterns in (15) result from the accentual properties of the participating stems and affixes. The stem is accented in the barytone class, unaccented in the mobile class, and postaccenting in the oxytone class. And, in all three classes, the N O M S G and D A T S G endings are accented, while the A C C S G and N O M P L endings are unaccented. The place of stress is then computed according to the Basic Accentuation Principle (cf. Halle 1971, 1973, Kiparsky & Halle 1977, Halle & Kiparsky 1981, Melvold 1990, Idsardi 1992, among others): (16)
Basic Accentuation Principle Stress falls on the leftmost accented vowel, or on the only accented vowel; or, if no accent is present, on the word-initial vowel.
As shown in (17), a stem of the barytone class has an accent mark associated with one of its vowels (marked with an asterisk). This accented vowel will invariably be selected by the Basic Accentuation Principle as the bearer of stress, regardless of whether the ending is accented as in (17a), or unaccented, as in (17b). (17)
Barytone accentual class a. N O M S G koro*v+ a* ko'rova b. A C C S G koro*v + u ko'rovu
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
Stems of the mobile class are unaccented. In a complex form an accent can thus only come from an accented ending, which receives stress, as in (18a). If the ending is unaccented, as in (18b), the Basic Accentuation Principle assigns stress to the word’s initial syllable. (18)
Mobile accentual class a. N O M S G borod + a* b. A C C S G borod + u
boro'da 'borodu
Postaccenting stems, those of the oxytone class, have a special status. Like accented stems, they are provided with an accent mark. However, this accent mark is required to be associated with a vowel immediately following the stem, which results in stress on the ending (for details, see Melvold 1990, Idsardi 1992, Revithiadou 1999). Note that postaccenting stems have also been analyzed as unaccented, with a special rule assigning stress to the post-stem syllable (see for example Halle 1973, Alderete 1999). In addition to the principal accentual classes in (15), there are a few further patterns, most notably the shifting classes, with the place of stress alternating between the singular and the plural. Stress falls uniformly on the stem in the singular and on the ending in the plural in 'bereg (S G ) – bere'ga (P L ) ‘shore’, while in kolba'sa (S G ) – kol'basy (P L ) ‘sausage’ the pattern is reversed, with stress on the ending in the singular, and on the stem in the plural (see Halle 1973, Melvold 1990, Idsardi 1992, Alderete 1999). To conclude, the accentual classes in (15) characterize the entire set of nominals (with the highest representation of the barytone class), and extend further to verbs and adjectives. In the set of verbs, this can be exemplified by past participle forms: 'lezla/'lezli ‘C L I M B E D . F E M . S G / P L ’, with accent on the stem, belongs to the barytone class, pek'la/pek'li ‘B A K E D . F E M . S G / P L ’, with accent on the ending, belongs to the oxytone class, and ži'la/'žili ‘L I V E D . F E M . S G / P L ’ belongs to the mobile class (Melvold 1990: 80–81). Thus, the organization into accentual classes is a pervasive property, characterizing in fact the entire lexicon of Russian stems (see Halle 1973, Melvold 1990). While both inflectional and derivational suffixes can be accented, derivational suffixes exhibit a wider range of options. They can be recessive, as exemplified by the diminutive suffix -ic which, like inflectional suffixes, bears stress when combined with an unaccented stem, as in vo'dica (vo'da ‘water’), but not when combined with an accented stem, as in 'rybica ('ryba ‘fish’) (Melvold 1990: 66). Or, derivational suffixes can be dominant, that is, impose their accent as a winner regardless of the accentual properties of the stem. This is exemplified by the augmentative suffix -an, which is invariably stressed whether the stem it combines with is accented, as in bra'tan ‘big brother’, or unaccented, as in golo'van ‘big head’. For further details, see Halle (1973), Melvold (1990), Idsardi (1992), and Alderete (1999), among others. A further phonologically relevant aspect of Russian stress is related to its realization and is manifested as a marked distinction between stressed and unstressed syllables. The stressed syllable is cued by admitting the full range of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
17
18
DRAGA ZEC
vocalic contrasts [i e a o u], while unstressed syllables only allow the reduced vowels [i u ə], with the exception of the syllable in pre-stress position which, being less reduced than the rest, allows [i u ʌ], as exemplified in molo'ko →[məlʌ'ko] ‘milk’ (see e.g. Crosswhite 1999, Gouskova 2010). This aspect of phonological organization has been addressed in several phonetic studies. It has been found that the principal phonetic correlate of stress is increase in duration. Stressed syllables have greater duration than unstressed ones; and, among unstressed syllables, those in the pre-stress position are longer than the rest (Padgett & Tabain 2005, Gouskova 2010, Gouskova & Roon 2013), thus supporting the three-way distinction established phonologically.
1.3.2 Other Slavic Languages with Free Stress The general approach to Russian stress outlined in Section 1.3.1 is applicable to, and has indeed been adopted for, other Slavic languages with free stress. Starting with East Slavic, the accentual organization in Ukrainian and Belarusian is remarkably similar to that in Russian, with barytone, oxytone, and mobile classes as basic accentual types (Stankiewicz 1993, Butska 2002, Steriade & Yanovich 2013, Osadcha 2019). This is shown in (19) with the examples of the three basic stem classes in Ukrainian nominals: (19)
Ukrainian: accentual classes Barytone NOMSG ko'rova DATSG ko'rovi ACCSG ko'rovu NOMPL ko'rovy ‘cow’
Oxytone knja'žna knja'žni knja'žnu knja'žny ‘princess’
Mobile holo'va holo'ví 'holovu 'holovy ‘head’
As in Russian, barytone stems are accented, mobile stems are unaccented, and oxytone stems are postaccenting, with suffixes exhibiting like accentual properties, and a formal device comparable to the Basic Accentuation Principle governing the place of stress in complex forms (see Stankiewicz 1993, Butska 2002, Dubina 2012, Osadcha 2019). The shifting accentual classes occur in both Ukrainian and Belarusian (Osadcha 2019, Bethin 2012), as in the Ukrainian examples 'more (N O M . S G ) – mo'rja (N O M . P L ) ‘sea’ and se'lo (N O M . S G ) – 'sela (N O M . P L ) ‘village’ (Osadcha 2019: 110). Moreover, the accentual properties of the derivational morphology are close to those in Russian, with the accented derivational suffixes split into the recessive and dominant classes (see Dubina 2012, Steriade & Yanovich 2013). Bulgarian, the only South Slavic language with free stress but no pitch component, has undergone significant changes in its morphological organization. This resulted in considerably reduced nominal paradigms which nonetheless manifest the three accentual classes present in East Slavic as well as the classification of stems into accented, postaccenting, and unaccented (see Patseva 2017). Thus, a barytone stem, being accented, invariably bears stress,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
as in go'vedo ‘cattle, S G ’ vs. go'veda ‘cattle, P L ’, while an oxytone stem bears stress on the ending, as in pe'ro ‘feather, S G ’ vs. pe'ra ‘feather, P L ’. In stems of the mobile class, which are unaccented, stress is on the stem in the singular, and on the ending in the plural, as in 'stado ‘herd, S G ’ vs. sta'da ‘herd, P L ’. The stress pattern in the mobile class further shows that the singular ending -o is unaccented, while the plural ending -a is accented and as such attracts stress when combined with an unaccented stem. Northern Kashubian, the only West Slavic language with free stress, differs from other Slavic systems of free stress in lacking one of the three basic accentual classes. While it has the barytone and the mobile classes, it does not have the oxytone class. This is attributed to the phonological process of stress retraction from word-final syllables, which affected the distribution of stress in surface forms and reshaped the accentual system by eliminating the oxytone class (Bethin 1998: 160–161 and references therein).
1.3.3 Pitch Accent Languages The two pitch accent languages BCS and Slovenian share the overall accentual organization with other Slavic free stress systems. In both, however, stress is realized accompanied by a pitch contour. 1.3.3.1 BCS The standard idioms of BCS, dialectally based on the Neo-Štokavian, are described as having four pitch accents, two Falling and two Rising (see Lehiste & Ivić 1986 and references therein). This is illustrated in (20), where stress is designated by traditional accent marks which subsume a bundle of phonological properties: stress, tonal contour, and vowel length. (20)
Short Falling: nȍ vine ‘newspaper’ Long Falling: nâmere ‘intentions’ Short Rising: màrame ‘scarves’ Long Rising: názori ‘views’ ramèna ‘shoulders’ románi ‘novels’
According to Jakobson (1937), however, pitch contour and vowel length are independent phonological traits. Only the former belongs to the stress system, while the latter belongs to the vocalic system, and is relevant for stressed and unstressed vowels alike (see also Browne & McCawley 1965, Inkelas & Zec 1988). In the spirit of this approach, the discussion here will proceed with only two pitch accents, Falling and Rising. The distribution of the Falling and Rising pitch accents is for the most part asymmetric. Monosyllabic words can only be associated with a Falling accent. In polysyllables, as shown in (21), initial stressed syllables can be either Falling or Rising, while medial stresses can only be associated with a Rising pitch accent, and word-final syllables cannot be stressed. A departure from this pattern, with Falling tones occurring word-medially, is found in certain loanwords as well as compounds (cf. Vermeer 1984–1985, Kapović 2015: 29–32).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
19
20
DRAGA ZEC
In (21) are also shown the pitch excursions that characterize the two pitch accents. Note that highest pitch coincides with the stressed syllable in Falling accents, and with the post-stress syllable in Rising accents. That is, Falling accents comprise one, and Rising accents comprise two syllables, as first noted in Masing (1876) and confirmed in a number of experimental studies (see Lehiste & Ivić 1986, Smiljanić 2002, Zsiga & Zec 2013, Zec & Zsiga 2022). Taking this important property as their starting point, Browne & McCawley (1965) propose to capture the relevant aspects of the BCS pitch accent system by positing abstract accent marking in lexical forms, thus paralleling other accounts of Slavic free stress. While adopting this approach, Inkelas & Zec (1988) add a further refinement. With pitch as a crucial component in the realization of stress, they propose to replace abstract accent marking with a High tone, as in (22a); see also Halle (1971), Bethin (1994, 1998). Stress is then assigned to the syllable preceding the High-toned one, or to the Hightoned syllable if no syllable precedes, as in (22b). (22)
a. b.
Underlying Stress assignment
noHvine 'noHvine
maraHme 'maraHme
ramenaH ra'menaH
High tone markings on the initial syllable yield Falling accents, and those on non-initial syllables yield Rising accents. This approach thus captures the asymmetric distribution of the Falling and Rising accents, as well as the monosyllabic status of the former, and the disyllabic status of the latter. The analysis of the BCS pitch accent in terms of lexical High tone marking brings out striking similarities with Slavic systems of free stress, including the classification of stems and affixes into accented, unaccented, and postaccenting (see Section 1.3.1), and giving rise to barytone, oxytone, and mobile accentual classes (see Browne & McCawley 1965 and Zec 1999 for further argumentation). This classification does not follow straightforwardly from the place of stress, but does follow from the place of the abstract High tone, which is marked on the stem in the barytone class, on the ending in the oxytone class, and on some endings but not on the stem in the mobile class, as shown in (23).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
(23)
Lexical High tone marking in BCS Barytone Oxytone Mobile N O M S G riHbaH terasaH vodaH D A T S G riHbiH terasiH vodiH A C C S G riHbu terasuH vodu N O M P L riHbe teraseH vode ‘fish’ ‘balcony’ ‘water’
However, stress falls on the stem in all three accentual classes, thus obscuring the differences between them. In all cases, as shown in (24), stress is associated with the leftmost High tone. If both the stem and the suffix are unaccented, as in the A C C S G and N O M P L of the mobile class, stress is assigned to the initial syllable, concomitantly supplying it with a High tone. This mode of stress assignment is consistent with the Basic Accentuation Principle in (16), posited for other Slavic free stress systems. (24)
Stress assignment in BCS, based on the positon of lexical High tone Barytone Oxytone Mobile NOMSG 'riHba te'rasaH 'vodaH DATSG 'riHbi te'rasiH 'vodiH ACCSG 'riHbu te'rasuH 'voHdu NOMPL 'riHbe te'raseH 'voHde ‘fish’ ‘balcony’ ‘water’
A few comments are in order regarding the phonetic realization of the NeoŠtokavian pitch accents. The disyllabic phonetic realization of the Rising accents, noted above, characterizes the eastern dialects, where the abstract High marking coincides with the phonetic pitch maximum. In the western dialects, however, the High tone gravitates towards the stressed syllable, thus leading to a virtually monosyllabic realization of the Rising accents. This variation was noted in the dialectal literature (Belić 1926–1927, Kapović 2015: 686–689), and confirmed experimentally (Peco & Pravica 1972, Zec & Zsiga 2022). Stress, on the other hand, is uniformly realized as increase in duration: the stressed vowel, whether short or long, is phonetically cued by greater duration than its unstressed counterpart (Lehiste & Ivić 1986: 62). It should be noted that a number of BCS regional dialects depart from the standard Neo-Štokavian pitch accent organization. The set of Štokavian dialects includes the Old Štokavian, in which stress invariably coincides with High tone, as well as a range of other configurations that form a dialectal continuum with Old- and Neo-Štokavian as end points (see dialectal surveys in Ivić 1985 and Kapović 2015: 686–689, and a theoretical account in Zec & Zsiga 2022). The Štokavian dialects also include regional idioms in which the pitch component has been lost, resulting in free stress systems that may, or may not, have vowel length (Ivić 1985). In addition to the Štokavian dialects, BCS also includes the Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects, both with a pitch accent organization that considerably differs from that in the standard language (Lehiste & Ivić 1986: 75–83, Lončarić 1996, Langston 2006).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
21
22
DRAGA ZEC
1.3.3.2 Slovenian The pitch accent system of Slovenian (cf. Halle 1971: 11–17, Garde 1976: 253–262, Becker & Bethin 1983, Stankiewicz 1993, Bethin 1998, Greenberg 2006) includes both stress and a pitch contour and, as in BCS, can be lexically marked by an abstract High tone. This is shown in (25)–(27), where the first column lists forms with traditional accent marking, the second provides the corresponding phonological representation, and the third gives the gloss. For the most part, stress falls on a long vowel which, depending on the locus of the High marker, has either a rising or a falling melody. In (25), the High marker occurs on the first mora of the stressed long vowel, yielding a falling pitch, and in (26), on its second mora, yielding a rising pitch. Stress may fall on a short vowel only in monosyllables, as in (27), or the final syllable of polysyllabic words. (25)
(26)
(27)
Falling (long) a. môž 'moHož b. možâ mo'žaHa Rising (long) ráka 'raaHka
‘man, husband-N O M . S G ’ ‘man, husband-G E N . S G ’
‘crab-G E N . S G ’
Falling (short): ràk 'raHk ‘crab-N O M . S G ’
The Slovenian pitch accent system has been subject to several prosodic innovations that include stress shifts as well as lengthening of stressed vowels. While the traditional accentual classes can still be discerned, they have been substantially reshaped. Thus, in the barytone stem, the stressed vowel is lengthened in polysyllabic but not in monosyllabic forms, as shown by (26) and (27), respectively, with vowel lengthening resulting in a long rising accent. In the unaccented forms of the mobile class, illustrated in (25), stress is assigned to the second syllable if there is one, otherwise to the only syllable of the monosyllabic form. In both cases, it is accompanied by vowel lengthening and High tone placement, yielding a long falling accent. The oxytone class became mostly nondistinct from the barytone class, due to systematic stress retraction from the word-final syllable (Garde 1976: 261). While the two classes merged with respect to the place of stress, which invariably fell on the stem, the merger was only partial due to different tonal melodies in some case forms (see Becker & Bethin 1983: 71). It should be noted that only the conservative dialects of the Contemporary Standard Slovene are characterized by pitch accent. In the innovative dialects, stress is not accompanied by a tonal component (see Stankiewicz 1993, Bethin 1998, Greenberg 2006).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
1.4 Historical Perspective on Slavic Word Stress The diachrony of Slavic word stress (or rather, Slavic accent) has been extensively researched, with important findings that shed light on the historical background of the typologically diverse modern Slavic stress systems (e.g. Stang 1957, Illič-Svityč 1963, Garde 1976, Kortlandt 1975, Kiparsky & Halle 1977, Dybo 1981, Bethin 1998, Jasanoff 2017). It is broadly assumed that Common Slavic was a free stress system with a pitch component, and with an organization into accentual classes. This prosodic system, inherited from the Balto-Slavic, has been subject to changes that brought several innovative traits. An important change concerns the original pitch component, which has for the most part been lost. Nowadays, only two Slavic languages, BCS and Slovenian, have stress systems of the pitch accent type (Section 1.3.3). Two of those, the barytone and the mobile classes, were a historical legacy that Common Slavic inherited from the Balto-Slavic era. The oxytone class is a Slavic innovation. It resulted from a rightward accent shift that affected a subclass of accented stems, as described in Illič-Svityč (1963) and Dybo (1981); and referred to in the literature as either Dybo’s Law (see Jasanoff 2017: 57, Kortlandt 1975), or Illič-Svityč’s Law (Garde 1976: 16, 208, Halle & Kiparsky 1981: 175). The set of Common Slavic pitch accent melodies included a rising and a falling pitch contour on long vowels, the former known as the acute, and the latter as the circumflex accent; and a falling contour on short vowels (see e.g. Bethin 1998: 122, Jasanoff 2017: 43). The accented syllable in the barytone class bore an acute accent, that is, a rising melody on a long vowel. The wordinitial stress in the mobile class was a circumflex, and could fall on either a short or a long vowel. This accentual system was considerably reshaped by subsequent changes. One is the so-called shortening of the acutes, whereby vowels under the acute accent became short, thus eliminating the pitch contrast in long vowels (see Garde 1976: 214–217, Bethin 1998: 127, Kapović 2015: 216– 230). The reflexes of this change can be detected in BCS, where the Hightoned vowels in the barytone class are generally short (see Zec 1999), but have been partially obscured in Slovenian, due to secondary lengthening of stressed vowels in polysyllabic barytone forms (Kapović 2015: 223). In Czech, syllables corresponding to old acutes are long, indicating that the shortening never took effect (Garde 1976: 217, Kapović 2015: 226); or alternatively, that it was obscured by secondary lengthening (Kortlandt 1978: 84). Another significant change was brought about by the retraction of accent from high lax vowels, or yers (Stang 1957, Bethin 1998: 129 and references therein). These vowels were elided in certain collocations (that is, when wordfinal or followed by a vowel other than yer), and if accented, their accent shifted to the immediately preceding syllable. Among relevant instances were nominal endings corresponding to a yer vowel. If a yer suffix was accented, as in the oxytone class, its loss caused accent retraction to the stem-final syllable.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
23
24
DRAGA ZEC
This is illustrated by the Russian genitive plural form gos'pož ‘lady.G E N . P L ’ (see Section 1.3.1) whose ending, now null, used to correspond to an accented yer vowel, and whose accent, when it was lost, shifted to the stem. In sum, accent retraction from yers, while considerably affecting the distribution of stress, also disrupted the uniformity of the oxytone class, whose accent was no longer invariably associated with the ending. In pitch accent languages, where accent markings correspond to High tones, retraction from a yer vowel resulted in the shift of a High tone to the immediately preceding syllable. In the Čakavian, Kajkavian, and Slavonian dialects of BCS (all non-standard), the High tone, when retracted to a long vowel, associated with its second mora, resulting in a rising pitch melody (Lehiste & Ivić 1986: 75–90). This newly created accent is referred to in the literature as the neoacute because its pitch contour is comparable to that of the original acute accents, prior to their shortening (Stang 1957, Bethin 1998: 129–135 and references therein; for a different view, see Kapović 2015: 363). Note that in most other BCS idioms, including the Neo-Štokavian, High tone retracted to the first mora of a long vowel, resulting in a falling pitch melody (see Inkelas & Zec 1988, Zec 1999 and references therein). Slavic free stress prosodic systems were further modified by several stress shifts. In North Kashubian and Slovenian, stress shifted from the word-final syllable, resulting in the loss of the oxytone accentual class (see Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3.2). Slovenian underwent another stress shift: word-initial stress in the polysyllabic words of the mobile accentual class advanced to the second syllable. The shifted stress in polysyllables as well as the stress in monosyllables were subject to vowel lengthening, yielding in all cases long vowels with a falling pitch contour, that is, of the circumflex type. Vowel lengthening under stress was in fact a general change in the Slovenian accentual system, as evidenced by the lengthening of stressed vowels in the barytone class, which affected only the polysyllabic forms. Significantly, this case of vowel lengthening resulted in a rising pitch contour, thus obscuring an earlier phonological change (described above), the shortening of the acutes, which eliminated rising contours in long vowels (for details, see Becker & Bethin 1983, Kapović 2015: 223). Best known is the stress shift in BCS, referred to as the Neo-Štokavian stress shift, whereby stress retracted to the syllable immediately preceding the High-toned one, if such syllable was available (Ivić 1985, Lehiste & Ivić 1986, Inkelas & Zec 1988). This stress shift created Rising accents, in addition to the already existent Falling accents, and significantly modified the overall organization of the pitch accent system, including its distribution and its pitch inventory. (See Section 1.3.3 for a synchronic perspective on the BCS and Slovenian pitch accent systems.) The emergence of fixed stress systems, which is probably a Late Common Slavic innovation, constitutes a major prosodic change that affected West Slavic areas. Its result was a regular distribution of stress and elimination of the accentual classes (Garde 1976, Bethin 1998: 172–175). According to Garde (1976: 294–295), initial stress in West Slavic developed by generalizing the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
placement of stress on word-initial syllables in unaccented forms. The outcome of this prosodic change was retained in Slavic languages with fixed initial stress, while Polish underwent a further change which resulted in fixed penultimate stress. Fixed stress in South Slavic is a more recent phenomenon. In particular, Macedonian acquired a system of antepenultimate stress, characterized by a trisyllabic stress window. This stress pattern, according to Koneski (1983: 19), can be viewed as related to the surrounding non-Slavic Balkan languages also characterized by a trisyllabic stress window, and possibly emerging under their influence, within the larger Balkan Sprachbund (see also Bethin 1998: 295, n. 46).
References Alderete, J. (1999). Morphologically-Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Avanesov, R. I. (1968). Russkoe literaturnoe proiznošenie [Literary Pronunciation of Russian], 6th (1984) ed., Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Prosveščenie. Beasley, T. & Crosswhite, K. (2003). Avoiding boundaries: Antepenultimate stress in a rule-based framework. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 361–392. Becker, L. & Bethin, C. Y. (1983). On the historical development and synchronic nature of the Slovene prosodic system. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 27, 63–79. Belić, A. (1926–1927). Review of O srbo-chrvatských intonacich v nářeči štokavském by Branko Miletić, Prag, 1926. Južnoslovenski filolog, 6, 225–232. Bennett, R., Boris H., & Henderson, R. (2018). Prosodic smothering in Macedonian and Kaqchikel. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(2), 195–246. Bethin, C. Y. (1994). On the phonology of the Neoštokavian accent retraction in Serbian and Croatian. Die Welt der Slaven, 39(2), 277–296. Bethin, C. Y. (1998). Slavic Prosody. Language Change and Phonological Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bethin, C. Y. (2012). Effects of vowel reduction on Russian and Belarusian inflectional morphology. Lingua, 122, 1232–1251. Browne, E. W. & McCawley, J. D. (1965). Srpskohrvatski akcenat. Zbornik za filologiju I lingvistiku, 8, 147–151 [English translation: Serbo-Croatian accent, in Phonology, ed. E. Fudge, 330–335, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973]. Butska, L. (2002). Faithful Stress in Paradigms: Nominal Inflection in Ukrainian and Russian. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. Comrie, B. (1976). Irregular stress in Polish and Macedonian. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 1, 227–240. Crosswhite, K. (1999). Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Dogil, G. (1979). Metrical stress in Polish. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 4, 49–71. Dogil, G. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Lithuanian, Polish and German and Spanish. In H. van der Hulst, ed., Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 273–311.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
25
26
DRAGA ZEC
Dubina, A. (2012). Towards a Tonal Analysis of Free Stress, Utrecht: LOT. Dybo, V.A. (1981). Slavjanskaja akcentologija, Moscow: Nauka. Franks, S. (1985). Extrametricality and stress in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 144–151. Franks, S. (1987). Regular and irregular stress in Macedonian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 35–36, 93–139. Franks, S. (1989). The monosyllabic head effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 7, 551–563. Franks, S. (1991). Diacritic extrametricality vs. diacritic accent: A reply to Hammond. Phonology, 8, 145–161. Garde, P. (1976). Histoire de l’accentuation slave, Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Gouskova, M. (2010). The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review, 17, 387–448. Gouskova, M. & Roon, K. (2013). Gradient clash, faithfulness, and sonority sequencing effects in Russian compound stress. Laboratory Phonology, 4, 383–434. Greenberg, Marc L. A. (2006), A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene. Duke University/University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC: SEELRC. www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=8. Halle, M. (1971). Remarks on Slavic accentology. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 1–19. Halle, M. (1973). The accentuation of Russian words. Language, 49, 312–348. Halle, M. & Kenstowicz, M. (1991). The Free Element Condition and cyclic versus noncyclic stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 457–501. Halle, M. & Kiparsky, P. (1981). Review of Histoire de l’accentuation Slave by Paul Garde. Language, 57, 150–181. Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An Essay on Stress, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hammond, M. (1989). Lexical stress in Macedonian and Polish. Phonology, 6, 19–38. Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hayes, B. & Puppel, S. (1984). On the Rhythm Rule in Polish. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith, eds., Advances in Non-Linear Phonology, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 59–81. Hyman, L. M. (1977). On the nature of linguistic stress. In L. M. Hyman, ed., Studies in Stress and Accent [Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4], Los Angeles, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Idsardi, W. (1992). The Computation of Prosody. PhD dissertation, MIT. Illič-Svityč, V. M. (1963). Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic], Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija, AN SSSR [English translation: V. M. Illich-Svitych 1979, Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and Slavic, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press]. Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (1988). Serbo-Croatian pitch accent: The interaction of tone, stress, and intonation. Language, 64, 227–248. Ivić, P. (1985). Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika. Uvod u štokavsko narečje [Dialectology of the Serbo-Croatian language. Introduction to the Štokavian dialect], Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Jakobson, R. [1937] (1962). On the identification of phonemic entities. In Selected Writings I, 418–425, The Hague: Mouton. Jasanoff, J. (2017). The Prehistory of the Balto-Slavic Accent, Leiden: Brill. Kapović, M. (2015). Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. Fonetika, Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska. Kiparsky, P. & Halle, M. (1977). Towards a reconstruction of the Indo-European accent. In L. Hyman, ed., Studies in Stress and Accent [Southern California
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Word Stress
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4], Los Angeles, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Koneski, B. (1982). Gramatika na makedonskiot literature jazik, Skopje: Kultura. Koneski, B. (1983). A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kortlandt, F. (1975). Slavic Accentuation: A Study in Relative Chronology, Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Kortlandt, F. (1978). A history of Slavic accentuation (review of Garde 1976). Lingua, 44, 67–91. Kraska-Szlenk, I. (2003). The Phonology of Stress in Polish, Munich: Lincom Europa. Kučera, H. (1961). The Phonology of Czech, The Hague: Mouton. Langston, K. (2006). Čakavian Prosody. The Accentual Patterns of the Čakavian Dialects of Croatian, Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Lehiste, I. & Ivić, P. (1986). Word and Sentence Prosody in Serbocroatian, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Letz, B. (1950). Gramatika slovenského jazyka, Bratislava: Štátne Nakladatel’stvo. Lončarić, M. (1996). Kajkavsko narječje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Malisz, Z. & Żygis, M. (2018). Lexical stress in Polish: Evidence from focus and phraseposition differentiated production data. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Poznań, Poland, pp. 1008–1012. Masing, L. (1876). Die Hauptformen des serbisch-chorwatischen Accents. Mémoires del’Académie impériale des sciences de St. Petersbourg, VIIe. série, XXIII(5). Melvold, J. (1990). Structure and Stress in the Phonology of Russian. PhD dissertation, MIT. Newlin-Łukowicz, L. (2012). Polish stress: Looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional system. Phonology, 29, 271–329. Osadcha, I. (2019). Lexical Stress in East Slavic: Variation in Space and Time. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Padgett, J. & Tabain, M. (2005). Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica, 62, 14–54. Palková, Z. (1994). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny, Prague: Karolinum. Patseva, M. (2017). Bulgarian Word Stress, Rutgers Optimality Archives 1304. Peco, A. & Pravica, P. (1972). O prirodi akcenata srpskohrvatskog jezika na osnovu eksperimentalnih istraživanja [On the nature of Serbo-Croatian accents based on experimental investigations]. Južnoslovenski filolog, 29, 195–242. Revithiadou, A. (1999). Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Rubach, J. (1993). The Lexical Phonology of Slovak, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rubach, J. & Booij, G. (1985). A grid theory of stress in Polish. Lingua, 66, 281–319. Rudin, C., Kramer, C., Billings, L., & Baerman, M. (1999). Macedonian and Bulgarian LI questions: Beyond syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17, 541–586. Short, D. (1993a) Czech. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 455–532. Short, D. (1993b) Slovak. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592. Smiljanić, R. (2002). Lexical, Pragmatic and Positional Effects on Prosody in Two Dialects of Croatian and Serbian: An Acoustic Study. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigne.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
27
28
DRAGA ZEC
Stang, C. S. (1957). Slavonic Accentuation, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stankiewicz, E. (1993). The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Steriade, D. & Yanovich, I. (2013). Accentual allomorphs in East Slavic: An argument for inflection dependence. In M. Eulalia Bonet i Alsina, M.-R. Lloret, & J. Mascaró, eds., Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives From Optimality Theory, Sheffield & Bristol, CT: Equinox, pp. 254–314. Stone, G. (1993a). Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 593–685. Stone, G. (1993b). Cassubian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 759–794. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie, Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague. Vermeer, W. (1984–1985). Non-initial falling tones in Neo- Štokavian dialects. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, 27–28, 143–149. Zec, D. (1999). Footed tones and tonal feet: Rhythmic constituency in a pitch-accent language. Phonology, 16, 225–264. Zec, D. & Zsiga, E. (2022). Tone and stress as agents of cross-dialectal variation: The case of Serbian. In H. Kubozono, J. Ito, & A. Mester, eds., Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–94. Zsiga, E. & Zec, D. (2013). Contextual evidence for the representation of pitch accents in Standard Serbian. Language and Speech, 56, 69–104.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2 Vocalism: The Vowels Irena Sawicka
2.1 Introduction We assume that Proto-Slavic (or Balto-Slavic)1 developed from an IndoEuropean dialect in which there were no longer the so-called laryngeal segments.2 The merger of the short *o and *a into a, and of long *o: and *a: into a: was the first Slavic change to the original Indo-European dialect. As a result, a simple vocalic system emerged, which consisted of eight segments: four short ones and four long ones; four high ones and four low ones, with only two distinctive heights. The vowel system may have been as follows: *i *e
*u *ɑ
*i: *e:
*u: *ɑ:
The vowel o emerged only later, in the initial period of the disintegration of the Slavic linguistic unity. Proto-Slavic *e, both long and short, were relatively low vowels, which is supported by their further development, by the alternations of verbal stems, and, most importantly, by borrowings into other languages. Borrowings into other languages suggest also that the so-called jers (ь < short i, ъ < short u) emerged as late as after the sixth century. The process of the delabialization of the long *u: began probably in the sixth century, which later resulted in the creation of the vowel *y: (initially a high back non-rounded vowel). If the Indo-European syllabic sonorants *r̩ (:), *l̩ (:), *n̩ (:), *m̩ (:) were also to be counted as functional vowels,3 then their 1
2
3
See Shevelov 1964 and Stieber 1969 for ample documentation in the form of borrowings from and into Proto-Slavic. It is traditionally assumed that Balto-Slavic was an earlier developmental stage. It is also possible to assume that the ancestors of the Balts and Slavs met after Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic dialects had emerged from Indo-European, and formed a kind of a Sprachbund. Hypothetical vowels of unclear pronunciation reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Laryngeals, similarly to sonorants – depending on context – could be syllabic or non-syllabic. We use traditional Slavic notation when discussing historical examples. Otherwise we use IPA. In special cases, however, we combine the two notations. This is when a misunderstanding might arise. For example, a circle under a letter in IPA
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
30
IRENA SAWICKA
development in Proto-Slavic increased the occurrence of high vowels. They developed into *ir, *ur, *il, *ul, *in, *un, *im, *um, *i:r, *u:r, *i:l, *u:l, *i:n, *u:n, *i:m, *u:m. In the descriptive tradition of Slavic, these groups are referred to as diphthongs. The diphthongs *ɑi̯, *ɑu̯ , *ei̯, *eu̯ , *ɑ:i̯, *ɑ:u̯ , *e:i̯, *e:u̯ existed in Proto-Slavic at least until the fifth century. From the systemic perspective, it is correct to interpret these groups as composed of two phonemes; and i̯ and u̯ are treated as combinatory non-syllabic allophones of the corresponding vowels. In later development, the long vowels in these diphthongs were shortened, similar to the case of syllabic sonorants. The long vowels in the diphthongs *e:r,*a:r, *e:l, *a:l were also shortened. During the period of common development, diphthongs *ɑi̯, *ɑu̯ , *ei̯, *eu̯ underwent monophthongization, producing long vowels. A new *u: emerged in this way (from *ɑu̯ , *eu̯ , *ou̯ ), filling in the systemic gap which appeared after the delabialization of the original long *u:. The lower vowels gradually changed their qualities, so that e and e: became lower, and a and a: became higher. Thus, around the seventh century, the late Proto-Slavic vowel system may have been as follows: *i *ɑe 4
*u *ɑ°
*i: *y: *u *ɑe: *ɑ°:
The vowel *y: later changed into *ɨ. Certainly, there also existed the nasal vowels *ę and *ǫ , which are interpreted as variants of the groups of phonemes ‘oral vowel + nasal sonorant’ before a consonant and in the word-final position. If we take into consideration that only open syllables (i.e. syllables ending in a vowel) existed at that time (see also Chapter 4 in this volume), then such a context for the occurrence of a nasal sonorant would be uncommon, which supports the interpretation of *ę and *ǫ as independent phonemes. The Indo-European word-final consonants were phased out in ProtoSlavic and a series of metatheses resulted in the elimination of consonantal codas (cf. *kɑr-vɑ > *krɑ(:)-vɑ ‘cow’, etc.). The emergence of nasal vowels and the monophthongization of diphthongs also contributed to the opening of syllables. Another restriction was the so-called syllabic synharmonism – a kind of vocalic harmony. It required the agreement of all segments in the syllable with respect to the feature +/− palatal.5 This caused the replacement of the back vowels with the front ones after palatalized consonants.6 Until the very early Middle Ages, Slavic vocalism developed in a uniform manner. After the seventh century, further changes took place, some of which were still shared: short *i and *u became lower, and in the ninth century (possibly
4 5 6
means a voiceless segment; in Slavic convention it is used to denote syllabicity. In such cases, we give up Slavic diacritics. *ɑe stands to indicate a kind of low fronted vowel, ɑ°- low backened respectively. According to I. Press, also with respect to such features as +/− high and +/− front (Press 1986). Synharmonism may have arisen under the influence of features occurring in Turkic dialects, with which Proto-Slavic may have remained in close symbiosis (most likely, with Avars; Altai influence is also mentioned in the literature). This fact indirectly indicates that vocalic harmony may already have existed in the language of Avars. These hypotheses are poorly documented and speculative (cf. Galton 1997, Stadnik 2001, and others).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
even later in East-Slavic) turned into ‘extra-short’ or ‘reduced’ vowels (a kind of schwa, front and back, marked in Slavic source material by ь and ъ respectively; these are known in Slavic linguistics as front and back jers). At that period, jers differed in pronunciation according to their position in a word: weak jers occurred in word-final position and in a syllable which immediately preceded a syllable with a full (non-jer) vowel or a strong jer. Strong jers occurred in a syllable before a weak jer. Due to this arrangement, the jers soon transformed into full vowels (in strong position, a change termed vocalization) or disappeared (in weak position). In an example like *sъnъ ‘dream’ the first jer was strong and the second one weak; thus, in Polish it gave sen, in Russian sоn, in Serbian san, etc. Seeming exceptions, in which a weak jer seems to vocalize, are to be otherwise explained. Some scholars speak of ‘secondary jers’, but in fact these are vowels that do not come from an original jer but are inserted later to remedy a difficulty in syllable structure. The secondary inserted vowel need not be the same as the reflex of either one of the strong jers (cf. Mac. *mьgla > mgla > mаglа ‘fog’ with a and neither o nor e that are the reflexes of the strong jers; Bel. *krъvь > krоŭ ‘blood’ with o from strong back jer but kryvаvy ‘bloody’ with the secondary inserted vowel y between kr and v). The most uniform were the vocalizations of strong jers in the East (including Bulgarian and Macedonian), where the front and back jers produced different reflexes. In the rest of the Slavic area, however, both jers developed in the same way (although they did not produce the same reflex in all languages); at most, in some West-Slavic languages, the softening of the consonant was preserved before the reflex of the front jer. The short *ɑ changed into *o. The low front long vowel *ɑe: (= Proto-Slavic *e:, later, the so-called jat: *ě) developed dialectal variants. The tautosyllabic groups *ɑr, *er, *ur, *ir, *al, *el, *ul, *il started to follow different developmental paths. The articulation of the back vowel *y shifted forward; it changed into *ɨ and then, in part of the Slavic area, into *i. The system of long and short vowels was reformulated as a result of the replacement of the original length contrast with value contrast and a series of shortenings and lengthenings.
After the emergence of jers and *o, but before the delabialization of *y and, possibly, further changes in the quality of low vowels, the vowel system may have been as follows: *ь *e
*ъ *o
*i: *y *e:
*u: *ɑ:
The vowel referred to as jat (*ě) developed from the long *e:. Initially, it must have been relatively low (in Old Church Slavonic texts it was written in the same way as ɑ after a palatalized consonant and the group j+ɑ). Its quality
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
31
32
IRENA SAWICKA
soon started to differentiate. At present, it has various reflexes in different languages: higher or lower, monophthongal or diphthongal. Most of the numerous later changes were geographically restricted and did not influence the phonemic inventory, but enriched allomorphism (e.g. numerous so-called dispalatalizations in the North – changes of front vowels into back vowels in specific contexts). Towards the end of the Proto-Slavic period, further changes in the vowel duration took place: lengthenings of short vowels and shortenings of long vowels in certain positions (e.g. shortenings in final positions, lengthenings under the so-called new rising accent or under the new and old rising accent, depending on the dialect, and on the South of the Carpathians also lengthenings together with the metathesis in the Proto-Slavic groups *TarT,*TalT, *TerT, *TelT, *arT, *alT, *erT, *elT,7 cf. Croatian mlijeko ‘milk’, krava ‘cow’, in Polish mleko, krowa; Croatian [ije] and [ɑ] are the reflexes of long vowels, Polish [ɔ] is a reflex of the short *ɑ). As a result, the correlation of the length was reconstructed – only jers lacked their long equivalents. In the ninth century, the vowel system may have been as follows: *i *e *ě
(*ɨ) *ь
*ъ
*u *o *ɑ
*i: *e: *ě:
(*ɨ:)
*u: *o: *ɑ:
In the ninth century, *ɨ(:) was still phonologically independent, but on the South of the Carpathians, it may already have merged with *i. Also *ě(:) may have sounded different, depending on the dialect. Further shifts had taken place by the end of the thirteenth century. They changed the shape of morphemes, but only a few of them led to qualitative changes in the vowel system. Such were the elimination and vocalization of jers. The jers in the strong positions produced full vowels which already existed in particular Slavic dialects. Thus, the change consisted in the elimination of these phonemes, with the exception of Bulgarian, where the back jer preserved the quality of a schwa type. Other changes were restricted territorially.
2.2 Differentiation Due to enormous territorial dispersion and the fact that Slavic tribes inhabited areas where other non-Slavic tribes lived, or where the Slavs neighbored nonSlavs, Slavic vocalism began to diversify. In some areas, certain archaic features were retained, in other areas, innovations appeared. Initially, mostly because of the phonetic development, three major groups formed: East-Slavic, WestSlavic, and South-Slavic. At present, this differentiation is reflected mostly in morphophonology. Further phonetic development led to a change in the typological arrangement. Today, with regard to phonetics, Slavic languages 7
T stands for any consonant.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
are divided into North-Slavic and South-Slavic (South-West), with the border line along the Carpathians (on the territory of Bulgaria, it runs across the Balkan Massif, where it becomes blurred). Typologically, Bulgarian is today counted in the North-East group. The former inclusion of Bulgarian in the South-Slavic group is reflected today in its morphophonology and syllable structure. Both Bulgarian and Macedonian are typologically the most varied from the geographical vantage point. The Bulgarian-Macedonian area constitutes a continuum, in which it is difficult to draw a well-defined boundary. The typologically different centers (which have given rise to present-day standard Macedonian and Bulgarian) are located in the West of Macedonia and in the East of Bulgaria. The contrast is more pronounced in the consonantism of the languages than in the vowel systems. It should be emphasized that in the South of the Slavic area there are no well-defined boundaries between languages – the boundaries are always formed by extensive transition bands. Taking into consideration consonantal phonetic features, the North area seems more archaic, especially in the East, while the South-West languages have preserved more of the old vocalic features, especially vowel duration and accentual polytony, which is treated by some linguists as a vocalic segmental feature. Apart from general differences of a systemic nature, smaller intersecting areas often emerged (characterized by specific features). This was caused by such factors as further changes in the vowel system, already geographically differentiated, phonotactic differences (especially in the structure of the syllable), the loss or preservation of assimilative palatality, and interaction with various non-Slavic dialects, especially in the area of the Balkan League. In addition to the five mandatory so-called pure vocal segments, present-day Slavic languages have additional regional segments. Thus, we can distinguish at least the following: an area with long vowels, an area with a schwa-like vowel, an area with more middle vowels, an area with distinctive tonal features, an area with vowel reduction, an area with labiovelarization, an area with syllabic sonorants, an area with the so-called glottal stop, and areas with preserved nasalization. The development of vocalism in North-West-Slavic languages is decidedly more complex. Here, the development of particular vowels was not only connected with the general developmental path of a given phone but was also conditioned by the length of the vowel and often by the consonantal context. As a result, several sources are reconstructed for most vowels. The most important consonantal features which influenced vowel changes are: +/− palatality, voicing, and, often, place of articulation.
Area with Distinctive Duration of Vowels The northern boundary of this area is formed by the Carpathians, and the eastern and southern boundaries correspond to the borderline between Serbian and Bulgarian. In this way, long vowel phonemes occur in Czech,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
33
34
IRENA SAWICKA
Slovak, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Slovenian. Vowel length originates from the inherited length, and numerous lengthenings and contractions. Compared to Proto-Slavic, the length of vowels was repeatedly reformulated. In most Slavic languages which have preserved distinctive vowel duration, the occurrence of long vowels is significantly restricted distributionally. Only in Czech are there no restrictions on the occurrence of long vowels. In Slovak, two long vowels cannot occur in neighboring syllables in the same word. In the postShtokavian languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin), long vowels cannot occur before a stressed syllable. In Slovenian, long vowels occur practically only in stressed positions. In standard Macedonian, there are no long vowel phonemes, but in many dialects and in colloquial language long vowels are observed. They correspond to the vowel geminate of careful speech and are interpreted phonologically as such, for example, padnaa ‘(they) fell’ /pɑdnɑɑ/ [pɑdnɑɑ]/ [pɑdnɑ:]. On the other hand, Serbian dialects neighboring the Balkan Language League are characterized by a restricted occurrence of long vowels or they lack long vowels completely.
Area with a Schwa-Like Vowel Phoneme of Various Origins This feature is characteristic of the North-East area. (a) Origin from the Old Slavic *ɨ (Proto-Slavic *u:). This phone occurs in all East-Slavic and West-Slavic languages, with the exception of Czech and Slovak. It is written as y (Polish and Sorbian), ы (Russian, Belarusian), and и (Ukrainian). It is articulated as [ɨ] or a vowel of a similar quality. It is the only vowel which occurs exclusively after non-palatalized consonants. Therefore, after the termination of synharmonism and the phonologization of a number of palatalized consonants, Slavic languages have retained the complementary distribution of [i] and [ɨ]. However, the segment which conditions the quality of the whole CV group with respect to the opposition palatal/non-palatal was no longer the vowel (as in Old Slavic), but the consonant. The quality of the consonant determined whether it was followed by [i] or [ɨ]. The effects of palatalization (which are the base for morphophonological alternations) correspond at present to phones which are often significantly different from their non-palatalized counterparts, such as Pol. (e.g. płot [pwɔt] ‘fence’, L O C . S G na płocie [nɑ pwɔʨɛ]), (kasa ‘cash register’, L O C . S G w kasie [f kɑɕe]).8 In all languages in which [ɨ] occurs, it was treated as a combinatory variant of the phoneme /i/. In the last 150 years, as a result of the intensification of contacts with the languages of Western Europe, a huge amount of foreign lexis has entered Slavic languages. Because the contexts ‘non-palatalized consonant + [i]’ occurred in the foreign lexis, in time the complementary distribution was phased out. This process is most advanced in Polish and in the Sorbian 8
Naturally, apart from a number of phones created through previous palatalization, which are now non-palatalized.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
languages. In Polish, most users of the cultured variety of Polish pronunciation no longer use the exchange of [i] into [ɨ] in such words. There have even emerged minimal pairs, for example trik [trjik] ‘trick’ vs. tryk [trɨk] ‘ram’, plastik ‘plastic’ vs. plastyk ‘artist’. Although consonants become palatalized before /i/, the assimilation is not strong. The new palatalized counterparts of the nonpalatalized phones before i in borrowings are phonetically much closer to one another. Consequently, with regard to most languages of this area, a change is being considered in the phonological status of [ɨ]. In the phonological system of Polish, /ɨ/ has been treated as an independent phoneme for a long time. Thus, the former palatalization correlation is reflected today only in morphophonological alternations, and the palatalizations which occur at present before /i/ result in most contexts in new allophony. This solution is not yet available for Russian, in which the former phonotactic rules still obtain, at least with regard to [i]/ [ɨ], and in which alternation still takes place even on word boundaries, for example brat Iriny [brɑt ɨrjinɨ] ‘Irina’s brother’. (b) The second kind of centralized vowel is a type of schwa [ǝ] – lower and more central than [ɨ]. The phone [ǝ] takes its origins from the Old Slavic back jer *ъ and the back nasal vowel *õ, and also from the secondary vocalism9. This type of centralized vowel occurs only in Bulgarian and a number of Macedonian dialects. It is written as ъ. Generally, the area with the phonological schwa encompasses the whole eastern part of the Slavic language area. It is an archaic feature, whose preservation is probably a result of the long-lasting relations with various Turkic dialects, in which a similar sound occurs. It is one of the features which characterize the eastern area (the Eurasian area).10 Various kinds of schwa occur also in the extreme western periphery of the Slavic area. The Slovenian [ǝ] has various origins, for example from reduction, from jers, from secondary vocalism, but also from short vowels, often even stressed ones, such as in the central dialect: brat [brǝt] ‘brother’, kruh [krǝx] ‘bread’ (Tivadar 2007). The phone [ǝ] occurs in Sorbian (apart from /ɨ/); however, its phonological status is unclear (according to the most recent descriptions – Wornar 2007 and Jocz 2011 – it is a variant of the unstressed /ɨ/ and /ɛ/).
Area with Additional Phonemes (Apart from the Five Cardinal Ones) and Diphthongs This area also encompasses the western periphery (Sorbian and Slovenian), where there are additional mid vowels, and Slovak, where there are additional diphthongs. 9
10
Secondary vocalism should be understood as a non-etymological vowel inserted in certain consonant clusters in order to eliminate the so-called two-peak syllables which emerged after the loss of weak jers or which appear in borrowings. For the Eurasian phonotactic league, see Jakobson 1962. According to Jakobson, the features of this league include an elaborate correlation of palatalization and the lack of accentual polytony. The features can be certainly augmented with the occurrence of a centralized vowel and the velar quality of the non-palatalized lateral consonant.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
35
36
IRENA SAWICKA
(a) In the western periphery, there are two levels of mid vowels – in the Sorbian languages and in Slovenian. In these languages, the opposition occurs between /e/, /o/ vs. /ɛ/, /ɔ/. Moreover, Upper Sorbian has [ʊ] which is a kind of centralized mid-high back vowel. In Upper Sorbian, it is the reflex of the old long *o from the compensatory lengthening and the length connected with the old tonal accents. The high [o] in Sorbian languages, on the other hand, originates mostly from the combinations of *ow, *oł. In Lower Sorbian, [ʊ] occurs only in some dialects and originates from *o after labial and velar sounds. In Slovenian, e and o is pronounced open and long [ɛ:], [ɔ:] where the accent has shifted on to it from the subsequent syllable (cf. žen |a [ʒen|ɑ] > ž |ena [ʒ|ɛ:nɑ] ‘wife, woman’, koz |a [koz|ɑ] > k |oza [k|ɔ:zɑ] ‘goat’). Short open o [ɔ] occurs only in final syllables and monosyllables. Open and short e [ɛ] is pronounced in some monosyllables. o is pronounced long closed [o:] when derived from *ǫ and when derived from *o when the accent has not shifted. Short closed o [o] occurs only before the final l [w] (cf. vòl [vow] ‘ox’). Slovenian e is pronounced closed long [e:] when derived from: *e with no accent shift, from *ę and from *ě (jat). Unstressed e is pronounced either [ɛ] or [ə]. The so-called raised vowels (mid-high [e] and [o] and [ɑ°]) occur vestigially in Polish dialects and are an effect of replacing the vowel length with the raised articulation. They disappeared from standard Polish in the nineteenth century. At present, they occur in Kashubian. (b) In the descriptive tradition of Czech and Slovak, some diphthongs are treated as independent phonemes, although, in fact, they are morphophonemes. The following are distinguished in Slovak /ie/, /iɑ/, /iu/, /uo/, with the high non-syllabic vocoid (Král’ & Sabol 1989); in Czech, there is /ou/ (Palková 1994: 205). Additionally in Slovak, there is also a vestigial front low phoneme marked as ä, whose articulation is similar to [a]. It originates from the former nasal vowel after labial consonants. The most frequent present pronunciation of this letter is [e]. Numerous diphthongs occur in Kashubian, mostly as a result of frequent labialization and the decomposition of back vowels, for example for *o: [kwɔzɑ]/[kwɛzɑ] ‘goat’. Other reflexes of *o include [wɛ], [wi], [øw]. Similarly reflexes for *u: are [wu], [wɨ], [wi], for example [kwira] ‘hen’. Similar diphthongs may also (infrequently) take their origins from the pochylone á (mid-low back vowel), for example [ɑw], [ʌw]. (c) For some time the diphthong marked as /ÿe/ was posited in Croatian phonology (Brozović 1968 and other works by this author). This is the reflex of the Proto-Slavic long jat: *ě:. In fact, today this reflex is pronounced as [je:] or (in monosyllabic words) as [ije] and such a phonological interpretation is accepted at present (Škarić & Horga 2007).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
Area with Distinctive Tonal Features (See also Chapter 1 in this volume.) This is an archaic, gradually withdrawing feature. Accentual polytony occurs only in Slovenian and all languages derived from the Shtokavian dialect, that is, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, with the exception of the southernmost Balkanized Serbian dialects (Kosovo-Resavian and Torlak). Although it is accepted that tonal accent still occurs in Kosovo-Resavian, in fact, what matters is the difference in length. In all languages with polytony, there are significant distributional restrictions on particular tones. In ‘Shtokavian’ languages, rising accent requires two syllables for its expression. Thus, it does not occur in monosyllabic words or on the last syllable of polysyllabic words. Falling stress no longer has any restrictions at present, although in native words it does not occur in final syllables, and according to the ‘classic’ accentual system, which today occurs only in some regions, only the initial syllable can take falling stress.11 The classic version of the accentual system, always appearing in phonological descriptions of Serbian and Croatian, practically does not exist in standard varieties of these languages. Apart from the cessation of shifting stress onto proclitics and the elimination of restrictions on the occurrence of falling stress, there is a clear tendency to neutralize the tonal opposition in short syllables. Slovenian has already passed all these stages – Slovenian polytony is in the state of atrophy: it is realized optionally, exclusively in long stressed syllables. The issue is raised in this chapter because some linguists treat tonal markedness as a distinctive feature of phonemes. Brozović (1968), for instance, posits phonemes /V̀ / (short rising tone) and /V́ / (long rising tone) – the remaining types of stress result from distributional conditions. Jakobson (1931) posits high and low vowel phonemes, which corresponds to tonal markedness. Trubetzkoy (1958) analyzes falling tones as combinatory variants of the lack of tonal markedness. The most recent (and most intricate) interpretation is provided by Jadranka Gvozdanović (1980). All these interpretations are based on distributional restrictions on stress in the ‘classical’ accentual system and on the separation of the distinguishing function of stress from its culminative function. In many cases, this resulted in shifting stress to another syllable while the tonal markedness remained connected with a given phoneme. There have also been developed systems locating stress placement between two syllables, which made it possible to eliminate the distinguishing function of tonal markedness (Ivić 1965)12 (cf. kȍ ren (short falling tone) [|kore:n] ‘root’, kòran (short raising tone) [k|orɑ:n] ‘Quran’). Also Polish word stress is most often realized as falling tone, but the tone does not have a phonological function in Polish (cf. Demenko 1999; most
11
12
In this system, the shifts of stress onto the proclitic are still current, which often results in the changes in the tonal markedness of stress. These and other proposals for the interpretation of Serbo-Croatian polytony are collected in Punišić and Sawicka 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
37
38
IRENA SAWICKA
grammar text books repeat the traditional opinion about the expiratory stress in Polish, which is not confirmed by research).
Area with Morphologically Regulated Place of Stress vs. Area with Phonetically Regulated Stress (See also Chapter 1 in this volume.) Stress regulated phonetically, that is, falling on a particular syllable, is generally typical of West-Slavic languages: Polish (with the dominant penultimate stress), Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian, some southern dialects of Polish and southern Kashubian (with initial stress). Stress of this type occurs also in the extreme southern periphery of the Slavic area – with the dominant antepenultimate stress, which competes with penultimate stress – in standard Macedonian and western dialects of Macedonian. In Lower Sorbian, initial stress competes with penultimate stress. The remaining Slavic languages and dialects (East-Slavic, South-Slavic, except Macedonian and North-Kashubian) have morphologically regulated stress (the so-called free stress), thanks to which stress has a distinguishing function and may be interpreted as a segmental feature. There are opposite tendencies in both these groups. In the languages in which stress is regulated phonetically, stress was initially determined within a phonetic (prosodic) unit. This resulted in modification of stress placement depending on the clitics attached to the stress-bearing unit. This feature is gradually retreating. Even in Macedonian, in which the principle of modifying stress placement depending on the composition of the prosodic unit is applied to the highest degree,13 stress is no longer shifted to prepositions. In all languages in which stress placement is determined on the basis of the count starting from the end of the stress unit, stress shift in accentual units composed of a clitic and host has ceased to be implemented and is in decline (with the exception of the units composed by two clitics, as a preposition and short form of personal pronoun). In Macedonian, stress placement is still modified in stress units containing certain types of proclitics. The stress shift principle is best observed in the languages with initial stress. Enclitics do not cause shifts of stress placement, although in Polish there are expressions which indicate that they also used to influence stress placement (e.g. powiedzmy ‘let us say’ [povjj|eʦmɨ]/ [povjj|eʣmɨ], where the original enclitic –my caused stress shift; the former status of –my as an enclitic is confirmed by the type of sandhi).14 Until recently, stress shifting related to enclitics was claimed with regard to Macedonian, but even in this language the phenomenon is no longer relevant.
13
14
In western dialects, it is even possible for two stress units to join together with respect to stress (they form the socalled аkcеntski cеlоsti ‘stress units’), for example kiselﺍavoda vоdа ‘soda water’ (this is a feature which is retreating from standard). There are two types of inter-word sandhi in Polish – with the voicing of obstruents before vowels and sonorants (South-West Poland) and with the devoicing (North-East Poland).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
In languages with morphological regulation of stress, movability is disappearing and stress stabilizes on a particular morpheme. The process is very advanced in the South-Slavic languages (we claim that this has already happened in Slovenian, cf. Slovenian megl |a, vod |a ‘water’ > m |egla ‘fog’, v |oda, because G E N . P L vôd, gôr). In that way the place of stress loses its distinctive value. In the south-western part of the Slavic area, there occur influences originating from the phonetic plane, for example shifting stress onto proclitics (which occurs only in some regions) or restrictions on stressing certain syllables (see above).
Area of the So-Called Reduction of Unstressed Vowels This area breaks down into two subareas. (a) With the so-called akanie (Russian, Belarusian). In Russian, the unstressed vowels which are not high and are preceded by a non-palatalized consonant undergo centralization. Different degrees of reduction are postulated depending on the distance between the unstressed syllable and the stressed syllable and the quality of the preceding consonant. The reduction of unstressed vowels preceded by a palatalized consonant is compiled with the result of combinatory palatalization (heightening) (cf. bеrёzа ‘birch’ [bjirjozə]). As a result of the reduction, [o] does not occur at all in unstressed positions. Mutatis mutandis, the situation is similar in Belarusian, except that the reduction of mid vowels consists in the lowering of articulation towards [ɑ], which is reflected in written forms, for example bjarоzа. The principles of reduction in the so-called ‘taraškievica’ differ in details from the common ‘narkamoŭka’,15 which results from the differences in the adaptation of borrowings (differences in spelling). (b) With the southern type of reduction, which occurs in Bulgarian and in peripheral Macedonian dialects in Bulgaria and in eastern Aegean Macedonia (in Greece). In this type, the vowels which are not high undergo raising. In standard Bulgarian, the principles of reduction are also strictly regulated. The degree of reduction depends also on the distance between a given syllable and the stressed syllable. In the peripheral east dialects, the reduction of mid vowels leads to the change of [o] into [u] and [e] into [i]. This type of reduction is determined geographically – the same type of reduction occurs in all northern Greek dialects, in which the reduction is actually stronger (mid vowels change into [u], [i], and unstressed high vowels disappear). The reduction is relatively the weakest in the case of [ɑ]. There are several types of reduction in Bulgarian (the so-called full reduction and partial reduction, cf. Stojkov 2002). In Macedonian dialects (in Pirin Macedonia and in the neighboring dialects in Greece, and also in the neighboring Bulgarian dialects) typically [o] and [ɑ] undergo reduction, while [e] is pronounced without any significant changes. 15
‘Narkamoŭ ka’ is the official spelling convention; ‘taraškievica’ is the older orthographic system promoted by language purists.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
39
40
IRENA SAWICKA
(c) The reductions discussed above occur in the eastern part of the Slavic area and they are well described and formalized (except for Ukrainian, in which reduction practically does not exist, although slight raisings are sometimes mentioned in the literature). Raising is more noticeable, on the other hand, with regard to the western periphery of the Slavic area – Sorbian, Slovenian, and northern Kashubian dialects. Generally, in Sorbian reductions are observed both at present and in the diachronic perspective. They are, however, so irregular that precise rules of reduction have never been formulated. What is known is that unstressed /ɨ/ and /ɛ/ after a nonpalatalized consonant are pronounced predominantly as [ǝ]. In Slovenian, some vowels are pronounced as [ǝ], however, it is disputable whether this is a case of reduction, because it happens also in stressed syllables. Short midhigh vowels are pronounced as [ǝ] independent of the position relative to word stress. The vowel [ǝ] may also take its origins from the old jer. Consequently, two levels of mid vowels are distinguished in Slovenian only in the case of long vowels and these occur only in stressed positions (Toporišič 2000, Tivadar 2007).
Area with Syllabic Sonorants (South-Western Area) (See also Chapter 4 in this volume.) This area encompasses the whole southwestern part of the Slavic area: Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Macedonian, and Shtokavian languages. The syllabic [r̩ ] occurs in all of them; in Czech and Slovak the syllabic [l̩ ] also occurs. In the remaining languages enumerated above, all sonorants can be syllabic in less sonorous environments – this happens mostly in foreign names, except for [r̩ ], which occurs in native words. In all these languages, syllabic sonorants have the status of combinatory allophones, except for Croatian, where the syllabic pronunciation of [r̩ ] is vestigially preserved in the position next to a vowel, for example tȑ o [tr̩ o] ‘he rubbed’. In Slovenian, the syllabic [r̩ ] is interpreted as the group /ǝr/ due to the presence of the independent phoneme /ǝ/. In Macedonian, [r̩ ] is, in fact, more often pronounced as [ǝr] than as a strengthened rhotic. Syllabic sonorants derive from Proto-Slavic syllabic sonorants, from the combinations of sonorants with jers between consonants or between a pause (juncture) and a consonant or from borrowings. Proto-Slavic syllabic sonorants in the remaining Slavic languages have undergone decomposition into groups ‘sonorant + vowel’ or ‘vowel + sonorant’ or changed into a vowel. The syllabic l in native words changed into a vowel also in Shtokavian, namely [u, u:], for example *vḷ:k > [vu:k] ‘wolf’.
Area with the So-Called Glottal Stop In some languages (especially Czech and optionally in Polish) a new quasiconsonant prosthesis is established – this is a kind of laryngeal occlusion or
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
friction, usually referred to as ‘glottal stop’. This is a relatively new phenomenon and should be treated as a part of the combinatory realization of vowels. The occurrence of glottal stop is a progressive tendency, but we can still divide Slavic languages into those in which the transition between two vowels or between a consonant and a vowel on strong morphemic boundaries is abrupt (glottal stop is produced) (Czech and Polish) and the remaining ones in which the connection is smooth (or even a glide is formed between them). Laryngeal stop is pronounced between two vowels, between a consonant and a vowel on strong morphemic boundaries, and before initial vowels (cf. Cze. okno [ˀokno] ‘window’, Pol. aorta [ˀɑˀɔrtɑ], nauczać [nɑˀuʧɑʨ] ‘to teach’).
Peripheral Areas with Preserved Traces of Old Slavic Nasality (Polish, Disappearing Macedonian Dialects) This is not a compact area. Nasality is preserved in Polish and Kashubian, on the one hand, and in the peripheral Macedonian dialect spoken mainly in Greece, on the other hand. Nasal vowels have been preserved also in Slovenian dialects in the Podjunska Valley (Stieber 1969: 26, Ramovš 1936: 122–123). The development of nasal vowels in Slavic languages has passed through several important stages. Firstly, in Proto-Slavic, the rule of the open syllable caused the elimination of the contexts ‘vowel + nasal consonant + consonant or end of word’, which resulted in shifting nasality to the vowel. Consequently, nasal vowels emerged, whose phonological status was unclear. On the one hand, in the absence of the contexts ‘vowel + nasal consonant + consonant or end of word’ they could be interpreted as a realization of the group of phonemes ‘vowel + nasal consonant’; on the other hand, such a solution would allow closed syllables, which otherwise did not occur in Common Slavic. Phonologization could occur only after the loss of weak jers, when the contexts of the type ‘oral vowel + nasal sonorant’ emerged in final positions and opposed nasal vowels in the same position (cf. *tъnъ ‘this’ > Pol. ten vs. tę ‘this, F E M . A C C ’). In most Slavic languages, nasal vowels have lost nasality and became oral vowels. Nasality has been preserved in Lekhitic languages, but nasal vowels have disintegrated at an indeterminate time, and in most contexts they have been replaced by groups of two segments, the second of which was a nasal stop or a nasal approximant, depending on the following context. Although the Polish descriptive tradition maintained for many years that synchronic nasality of vowels had been preserved before fricatives, this was rather an incorrect phonetic interpretation and not a phonetic fact. At present, it often happens that before a non-labial fricative, the second segment – high back non-labial approximant [ɯ̃ ] – completely loses nasality, of which the recipients are unaware. Before a labial fricative, [ɱ] is realized. Another frequent pronunciation, less normative, represents a return to the group ‘vowel + nasal sonorant’, for example wąski ‘narrow’ [voɯ̃ sci]/[vonsci] – the nasal sonorant in this
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
41
42
IRENA SAWICKA
context is usually articulated without closure. One way or another, firstly, nasal vowels occur at the morphophonological level; secondly, in the pronunciation of most Poles, these contexts have equalized with the pronunciation of the groups ‘vowel + nasal sonorant + consonant’ from borrowings, like infekcja, emfaza, finansowy. Before stops, old nasal vowels have decomposed into the groups V + N ([m, n, ɲ, ŋ]). Nasality has been preserved also on the opposing pole of the Slavic area in Macedonian dialects located in northern Greece. Generally, nasality is preserved only before stops, which is connected with the Greek functional equivalence of the groups ‘nasal stop + voiced stop’ with voiced stops. Nasality here is also determined by a Slavic factor, namely, nasality has been preserved if the nasal vowel had a quality similar to schwa.16 This is evidenced by the non-etymological nasality which developed with the secondary vocalism before a stop consonant (e.g. *mьgla ‘fog’ > *mgla > məgla > [mɑŋgɬɑ]/ [mǝŋgɬɑ], cf. Sawicka & Cychnerska 2018). If nasality was sometimes preserved before a fricative, it was only because a stop was inserted between a nasal sonorant and a fricative, which changed the context – a nasal vowel occurred before a stop, for example *gęs ‘goose’ > [gǝns] > [gǝnts] > [gǝnʦ].17 Unmotivated nasality before a stop occurs in the same dialects, too, for example [fɑmbrikɑ] ‘factory’, [bɑrɑŋgɑ] ‘barrack’.
2.3 Quantitative Relations The above differences affected the quantitative relations. Phonological systems are usually divided into vocalic and consonantal ones (Issatchenko 1939– 1940). In general, all Slavic languages are consonantal languages. Nevertheless, certain differences are significant. Most often, a modest vowel system is accompanied by more elaborate consonantism, extended by additional palatal phonemes. Conversely, rich vocalism is accompanied by a more modest consonant system. For instance, the ratio of vowels to consonants in Serbian and Croatian phonemic inventories is approximately 1:2, in Czech 1:2.5, in Slovak 3:4, whereas in Russian and Bulgarian it is approximately 1:6. Exceptions to this apply to the periphery: in Macedonian, both subsystems are modest, in Kashubian both are relatively rich. Because all Slavic languages inherited mostly the same morphemes, the frequency ratio of vowels to consonants in text is not so varied. Nevertheless, it can be said that the south of the Slavic area is characterized by a greater proportion of vowels in text. On the basis of comparable samples, it has been determined that texts in the South-West-Slavic languages contain more than 45 percent vowels, whereas texts in the languages spoken North of the Carpathians and in Bulgarian and 16 17
The combination of centrality and a nasal quality of the vowel is a medieval Balkanism (cf. Sawicka 2000). This is another Balkanism, the so-called buffer consonant (cf. Newton 1972).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vocalism: The Vowels
Slovenian include from 37 percent to 42 percent vowels (cf. Korytowska & Sawicka 2007: 202). However, very significant differences relate to the occurrence of vowel groups. The languages with the lowest frequency of vowel groups are those that have partly preserved the Proto-Slavic consonant prostheses or have developed new prostheses (Sorbian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian). Balkan languages, on the other hand, have several times higher frequency of vowel clusters. Vowel groups in Slavic languages occur mostly in borrowings and on morphemic boundaries (this is why they are infrequent in the languages in which there are still consonant prostheses before morphemeinitial vowels). Sources of vowel groups are more numerous in the south of the Slavic area: in the post-Shtokavian languages the change of l into o at the end of the syllable, for example Ser. video ‘saw’; inflection of foreign words ending in a vowel, for example Ser. kupe ‘train compartment’, G E N . S G kupea, D A T . S G kupeu, etc.; in Macedonian and Bulgarian, there is a frequent elision of j before a front vowel in word-initial position and between two vowels. These processes have contributed to the exceptionally high frequency of vowel groups in all South-Slavic languages, except for Slovenian. For instance, in three pages of text in Serbian, there were 93 vowel groups, in Croatian 100, and in Macedonian as many as 173, whereas in Polish and Russian there were 30 vowel groups in each language, in Czech 25, in Slovak 17, in Ukrainian 6, and in Upper Sorbian only 4 (for details, see Sawicka 2007).
References Brozović, D. (1968). O fonološkom sustavu suvremenog standardnog hrvatskosrpskog jezika. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 4, 20–39. Demenko, G. (1999). Analiza cech suprasegmentalnych języka polskiego na potrzeby technologii mowy, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza. Galton, H. (1997). Der Einfluß des Altaischen auf die Entstehung des Slavischen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gvozdanović, J. (1980). Tone and Accent in Standard Serbo-Croatian with a Synopsis of Serbo-Croatian Phonology, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Issatchenko A. (1939–1940). Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen. Linguistica Slovaca, 1–2, 64–76. Ivić, P. (1965). Prozodijski sistem savremenog srpskohrvatskog standardnog jezika. In S. Drewniak & J. Heinz, eds., Simbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz, Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. Komisja Językoznawstwa, pp. 135–144. Jakobson, R. (1931). Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 4, 164–182. Jakobson, R. (1962). K xarakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza. In Selected Writtings, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 418–425. Jocz, L. (2011). Wokalowy system hornjoserbskeje rěče přitomnosće, Szczecin: Volumina. Korytowska, A. & Sawicka, I. (2007). Uwagi na temat ilościowej charakterystyki fonetyki słowiańskiej. In I. Sawicka, ed., Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, pp. 199–219.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
43
44
IRENA SAWICKA
Král', A. & Sabol, J. (1989). Fonetika a fonologia, Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo. Newton, B. (1972). The Generative Interpretation of Dialect, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palková, Z. (1994). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny, Prague: Univerzita Karlová. Press, I. (1986). Aspects of the Phonology of the Slavonic Languages. The Vowel *y and the Consonantal Correlation of Palatalization, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Punišić S. & Sawicka, I. (2007). Język serbski. In I. Sawicka, ed., Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, pp. 557–577. Ramovš, F. (1936). Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika I, Ljubljana: Akademska založba. Sawicka, I. (2000). Ob odnom srednevekovnom balkanizme. In Materialy XXVIII Mežvuzovskoj naučno-metodičeskoj konferencii prepodavatelej i aspirantov, vyp. 21, Balkanskie issledovanija, častʹ 3, mart 1999. Saint Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 25–28. Sawicka, I., ed., (2007). Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Sawicka, I. (2019). Greek ‘nasal + stop’ clusters and the Greek-Macedonian convergence. In C. Tsitzilis and G. Papanastassiou, eds., Language Contact in the Balkans and Asia Minor, Vol. 1, Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, pp. 73–81. Sawicka, I. & Cychnerska, A. (2018). Mestoto na makedonskata fonetika vo ramkite na slovenskiot i balkanskot jazičen svet, Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Shevelov, G. V. (1964). A Prehistory of Slavic, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Stadnik, E. (2001). Über den Einfluss des Altaischen auf die Entwicklung des Slawischen. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 47, 177–184. Stieber, Z. (1969). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Fonologia, Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Stojkov, S. (2002). Bъlgarska dialektologija, Sofia: Akad. izd. “Prof. Marin Drinov”. Škarić, I. & Horga, D. (2007). Język chorwacki. In I. Sawicka, ed., Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, pp. 531–557. Tivadar, H. (2007). Język słoweński. In I. Sawicka, ed., Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, pp.505–531. Toporišič, J. (2000). Slovenska slovnica, Maribor: Obzorja. Trubetzkoy, N. (1958). Grundzüge der Phonologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wornar, E. (2007). Język łużycki. In I. Sawicka, ed., Komparacja współczesnych języków słowiańskich 2. Fonetyka i fonologia, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, pp. 321–331.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.003 Published online by Cambridge University Press
3 Consonantism: The Consonants Peter Jurgec
3.1 Introduction This chapter reviews consonantism in Slavic. The main focus is on the common consonantal segments, their patterns, and the role they have played in phonological theory. Section 3.2 reviews the inventories of the 12 contemporary Slavic languages. As we will see, Slavic languages have relatively large consonant inventories, which is related to three factors: (i) most Slavic languages contrast plain vs. palatalized consonants, (ii) many Slavic languages have two sets of posterior coronal fricatives, and (iii) obstruents contrast voicing. The remaining sections look at alternations affecting consonants. Section 3.3 examines palatalization, which is particularly extensive in Slavic. In particular, I review velar palatalization (and related processes of velar fronting and iotation) as well as secondary palatalization. Section 3.4 examines two common laryngeal alternations: final devoicing and voicing assimilation. A typical Slavic language has final devoicing and regressive voicing assimilation within obstruent clusters, but there are languages without final devoicing and languages that allow clusters of voiced and voiceless obstruents. Section 3.5 examines other local processes affecting consonants, such as place assimilation, dissimilation, and decomposition. Finally, Section 3.6 discusses patterns in which consonants affect one another at a distance. Consonant harmony is a pattern in which sibilants must agree in some property within a word; it is found in two Slavic languages. Consonant cooccurrence restrictions (described as the effect of the Obligatory Contour Principle, OCP) constitute the opposite: two instances of a segment (or a class of segments) cannot co-occur across a vowel or within a word. I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the volume editors. I also received valuable feedback from Michael Friesner and Alexei Kochetov. This work was partially supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant “Interacting Consonants: An ultrasound investigation of consonant harmony” (file number 430-2019-00296).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
46
PETER JURGEC
3.2 Consonant Inventories Most contemporary Slavic languages have larger than average consonant inventories. This can be attributed to the inherited contrasts of the ProtoSlavic inventory as well as additional subsequent contrasts. The Late Proto-Slavic consonant inventory distinguishes five places of articulation, voicing of obstruents and affricates in addition to stops and fricatives, and a range of sonorants (Table 3.1). Notable is the abundance of palatalized consonants and the asymmetries in fricatives: there is no voiceless labiodental fricative or voiced velar fricative. This inventory has 27 consonantal phonemes, which is considered to be moderately large among the languages of the world (Maddieson 2013). On the whole, the contemporary Slavic languages have inherited the ProtoSlavic inventory contrasts, with changes mostly affecting the palatalized consonants. In fact, many contemporary languages have secondary palatalization of consonants which can affect almost all consonants (such as in Russian and Bulgarian). Table 3.2 summarizes the phoneme inventories across the 12 contemporary standard Slavic languages. The segments are color-coded by frequency.1This table is meant to provide a general overview of what a typical Slavic consonant inventory looks like, despite the potential drawbacks of this approach, which minimizes the discrepancies among the existing descriptions and ignores dialectal variation. All languages distinguish three pairs of stops /p, b; t, d; k, ɡ/, four fricatives /f, s, z, x/, the affricate /ʦ/, two nasals /m, n/, and the palatal glide /j/. These phonemes are mostly inherited from Proto-Slavic (although subject to sound change, see the following sections). Only /f/ was introduced predominantly through borrowing, though in some languages it also derives from *xv or other groups, for example Macedonian [fati] ‘grab’ < *xvatiti. Table 3.1 Late Proto-Slavic consonant inventory
Stop Fricative Affricate Nasal Rhotic Lateral Glide
Labial
Dental
p b v
t s
m
d z ʦ n r l
Alveol. ʃ ʒ ʣ ʧ
Palatal
Velar
tj sj
k g x
dj zj nj rj lj j
(Schenker 1993: 82; Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 40)
1
The inventories were coded based on available descriptions and complemented by the literature on secondary palatalization (Hall 2000, Kochetov 2002, Bateman 2007, Kochetov 2011, Kavitskaya et al. 2009, Iskarous & Kavitskaya 2018), sibilants (Żygis 2003, Padgett & Żygis 2007, Hamann 2004, Kochetov 2017), and the labiodental sonorant (Hall 2004, Petrova & Szentgyörgyi 2004, Padgett 2002). Marginal phonemes were included if treated as phonemes by these sources. When the differences were not resolvable, half-values were assigned. Examples include the variation between the trill and flap in Polish or between postalveolar and retroflex fricatives in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
Table 3.2 Phoneme inventories of contemporary standard Slavic languages, shaded by frequency
Note. The approximants [w] and [wj] are labiovelar.
Most Slavic languages (except Czech, Macedonian, Bosnian-CroatianSerbian or BCS, and Slovenian) distinguish secondary palatalization. Phonetically, secondary palatalization is realized with a raised or fronted tongue body (Kochetov 2002). Along with postalveolars, palatalized consonants arose in Proto-Slavic as a result of various phonological processes. The contemporary Slavic languages differ in terms of how many of the original contrasts they have maintained (Kochetov 2006, Kavitskaya 2009, Kavitskaya et al. 2009, Iskarous & Kavitskaya 2018). In fact, not all palatalized consonants are equally attested across Slavic: palatalized labial nasal and oral stops are found in more languages than palatalized velars and coronals. Cross-linguistically, palatalized rhotics are marked (Kavitskaya et al. 2009; Iskarous & Kavitskaya 2010; Hall & Hamann 2010; Howson 2018). Palatalized postalveolars are rare. The processes affecting secondary palatalization will be reviewed further in Section 3.3. Posterior sibilants differ phonetically and phonologically across the Slavic languages (Żygis 2003, Hamann 2004). While the majority of Slavic languages have postalveolar affricates and fricatives, some Slavic languages have retroflex fricatives and affricates (e.g. Lower Sorbian), others have both (Russian), while a third group displays significant dialectal variation (Polish, BCS). Lower Sorbian, Polish, and BCS also have an additional set of alveopalatals. One striking difference among the Slavic languages is the status of /v-w-ʋ/, which can vary phonetically from a voiced fricative to an approximant. This phoneme behaves like a sonorant in many Slavic languages (e.g. BCS,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
47
48
PETER JURGEC
Belarusian, Ukrainian); in other Slavic languages it can behave as a fricative or sonorant depending on context (e.g. Czech, Slovak), or as an obstruent entirely (Polish). The voiced labiovelar sometimes assimilates in voicing, but other times it does not affect voicing assimilation. In many Slavic languages, the voiced labiodental has multiple allophones. For instance, in Ukrainian it is realized as [ʋ] in onsets, but as [w] in codas. The voiced labiodental is discussed further in Section 3.4. In terms of obstruent voicing, most place and manner combinations have a voiced–voiceless pair, with some notable gaps: phonemic voiced velar fricatives are only found in Belarusian, and while all languages have a phonemic /ʦ/, only five have its voiced counterpart /ʣ/. In other languages, the missing voiced obstruents are allophones, appearing before voiced obstruents. Among the rhotics, most Slavic languages are described as having the alveolar trill. Three languages have other rhotics: Slovenian has a flap (Šuštaršič et al. 1995), Upper Sorbian has a uvular trill (Howson 2018), and Czech has an additional trill-fricative [r̞ ] (Howson 2017). Overall, many Slavic languages show substantial positional, dialectal, and interspeaker variation in rhotics, which is sometimes mirrored in the descriptions of the standard varieties. Not shown in the inventories above are the geminates, or long consonants. Most Slavic languages allow geminates across a morpheme boundary, where they can be variantly pronounced as singletons in casual speech. Perhaps the most extensive inventory of geminates is found in Russian. The Russian geminates arise due to morpheme concatenation (e.g. [vːos] ‘import’, [rɐsːkas] ‘story’) or morpheme-internally in loanwords ([bɐrokːə] ‘baroque’, [sumːə] ‘sum’). Dmitrieva (2017) demonstrates that the Russian geminates have systematically longer duration than singletons. Russian geminates display some of the cross-linguistically common properties, such as the rarity of sonorant geminates or geminates appearing next to another consonant. At the same time, Dmitrieva identified several language-specific idiosyncrasies, such as the relative robustness of word-initial and voiced-obstruent geminates. Geminates are also very common in Belarusian and Ukrainian because of the historical change Cj > Cjː, for example Ukrainian [ʒɪtjːa] ‘life’ < *ʒitje. This concludes the overview of consonant inventories in Slavic languages. In the following section, we move on to the alternations affecting consonants.
3.3 Palatalization Processes One of the most striking properties of all contemporary Slavic languages is the various palatalization processes. Palatalization is defined as the pronunciation of consonants in the palatal or postalveolar, and more broadly in the coronal region (Bateman 2007, Kochetov 2011). This description encompasses both secondary articulation (e.g. k → kj) and change in place of articulation (e.g. k → ʧ). To illustrate the phonological and morphological properties of palatalization, let us examine palatalization in BCS. The language involves several
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
different palatalizations (de Bray 1980, Browne 1993, Morén 2006), which BCS inherited from Proto-Slavic. The first type of palatalization (1a) applies to stemfinal velars which become postalveolars before the vocative suffix. All three velars are affected (1a-i), and the alternation changes the manner of two obstruents, but not of [x]. Voicing is maintained. The triggers of palatalization are specific suffixes which most commonly contain front vowels, as the vocative. However, not all suffixes that begin with a front vowel trigger palatalization (1aii) and not all triggering suffixes have front vowels (1a-iii). Thus, it is best to describe these triggers as morphological. Finally, velar palatalization is not fully productive and does not apply to all stem-final velars when followed by the triggering suffixes. In fact, sometimes palatalization applies variably (1a-iv). The second type of palatalization affects two alveolars which become postalveolar (1b). In BCS, this alternation is also found with the vocative suffix (1bi) and the nominative plural -ɔʋi/-ɛʋi. With the latter we can see that the velars are not affected. There are also a number of exceptions. Coronal palatalization is less productive in BCS and affects only a handful of suffixes. (1)
BCS palatalization patterns (Browne 1993, Morén 2006; prosody omitted) Velar palatalization: {k, x, ɡ} → {ʧ, ʃ, ʒ} a. i. uʧɛnik ‘pupil’ uʧɛniʧɛ bɔɡ ‘god’ bɔʒɛ sirɔmax ‘poor man’ sirɔmaʧɛ ii. ʋɔjnik ‘soldier’ ʋɔjnikɛ iii. pɛku ‘bake.3 P . P L ’ pɛʧɛm kruɡ ‘circle’ kruʒiti nɔɡa ‘leg, foot’ nɔʒurda iv. ruka ‘hand, arm’ ruʧiʦa rukiʦa Coronal palatalization: {ʦ, z} → {ʧ, ʒ} b. i. striʦ ‘uncle’ striʧɛ knɛz ‘prince’ knɛʒɛ ii. striʦ ‘uncle’ striʧɛʋi ʋuk ‘wolf’ ʋukɔʋi ʋɔz ‘cart’ ʋɔzɔʋi Velar fronting: {k, x, ɡ} → {ʦ, s, z} – i c. i. aɡnɔstik ‘agnostic’ aɡnɔstiʦi bubrɛɡ ‘kidney’ bubrɛzi ɔrax ‘walnut’ ɔrasi ii. junak ‘hero’ junaʦima pɛku ‘roast.3 P . P L ’ pɛʦijax ruka ‘hand, arm’ ruʦi iii. maʧka ‘cat’ maʧki milka ‘(name)’ milki
‘pupil.V O C ’ ‘god.V O C ’ ‘poor man.V O C ’ ‘soldier.A C C . P L ’ ‘bake.1 P. S G ’ ‘circle.I N F ’ ‘big ugly foot’ ‘small hand’ ‘uncle.V O C ’ ‘prince.V O C ’ ‘uncle.N O M . P L ’ ‘wolf.N O M . P L ’ ‘cart.N O M . P L ’ ‘agnostic.N O M . P L ’ ‘kidney.N O M . P L ’ ‘walnut.N O M . P L ’ ‘hero.D A T / L O C / I N S T R . P L ’ ‘roast.I M P E R F ’ ‘hand, arm.D A T /L O C ’ ‘cat.D A T /L O C ’ ‘(name).D A T /L O C ’
The third type of palatalization also affects velars, but this time they turn into anterior coronals (1c-i). All suffixes that trigger velar fronting start with an [i], as shown in (1c-ii). Velar fronting is not without exceptions: it can be blocked phonotactically (e.g. *[maʧʦi] ‘cat.D A T /L O C ’) and there are also
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
49
50
PETER JURGEC
lexically conditioned exceptions such as personal names (1c-iii). The final palatalization alternation in BCS is iotation (2). Historically, iotation applied before [j], but in contemporary Slavic languages [j] is generally no longer present. The difference between the palatalizations in (1) and iotation is in the number of segments affected: iotation applies to most segments. As in velar palatalization, velars become postalveolars (2a), while anterior coronals become posterior coronals (2b). Notice the difference between stops, which become alveopalatal (t → ʨ), and fricatives/affricates, which become postalveolar (s → ʃ). Finally, labials do not palatalize: instead the palatal lateral [ʎ] is inserted (2c). (2)
BCS iotation (Browne 1993, Morén 2006) a. {k, x, ɡ} → {ʧ, ʃ, ʒ} skakati ‘to jump’ skaʧɛ ‘jump.3 P . S G ’ tix ‘quiet’ tiʃi ‘quieter’ b. Coronals: {t, d, s, z, ʦ, n, l} → {ʨ, ʥ, ʃ, ʒ, ʧ, ɲ, ʎ} ʋratiti ‘to return’ ʋraʨɛn ‘returned’ nɔsiti ‘to carry’ nɔʃax ‘carry.I M P E R F ’ baʦiti ‘to throw’ baʧɛn ‘thrown’ xʋaliti ‘to praise’ xʋaʎɛn ‘praised’ c. Labials: ∅ → ʎ {p, b, f, m, ʋ} – ɡlup ‘stupid’ ɡlupʎi ‘more stupid’ ʎubiti ‘to kiss, love’ ʎubʎɛn ‘kissed, loved’ zaʃrafiti ‘to tighten’ zaʃrafʎɛn ‘tightened’ kraʋa ‘cow’ kraʋʎi ‘bovine’
The crucial difference between the palatalization patterns in (1) and iotation in (2) is that the set of triggering suffixes is different. Among all the palatalizations in BCS, only for velar fronting do all triggering suffixes share a clear common property: they all begin with [i]. As regards iotation, most suffixes are front, but not all (e.g. [nɔʃax] ‘carry.I M P E R F ’). BCS inherited all four palatalizations from Proto-Slavic. This is why we also find palatalization in most other Slavic languages. Many of the patterns observed in BCS are similar to the ones found in the other languages, but there are also some key differences; I review these parallels in the remainder of this section. First, each palatalization type is morphologically conditioned, and the set of triggering suffixes may all share a phonological property (e.g. front vowels). Palatalization may also interact with morphology in another way: the suffix may display allomorphy, including the choice of inflectional paradigm, that is conditioned by the stem-final consonant. Second, the outcome of palatalization is conditioned by the segmental inventory of the language. Notable in BCS is the relationship between the postalveolar and alveopalatal affricates. A more complex case is Polish, which has more sibilants and five distinct palatalization processes (see Rubach 2011 for an accessible overview). Third, most types of palatalization apply at morpheme boundaries. This type of alternation is termed a Derived Environment Effect (Kiparsky 1993, Burzio 2011). In the history of generative phonology, morphologically derived environments were treated together with phonologically derived environments, where an alternation applies only to a segment that is already derived
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
by a different rule. A famous example of this type of is found in Polish, where /ɡ/ palatalizes to [ʤ] and then spirantizes to [ʒ] in specific environments: /bɔɡ-ɛ/ → [bɔʒɛ] ‘god-V O C ’. Underlying /ʤ/, however, does not undergo spirantization and surfaces faithfully. This type of pattern presents a substantial theoretical problem in rule- and constraint-based approaches.2 In some cases, however, palatalization is phonologically triggered, such as secondary palatalization in Polish and Russian. In Polish, secondary palatalization is triggered by [i, j] not only at morpheme boundaries but also within morphemes (e.g. [mjit] ‘myth’) and across word boundaries ([dɔm] ‘home’ versus [dɔmj] Iwana ‘Ivan’s home’; Rubach 2011). Fourth, palatalization may be lexically restricted, which means that it does not apply to certain lexical items which meet the morphological and phonological requirements. Loanwords are a particularly likely source of exceptionality both in lacking expected palatalization (as in BCS) and showing a different set of facts. In Polish, for instance, secondary palatalization applies to postalveolars [ʒ, ʃ] but only in loanwords (e.g. [suʃ ji] ‘sushi’, [ʒ jigɔlak] ‘gigolo’; see Gussmann 2007: §3.12). This sort of lexical exceptionality sometimes leads authors to conclude that a particular type of palatalization is no longer productive. In fact, Kapatsinski (2010) shows how velar palatalization in Russian has lost productivity before a subset of suffixes. In Slovenian, velar palatalization is highly variable, but Jurgec & Schertz (2020) show that native speakers favor palatalization in nonce stems when followed by palatalizing suffixes. Fifth, palatalization is subject to phonological restrictions, as is common in other types of sound patterns. In BCS, palatalization is blocked by certain clusters. When palatalization is variable, BCS adheres to Guion’s (1998) crosslinguistic generalization: /k/ palatalizes more often than the other two velars (Browne 1993). I return to this point in Section 3.6.
3.4 Voicing Alternations All Slavic languages contrast two sets of obstruents: voiced and voiceless. Phonetically, voiced stops are produced with voicing during the closure. Voiceless obstruents are typically unaspirated, although [kh] is aspirated in Upper Sorbian (as an allophone of /x/; Ševc Šuster 1984: 26–27)3 and Slovenian (Srebot-Rejec 1990); aspiration is not a factor in voicing alternations. The contrast between the two types of obstruents is not maintained in all contexts, and the neutralizing environments differ from language to language. In word-final position, the voicing contrast is preserved in BCS and Ukrainian. All other Slavic languages display final devoicing, a process in which word-final obstruents are realized as voiceless. Standard Slovenian 2
3
Polish palatalization and its derivational properties are analyzed in Rubach (1984, 2000, 2003, 2017, 2019), Łubowicz (2002, 2016) and Gussmann (2007). Russian palatalization is analyzed in Padgett (2001, 2003, 2011) and Blumenfeld (2002). Howson (2017) reports optional aspiration in other Upper Sorbian stops as well.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
51
52
PETER JURGEC
has final devoicing, but many dialects do not. Šmartno Slovenian presents an intermediate situation (3). In Šmartno, the root-final contrasts are maintained before sonorant-initial suffixes, as in the instrumental singular. Obstruents devoice word-finally, as in the nominative. The key generalization applies in the high vowel cases, such as the genitive. Roots with mobile stress paradigms, such as ‘dust’, shift stress to the suffix, but roots with fixed paradigms do not and as a result the word-final high unstressed vowel deletes. The newly final obstruent fails to devoice (/ˈbrieɣ-i/ → [ˈbrieɣ], not *[ˈbriex]). The interaction of devoicing and vowel deletion is opaque rather than transparent, because devoicing does not apply to all word-final obstruents on the surface. (3)
Šmartno Slovenian opaque voicing (Jurgec 2019; vowel length omitted) Mobile Fixed /prax/ /snieɣ/ /ˈsmiex/ /ˈbrieɣ/ I N S T R /-m/ ˈpraxm ˈbrieɣm̩ ̩ ˈsnieɣm̩ ˈsmiexm̩ NOM /-∅/ ˈprax ˈsniex ˈsmiex ˈbriex (final devoicing) GEN /-ˈi/ praˈxi sneˈɣi ˈsmiex ˈbrieɣ (no final devoicing) ‘dust’ ‘snow’ ‘laughter’ ‘coast’
While the traditional phonological analyses of final devoicing posit full neutralization between final voiced and voiceless obstruents, phonetic work has shown that the neutralization is incomplete in many languages (Chen 1970, Dinnsen & Charles-Luce 1984, Port & O’Dell 1985, Warner et al. 2004). This means that while the contrast between voiced and voiceless obstruents is weaker than in presonorant positions, it is nevertheless still statistically significant in perception and production experiments. In this discussion, Russian has played an important role. Shrager (2012) and Kulikov (2012) demonstrate that voicing leaves traces in phonologically devoiced stops. Kharlamov (2014) shows that this phonetic effect is dependent on the task: minimal pairs and orthographic presentation of stimuli are more likely to result in neutralization being incomplete. Bishop et al. (2019) extend the findings to Bulgarian, where neutralization is also incomplete. The second alternation that is common across Slavic languages is voicing assimilation. In most Slavic languages, obstruent clusters must agree in voicing, with the rightmost obstruent determining the voicing of the entire cluster. This can be seen in the case of Russian prefixes (4). The presonorant position reveals the underlying voicing of the prefix-final obstruent, which can be either voiceless (4a) or voiced (4b). The distinction is neutralized before obstruents: all obstruents surface as voiceless before voiceless obstruents and voiced before voiced obstruents. This applies across morpheme boundaries, within morphemes, and across word boundaries – but not across pauses where final devoicing applies instead. Note that voicing assimilation is not inherently linked to final devoicing. For example, although BCS lacks final devoicing, it exhibits the same voicing assimilation patterns found in Russian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
(4)
Russian voicing assimilation (Padgett 2012)
Before a sonorant ˈs-jexətj ‘to ride down’ ɐt-ˈjexətj ‘to ride off’ pəd-njiˈstji ‘to bring to’ iz-lɐˈɡatj ‘to state’
Before a voiceless obstruent s-prɐˈsjitj ‘to ask’ ɐt-stuˈpjitj ‘to step back’ pət-pjiˈsatj ‘to sign’ is-kljuˈʧ jatj ‘to exclude’
Before a voiced obstruent ˈz-djelətj ‘to do’ ɐd-ˈbrosjitj ‘to throw aside’ pəd-ˈzeʧ j ‘to burn’ iz-ˈɡnatj ‘to drive out’
Voicing assimilation in Russian is symmetrical: obstruents assimilate regardless of their underlying voicing. In contrast, Ukrainian shows asymmetrical assimilation, a fact that has played a key role in our understanding of obstruent voicing typologies (Butska 1998, Lombardi 1999, Wetzels & Mascaró 2001). As shown in (5a), Ukrainian allows word-final voiced obstruents and thus does not exhibit final devoicing. In obstruent clusters, voiceless obstruents become voiced (5b), but voiced obstruents do not devoice (5c): /liʒko/ → [liʒko], not *[liʃko]. (5)
a. No final devoicing Ukrainian voicing assimilation (Butska 1998) ʋas ‘you.A C C . P L ’ ʋaz ‘vase.G E N . P L ’ plit ‘fence’ plid ‘fruit’ b. Regressive voicing assimilation prosɪtɪ ‘to request’ prozjba ‘a request’ borotɪ ‘to struggle’ borodjba ‘struggle’ c. No assimilation to voicelessness liʒok ‘bed.G E N . P L ’ liʒko ‘bed’ ridɪtɪ ‘to rarefy’ ridko ‘rarely’
Voicing of obstruents may also interact with sonorant voicing in several ways. First, in Polish (Rubach & Booij 1990, Rubach 1996) and Russian (Jakobson 1978, Hayes 1984, Kiparsky 1985, Petrova & Szentgyörgyi 2004, Rubach 2008b), it has been reported that at word boundaries, voicing assimilates even across sonorants (e.g. [ɐd mɡlɨ] ‘from the haze’). Recent experimental studies have, however, revealed that sonorants are not transparent and that there is a contrast in the presonorant position in these cases (Strycharczuk 2012, Kulikov 2013). Second, obstruents typically devoice word-finally if the following word starts in a sonorant. Slovak is the exception (along with Lower Sorbian and south-western Polish): word-final obstruents are voiced if the following word starts in a sonorant (6a), even though morpheme-internally obstruent voicing is contrastive in pre-sonorant position (6b). (6)
Slovak presonorant voicing at the end of the word (Blaho 2008) a. Pre-sonorant voicing across word boundaries vɔjaka ‘soldier.G E N . S G ’ vɔjaɡ idɛ ‘the soldier goes’ lɛsɛ ‘forest.L O C . S G ’ lɛz jɛ ‘the forest is’ b. Contrastive voicing before sonorant word-internally mɔkra: ‘wet’ puzdrɔ ‘case’ tlak ‘pressure’ dlaɲ ‘palm’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
53
54
PETER JURGEC
Third, specific segments can behave exceptionally with respect to voicing assimilation. Shared among many Slavic languages is the v-sound, which behaves like a sonorant in some positions, but like an obstruent in others. This may have to do with its phonetic properties. For instance, Padgett (2002) suggests that Russian has a ‘narrow approximant’ [ʋ̞ ] which explains its ambivalent behavior. In Slovenian, the labiovelar sonorant is realized simply as rounding on some consonants when not adjacent to a vowel: [wzeti] ‘take’ (Srebot-Rejec 1981). To illustrate the unusual behavior of some consonants, consider Czech (7). The basic facts in Czech are identical to the ones in Russian (4): voicing assimilation applies regressively. The prefix /s-/ ‘with’ surfaces faithfully before a sonorant, but voices before a voiced obstruent (7a). The prefix /z-/ ‘from’ again surfaces faithfully before a sonorant, but devoices before a voiceless obstruent (7b). (7)
Czech regressive voicing assimilation (Hall 2003, 2004) Before a sonorant Before a voiceless obstruent Before a voiced obstruent a. slesem ‘with a forest’ spolem ‘with a field’ zdomem ‘with a house’ b. zlesa ‘from a forest’ spole ‘from a field’ zdomu ‘from a house’
Turning to [v], we see that it behaves like an obstruent when followed by a consonant: it is underlyingly voiced but becomes devoiced before voiceless obstruents (8a-i). When [v] is rightmost in a cluster, it devoices after voiceless obstruents in some dialects, but in any case does not trigger voicing regressively (8a-ii); [v] is voiced when following a voiced obstruent (8a-iii). Another exceptional segment in Czech is the trill-fricative [r̞ ], which shows a different pattern: it devoices after voiceless obstruents (8b). Across word boundaries, the trill-fricative can trigger voicing, although there is some interspeaker variation (Palková 1997). (8)
Czech anomalous segments (Hall 2003, 2004) a. i. vlese ‘in a forest’ fpole ‘in a field’ vdomɲe ‘in a house’ ii. tvor̞̥ it ‘in a field’ tfor̞̥ it iii. dvor̞̥ it ‘to court’ b. i. pr̞̥ i ‘near’ ‘shore’ ii. br̞̥ ex
3.5 Other Local Interactions In the languages of the world, the vast majority of alternations affecting consonants are local, meaning that a consonant is affected by an immediately adjacent segment. This is the case for palatalization and voicing assimilation discussed so far. In this section, I review other local alternations affecting consonants. I limit these discussions to those that are not clearly affected by
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
the sonority restrictions on syllable structure. For instance, obstruentsonorant complex onsets are much more common that the reverse, and some Slavic languages do not allow complex onsets consisting of a sonorant followed by an obstruent (Sonority Sequencing Principle; see Clements 1990 for a comprehensive history and overview). Syllable restrictions on consonant combinations are reviewed in Chapter 4 in this volume. I begin with the place of articulation of nasals in consonant clusters, which is restricted in many Slavic languages. Consider the example from Polish in (9), where I omit that palatal nasal /ɲ/ for simplicity. We can see that an underlying /m/ is possible before stops regardless of their place of articulation. This is not the case for /n/, which assimilates to the same place of articulation as the following stop, even across word boundaries. For instance, [pan] ‘mister’ alternates with [pam] when followed by a word starting in a labial stop. Before fricatives, the situation is more complex, with nasal glides surfacing in some positions. Words with historical nasal vowels have largely the same distribution as /n/. (9) Polish nasal place assimilation (Czaykowska Higgins 1989, 1992, Padgett 1994) Before stops m n Labial bɔmba ‘bomb’ pam buk ‘Lord God’ Coronal kɔmtur ‘commander’ blɔnd ‘blond’ Dorsal klamka ‘doorknob’ baŋk ‘bank’ Before fricatives Labial trɪuw̃ f Coronal
‘triumph’
xamski ‘boorish’
kɔɱflikt ∼ ‘conflict’ kɔw̃ flikt ʃansa ∼ ‘chance’ ʃaw̃ sa
Ṽ zɔmp z̢ ɔndu vɛŋɡjɛl
‘tooth’ ‘government’ ‘coal’
(no data) mɔw̃ ʂ
‘husband’
Nasals are also involved in another alternation in Polish and Upper Sorbian. In the latter, shown in (10), the palatal nasal [ɲ] in the prevocalic (or syllable onset) position alternates with the sequence [jn] in the position before a consonant or end of the word (in the coda). Note that the sequence [jn] can also appear in the prevocalic position [kɔmbajnɨ], while the [ɲ] can never occur before a consonant or the end of word. Assuming an underlying /ɲ/, the motivation for decomposition into [jn] is the retention of palatality and nasality in the coda where [ɲ] is illicit (Rubach 2008a). Polish displays a similar pattern that is driven by segmental environment, not syllable structure: decomposition applies before stops and fricatives.4 (10)
4
Upper Sorbian nasal decomposition (Rubach 2008a) kamjɛɲa ‘stone.G E N . S G ’ kamjɛjn ‘stone.N O M . S G ’ kɔɲa ‘horse.G E N . S G ’ kojn ‘horse.N O M . S G ’ waɲa ‘bathtub.N O M . S G ’ wajnʧka ‘small bathtub.N O M . S G ’ kɔmbajnɨ ‘threshing machine.N O M . P L ’ kɔmbajn ‘threshing machine.N O M . S G ’
Rubach (2008a) also describes this alternation for Slovenian, but there is no empirical basis for such an analysis in any variety of Slovenian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
55
56
PETER JURGEC
Next, several Slavic languages show dissimilation, a pattern in which one segment alternates when next to a similar segment. Consider Macedonian (11). Coronals (and [ɡ]) turn into labiodentals before the suffix -ʧɛ. The key generalization is that a non-labial becomes labial when next to a non-labial. This process is not fully general and applies only to this specific environment. In this sense dissimilation in Macedonian is similar to palatalization in BCS, applying in specific morphological environments. (11)
Macedonian diminutive -ʧɛ dissimilation (Lunt 1952:17, Friedman 1993: 259−260) vɔz ‘cart’ vɔfʧɛ ‘small cart’ vɔʃka ‘louse’ vɔfʧɛ ‘small louse’ mɔst ‘bridge’ mɔfʧɛ ‘small bridge’ ʃamija ‘scarf’ ʃamifʧɛ ‘small scarf’
This concludes the short survey of the other local consonant patterns in Slavic languages. Further local consonant alternations are described in Chapter 5 of this volume.
3.6 Long-Distance Interactions The alternations reviewed so far are local. For instance, the segments involved in voicing alternations are adjacent. At least two Slavic languages also involve long-distance interactions among consonants, which will be reviewed next. The first long-distance interaction is consonant harmony (Hansson 2001, 2010, Rose & Walker 2004), which has been reported for Russian and Slovenian. Consonant harmony is a process in which consonants within a word must agree in some feature, such as voicing, minor place, or nasality. The most common type of consonant harmony is sibilant harmony. Most typically, a posterior sibilant (e.g. [ʒ, ʂ]) cannot co-occur with an anterior sibilant (e.g. [ʦ, z]). These restrictions may result in alternations but this is not necessarily so. Some are simply static restrictions on the shape of morphemes (or Morpheme Structure Constraints). Moreover, many cases of consonant harmony are strong tendencies rather than exceptionless generalizations (Arsenault & Kochetov 2011, Ozburn & Kochetov 2018). In Russian, many words historically contained a sequence of an anterior and a posterior sibilant, but these were subsequently harmonized (e.g. [ˈs̢ ɛrs̢ ɨnj] ‘hornet’ from Old Russian sьɾʃenь). Kochetov & Radisic (2009) investigate whether there is a phonetic basis for such a pattern. They asked Russian speakers to repeat words containing different sibilants. In total, 18 percent were mispronounced. Most of the mispronunciations were assimilatory, such
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
as the target [sap ʃap] being pronounced as [ʃap ʃap]. Anterior sibilants more likely assimilate to posterior than vice versa, and plain sibilants more likely assimilate to palatalized than vice versa. While these experiments do not show that Russian has consonant harmony, they demonstrate a potential mechanism for the genesis of consonant harmony. More systematic sibilant harmony is found in some varieties of Slovenian, particularly the western dialects. Even though Standard Slovenian does not display sibilant harmony, it is nevertheless encountered occasionally, as in (12). Note that the underlined sibilants alternate even though they neighbor the same segments. What causes this alternation? In the first column, we see that alveolar sibilants are not followed by another sibilant. When a postalveolar appears towards the end of the word as a result of velar palatalization – as in BCS (1) – the alveolars earlier in the word harmonize and become postalveolars (underlined). In short, an alveolar sibilant becomes postalveolar when followed by a postalveolar within the same word, even though it could be several segments away. This process is directional, as the reverse order is not restricted, as in [ʒelezniʦa]. (12)
Sibilant harmony in Slovenian slux ‘hearing’ ʃliʃim ɾazlika ‘difference’ ɾaʒliʧiʦa ʒelezniʦa ‘railroad’ ʒeleʒniʧki
‘hear.1 P . S G ’ ‘variant’ ‘railroad.A D J ’
The individual dialects differ, and the pattern is in decline (e.g. Steenwijk 1992 for Resian). The key issue under discussion in the literature has been whether sibilant harmony can apply across consonants, and if so, whether a subset of consonants block it. Jurgec (2011) describes a variety in which only coronal stops block sibilant harmony, while Bon (2017) and Misic (2018) identified varieties with other kinds of blockers. Blocking is exceedingly rare in consonant harmony, and so these patterns have played a key role in the literature (see Hansson 2020 for a comprehensive review). A consonant co-occurrence restriction is another type of long-distance interaction that we find in Slavic. In Russian, for instance, roots cannot consist of two homorganic consonants (Padgett 1992). In particular, roots with two labials, two dorsals, or two types of a subset of coronals are reported to be impossible or at least vastly underrepresented (13a), but roots consisting of combinations of these groups co-occur freely (13b). (13)
Russian roots (Padgett 1992) a. Impossible or exceedingly rare *map (two labials) *kaɡ (two dorsals) *lor (two coronal sonorants) *sjoz (two coronal fricatives) *dat (two coronal stops)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
57
58
PETER JURGEC
b.
Commonly attested ɡrjeb ‘dig’ brat koz ‘goat’ tolk poln ‘full’ sad bod ‘awake’
‘brother’ ‘explain’ ‘sit’
Similar OCP effects are also found elsewhere in Russian. Linzen et al. (2013) look at the variation in Russian prepositions, which can be pronounced with or without a vowel [sə mnoʐəstvəm] ∼ [s mnoʐəstvəm] ‘with a large amount’. Adjacent identical segments tend to be avoided, so the additional vowel is more common if the preposition contains the same consonant as the following word. There is a second, weaker generalization: non-adjacent identical consonants are also avoided. So, the extra vowel is more common if the second consonant of the noun is the same as the preposition (14). (14)
Non-local OCP in Russian prepositions (Linzen et al. 2013) More common variant Less common variant və dvɐreʦ ‘into the palace’ kə dvɐrʦu ‘to the palace’ və dvɐre ‘into the yards’ sə dvɐrom ‘from the yard’
Thus, the OCP effect is a driver of the vowel alternation in prepositions, resembling the overall tendency observed in the roots. A similar restriction is found in Slovenian, where multiple non-adjacent posterior sibilants are dispreferred within a word – recall that the opposite is found in western dialects discussed above. The co-occurrence restriction can be seen when looking at palatalization. Much like in BCS (Section 3.3), palatalization in Slovenian is found with specific suffixes which turn velars into postalveolars (15). This process is variable, and the percentages below present the number of palatalized tokens in the corpus. (15)
Slovenian palatalization (Jurgec 2016) Stem Non-pal. Palatalized baɾok ‘baroque’ baɾok-ən baɾoʧ-ən stɾaŋk-a ‘party’ stɾaŋk-iʦa stɾanʧ-iʦa ɡɾax ‘pea’ ɡɾax-ək ɡɾaʃ-ək kɾok ‘circle’ kɾoɡ-əʦ kɾoʒ-əʦ
%pal 99.8 88.3 55.7 9.0
Tokens 10,466 206 341 4,804
‘ADJ’ ‘DIM’ ‘DIM’ ‘DIM’
When the stem contains a postalveolar, however, the palatalization rates are much lower. Often, palatalization is completely blocked (16). (16)
Palatalization blocked by a distant postalveolar (Jurgec 2016) Stem Non-pal. Palatalized %pal Tokens ʒaɡ-a ‘saw’ ʒaɡ-ən ʒaʒ-ən 0.0 15 ‘ADJ’ ʃʧɪɾk-a ‘daughter’ ʃʧɪɾk-iʦa ʃʧɪɾʧ-iʦa 0.0 5,335 ‘ D I M ’ ʃpɛx ‘fat’ ʃpɛx-ək ʃpɛʃ-ək 0.0 18 ‘DIM’ ʧuk ‘owl’ ʧuk-əʦ ʧuʧ-əʦ 0.0 405 ‘DIM’
Jurgec & Schertz (2020) demonstrate that the speakers extend these generalizations to derived and non-derived nonce words: the acceptability of nonce words with two postalveolars is lower than other combinations of sounds,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
including two velars. The authors also found a separate identity avoidance effect, mirroring the Russian preposition facts. Only in recent decades have long-distance interactions been a major focus of phonological research. It is likely that this research will uncover similar patterns in other Slavic languages.
3.7 Conclusions This chapter provides an overview of the most common sound patterns involving consonants in Slavic. We have seen that the inventories of contemporary Slavic languages are quite similar, with the chief differences being in the number and realization of coronals and in the presence of palatalized consonants. Slavic languages display a great range of palatalizations, which involve either primary or secondary place, and which can be conditioned by various phonological, morphological, and lexical factors. Voicing alternations have received attention in the phonological literature and display key typological differences. Finally, this chapter reports on several long-distance interactions between consonants, including consonant harmony and the OCP.
References Arsenault, P. & Kochetov, A. (2011). Retroflex harmony in Kalasha: Agreement or spreading? In S. Lima, K. Mullin, & B. Smith, eds., Proceedings of NELS 39, Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 55–66. Bateman, N. (2007). A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Bishop, J., Oh, S., & Zhou, C. (2019). Final devoicing in Bulgarian: Incomplete neutralization and L2 experience. In S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren, eds., Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019, Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc., pp. 652–656. Blaho, S. (2008). The Syntax of Phonology: A Radically Substance-Free Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. Blumenfeld, L. (2002). Russian palatalization and Stratal OT: Morphology and [back]. In W. Browne, J.-Y. Kim, B. Partee, & R. Rothstein, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 11. The Amherst Meeting, 2002, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 141–158. Bon, M. (2017). Soglasniška harmonija v primorskih narečjih [Consonant harmony in Primorska Slovenian]. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ljubljana. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387. Burzio, L. (2011). Derived environment effects. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. D. Rice, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 2091–2116.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
59
60
PETER JURGEC
Butska, L. (1998). Faithfulness to [voice] in Ukrainian: An analysis of voicing alternations within Optimality Theory. RuLing Papers, 1, 59–79. Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica, 22, 129–159. Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–333. Czaykowska Higgins, E. (1989). Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Czaykowska Higgins, E. (1992). Placelessness, markedness, and Polish nasals. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 139–146. de Bray, R. G. A. (1980). Guide to the South Slavonic Languages, Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. Dinnsen, D. A. & Charles-Luce, J. (1984). Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics, 12, 49–60. Dmitrieva, O. (2017). Production of geminate consonants in Russian: Implications for typology. In H. Kubozono, ed., The Phonetics and Phonology of Geminate Consonants, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 34–64. Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305. Guion, G. S. (1998). The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica, 55, 18–52. Gussmann, E. (2007). The Phonology of Polish, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, D. C. (2003). Laryngeal feature specifications in West Slavic languages. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 20, 93–114. Hall, D. C. (2004). A formal approach to /v/: Evidence from Czech and Slovak. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanović, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 12. The Ottawa Meeting, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 187–205. Hall, T. A. (2000). Typological generalizations concerning secondary palatalization. Lingua, 110, 1–25. Hall, T. A. & Hamann, S. (2010). On the cross-linguistic avoidance of rhotic plus high front vocoid sequences. Lingua, 120, 1821–1844. Hamann, S. (2004). Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 53–67. Hansson, G. Ó. (2001). Theoretical and Typological Issues in Consonant Harmony. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Hansson, G. Ó. (2010). Consonant Harmony: Long-Distance Interaction in Phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hansson, G. Ó. (2020). Consonant harmony. In M. Aronoff, ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.369. Hayes, B. (1984). The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In M. Aronoff, R. Oehrle, F. Kelley, & B. Wilker Stephens., eds., Language Sound Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 318–328. Howson, P. (2017). Upper Sorbian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 47, 359–367.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
Howson, P. (2018). Palatalization and rhotics: An acoustic examination of Sorbian. Phonetica, 75, 132–150. Iskarous, K. & Kavitskaya, D. (2010). The interaction between contrast, prosody, and coarticulation in structuring phonetic variability. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 625–639. Iskarous, K. & Kavitskaya, D. (2018). Sound change and the structure of synchronic variablity: Phonetic and phonological factors in Slavic palatalization. Language, 94, 43–83. Jakobson, R. (1978). Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica, 32, 107–110. Jurgec, P. (2011). Feature Spreading 2.0: A Unified Theory of Assimilation. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001281. Jurgec, P. (2016). Velar palatalization in Slovenian: Local and long-distance interactions in a Derived Environment Effect. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1, 24. Jurgec, P. (2019). Opacity in Šmartno Slovenian. Phonology, 36, 265–301. Jurgec, P. & Schertz, J. (2020). Postalveolar co-occurrence restrictions in Slovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 38, 499–537. Kapatsinski, V. (2010). Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: Constraints on models of morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology, 1, 361–393. Kavitskaya, D. (2009). Perceptual salience and palatalization in Russian. In L. M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & C. T. Best, eds., Laboratory Phonology 8, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 589–610. Kavitskaya, D., Iskarous, Kh., Noiray, A., & Proctor, M. (2009). Trills and palatalization: Consequences for sound change. In J. Reich, M. Babyonyshev, & D. Kavitskaya, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 17. The Yale Meeting, 2008, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 97–110. Kharlamov, V. (2014). Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 47–56. Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology, 2, 85–138. Kiparsky, P. (1993). Blocking in non-derived environments. In S. Hargus & E. M. Kaisse, eds., Phonetics and Phonology 4: Studies in Lexical Phonology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 277–313. Kochetov, A. (2002). Production, Perception, and Emergent Phonotactic Patterns: A Case of Contrastive Palatalization, New York, NY: Routledge. Kochetov, A. (2006). Testing licensing by cue: A case of Russian palatalized coronals. Phonetica, 63, 113–148. Kochetov, A. (2011). Palatalization. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. D. Rice, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 1666–1690. Kochetov, A. (2017). Acoustics of the Russian voiceless sibilant fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 47, 321–348. Kochetov, A. & Radisic, M. (2009). Latent consonant harmony in Russian: Experimental evidence for Agreement by Correspondence. In J. Reich, M. Babyonyshev, & D. Kavitskaya, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 17. The Yale Meeting, 2008, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 111–130. Kulikov, V. (2012). Voicing and Voice Assimilation in Russian Stops. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
61
62
PETER JURGEC
Kulikov, V. (2013). Voicing contrast in consonant clusters: Evidence against sonorant transparency to voice assimilation in Russian. Phonology, 30, 423–452. Linzen, T., Kasyanenko, S., & Gouskova, M. (2013). Lexical and phonological variation in Russian prepositions. Phonology, 30, 453–515. Lombardi, L. (1999). Positional Faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 267–302. Łubowicz, A. (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua, 112, 243–280. Łubowicz, A. (2016). Contrast preservation in Polish palatalization. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(21), 1–27. Lunt, H. G. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje: Državno knigoizdatelstvo. Maddieson, I. (2013). Consonant inventories. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.info/chapter/1. Misic, M. S. (2018). Slovenian Sibilant Harmony. MA thesis, University of Toronto. Morén, B. (2006). Consonant-vowel interactions in Serbian: Features, representations and constraint interactions. Lingua, 116, 1198–1244. Ozburn, A. & Kochetov, A. (2018). Ejective harmony in Lezgian. Phonology, 35, 407–440. Padgett, J. (1992). OCP subsidiary features. In Proceedings of NELS 22, Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 335–346. Padgett, J. (1994). Stricture and nasal place assimilation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 12, 465–513. Padgett, J. (2001). Contrast dispersion in Russian palatalization. In E. Hume & K. Johnson, eds., The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 187–218. Padgett, J. (2002). Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v]. Ms., University of California Santa Cruz. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive 528, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Padgett, J. (2003). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 39–87. Padgett, J. (2011). Russian consonant–vowel interactions and derivational opacity. In W. Browne, A. Cooper, A. Fisher, E. Kesici, N. Predolac, & D. Zec, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18. The Second Cornell Meeting, 2009, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 352–381. Padgett, J. (2012). The role of prosody in Russian voicing. In T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya, & M. Sugahara, eds., Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, London: Equinox Publishing, pp. 181–207. Padgett, J. & Żygis, M. (2007). The evolution of sibilants in Polish and Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 15, 291–324. Palková, Z. (1997). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny, Prague: Karolinum. Petrova, O. & Szentgyörgyi, S. (2004). /v/ and voice assimilation in Hungarian and Russian. Folia Linguistica, 38, 87–116. Port, R. F. & O’Dell, M. L. (1985). Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 455–471. Rose, S. & Walker, R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language, 80, 475–531.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Consonantism: The Consonants
Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish, Dordrecht: Foris. Rubach, J. (1996). Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 69–110. Rubach, J. (2000). Backness switch in Russian. Phonology, 17, 39–64. Rubach, J. (2003). Polish palatalization in derivational Optimality Theory. Lingua, 113, 197–237. Rubach, J. (2008a). Palatal nasal decomposition in Slovene, Upper Sorbian and Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 169–204. Rubach, J. (2008b). Prevocalic faithfulness. Phonology, 25, 433–468. Rubach, J. (2011). Slavic palatalization. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 2908–2935. Rubach, J. (2017). Derivational meanders of high vowel palatalization. Lingua, 199, 1–26. Rubach, J. (2019). Surface velar palatalization in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37, 1421–1462. Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (1990). Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8, 427–463. Schenker, A. M. (1993). Proto-Slavonic. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages. London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 188–248. Shrager, M. (2012). Neutralization of word-final voicing in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 20, 71–99. Srebot-Rejec, T. (1981). On the allophones of /v/ in Standard Slovene. Scando-Slavica, 27, 233–241. Srebot-Rejec, T. (1990). Zveze dveh zapornikov v slovenščini in angleščini. Slavistična revija, 38, 265–284. Steenwijk, H. (1992). The Slovene Dialect of Resia: San Giorgio, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Strycharczuk, P. (2012). Sonorant transparency and the complexity of voicing in Polish. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 655–671. Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages [Cambridge Language Surveys], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ševc Šuster, H. (1984). Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěce: 1. zwjazk fonologija, fonetika a morfologija, Budyšin: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina. Šuštaršič, R., Komar, S., & Petek, B. (1995). Slovene. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 25, 86–90. Warner, N., Jongman, A., Sereno, J., & Kemps, R. (2004). Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 251–276. Wetzels, L. & Mascaró, J. (2001). The typology of voicing and devoicing. Language, 77, 207–244. Żygis, M. (2003). Phonetic and phonological aspects of Slavic sibilant fricatives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 3, 175–213.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press
63
4 Syllable Structure Alexei Kochetov
4.1 Introduction The syllable is a basic unit of phonological structure above the level of the segment (consonant or vowel) and below the level of the word. A syllable can consist of one or more segments, while a word can consist of one or more syllables. For example, the Russian word odinakovyj [ʌ.dʲi.na.kʌ.vɨj] 1 ‘similar’ consists of five syllables, with each syllable containing one, two, or three segments. Importantly, syllable boundaries do not necessarily map onto morphological boundaries, as morpheme-final consonants syllabify with the following vowel, as is the case in our word example (/odʲin-ak-ov-ij/ → [ʌ.dʲi. na.kʌ.vɨj]). Within the syllable, segments are organized into three major constituents: O N S E T , N U C L E U S , and C O D A . The nucleus, or the peak of the syllable, is an obligatory component. It is the most sonorous (loudest and most prominent) part of it, typically a vowel or, less commonly, a sonorant consonant – a liquid (lateral or rhotic, e.g. /l/ or /r/), or a nasal (e.g. /m/ or /n/). Onset and coda are syllable margins. They consist of one or more segments that are less sonorous than the nucleus. Syllable structure refers to the organization of consonants and vowels into syllable constituents (nuclei, onsets, and codas), based on general phonological principles (such as S O N O R I T Y ) and language-particular phonotactic rules. The author would like to thank Joseph Schallert and Peter Jurgec for their advice on the relevant literature for Macedonian and Slovenian, respectively. The paper has benefited from helpful comments and suggestions by anonymous reviewers and the editors Wayles Browne and Danko Šipka. All errors are the author’s. 1 Here and below we provide both the traditional Slavic transliteration/orthography and the IPA transcription. In the latter, syllable boundaries are indicated with lower dots; stress or tone are not marked. The retroflex/tip-up symbols [ʂ ʐ tʂ dʐ] (as opposed to [ʃ ʒ ʧ ʤ]) are used for sibilant fricatives and affricates that contrast with alveolopalatals [ɕ ʑ ʨ ʥ] in a particular language (e.g. Polish and Belarusian). The velarized lateral symbol, [ɫ] is used for languages where it has a palatalized counterpart [lʲ]. Lower mid vowel symbols [ɛ ɔ] are used only for languages that have contrasts between upper and lower mid vowels (e.g. Slovenian). The Russian mid vowel [ɨ] is taken to be an allophone of /i/ after non-palatalized consonants.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Slavic syllable structure from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In doing this, an attempt is made to situate the patterns characteristic of Slavic in the context of cross-linguistic typology of syllable structure, as well as to highlight important differences among individual Slavic languages. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 presents some general phonological background on the syllable, reviewing the concepts of syllabification and sonority. Several subsequent sections are devoted to specific aspects of syllable structure: single onsets and codas (Section 4.3), onset clusters (Section 4.4), coda clusters (Section 4.5), heterosyllabic (medial) clusters (Section 4.6), and nuclei (Section 4.7). Section 4.8 concludes the chapter by reviewing recent experimental and corpus work on Slavic syllable structure.
4.2 The Syllable: Background Among the key issues related to syllable structure are general types of syllable constituents, division of words into syllables (S Y L L A B I F I C A T I O N ), and the concept of sonority. As mentioned above, the nucleus is an obligatory component of the syllable. Onset and coda, however, are optional. That is, there are syllables that do not have onsets (e.g. at ), codas (ta) or either of them (a). Onsets, nevertheless, are universally preferred over codas, and may be in fact required in some languages. That is, all known languages have a CV syllable, but only a subset of languages has syllables as CVC or VC (Hooper 1976, Zec 2007, Maddieson 2013, Gordon 2016, among others). Syllable margins can be simple or complex, corresponding to one or more consonants in them. Multiple consonants in onsets and codas are referred to as clusters. Such clusters are tautosyllabic, occurring within a syllable (e.g. trat, tart, or ta.tra). Clusters can also be heterosyllabic, spanning two syllables (e.g. tar.ta). Like margins, nuclei can be simple or complex, consisting of a short monophthong or a long monophthong or a diphthong, respectively (tat vs. taːt or tawt). Languages that have complex margins and nuclei also have simple ones. Syllables that do not have a coda are called ‘open’, while syllables ending in a coda are called ‘closed’ (e.g. ta vs. tat ). As we saw above, putting syllables or morphemes together within a word can trigger resyllabification of consonants. A single consonant occurring between vowels is typically syllabified with the following vowel, ata → a.ta (not at.a).2 When we have two or more consonants, the situation is more complex, and may vary from language to language. By default, a cluster of two consonants is split between two syllables (i.e. at.pa or ar.ta), becoming heterosyllabic. However, if this combination of consonants is among those permitted in onset clusters in a given language (see Section 4.4), the entire 2
Syllabification of English posttonic consonants (e.g. /p/ in happy) can be considered exceptional, often described as ambisyllabic – belonging to both syllables (Kahn 1976).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
65
66
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
5 4 3 2 1
vowel glide liquid nasal obstruent d o . b r i
j
o r . n i
j
Figure 4.1 Relative sonority of sounds in the syllables of the Russian words dobryj and č ë rnyj
cluster would be associated with the following vowel (e.g. atra → a.tra), thus being tautosyllabic. Compare, for example, the syllabification in the Russian words dobryj [do.brɨj] ‘good, kind’ and čërnyj [ʧor.nɨj] ‘black’, given the fact that [br-] is a possible onset in the language, while [rn-] is not. When describing constraints on combinations of segments in syllables, phonologists make use of the concept of sonority. Essentially, some segments are more sonorous, auditorily prominent than others, and this roughly corresponds to the relative loudness of the sounds and the degree of opening of the vocal tract. Vowels are the most sonorous sounds, while obstruent consonants – fricatives, affricates, and stops (plosives) – are the least sonorous. Other manners of articulation fall on a scale from vowels to obstruents: glides (e.g. /j/ and /w/), liquids, and nasals. Sonority profiles for syllables in the previous Russian examples are illustrated in Figure 4.1, where sonority is defined on a scale from 1 to 5 (Clements 1990, Parker 2011). Note that each syllable has only one peak, which is its nucleus. Sonority increases from the onset to the peak and decreases from the peak to the coda (if present). This is the so-called ‘sonority sequencing principle’ (SSP). There are other sonority-related generalizations. For example, single consonants in codas tend to be more sonorous than in onsets (as seen in the current examples), and consonants in clusters show preferences for certain profiles: rising sonority in onsets and falling sonority in coda, as will be discussed further below. With these phonological concepts in mind, we will turn to the discussion of common patterns and historical development of the syllable in Slavic. When referring to modern Slavic languages, our focus will be on standard (literary) varieties. Dialect-specific phenomena of interest, if mentioned, will be relegated to footnotes.
4.3 Slavic Simple Onsets and Codas In many languages, systematic regularities exist in the distribution of single consonants in onsets and codas (Zec 2007, Gordon 2016). Typically, most (if not all) consonant phonemes can occur in onset, but only a subset of them (if any) can occur in coda. Those that occur in coda tend to be more sonorous – most typically nasals, liquids, and glides, rather than obstruents.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
This was in fact the case at some stage in the development of Proto-Slavic (PSL). The comparative reconstruction method allows us to determine that PSL at its earliest stage could tolerate coda consonants of various kinds (Derksen 2008), as did its ancestor, Proto Indo-European (PIE; Fortson 2011). Later, however, the proto-language began to undergo a series of changes collectively known as the ‘law of open syllables’ (Shevelov 1964, Carlton 1991, Sussex & Cubberley 2006). One of the first changes was the elimination of coda obstruents – the stage that is reflected in the Late PSL inventory shown in Table 4.1a. Note that stops and fricatives were present among onset consonants, while being absent from the coda set. The prohibition on final obstruents was resolved in PSL in a number of ways: through simple deletion (e.g. tep.ta > te.ta, tet.na > te.na), dissimilation with resyllabification (e.g. ted.ta or tet.ta > te.sta; see Sections 4.4–4.6 on clusters), and j-palatalization with resyllabification (tek.ja or tet.ja > te.ca, tep.ja > te.pʎa). At a later stage, the prohibition on codas was extended to sonorants: nasals underwent vocalization giving rise to nasal vowels (vowel nasalization: ten.ta, tem.ta > tẽ.ta), liquids metathesized (el.ta > le.ta, tel.ta > tle.ta or te.le.ta), and glides merged with preceding vowels (monophthongization; e.g. tejta > ti:ta, tawta > to:ta). The final stage of this process resulted in fully open syllables – no coda consonants of any kind, as illustrated in Table 4.1b.3 Historically, this was the state of the consonant system at the time of the disintegration of Late PSL into the South, West, and East Slavic dialectal entities (which took place in the sixth to ninth century; Carlton 1991). A highly important subsequent change – ‘the fall of weak jers’ – proceeded during the period of disintegration of the Common Slavic dialect continuum into distinct languages (the tenth to mid-twelfth century; Shevelov 1964, Carlton 1991). The process refers to the deletion of extra-short centralized vowels – the jers ь and ъ (IPA /ɪ̆ / and /ʊ̆ /) – in certain word-medial and all word-final positions. The process had profound consequences for the syllable structure of all Slavic languages, as all or most consonants now became possible in coda (e.g. PSL > Rus: *bykъ [bɨ.kʊ̆ ] > byk [bɨk] ‘bull’, *gǫ sь [gɔ̃. sɪ̆ ] > gus’ [gusʲ] ‘goose’, *koňь [ko.ɲɪ̆ ] > kon’ [konʲ] ‘horse’, *orьlъ [o.rɪ̆ .lʊ̆ ] > orel [ʌ.ˈrʲoɫ] ‘eagle’). Further changes in individual languages involved wordfinal devoicing of voiced obstruents (in word-final codas) and loss of secondary palatalization in coda for some or all palatalized consonants (where such phonemes occurred).4 As we can see in Table 4.1c and Table 4.1d, the modern languages Slovak and Bulgarian permit syllable-final consonants of all manners of articulation. They do, however, impose positional restrictions with respect to voicing (both languages) and/or palatalization (Bul.) (e.g. PSL > Slk: *dǫ bъ [dõ.bʊ̆ ] > dub [dup] ‘oak’; PSL > Bul.: *koňь [ko.ɲɪ̆ ] > kon [kon] ‘horse’).
3
4
Here we assume that liquids in sequences typically transcribed as preceded by jers were in fact syllabic, and therefore not subject to metathesis (cf. Sussex & Cubberley 2006; see also Sections 4.5 and Section 4.7). On the concept of secondary palatalization, the reader is referred to Townsend & Janda 1996, as well as Chapter 3 of this volume.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
67
68
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Table 4.1 Positional consonant inventories for two stages of Late Proto-Slavic, Slovak, and Bulgarian
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
Table 4.1 Continued
Note. ‘ ’and shading indicates consonants not permitted in word-final coda; vls. = voiceless, vd = voiced; lab. = labial, dent. = dental; pal. = palatal; vel. = velar; lar = laryngeal. (Based on Carlton 1991, Short 1993b, and Bojadžiev et al. 1998)
Thus, these languages still conform to the cross-linguistic generalization that fewer consonants occur in coda than in onset. The restriction on final voicing of the same kind is observed in all modern Slavic languages except BCS and Ukrainian (Browne 1993, Shevelov 1993). Some degree of avoidance of palatalized consonants in coda (both medial and final) is
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
69
70
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
characteristic of all languages that have the contrast, being most extensive in Bulgarian and most limited in Russian (Carlton 1991, Kochetov 2002, Iskarous & Kavitskaya 2018). (For more information on Slavic consonant systems, the reader is referred to Chapter 3 of this volume.)
4.4 Onset Clusters Not all world languages allow consonant clusters, whether in onset or in coda. Those that do permit onset clusters, typically have those composed of two consonants (56 percent of 486 languages surveyed in Maddieson 2013), or less commonly three or more consonants (31 percent). Allowing complex onsets rarely means having completely free combinations of consonants. As noted above, the sonority sequencing condition favors clusters showing an increase in sonority. It also favors consonants in clusters being relatively distinct from each other in sonority, as well as distinct from the nucleus (‘sonority distance’; Parker 2011). For example, a sequence obstruent + liquid (1-3-5; e.g. pla) is more optimal in this respect than either of the clusters obstruent + nasal + vowel (1-2-5; e.g. pna) or liquid + glide + vowel (3-4-5; e.g. lja). An important exception to this generalization is the cross-linguistic preference for sibilant fricatives, and /s/ in particular to occur as the first consonant in two- and three-consonant clusters, and particularly preceding a stop (e.g. spa, sta, spla, skwa, etc.). In the context of cross-linguistic preferences for onset clusters, PSL was a rather typical language. It allowed two- or three-consonant onset clusters, with the prevocalic consonant being always more sonorous than the preceding consonant, unless the latter was a sibilant. This pattern is schematized in Table 4.2a, referring to major sonority classes of C1 and C2 (the first and the second consonants in a cluster): obstruents (O), nasals (N), liquids (L), and glides (G). Obstruents are further subdivided into stops (St, including affricates) and sibilant or other fricatives (Fr), given their distinct patterning in onsets. Late PSL examples of these categories include the O-N clusters in *gnězdo [gnæ.zdo] ‘nest’, *gniti [gni.ti] ‘to rot’; O-L clusters in *plugъ [plu.gʊ̆ ] ‘plow’, *brodъ [bro.dʊ̆ ] ‘ford’, *gruša [gru.ʃa] ‘pear’, klenъ [kle.nʊ̆ ] ‘maple’, *zmьja [zmɪ̆ .ja] ‘snake’, *sněgъ [snæ.gʊ̆ ] ‘snow’, *slabъ [sla.bʊ̆ ] ‘weak’, *xrěnъ [xræ.nʊ̆ ] ‘horseradish’; O-G clusters in květъ [kwæ.tʊ̆ ] ‘flower’, gvězda [gwæ.zda] ‘star’, *svinьja [swi.nɪ̆ .ja] ‘pig’, zvěrь [zwæ.rɪ̆ ] ‘beast’, *xvala [xwa.la] ‘glory’; and sibilant-initial O-O clusters in *skotь [*sko.tʊ̆ ] ‘cattle’, *spěti [spæ.ti] ‘to ripen’, *stert’i [ster.ci] ‘to guard’ (Carlton 1991). In contrast to PSL, all modern Slavic languages exhibit more complex onset patterns. Consider, for example, those characteristic of Bosnian/Croatian/ Serbian (Table 4.2b), Lower Sorbian (Table 4.2c), and Russian (Table 4.2d). Compared to PSL, BCS onset clusters cover additional combinations of obstruents with other obstruents, combinations of nasals with other nasals and glides, as well as liquid + glide clusters (e.g. Serbian gdȅ [gde] ‘where’,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
Table 4.2 The composition of two-consonant onset clusters in terms of sonority classes in Late PSL, BCS, Lower Sorbian, and Russian
Note. C1 = first consonant; C2 = second (prevocalic) consonant; ‘ ’ = permitted combinations; shading = their absence. (Based on Carlton 1991 for PSL, Surduč ki 1964 for BCS, Starosta 1999 and Stone 1993 for Lower Sorbian, and the author’s own unpublished data on Russian)
tvórnica [tvor.ni.ʦa] ‘factory’, xtȅ ti [xte.ti] ‘to want’, mnòžiti [mno.ʒi.ti] ‘multiply’, rjȅ čnīk [rjetʂ.nik] ‘dictionary’; Surdučki 1964). All of these additions belong to either sonority-rising or sonority plateau types – that is, containing consonants equal in sonority (O-O or N-N). While adding the same new cluster types, Lower Sorbian and Russian go further, introducing some sonority reversal (falling sonority) clusters – those combining nasals and obstruents, liquids and obstruents or nasals (in Rus.), and even glides and obstruents (in LSo.) (e.g. Rus.: mčat'sja [mʧa.ʦa] ‘to rush’, rvat' [rvatʲ] ‘to tear’, l’na [lʲna] ‘flax, G E N . S G ’; LSo.: mša [mʂa] ‘mass (religious)’, ldžej [ldʐej] ‘lighter’, łdža [wdʐa] ‘lie’, jsyšćo [jsɪ.ʂʨo] ‘village’). Such sonority reversal patterns are considered exceptional, rarely attested in world languages (Scheer 2007, Gordon 2016). It should be noted that there is no agreement among phonologists as to how one should formally analyze clusters violating SSP (see Section 4.2). Some researchers consider such clusters structurally possible, albeit marked; others treat word-initial (and word-final) consonants in clusters as extrasyllabic (not part of the syllable structure), and thus not presenting a problem for SSP (see Bethin 2011 for a review of different approaches to Polish syllable structure). Here we will take the former view, as more consistent with the descriptive focus of this chapter. How representative are the onset cluster patterns of BCS, Lower Sorbian, and Russian? Table 4.3 provides an overview of attested sonority profiles (without distinguishing stops and fricatives) in major literary Slavic languages, compared to Late PSL. We can see that all languages have onsets with rising
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
71
72
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Table 4.3 Major sonority-type combinations in two-consonant onset clusters in Slavic languages
Note. ‘ ’ = permitted combinations; shading = their absence. This and the following tables are based on a variety of sources, including those mentioned in the note to Table 4.2, as well as Bojadžiev et al. (1998), Burlyka & Padlužny 1989, Kuč era & Monroe 1968, Srebot-Rejec 1975, Sussex & Cubberley 2006, Tolstaja 1968, language descriptions in Comrie & Corbett 1993, and available online dictionaries for some of the languages. The BCS patterns (based on Surduč ki 1964) vary in the presence or absence of C + j sequences depending on the dialect (i/jekavian vs. ekavian). The presence of L-G clusters in Cze. and Slk. is indicated in parentheses, as the liquids there can be regarded as syllabic.
sonority, and all modern languages have plateau-type onsets (at least O-O, N-N, and L-L).5 Only East (with a partial exception of Belarusian) and West Slavic languages, however, have sonority reversal clusters. Among the latter, N-O and L-O/N combinations are most widespread, while G-O/N combinations are limited to West Slavic (partly arising from /ɫ/ > /w/, e.g. Pol. łkać [w̥ kaʨ] ‘to sob’; but see also Cze. jdu [jdu] ‘I go’). None of the languages have G-L clusters (e.g. jl-, jr-, wl-, wr-). Like with single coda consonants discussed above, the stark difference between PSL and modern Slavic languages is due to the ‘fall of weak jers’. Deletion of the extra-short /ɪ̆ / and /ʊ̆ / (ь and ъ) in initial syllables resulted in a variety of clusters. Some of the new clusters showed rising sonority, and thus were identical to the already present clusters (e.g. *tьrǫ [tʊ̆ .rõ] > [trõ] ‘I rub’, 5
The occurrence of the L-L type is marginally represented, being limited to the Ukrainian initial geminate /lʲlʲ/ (e.g. l’l’anyj [lʲlʲanɪj] ‘flaxen’, l’l’ut [lʲlʲu] ‘(I) pour’), which can be considered as a single phoneme or a /lʲ/ + /j/ cluster (Shevelov 1993: 951–952).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
*zъlъjь [zʊ̆ .lʊ̆ .jɪ̆ ] > [zlʊ̆ .jɪ̆ ] ‘angry’, *sъpati [sʊ̆ .pa.ti] > [spa.ti] ‘to sleep’). Others were of the plateau or reversal types. For example, the PSL form *tъkati [tʊ̆ .ka.ti] ‘to weave’ contained two stops which occurred heterosyllabically. The loss of /ʊ̆ / resulted in a plateau (stop-stop) cluster /tk-/, and this cluster is still present in most modern languages (e.g. BCS tkȁ ti [tka.ti], Ukr. tkaty [tka.tɪ], Sln. tkáti [tka.ti], Cze. tkáti [tkaː.ti], Rus. tkat’ [tkatʲ], Slk. tkat’ [tkac], Bel. tkac’ [tkaʦʲ], Pol., USo. tkać [tkaʨ], LSo. tkaś [tkaɕ], and Mac. tkae [tka.e]; Carlton 1991: 342–343). The loss of jer in PSL *lъgati [lʊ̆ .ga.ti] ‘to lie’ has resulted in a sonority reversal cluster, which is still manifested as such in many West and East Slavic languages: Cze. lhát [lɦaːt], Pol. łgać [wgaʨ], Kashubian łgac [wgaʦ], Rus. lgat' [ɫgatʲ], and Ukr. lhaty [ɫɦa.tɪ]. In contrast, in the corresponding South Slavic forms, the two consonants are consistently heterosyllabic: Bul. lъža [lə.ʒa], Mac. laže [la.ʒe], BCS làgati [la.ga.ti], and Sln. lagati [la.ga.ti] (Scheer 2007). In these languages, thus, sonority reversal clusters were either ‘repaired’ by epenthesis, or the process of jer deletion was blocked in the first place. These observations do not necessarily mean that all plateau clusters were preserved across Slavic and all reversal clusters were uniformly maintained in West and East Slavic. Outcomes varied from word to word, and from language to language. For example, the *tъkati cluster was ‘repaired’ by epenthesis in Bul. (tъka [tə.ka]) and Polabian (tåkăt [tø.kat]; Carlton 1991). Unlike their closely related languages, Slk. and Bel. repaired the *lъgati cluster by medial or initial epenthesis (luhat' [lu.ɦac] and ilhać [il.ɣaʦʲ], respectively), while LSo. and USo. resorted to consonant epenthesis and assimilation or fusion (łdgaś ~ dgaś [wdgaɕ ~ dgaɕ] and fać [faʨ], respectively; Scheer 2007). Clusters of obstruents that disagreed in some features (e.g. voicing or place) often underwent assimilatory or dissimilatory changes, sometimes resulting in a wide range of language-specific manifestations. This is the case for the bʧcluster of the original *bъčela ‘bee’: it resulted in a fully voiceless stop-affricate cluster in Rus. pčela [pʧɪ.ˈɫa], Mac. and Bul. pčela [pʧe.la], and Bel. pčala [ptʂa.ɫa], in a voiced stop-affricate cluster in Ukr. bdžola [bʤo.ɫa], in a voiceless fricative-stop cluster in Cze. and Slk. včela [fʧe.la], and in a voiceless stop-fricative-affricate cluster in Pol. pszczoła [pʂtʂowa]). In some cases, the cluster was simplified by C1 deletion in Polabian (celə [ʦe.ɫə]) and (optionally or colloquial speech) in BCS (pčèla ~ čèla [ptʂe.ɫa ~ tʂe.ɫa]) and LSo. pcoła ~ coła [pʦo.wa ~ ʦo.wa]), while in others it underwent metathesis and epenthesis in Sln. (čebệ la [ʧə.be.la]) (Carlton 1991: 336–337).6 Spirantization of rhotics in some West Slavic languages, combined with voicing assimilation, has resulted in new obstruent-obstruent clusters, as for example in LSo. kšyś [kʂɪɕ] (< *kryti), pšosyś [pʂo.sɨɕ] (< *prositi), kśidło [kɕi.dwo] (< *kridlo), and pśi [pɕi] (< *pri) (Carlton 1991: 270–272).
6
Cases of cluster simplification through deletion are also common in non-standard varieties of modern languages (e.g. pč èla ~ č èla ‘bee’, pšènica vs. šènica ‘wheat’ in many BCS dialects; Danko Šipka, p.c.).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
73
74
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Table 4.4 Sonority plateau onset clusters with two stops/affricates in Slavic languages
Overall, plateau-type clusters of two stops/affricates are well represented in all modern Slavic languages, as shown in Table 4.4.7 This makes Slavic clearly stand out among its Indo-European (e.g. Germanic and Romance languages) and non-Indo-European neighbors (Finno-Ugric, and Turkic languages). Interestingly, however, even Slavic languages show certain sequential restrictions. Specifically, most clusters shown in Table 4.4 involve coronals (dentals, alveolopalatals, etc.), either C1 or C2, or both. Clusters without coronals are either rare (velar-labial) or absent altogether (labial-velar). It is not clear whether these are accidental gaps (e.g. due to the absence of PSL words beginning in *pъk, etc.) or there is some systematic avoidance of such sequences. Example (1) illustrates some of these cluster types found in BCS (based on Serbian in Surdučki 1964). (1)
Examples of BCS onset clusters with two stops/affricates Labial-coronal ptı̏ če [pt-] pčèlińāk [ptʂ-] bdȅ nije [bd-] ‘fledgling’ ‘beehive’ ‘midnight mass’ Coronal-labial ǯbûn [dʐb-] ‘shrub’ Coronal-coronal čtêc [tʂt-] ‘acolyte’ Coronal-velar tkâč [tk-] dgȕ ńa [dg-] čkâĺ [tʂk-] ǯgȍ ĺav [dʐg-] ‘weaver’ ‘quince’ ‘weed’ ‘bare-boned’ Velar-coronal kćî [kʨ-] gdȅ [gd-] ‘daughter’ ‘where’
Turning to clusters with three consonants, cross-linguistic surveys suggest that these tend to be more severely restricted, showing combinations of just 7
The retroflex/tip-up IPA symbols for affricates [tʂ dʐ] are used for languages where these are realized as distinctively ‘hard’ (non-palatalized), contrasting with alveolopalatals [ʨ ʥ] (BCS, Pol., LSo.) or palatalized dentals/alveolars [ʦʲ ʣʲ] (Bel.). Otherwise, the symbols for palatoalveolars are used ([ʧ ʤ]).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
a handful of consonant sequences (Gordon 2016). In most cases, C1 is a sibilant fricative, and often just an /s/. C2 and C3 are typically drawn from the set of possible (in that language) two-consonant clusters with rising sonority. This is, for example, the case in English: spring, strike, scream, squeak (but no onsets with C1 other than /s/, C2 other than a stop, and C3 other than a liquid or glide). This was also the case for PSL, with the additional permission for /z/ (and later /ʃ/ and /ʒ/) to appear as C1 when C2 was voiced (e.g. spr-, zbr-, str-, zdw-, skl-, zgl-, skw-, etc.; Carlton 1991: 101). As with two-consonant clusters, the fall of weak jers considerably enlarged cluster inventories of modern Slavic languages. Most notably, this applies to West and East Slavic languages. In many cases, new three- and four-consonant clusters arose from the prefixes v- and s- (or their combination) plus root-initial onsets (e.g. Russian v-drug [vdruk] ‘suddenly’, s-pryg-n-u-t' [sprɨ.gnutʲ] ‘to jump off’; v-s-pom-n-i-t' [fspo. mnʲitʲ] ‘to recall’). The resulting three-consonant clusters are, therefore, typically of the shape fricative-stop-liquid or fricative-fricative-stop (agreeing in voicing), that is, exhibiting either a partial sonority rise or a sonority plateau. While less common, partly sonority-reversing clusters are also attested, and these are typically tautomorphemic (e.g. Rus. mgl-a [mgɫa] ‘mist’, mzd-a [mzda] ‘bribe’, l'st-i-t' [lʲsʲtʲitʲ] to ‘flatter’; Pol. mgła [mgwa] ‘mist’, krtań [kr̥ taɲ] ‘larynx’, drgać [drgaʨ] ‘vibrate’; but note also partially heteromorphemic clusters: Rus. tk-n-u-t' [tknutʲ] ‘to poke’; Pol. tknąć [tknoɲʨ] ‘to touch’). Finally, at least some Slavic languages have words with four-consonant clusters. In Russian, the set of such clusters is rather small, and all of them combine the prefixes v- or vz- and sonority-rising tautomorphemic clusters (e.g. vz-bres-ti [vzbrʲe.sʲtʲi] ‘to occur’, vz-gljad [vzglʲat] ‘glance’, vs-kry-t' [fskrɨtʲ] ‘to open up’, vs-xlip [fsxlʲip] ‘sob’). Thus their overall shape is limited to fricative-fricative-stop/fricative-liquid sequences. The set of four- (and three-) consonant clusters in Polish is more diverse (e.g. pstrzyć [pstʂɨʨ] ‘make gaudy’, wzgląd [vzglond] ‘consideration’, wskrzesić [fskʂe.siʨ] ‘to resurrect’, drgnąć [drgnoɲʨ] ‘shudder’, źdźbło [ʑʥbwo] ‘blade (of grass)’; see Cyran & Gussmann 1999, Bethin 2011), in part due to the above-mentioned rhotic spirantization. Overall, such clusters are highly unusual in the crosslinguistic context. In particular, languages with onsets of at least three obstruents or four consonants of any kind are classified as exhibiting a ‘highly complex syllable structure’ (Easterday 2019). Russian and, particularly, Polish thus qualify to be included in this category, together with other, notoriously complex syllable structure languages Georgian, Tashlhiyt, and Nuu-chah-nulth.
4.5 Coda Clusters It has been observed that languages tend to put a stricter limit on numbers of consonants in coda, compared to onsets. For example, those that permit twoor three-consonant clusters in onsets tend to permit only simple codas or at
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
75
76
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
maximum two-consonant codas (Gordon 2016). Languages with longer codas, as, for example, English (cf. texts [tɛksts]) are much less common. In this respect, Early PSL conformed to this cross-linguistic generalization. The language allowed three-consonant onsets and almost exclusively single codas. A few cases of two coda consonant clusters were limited before suffixes (e.g. *bergti [berk.ti] ‘to protect’, *stergti [sterk.ti] ‘to guard’). The onset-coda asymmetry became further enhanced in Late PSL, with the elimination of all coda consonants, including the most sonorous glides (see Section 4.3). The fall of jers not only reintroduced single codas, but also gave rise to twoand occasionally three-consonant codas. One source of coda clusters included onset clusters followed by a weak jer. Recall that onset clusters in PSL belonged to two types: those showing rising sonority (obstruent + sonorant), and those showing a sonority plateau, with C1 being a sibilant fricative (fricative + stop). In principle, this could produce various coda clusters with rising and plateau sonority in separate Slavic languages (as shown in (2)). The situation with the former cluster type, however, is more complicated. Some of the original word-medial onset clusters had been already broken up by epenthesis (jer-like ‘fill vowels’) prior to the fall of jers (e.g. *ogńь [o.gɲɪ̆ ] > *ogьńь [o.gɪ̆ .ɲɪ̆ ]; Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 114–115, Holzer 2007). This process occurred most consistently in the South Slavic dialectal area, resulting in the complete absence of rising sonority clusters (e.g. PSL *myslь [mɨ.slɪ̆ ] ‘thought’ > *mysъlь [mɨ.sʊ̆ .lɪ̆ ] > Bul. misǎl [mi.səɫ], BCS mı̑ sao [mi.sa.o]; PSL *mog-lъ [mo.glʊ̆ ] ‘can, past sg’ > *mogъlъ [mo.gʊ̆ .lʊ̆ ] > Bul. mogǎl [mo.gaɫ], BCS mȍ gao [mo.ga.o]). In West and East Slavic languages, where the use of fill vowels was more limited, rising sonority coda clusters became possible. They were subsequently retained in most cases, while being subject to ‘repair’ by epenthesis or deletion in others (e.g. Pol. myśl [mɨɕl̥ ], mógł [mugw ~ mukf]), but ogień [o.ɟeɲ] ‘fire’; Rus. mysl’ [mɨsʲlʲ] but mog [mok], ogon’ [ʌ.gonʲ]; Sussex & Cubberley 2006). In contrast to rising sonority clusters, the sibilant-initial plateau clusters (O-O; see (2b)) were relatively well-integrated into syllable systems of all Slavic languages (albeit with some variation in South Slavic; e.g. BCS mȏ st [most] ‘bridge’ but vȍ sak [vo.sak] ‘wax’ from *mostъ [mo.stʊ̆ ] and *voskъ [vo.skʊ̆ ]). (2)
A maximally possible set of coda cluster types resulting from the fall of jers (with Late PSL forms based on based on Derksen 2008) Late PSL Potential cluster a. Rising O-N *ogňь [o.gɲɪ̆ ] > [-gɲ] ‘fire’ *plěsnь [plæ.snɪ̆ ] > [-sn(ʲ)] ‘mold’ *těsnъ [tæ.snʊ̆ ] > [-sn] ‘narrow’ O-L *teplъ [te.plʊ̆ ] > [-pl] ‘warm’ *bobrъ [bo.brʊ̆ ] > [-br] ‘beaver’ *větrъ [wæ.trʊ̆ ] > [-tr] ‘wind’ *svekrъ [swe.krʊ̆ ] > [-kr] ‘wife’s father-in-law’ *krǫ glъ [krõ.glʊ̆ ] > [-gl] ‘round’ *myslь [mɨ.slɪ̆ ] > [-sl(ʲ)] ‘thought’ O-G *terzvъ [ter.zwʊ̆ ] > [-zw] ‘sober’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
O-O-L *ostrъ *bystrъ b. Plateau O-O *mostъ *gvozdь *voskъ *mozgъ *xrǫ sťь *dъždžь *berstъ c. Falling L-O *sьrpъ *žьlčь *vьlkъ *vьrxъ L-N *xъlmъ *čьlnъ *gъrnъ L-O-O *pьrstъ
[o.strʊ̆ ] [bɨ.strʊ̆ ] [mo.stʊ̆ ] [gwo.zdɪ̆ ] [vo.skʊ̆ ] [mo.zgʊ̆ ] [xrõ.scɪ̆ ] [dʊ̆ .ʒʤɪ̆ ] [ber.stʊ̆ ] [sr̩ ʲ.pʊ̆ ] [ʒl̩ ʲ.ʧɪ̆ ] [wl̩ ʲ.kʊ̆ ] [vr̩ ʲ.xʊ̆ ] [xl̩ .mʊ̆ ] [ʧl̩ ʲ.nʊ̆ ] [gr̩ .nʊ̆ ] [pr̩ ʲ.stʊ̆ ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[-str] [-str] [-st] [-zd(ʲ)] [-sk] [-zg] [-sc] [-ʒʤ] [-st] [-rp] [-lʧ] [-lk] [-rx] [-lm] [-ln] [-rn] [-rst]
‘sharp’ ‘fast’ ‘bridge’ ‘nail’ ‘wax’ ‘brain’ ‘cockchafer’ ‘rain’ ‘elm’ ‘sickle’ ‘bile’ ‘wolf’ ‘top’ ‘hill’ ‘boat’ ‘hearth’ ‘finger’
Another potential source of coda clusters were sequences of syllabic liquids with obstruents or nasals. In Slavic dialects where these syllabic consonants had decomposed into jer + lateral or rhotic sequences (rather than remaining syllabic), falling sonority clusters became possible (liquid + obstruent; see (2c)). In these cases, L-O and L-N clusters tended to be accepted without major modifications, given their preferred (falling) sonority pattern (e.g. *sьrpъ [sr̩ ʲ.pʊ̆ ] ‘sickle’, > Bul. sǎrp [sərp], Pol. sierp [ɕerp], Rus. serp [sʲerp]; *xъlmъ [xl̩ .mʊ̆ ] ‘hill’ > Bul. xǎlm [xəlm]; USo. chołm [kʰowm], Rus. xolm [xoɫm]). A further influx of Greek/Latin-based and other Western European borrowings (where coda clusters were less restricted; cf. e.g. Lehmann 2005 on Latin) had added considerably to the present inventory of complex codas of all three major types. Rising sonority clusters became fairly common (e.g. -tr, -kl), and plateau clusters could now include combinations of stops (albeit quite limited: -pt and -kt). To illustrate the development of some major patterns observed in modern languages, Table 4.5 shows two-consonant coda combinations in (a) Late PSL, (b) BCS, (c) Lower Sorbian, and (d) Russian. As discussed above, Late PSL lacked coda clusters altogether (having eliminated the few earlier existing cases, e.g. *berg-ti [berk.ti] > ber-t’i [ber.ci] ‘to protect’). In contrast, BCS permits a variety of coda clusters, most of which are of falling sonority (N-O, L-O, L-N, G-O, and G-N – mainly from recent loans). There are also sonority plateau clusters (O-O, with the exception of two fricatives), and one type of rising sonority clusters (O-L, stop + liquid). The latter clusters occur exclusively in recent loanwords (e.g. dúbl [dubl] ‘doubles (in tennis)’, bicìkl [bi.ʦikl] ‘bicycle’), where the sonorants could be pronounced as syllabic. Native rising sonority clusters are absent due to the application of epenthesis (‘fill vowels’, discussed above; e.g. *bystrъ > bı̏ star [bi.star] ‘clear’, *dobrъ > dȍ bar [do.bar] ‘good’, *myslь > misao [mi.sa.o] ‘thought’, *plěsnь > plijesan [pli.je.san] ‘mold’). Moreover, clusters in some borrowings have also undergone simplification (e.g. tèātar [te.a.tar] ‘theater’).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
77
78
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Table 4.5 The composition of two-consonant coda clusters in terms of sonority classes in Late PSL, BCS, Lower Sorbian, and Russian
Note. C1 = first (postvocalic) consonant; C2 = second consonant; ‘ ’ = permitted combinations; shading = their absence.
Lower Sorbian and Russian have maintained and considerably expanded the cluster set inventory, which now involves large sets of falling sonority combinations. In the case of Lower Sorbian, this was at least in part achieved through deletion of unstressed vowels and partly through large-scale borrowings from German. The former process is of particular interest, as it resulted in combinations of essentially any consonant + /k/ or /ʦ/ (of the original diminutive suffixes -ek and -ec) (Starosta 1999). This has considerably increased the inventory of falling sonority clusters (mork [mork] ‘moor, dim.’, kulojc [ku.lojʦ] ‘round building’, domk [domk] ‘house, dim.’, afeńc [a.feɲʦ] ‘monkey’, žołc [ʐowʦ] ‘bile’, lawk [lawk] ‘lion, dim.’, tkalc [tkalʦ] ‘weaver’) and sonority plateau clusters (bobk [bopk] ‘bean, dim’; badack [ba.daʦk] ‘thistle, dim.’, chłodk [xwotk] ‘shadow’; dubc [dupʦ] ‘oak grove’; kupc [kupʦ] ‘buyer’, nutśk [nuʨk] ‘the inner’; bóžc [buʂʦ] ‘idol’). Vocalization of the original velarized /ɫ/ to /w/ (e.g. zmysł [zmɨsw] ‘sense’; žołw [ʐowf] ‘turtle’) and assibilation of rhotics after voiceless stops (r > ʂ, rʲ > ɕ; e.g. kopš [kopʂ] ‘dill’, wjapś [wʲapɕ] ‘boar’) are additional factors that have increased combinatorial possibilities for the language. As mentioned above (see (2)), some three-consonant clusters also resulted from the fall of jers or the loss of syllabic consonants (e.g. Rus. bystr [bɨstr] ‘fast’, perst [pʲerst] ‘finger, arch.’). Many other clusters were introduced through borrowings (e.g. Rus. punkt [punkt] ‘point’, sfinks [sfʲinks] ‘sphynx’, tekst [tʲekst] ‘text’). Codas with four consonants are also attested in some Slavic languages, for example in Polish and Russian. These clusters, however, appear to be limited to specific morphological forms (genitive plural forms of nouns with the suffix -stwo/-stvo: głupstw [gwupstf] ‘nonsense, gen. pl.’; lesovodstv [lʲɪ.sʌ.votstf] ‘forestry, gen. pl.’). Decomposition of the Polish nasal vowels
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
before stops adds another consonant to coda, resulting in clusters of up to five consonants (przestępstw [pʂe.stempstf] ‘offense, gen. pl.’). Thus, at least Polish and Russian exhibit what is considered to be highly complex syllable structure (cf. Easterday 2019) both in codas and in onsets. This is a dramatic turnaround from the state they inherited from Proto-Slavic a thousand years ago and a complete reversal of the long-term tendency towards open syllables. As with onset clusters, obstruents in coda always agree in voicing (as seen in many examples above). Given the application of final devoicing in most Slavic languages, this means that all coda obstruent clusters are typically voiceless. Moreover, post-obstruent sonorants are regularly phonetically devoiced (e.g. Pol. wiatr [wjatr̥ ] ‘wind’). In languages with secondary palatalization, coda clusters also tend to agree in their palatalized or plain quality (e.g. Rus. vest’ [vʲesʲtʲ] ‘news’), albeit subject to other constraints (see Timberlake 2004). Another process attested in some Slavic languages is cluster simplification. This happens, for example, in Bulgarian and Macedonian, at least in casual speech (e.g. Bul. most [mos] ‘bridge’, Mac. radost [rados] ‘joy’; Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 174; Friedman 1993).
4.6 Heterosyllabic/Word-Medial Clusters Medial clusters can be tautosyllabic, if the consonants constitute a legitimate onset (a.tra). Otherwise, clusters are heterosyllabic, spanning a syllable boundary (e.g. ar.ta). This also applies to geminates (double consonants; e.g. at.ta), as these can be considered clusters for the purpose of syllable structure. When two consonants come together in a heterosyllabic cluster, languages prefer the coda consonant to be of higher sonority than the onset consonant. That is, a sequence an.pa is preferred to ap.na or at.pa. This is the so-called ‘syllable contact law’ (Hooper 1976, Murray & Vennemann 1983, Parker 2011, Gordon 2016). In PSL, the effect of this process is difficult to distinguish from the effect of the more general law of open syllables. As reviewed above, elimination of least sonorous (obstruent) codas was one of the first steps of this process. It applied both word-finally and word-medially. In the latter case, the violating structure was repaired through deletion (*grebti [greb.ti] > *greti [gre.ti] ‘to dig, rake’, *tepti [tep.ti] > te.ti [te.ti] ‘to strike, beat’, *gybnonti [gɨb.non.ti] > *gynǫ ti [gɨ.nõ.ti] ‘to perish’), coalescence with resyllabification (*mogti [mok.ti] > *mot’i [mo.ci] ‘to be able’, *pekti [pek.ti] > *pet'i [pe.ci] ‘to bake’, *strigti [strik.ti] > *strit'i [stri.ci] ‘to shear, cut, slip’), or dissimilation with resyllabification (*bledti [blet.ti] > *blęsti [ble.sti] ‘to talk nonsense, err’, *gnetti [gnet.ti] > *gnesti [gne.sti] ‘to press, knead’; Carlton 1991). As a result of these changes, all remaining medial clusters contained relatively sonorant codas: nasals and liquids (e.g. *domti [dom.ti] ‘to blow’, *merti [mer.ti] ‘to die’, *melti [mel.ti] ‘to grind’), at least prior to the other open syllable law processes – vowel nasalization and liquid metathesis (see Section 4.3). Earlier clusters with initial fricatives were tautosyllabic, and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
79
80
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
therefore did not violate the contact law (e.g. *nesti [ne.sti] ‘to carry’, *vezti [ve.sti] ‘to transport’, *kysnǫ ti [kɨ.snon.ti] ‘to turn sour’, *dъxnǫ ti [dʊ̆ .xnon.ti] ‘to breathe’; based on Derksen 2008). The fall of jers had led to large numbers of medial clusters in individual Slavic languages. These involved both tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic clusters, as well as those within and across morphemes. The heterosyllabic clusters have rarely simplified since their emergence, regardless of the sonority of the coda and onset. This suggests that the syllable contact law is no longer part of the syllable structure of Slavic languages. This is further confirmed by the lack of restructuring of clusters borrowed from other languages (e.g. BCS rȁ gbi [rag.bi] ‘rugby’). All Slavic languages, however, show assimilation of consonants in clusters in terms of voicing, which is typically regressive (e.g. Bel. kazka [ka.ska] ‘tale’, pros'ba [prozʲ.ba] ‘request’). Progressive assimilation is also possible, but only tautosyllabically and involving /v/ and former rhotics (Pol. twój [tfuj]; LSo. pśi [pɕi] from *pri ‘by, at’). As mentioned above, clusters also show propensity to assimilation in secondary palatalization (‘palatality assimilation’; e.g. Rus. pesnja [pʲe.sʲnʲʌ] ‘song’). It should be noted that the question of syllabification in medial clusters is far from being resolved. Given the unusual complexity of Slavic onsets and codas, it is not always clear how to divide medial clusters with three or more consonants (see Bethin 2011 for a review). Moreover, native speaker intuitions about syllabification do not always agree with theoretical assumptions. For example, most Polish speakers polled by Rubach and Booij (1990) syllabified the word listwa ‘board’ as [lis.tfa], and only few did it as [li.stfa], as would be expected given the possible onset [stf-] (e.g. stworzyć [stfoʐɨʨ] ‘create’). Many medial clusters in Slavic languages are part of the so-called ‘vowelzero’ alternations. These alternations arose when a jer in a particular morphological form was deleted, while being preserved in another form, as for example, in Polish owca – owiec [o.fʦa – o.wjeʦ] ‘sheep, N O M . S G /G E N . P L ’ (from *ovь-c-a – ovь-cь [o.wɪ̆ .ʦa – o.wɪ̆ .ʦʊ̆ ]), źródło – źródeł [ʑru.dwo – ʑru.dɛw] ‘spring, N O M . S G /G E N . P L ’. Some alternations also involve onset clusters (e.g. Pol. psy – pies [psɨ – pjɛs] ‘dogs, N O M . P L /N O M . S G ’ from *pьsy – pьsъ [pɪ̆ .sɨ – pɪ̆ .sʊ̆ ]). The phonology of Slavic vowel-zero alternations has been a topic of considerable research and debate (see Bethin 2011 on relevant work on Polish; see Timberlake 2004 on Russian). The synchronic situation and comparison across languages is fairly complicated due to occasional paradigm leveling in either direction (towards clusters or towards vowels in both forms). (For more information on Slavic consonant clusters and phonotactics, the reader is referred to Chapter 5 in this volume.)
4.7 Nuclei As mentioned in Section 4.1, syllable nuclei can be simple or complex. Simple nuclei in the form of short oral vowels are the cross-linguistic default. As shown
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
Table 4.6 Types of nuclei attested in Slavic languages
(Based on Carlton 1991 and Sussex & Cubberley 2006)
in Table 4.6, these segments are invariably present in all Slavic languages, including PSL. The nasal vowels ę and ǫ (/ẽ/ and /õ/), which developed in Late PSL from short vowel + nasal sequences have lost nasalization in all modern languages, with the exception of Polish and Kashubian (Carlton 1991).8 In modern Polish, the phonetic nasality of the vowels is limited, occurring in word-final and pre-fricative positions (as well as phonetically arising from vowel + nasal sequences before fricatives: Sawicka 1995: 134–138). In other contexts, the vowels decompose into a sequence of an oral vowel + nasal consonant (Bethin 2011), resulting in more complex coda clusters. Syllabic liquids (both laterals and rhotics) were presumably part of the Late PSL phonemic system (Sussex & Cubberley 2006), typically being transcribed as liquid/jer sequences (trъt, trьt, tlъt, tlьt; tъrt, tъrt, tъlt, and tъlt). In modern languages, syllabic consonants are indisputably present in BCS (the rhotic only, as the lateral has vocalized),9 Czech, and Slovak (both the lateral and the rhotic). Most typically, these arose from the PSL syllabic liquids (e.g. Cze.: *sъmьrtь [sʊ̆ . mr̩ ʲ.tɪ̆ ] > smrt [smr̩ t], *vьlkъ [vl̩ ʲ.kʊ̆ ] > vlk [vl̩ k]; BCS: *sъmьrtь > smȑ t [smr̩ t], *žьltъ [ʒl̩ ʲ.tʊ̆ ] > *žlt [ʒl̩ t] > žȗ t [ʒut]). Syllabic rhotics are also often posited for Macedonian and Slovenian; however, these are now typically realized as a schwa + /r/ sequence (Carlton 1991). Complex nuclei include long vowels, long syllabic consonants, and diphthongs. All early PSL vowels were paired with respect to length (Shevelov 1964), the contrast that was inherited from PIE (Fortson 2011). In Late PSL, however, length contrasts were reanalyzed as quality contrasts. Most modern Slavic languages have lost the contrast of phonemic length. Yet, new long vowels have developed in BCS, Slovak, and Czech, triggered by a number of 8
9
Nasalized vowels or V + nasal consonant sequences have been sporadically retained in certain dialects of Bulgarian (Kabasanov 1963), Macedonian (Vidoeski 1981, Wayles Browne, p.c.), and Slovenian (Carlton 1991). As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, syllabic rhotics in literary Croatian have decomposed into a sequence of a short or a long schwa + [r] (e.g. /pr̩̂ st/ [pərst], /sr̩̂ ːp/ [səːrp]; Škarić 2007: 82–83).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
81
82
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
seemingly unrelated changes: compensatory lengthening following the loss of weak jers, glide deletion in VjV sequences, as well as stress shift (Carlton 1991). Perhaps not coincidentally, these are also the languages with syllabic consonants. Slovak is particularly interesting in this respect, as it extends the length distinction to syllabic consonants (e.g. *sъmьrtь [sʊ̆ .mr̩ ʲ.tɪ̆ ] > smrt’ [smr̩ c], *mьrtvъjь [mr̩ ʲ.twʊ̆ .jɪ̆ ] > mŕ tvy [mr̩ ː.tvi], *xъlpъ [xl̩ .pʊ̆ ] > chlp [xl̩ p], *stъlpъ [stl̩ .pʊ̆ ] > stĺ p [stl̩ ːp]; cf. Croatian, footnote 9). Finally, diphthongs are typically posited as part of the Early PSL system (Carlton 1991, Sussex & Cubberley 2006). Alternatively, these can be analyzed as vowel + glide sequences, which would explain their fusion into long monophthongs as part of the open syllable law. Diphthongs, as single phonemic units, are not typical of Slavic (in contrast, for example, with Germanic languages; König & Van der Auwera 1994). Some clear cases of diphthongs nevertheless exist in some Slavic languages, namely in the West Slavic Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian (Short 1993a, 1993b, Stone 1993). In many languages of the world, complex nuclei (as well as complex codas) play an important prosodic role, in particularly attracting stress (Zec 2007, Parker 2011). This is not apparently the case in Slavic languages, where stress is either completely free (lexical) or fixed on a particular syllable (e.g. initial in Czech, or penultimate in Polish, and antepenultimate in Macedonian; Carlton 1991). The last phenomenon to mention is vowel reduction and deletion involving unstressed nuclei. Vowel reduction, by which unstressed /a/ and /o/ neutralize to [ʌ] or [ə] (A K A N ’ E ) and /e/ and /i/ neutralize to [ɪ], is characteristic of Russian. A somewhat similar process is observed in Belarusian (Mayo 1993).10 Neither case, however, has consequences for the overall syllable structure of the languages. This is in contrast to unstressed vowel deletion in Upper/Lower Sorbian and Slovenian. In USo., for example, high vowels /i/, /ɪ/ (y), and /u/ have elided, leading to the formation of clusters, both across and within syllables (e.g. *koryto [ko.rɨ.to] > korto [kor.to], *hołub [ho.wup] > hołb [howp]; see also Section 4.5). (For more information on Slavic vowel systems, the reader is referred to Chapter 2 in this volume.)
4.8 Experimental and Corpus Work on Slavic Syllable Structure Given its relative complexity, Slavic syllable structure has featured prominently in general phonological literature (e.g. Rubach and Booij 1990, Bethin 2011, Scheer 2004, Cyran & Gussmann 1999, among many others). More recently, the Slavic syllable has become the focus of experimental – phonetic, phonological, and psycholinguistic – work. Specifically, some recent phonetic 10
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, patterns of vowel reduction also exist in various Slavic dialects, namely Kajkavian (e.g. Gorski Kotar, Bilogora, Slavonija), Transcarpathian (Hutsul), as well as certain dialects of Macedonian, Northern Russian, and Serbian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
investigations involved the relative timing of consonants in Russian onset clusters as a function of their sonority profile (Pouplier et al. 2017), syllablebased articulatory differences in the realization of Russian palatalized consonants (Kochetov 2006), the production of Czech-like fricative + nasal onset clusters by native English speakers (Davidson 2006), and temporal articulatory properties of the Slovak syllabic liquids (Pouplier & Beňuš 2011). A number of phonologically focused studies examined native speaker intuitions about sonority and vowel-zero alternations in Russian (Gouskova & Becker 2013) and Polish (Chociej 2019). Much attention has been devoted to native and nonnative perception of onset clusters depending on their sonority. Berent et al. (2007), for example, examined accuracy and misperceptions of Russian sonority reversal clusters by Russian and Hebrew native speakers. Davidson & Shaw (2012) examined patterns of errors in the perception of Slavic-like fricativeinitial clusters by English native speakers. The increasing availability of digital materials, such as online dictionaries and text corpora of many Slavic languages, has triggered quantitative research on syllable structure (see e.g. Orzechowska & Wiese’s 2015 work on Polish onset clusters and Chociej’s 2019 work on Polish vowel-zero alternations; see also an important earlier work, Kučera & Monroe 1968 on Czech and Russian). Spoken corpora of Slavic languages have also been contributing new data on the production and acquisition of the syllable (e.g. Jarosz et al. 2017 on the acquisition of Polish onset clusters by children). Altogether, experimental studies of this kind have contributed to our better understanding of phonetic and phonological properties of Slavic syllables, as well as the concept of syllable organization and sonority in general.
References Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104, 591–630. Bethin, C. Y. (2011). Polish syllable structure. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. D. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 5, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 2609–2630. Bojadžiev, T., Georgieva, E., Penčev, J., Stankov, V., & Tilkov, D. (1998). Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Fonetika, Sofia: Abagar. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387. Burlyka, I. R. & Padlužny, A. І. (1989). Fanetyka belaruskaj litaraturnaj movy, Minsk. Carlton, T. R. (1991). Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Chociej, J. (2019). Exceptional Faithfulness and Exceptional Alternation: A Case Study of Polish Vowel-Zero Alternations as Deletion and Epenthesis. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
83
84
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Grammar and Physics of Speech, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–333. Comrie, B. & G. G. Corbett, eds. (1993). The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Cyran, E. & E. Gussmann. (1999). Consonantal clusters and governing relations: Polish initial consonant sequences. In H. van der Hulst & N. A. Ritter, eds., The Syllable: Views and Facts, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–247. Davidson, L. (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 104–137. Davidson, L. & J. A. Shaw. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 234–248. Derksen, R. (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill. Easterday, S. (2019). Highly Complex Syllable Structure: A Typological and Diachronic Study [Studies in Laboratory Phonology 9], Berlin: Language Science Press, https:// langsci-press.org/catalog/book/249. Fortson IV, B. W. (2011). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Vol. 30, London: John Wiley & Sons. Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305. Gordon, M. K. (2016). Phonological Typology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gouskova, M. & Becker, M. (2013). Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 735–765. Holzer, G. (2007). Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hooper, J. B. (1976). An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology, New York, NY: Academic Press. Iskarous, K. & Kavitskaya, D. (2018). Sound change and the structure of synchronic variability: Phonetic and phonological factors in Slavic palatalization. Language, 94, 43–83. Jarosz, G., Calamaro, S., & Zentz, J. (2017). Input frequency and the acquisition of syllable structure in Polish. Language Acquisition, 24, 361–399. Kabasanov, St. (1963). Star i nov nazalizǎm v neproučen dosega bǎlgarski govor. Slavistični studii, 173–184. Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology, Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. König, E. & Van der Auwera, J., eds. (1994). The Germanic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Kochetov, A. (2002). Production, Perception, and Emergent Phonotactic Patterns: A Case of Contrastive Palatalization, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Kochetov, A. (2006). Syllable position effects and gestural organization: Articulatory evidence from Russian. In L. Goldstein, D. Whalen, & C. Best, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII [Phonology and Phonetics Series 4–2], Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton, pp. 565–588. Kučera, H. & Monroe, G. K. (1968). A Comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech, and German, No. 4, Elsevier. Lehmann, C. (2005). Latin syllable structure in typological perspective. In G. Calboli, ed., Latina lingua! Proceedings of the Twelfth International Colloquium on Latin
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Syllable Structure
Linguistics (Bologna, 9–14 June 2003), 2 vols. [Papers on Grammar, 9, 1], Rome: Herder, pp. 127–147. Maddieson, I. (2013). Syllable structure. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.info/chapter/12. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 887–946. Murray, R. W. & T. Vennemann. (1983). Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language, 59, 514–528. Orzechowska, P. & R. Wiese. (2015). Preferences and variation in word-initial phonotactics: A multi-dimensional evaluation of German and Polish. Folia Linguistica, 49, 439–486. Parker, S. (2011). Sonority. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1160–1184. Pouplier, M. & Beňuš, Š. (2011). On the phonetic status of syllabic consonants: Evidence from Slovak. Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 2, 243–273. Pouplier, M., Marin, S., Hoole, P., & Kochetov, A. (2017). Speech rate effects in Russian onset clusters are modulated by frequency, but not auditory cue robustness. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 108–126. Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (1990). Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 427–463. Sawicka, I. (1995). Gramatyka współczesna języka polskiego. Fonetyka i fonologia, Kraków: Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN. Scheer, T. (2004). A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol. 1: What Is CVCV, and Why Should It Be?, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Scheer, T. (2007). Distributional gaps in Slavic initial clusters are accidental. In R. Compton, M. Goledzinowska, & U. Savchenko, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15. The Toronto Meeting, 2006, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 12–14. Shevelov, G. Y. (1964). A Prehistory of Slavic, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 947–998. Short, D. (1993a). Czech. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 455–532. Short, D. (1993b). Slovak. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592. Škarić, I. (2007). Fonetika hrvatskoga književnoga jezika. Velika Hrvatska Gramatika, Knjiga prva, Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus. Srebot-Rejec, T. (1975). Začetni in končni soglasniški sklopi v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. Slavistična revija, 23(3–4), 289–320. Starosta, M. (1999). Dolnoserbsko-nimski słownik/Niedersorbisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Budyšin/Bautzen: Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina/Domowina-Verlag, www.nie dersorbisch.de/ndw/. Stone, G. (1993). Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 759–794. Surdučki, M. I. (1964). The distribution of Serbo-Croatian consonants. The Slavic and East European Journal, 8, 159–181.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
85
86
ALEXEI KOCHETOV
Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Timberlake, A. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Russian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tolstaja, S. M. (1968). Fonologičeskoe rasstojanie i sočetaemost’ soglasnyx v slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 66–81. Townsend, C. E. & Janda, L. A. (1996). Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and Inflection: With Special Attention to Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Vidoeski, B. (1981). Visoka (Ossa; OLA 112). In P. Ivić, ed., Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvaćenih Opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom, Sarajevo, pp. 801–810. Zec, D. (2007). The syllable. In P. de Lacy, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–194.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.005 Published online by Cambridge University Press
5 Phonologically Conditioned Alternations Darya Kavitskaya
5.1 Introduction This chapter aims to be an overview of major phonologically conditioned alternations in Slavic languages. Phonological conditioning refers to a situation when the choice of a particular allophone is determined solely by phonological factors, which renders the alternations predictable and largely exceptionless. While it would not be possible to address all phonological alternations present in all Slavic languages, and while many of these alternations are at least partially morphologically conditioned (for morphological conditioning see Chapters 7–8, 11–12 in this volume), we attempt to provide a summary of the alternations that are in some way typical, occurring in more than one Slavic language, whether they have developed separately or can be reconstructed to an earlier stage. Thus, this chapter is arranged around the synchronic alternations that feature prominently in Slavic languages, such as vocalic alternations, including vowel reduction and vowel-zero alternations, and consonantal alternations, including voicing assimilation, word-final devoicing, and palatalization before front vowels and as a result of assimilation in consonant clusters. Some language-specific alternations are also discussed.1
5.2 Vocalic Alternations 5.2.1 Vowel Reduction V O W E L R E D U C T I O N refers to phonological neutralization in unstressed syllables where the full inventory of contrastive vowels is attested under stress, while a smaller number of vocalic contrasts is present in unstressed positions (on stress in Slavic see Chapter 1 in this volume). Vowel reduction in Slavic depends on language-specific conditions and is attested in Belarusian, 1
For an overview of the recent developments in Slavic phonology see Kavitskaya 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
88
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
Bulgarian, Russian, and, arguably, Slovenian (see Kavitskaya forthcoming for an overview of Slavic vowel reduction). Belarusian Standard Belarusian exhibits a prototypical vowel reduction, where five vowels /i e a o u/ contrast in stressed syllables, and only three vowel qualities [i a u] are attested in unstressed syllables (see example (1)) (Vygonnaja 1978, Czekman & Smułkowa 1988, Mayo 1993, among others). (1) Vowel reduction in Belarusian Stressed /o/ [ˈnoɣi] ‘leg-N O M . P L ’ [ˈmjot] ‘honey-N O M . S G ’ /e/ [ˈreki] ‘river-N O M . P L ’ [ˈkljej] ‘glue-N O M . S G ’
Unstressed [naˈɣa] [mjaˈdovɨ] [raˈka] [kljaˈjonka]
‘leg-N O M . S G ’ ‘honey-A D J ’ ‘river-N O M . S G ’ ‘oil-cloth’
The unstressed non-high vowels /e a o/ all neutralize to [a] (or [ɐ]), while the high vowels /i u/ do not change (see (2)). (2) Stressed and unstressed vowel inventories of Belarusian Stressed inventory Unstressed inventory i u i u e
o a
a
The neutralization of non-high vowels does not happen in borrowings (cf. [deˈkret] ‘decree’, never *[daˈkret]), [reˈsursɨ] ‘resources’, never *[raˈsursɨ]). Bulgarian Two different systems of vowel reduction are attested in Bulgarian. In Eastern Bulgarian, six vowels /i e ɤ a o u/2 contrast in stressed syllables (see (3)). In unstressed syllables, the mid vowels /e/ and /o/ raise and merge with /i/ and /u/, respectively, while the low vowel /a/ and the high-mid vowel /ɤ/ merge as [ə] (Pettersson & Wood 1987, Anderson 1996). (3) Eastern Bulgarian vowel reduction (after Pettersson & Wood 1987) Stressed Unstressed /i/ [ˈimi] ‘name-S G ’ [imiˈna] ‘name-P L ’ /e/ [ˈselu] ‘village-S G ’ [siˈla] ‘village-P L ’ /o/ [ˈonzi] ‘that-M A S C ’ [uˈnazi] ‘that-F E M ’ /u/ [ˈbukvə] ‘letter’ [bukˈvar] ‘ABC’ /a/ [ˈrabutə] ‘work’ [rəˈbotnik] ‘worker’ /ɤ/ [ˈkrɤtʃmə] ‘tavern’ [krətʃˈmar] ‘taverner’
2
I follow Barnes (2006: 32) in transcribing the unreduced high-mid Bulgarian vowel as [ɤ]. The traditional transliteration symbol used for this sound is â, which is often transcribed as [ə] (Pettersson & Wood 1987, Anderson 1996, Crosswhite 2001, among others). However, the phonetic quality of the stressed /ɤ/ is closer to [ɤ] or [ɘ] than to [ə] (Alexander & Zhobov forthcoming).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
The system of Eastern Bulgarian vowel contrasts is shown in (4). This type of vowel reduction is fully neutralizing: /i/ and /e/ and /u/ and /o/ merge as high vowels [i] and [u] respectively, and /ɤ/ and /a/ neutralize to [ə]. (4) Stressed and unstressed vowel inventories of Eastern Bulgarian Stressed inventory Unstressed inventory i ɤ u i u e o ə a
Unlike in Eastern Bulgarian, Standard Bulgarian vowel reduction is not fully neutralizing: front vowels /i/ and /e/ remain distinct in unstressed syllables, with /e/ undergoing phonetic raising (see (5)) (Groen 1987). (5) Unstressed vowels in Standard Bulgarian /peˈron/ → [pe̝ ˈron], *[piˈron] ‘platform’ /piˈrat/ → [piˈrat] ‘pirate’
The stressed and unstressed vocalic inventories of Standard Bulgarian are in (6). (6) Stressed and unstressed vowel inventories of Standard Bulgarian Stressed inventory Unstressed inventory i ɤ u i u e̝ e o ə a
Slovenian Vowel reduction in Slovenian is a recent development. Slovenian has been described as a language with contrastive vowel length and no vowel reduction (Bezlaj 1939, Lenček 1982, Derbyshire 1993, Priestly 1993, among others). According to traditional descriptions, there are eight phonemic vowels in Slovenian: /i u e o ɛ ɔ a ə/.3 In stressed syllables, all vowels except [ə] can be long [iː uː eː oː ɛː ɔː aː], and all vowels except [e o] can be short [i u ɛ ɔ a ə] (Priestly 1993: 390). In such a system, long vowels are always stressed, but stressed vowels are not always long (cf. [sit] ‘full’ vs. [siːn] ‘son’). Thus, both tense and lax mid vowels, /e/ vs. /ɛ/ and /o/ vs. /ɔ/, contrast only in stressed syllables (Lenček 1982:160, Derbyshire 1993:16); see examples in (7). (7) Vowel neutralizations in Standard Slovenian (after Bidwell 1969 and Crosswhite 2001) Stressed Unstressed [ˈgɔːra] ‘mountain-N O M . S G ’ [gɔˈreː] ‘mountain-G E N . S G ’ [ˈplɛːmɛ] ‘tribe-N O M . S G ’ [plɛˈmeːna] ‘tribe-G E N . S G ’ [ˈmoːʃ] ‘man-N O M . S G ’ [mɔˈʒjeː] ‘man-N O M . P L ’ [ˈkoːst] ‘bone-N O M . S G ’ [kɔˈstiː] ‘bone-G E N . S G ’ 3
Jurgec (2011) lists an additional phonemic vowel /ɐ/ in Slovenian where older descriptions have a stressed short /a/ in a closed final syllable.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
89
90
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
[ˈreːtʃ] [ˈtseːsta]
‘thing-N O M . S G ’ ‘road-N O M . S G ’
[rɛˈtʃiː] [tsɛˈsteː]
‘thing-G E N . S G ’ ‘road-G E N . S G ’
Examples in (8) demonstrate that the quality of the mid vowels depends on quantity, which, in turn, depends on stress. In mid vowels, the length contrast is present only in stressed syllables, and the result of the phonological neutralization is the shortening of vowels in unstressed syllables, and thus, Slovenian alternations cannot be classified as vowel reduction proper. However, it has been recently argued that vowel length is no longer distinctive at least in multisyllabic words (Šuštaršič et al. 1999, Jurgec 2011). Thus, it appears that the system has been restructured and shows a pattern of height neutralization in unstressed syllables, characteristic of vowel reduction. (8) Stressed and unstressed vowel inventories of Slovenian Stressed inventory Unstressed inventory i u i e o ɛ ə ɔ ɛ ə ɔ a a
u
BCS While vowel reduction is generally not attested in BCS, post-stress reduction of high vowels /i/ and /u/ has been reported in the dialects of central and western Bosnia and parts of Croatia on the western border of Bosnia. This is a post-lexical gradient process as /i/ can be significantly shortened or fully deleted (cf. standard stolica ‘chair’ vs. colloquial stolica or stolca, standard doručak ‘breakfast’ vs. colloquial dorućak) (Halilović et al. 2009: 45). Russian Contemporary Standard Russian (CSR) exhibits the most complex case of vowel reduction in Slavic, as it has two degrees of reduction, which are sensitive to both prosodic and segmental environments (Avanesov 1972, Barnes 2007, Bondarko 1977, Halle 1959, Iosad 2012, Jones & Ward 1969, Kasatkin 2003, Matusevič 1976, Ščerba 1912, Timberlake 2004, Trubetzkoy 1939/1969, Ward 1975, among others). In stressed syllables, Russian contrasts five vowels, /i e a o u/.4 Two prosodic contexts are relevant for unstressed syllables, the first pretonic (pre-stress) syllable that exhibits a neutralization pattern, termed either F I R S T - D E G R E E R E D U C T I O N , or M O D E R A T E R E D U C T I O N , and the pattern observed in the other unstressed syllables that exhibit a more extreme degree of reduction, termed either S E C O N D - D E G R E E R E D U C T I O N , or R A D I C A L R E D U C T I O N .
4
The recently achieved consensus is that [ɨ] is not contrastive in Russian, but an allophone of /i/ after non-palatalized consonants (see Padgett 2001 and later work, where the phonetic difference between [i] and [ɨ] is viewed as an effect of strong velarization on a consonant in the latter case).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
The two types of reduction are illustrated in (9) in the environment of nonpalatalized consonants. (9) CSR vowel reduction Stressed /o/ [ˈgot] ‘year’ /a/ [ˈrazum] ‘reason’
Moderate [gaˈdam] ‘year-D A T . P L ’ [raˈzumnɨj] ‘wisely’
Radical [gədaˈvalɨj] ‘year-old’ [rəzuˈmjejɪtsə]5 ‘of course’
The neutralization patterns in the CSR vocalic inventories are in (10). (10) Stressed and unstressed vowel inventories of CSR Stressed syllables Moderate reduction i
u e
i
u
Radical reduction
i
o a
u ə
a
In addition to the distinction between prosodic contexts, vowel reduction depends on the palatalization of the preceding consonant. Under moderate reduction in non-palatalized contexts, /a/ and /o/ neutralize to either [a], [ɑ], or a slightly more centralized vowel [ɐ] in the Moscow dialect of CSR, as well as some other dialects (Kasatkina 2005).6 The neutralization of /a/ and /o/ as some kind of a-vowel in non-palatalized contexts is termed A K A N ’ E . The neutralized vowel is shorter and more centralized in other dialects, for instance, in Saint Petersburg, and has been transcribed as [ʌ] (Timberlake 2004: 45). Under moderate reduction after non-palatalized consonants, high vowels /i/ (phonetically [ɨ]) and /u/ do not undergo phonological neutralization with other vowels, but surface significantly centralized. The vowel /e/ is rare in non-palatalized contexts and only occurs after the ‘unpaired’ [ʒ], [ʃ], and [ts] (note that /ʃ jː/ is not a phonological palatalized counterpart of /ʃ/), the consonants that do not have palatalized counterparts, in the native lexicon. It is attested in non-palatalized contexts in borrowings, where it neutralizes with /i/ surfacing as a lowered [ɨ̞ ] (11) (Iosad 2012: 526). (11) Moderate reduction; non-palatalized context /ɨ/ [ˈsɨr] ‘cheese-N O M . S G ’ [sɨ̞ ˈrɨ] /u/ [ˈputj] ‘way-N O M . S G ’ [pʊˈtji] j /e/ [fɐˈnet ɪkə] ‘phonetics’ [fənɨ̞ ˈtjitʃɪskjɪj]
‘cheese-N O M . P L ’ ‘way-G E N . S G ’ ‘phonetic’
Moderate reduction after palatalized consonants involves more neutralization. In CSR, especially in the speech of the younger generation, all vowels except /u/ are realized as [ɪ] in this context (12). The kind of neutralization is referred to as I K A N ’ E . /u/ does not merge with the rest of the vowels, undergoing a slight centralization. 5 6
The pronunciation of the affricate in this word varies from [tsts] to [tss] to [ts], depending on the register used. I follow Iosad 2012, Kasatkina 2005, Padgett & Tabain 2005, and Barnes 2006 in transcribing the result of /a/–/o/ neutralization in the Standard Moscow Russian as [ɐ].
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
91
92
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
(12) Moderate reduction; palatalized context /i/ [ˈljis] ‘fox-masc.N O M . S G ’ /e/ [ˈljes] ‘forest-N O M . S G ’ /a/ [ˈpjatj] ‘five’ /o/ [ˈnjos] ‘carry-3 S G . P A S T . M A S C ’ /u/ [ˈljudjɪ] ‘people-N O M ’
[ljɪˈsa] [ljɪˈsa] [pjɪˈtji] [njɪsˈla] [ljʊˈdjej]
‘fox-F E M . N O M . S G ’ ‘forest-N O M . P L ’ ‘five-G E N ’ ‘carry-3 S G . P A S T . F E M ’ ‘people-G E N ’
In the older version of the norm, the vowels /i/ and /e/ remain distinct under moderate reduction, /e/ reducing to an [ɪe] (13) (Timberlake 2004: 44, among others). (13) /i/-/e/; moderate reduction, incomplete neutralization /i/ [ljɪˈsa] ‘fox-F E M ’ [prjɪˈdatj] ‘to add to’ j e /e/ [l ɪ ˈsa] ‘forest-N O M . P L ’ [prjɪeˈdatj] ‘to betray’
In addition to first pretonic syllables, several other environments call for moderate reduction, such as the absolute word-initial onsetless syllable (e.g. /ostoˈroʒnostj/ ‘caution’ [ɐstɐˈroʒnəsjtj]), vowel hiatus contexts for the vowels /a/ and /o/ (e.g. /sootnoˈʃenjije/ ‘proportion’ [sɐɐtnɐˈʃenjɪə]; Timberlake 2004: 52, but see Kasatkin 2003, who lists the first vowel of this word as [ə]), and the absolute phrase-final position (Matusevič 1976: 102). Under radical reduction after non-palatalized consonants, all vowels except /u/ neutralize to [ə] (14), while after palatalized consonants all vowels but /u/ neutralize to [ɪ] (15). /u/ centralizes in both cases. (14) Radical reduction; non-palatalized context /ɨ/ [ˈsɨr] ‘cheese’ [sərɐˈvar] /e/ [ˈʒetʃ] ‘burn’ [ˈvɨʒətʃ] /a/ [ˈpar] ‘steam’ [pərɐˈxot] /o/ [ˈvodnɨj] ‘water-A D J ’ [vədɐˈpat] /u/ [ˈfkus] ‘taste’ [ˈiskʊs] (15) Radical reduction; palatalized context /i/ [ˈmjir] ‘world’ [mjɪrɐˈvoj] j /e/ [ˈl es] ‘forest’ [ljɪsnjɪˈka] j /a/ [ˈp atj] ‘five’ [fpjɪtjɪˈrom] j /o/ [ˈl ot] ‘ice’ [ljɪdjɪˈnoj] j j /u/ [ˈl ud ɪ] ‘people-N O M ’ [ˈnjeljʊdjɪ]
‘cheese-maker’ ‘burn down’ ‘steamship’ ‘waterfall’ ‘temptation’ ‘world-A D J ’ ‘ranger-G E N . S G ’ ‘five together’ ‘icy’ ‘monsters, bad people’
5.2.2 Vowel-Zero Alternations V O W E L - Z E R O A L T E R N A T I O N S are the outcome of the fall (deletion) and vocalization (a merger with a full vowel) of J E R S in Late Common Slavic (Carlton 1991: 165).7 Weak jers were lost and strong jers merged with full vowels, resulting in the alternations that are present in all Slavic languages (see 7
Jers were Proto-Slavic high short vowels, written as ъ for back jer and ь for front jer in the traditional Slavic literature. Weak jer is defined as either the final vowel of a phonological word or as a vowel followed in the next syllable by a nonjer vowel or a strong jer.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
Table 5.1 The outcome of jer vocalization in Slavic languages Language East Slavic
West Slavic
*ъ
*ь
Examples
Belarusian
o
e
Russian
o
e
Ukrainian
o
e
rot < *rъtъ ‘mouth’ dzjenj < *dьnь ‘day’ son < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ djenj < *dьnь ‘day’ rot < *rъtъ ‘mouth’ denj < *dьnь ‘day’ sen < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ den < *dьnь ‘day’ voʃ < *vъšь ‘louse’ raʃ < *rъžь ‘rye’ daːʃc < *dъždžь ‘rain’ sen < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ pes < *pьsъ ‘dog’ sɛn < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ pjɛs < *pьsъ ‘dog’ vɛʃ < *vъšь ‘louse’ pɛs < *pьsъ ‘dog’ dziɲ < *dьnь ‘day’ wjes < *vьsь ‘village’ mox < *mъxъ ‘moss’
Czech Slovak
o, a, aː, e
Polish
ɛ8
Kashubian
ɛ i/ɨ
e, a, ie, o
e before Cj o after labials and before non-palatalized dentals Lower e mex < *mъxъ ‘moss’ Sorbian reʒ < *rьʒь ‘rye’ Bulgarian ə e sən < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ den < *dьnь ‘day’ Macedonian o e son < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ den < *dьnь ‘day’ BCS a san < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ dan < *dьnь ‘day’ Slovenian aː when long maːx < *mъːxъ ‘moss’ ə when short sən < *sъnъ ‘sleep, dream’ daːn < *dьːnь ‘day’ pəs < *pьsъ ‘dog’ Upper Sorbian
South Slavic
e
Table 5.1), as, for instance, in Russian son ‘dream-N O M . S G ’ vs. sna ‘dreamj j j G E N . S G ’, d en ‘day-N O M . S G ’ vs. dn a ‘day-G E N . S G ’ or in BCS san vs. sna, pas ‘dog-N O M . S G ’ vs. psa ‘dog-G E N . S G ’. As illustrated in Table 5.1, the quality of the alternating yer vowel is language-specific.9 In some languages, such as Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, and Slovak, the reflexes of the front and back jers are different, and in other languages, such as Czech, Polish, Lower Sorbian, and BCS, there is only one vowel that alternates with zero. In Upper Sorbian, the distribution of the alternating vowels obeys complex conditions (Schaarschmidt 1997: 59–60). A complex situation is also reported for Kashubian (Andersen 1970, 8
9
Some words in Polish show [ɔ] ~ zero alternations where [ɔ] is a reflex of strong jers, for example [kɔtɕɔw] ‘cauldron’ vs. [kɔtwa] ‘cauldron-G E N . S G ’ (Gussmann 2007: 246). The term Y E R was introduced by Rubach (1984) to distinguish historical jers from synchronic alternating vowels in Slavic languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
93
94
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
Timberlake 1988, Czaplicki 2020, Paždjerski, p.c.). In Slovak, a number of different alternating vowels are present (Greenberg 1988). The peculiarities of vowel-zero alternations are further illustrated in (16) using the example of Polish, where forms with alternating vowels are given in (16a), phonotactically similar forms with non-alternating full vowels exemplified in (16b), and forms with word-final consonant clusters that are not broken up by vowels are in (16c). These examples demonstrate that the distribution of alternating vowels is idiosyncratic, as there is no generalization, phonological, morphological, or semantic, that can be made in order to differentiate between forms with alternating vowels that come from jer vocalization, such as in (16a), and non-alternating forms, such as in (16b-c). (16) Vowel-zero alternations in Polish a. [sɛn] ‘dream’ [snu] ‘dream-G E N . S G ’ b. [pjɔtr] ‘Peter’ [pjɔtra] ‘Peter-G E N . S G ’ c. [basɛn] ‘pool’ [basɛnu] ‘pool-G E N . S G ’
Thus, the presence of the alternating vowels is not predictable from the phonotactics or syllable structure. However, most existing synchronic analyses of vowel-zero alternations hold that they are nonetheless phonologically conditioned, the alternating vowels differing from full vowels representationally, for instance, being underlyingly underspecified for certain properties or represented as floating melodic segments (Rubach 1984, 1986, 2016, Szpyra 1992, Rowicka 1999, Gussmann 2007, among others). Some analyses, however, treat the alternations as morphologically conditioned (e.g. Gouskova 2012, but see Rubach’s 2013 response).
5.2.3 Vowel Quantity and Quality Alternations Other vocalic alternations in Slavic include alternations in vowel quantity, such as lengthening and shortening, rhythmic length alternations, and alternations in vowel quality, such as fronting/backing and raising/ lowering. Compensatory Lengthening C O M P E N S A T O R Y L E N G T H E N I N G (CL) is defined as the lengthening of a segment as a response to the loss of another segment (de Chene and Anderson 1979, Hayes 1989). In Slavic, CL of a vowel is a response to the loss of another vowel (a weak jer) in the following syllable, schematically, CV.CV → CVːC, sometimes termed N O N - L O C A L C L . Slavic CL is largely a diachronic process that left some synchronic residue. The reflexes of the vowels created by CL do not always surface as long, as a result of later developments (see Kavitskaya 2020 for an overview of Slavic CL). CL as a sound change and as a synchronic alternation is illustrated in (17). With the loss of jers, the forms of the type CVCъ and CVCь surface as closed
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
syllables with long vowels in BCS (17a), with tense vowels in Upper Sorbian and Polish (17b-c), and with vowels of a different quality in Ukrainian (17d).10 (17) a. BCS b. Upper Sorbian c. Polish d. Ukrainian
(N O M ~ G E N ) [boːr] ~ [bora] [bor] ~ [bɔru] [bur] ~ [bɔru] [bir] ~ [boru] [pitʃ] ~ [petʃi]
‘forest’
‘stove’
It is unclear whether or not the alternations in Ukrainian represent a true case of CL. In Ukrainian, the Proto-Slavic *o and *e become [i] in closed syllables and remain mid vowels in open syllables (17d). The change in vowel quality is viewed either as an instance of CL (Miklosich 1879/1973: 430, Timberlake 1983a, 1983b, Carlton 1991, 1996, Langston 1998, among others) or as an independent development (Kurylo 1928, Shevelov 1985, Garde 1985) (see Rubach 2005 on a synchronic analysis of the Ukrainian mid vowel fronting). The conditions on Slavic CL as a sound change are complex and not necessarily agreed upon in the literature. Timberlake (1983a) provides the most comprehensive summary, distinguishing four dialect zones that exhibit CL, which vary with respect to several factors, such as the identity of the intervening C2 in a C1V1C2V2 sequence; the accent of the strong vowel (Acute, NeoAcute, Circumflex); the identity of the target vowel V1 in a C1V1C2V2 sequence (i, e, a, o, u); the identity of the trigger vowel V2 in a C1V1C2V2 sequence (front or back jer); and the position of the disyllabic C1V1C2V2 unit in the word (final or non-final). Kavitskaya (2002), building on Timberlake (1983a, 1983b), analyzed Slavic CL as the phonologization of phonetic length that resulted from the loss of the second vowel and thus the change of syllable structure in the sequence in question. CL resulted in synchronic (but lexicalized) alternations in vowel quality, such as Polish V O W E L R A I S I N G (Bethin 1978, 1998). The vowel /ɔ/ raises to [u] when followed by an underlyingly voiced word-final consonant (cf. [brɔda] ‘beard-N O M . S G ’ vs. [brut] ‘beard-G E N . P L ’, [mɔla] ‘moth-G E N . S G ’ vs. [mul] ‘moth-N O M . S G ’). The raising does not apply in forms that end in an underlyingly voiceless consonant (cf. [kɔta] ‘cat-G E N . S G ’ vs. [kɔt] ‘cat-N O M . S G ’). Some Other Vocalic Alternations There are many language-specific vowel quantity and quality alternations in Slavic, morphologized or lexicalized to a different extent, which cannot all be discussed here. Nonetheless, we will mention some of them. Vowel shortening can be exemplified by Standard Slovak and the central dialects of Slovak, which exhibit the L A W O F R H Y T H M I C S H O R T E N I N G , whereby there is a neutralization of vowel quality in a syllable with a long vowel after 10
In BCS, CL happened only before sonorants (or [j]) only in Štokavian dialects. In Polish, CL applied only before voiced consonants.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
95
96
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
a preceding syllable with a long vowel, for example [traːvam] ‘grasses-D A T . P L ’ vs. [ʒɛnaːm] ‘women-D A T . P L ’, [xvaːlim] ‘praise-1 S G ’ vs. [misliːm] ‘think-1 S G ’ (Short 1993: 538). Also, morphologically conditioned but historically prosodically determined nasal vowel quantity alternations resulting in vowel quality alternations are attested in Polish, for example [mɔ̃ʃ] ‘husband-N O M . S G ’ (originally from a long vowel) vs. [mɛʒ̃ ɛm] ‘husband-I N S T R . S G ’ (originally from a short vowel). As to consonant-vowel alternations, in BCS there is a regular L - V O C A L I Z A T I O N , or l~o alternation, conditioned by syllable structure, whereby the underlying lateral surfaces as [o] syllable-finally, as in [dao] ‘givepast.M A S C . S G ’ vs. [dala] ‘give-past.F E M . S G ’ (Browne 1993). BCS also exhibits partially morphologically, but partially prosodically conditioned ije~e alternations, as in [strijela] ‘arrow’ vs. [strelitsa] ‘arrow, pointer’, which are the reflexes of the monomorphemic Cr + long vs. short jat’ sequence (Browne 1993). In Belarusian, the high back vowel [u] alternates with the glide [ŭ] in postvocalic positions, as in jon prɨexaŭ u horad ‘he arrived in town’ vs. jana prɨexala ŭ horad ‘she arrived in town’ (Mayo 1993: 892).
5.3 Consonantal Alternations 5.3.1 Voicing V O I C I N G A S S I M I L A T I O N in consonant clusters is common to all Slavic languages. Voicing assimilation is usually productive and exceptionless, while the exact details can be language-specific. The assimilation is generally regressive, is triggered by the last obstruent in a cluster (both within words and across word boundaries), and affects all obstruents in the cluster, as can be exemplified by the alternations in Bulgarian: /svatba/ sva[db]a ‘wedding,’ /ot baba/ o[d b]aba ‘from grandmother,’ /bez tova/ be[s t]ova ‘without this-N O M . S G ’ (Scatton 1993: 197). It has been claimed at least for Slovak that vowels can also trigger voicing assimilation across word boundaries (cf. /vlak ide/ [vlagi̞ ɟɛ] ‘the train goes’; Hanulíková & Hamann 2010: 376). Sonorant transparency to voicing assimilation is a controversial topic in Slavic phonology. It has been claimed by Jakobson (1978) that, in Russian, sonorants are transparent to voicing assimilation, and therefore underlying /iz mtsenska/ ‘from Mtsensk’ surfaces as i[s mts]enska. This example is found in much phonological literature (e.g. Padgett 2002, Rubach 2008a, among others). However, an instrumental study by Kulikov (2013) shows that obstruents do not assimilate in voicing across sonorants in Russian. A similar claim about sonorant transparency in word-final consonant clusters was made for Polish on the basis of examples like /kɑdr f jilmu/ [kɑtr̥ f jilmu] ‘film frame’, where /r/ appears to participate in the spread of voicing (Dukiewicz & Sawicka 1995). Rubach (2008b) notes that in word-initial consonant clusters, sonorants block the spread of voicing, attributing the difference to prevocalic faithfulness of segments in the syllable. However,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
Strycharczuk (2012) shows that the phonetic data do not support the claim that sonorants are phonologically transparent in Polish. In several Slavic languages, including Polish, Czech, and Russian (but not in BCS), /v/ behaves ambiguously for the purposes of voicing assimilation. In Russian, /v/ is an undergoer of voicing assimilation, patterning with obstruents (18a), and it is not a trigger of voicing assimilation in the immediately prevocalic position, patterning with sonorants (18b). (18) a. b.
/v/ in Russian voicing assimilation koro[fk]a ‘cow-dim’ [f t]omje ‘in the volume’ o[t v]orot /ot v/ na[d v]orotamji /nad v/
(cf. /korova/ ‘cow’) [v d]omje ‘in the house’ (cf. /v/ ‘in’) ‘from gates’ ‘above gates’
The special behavior of /v/ has been described by Jakobson (1956), and in much later work. /v/ has been analyzed as a segment with intermediate sonority (Padgett 2002), a segment underspecified for sonority (Hall 2004), or a segment underspecified for voicing (Mołczanow 2007). W O R D - F I N A L D E V O I C I N G refers to the process whereby underlyingly voiced obstruents devoice word-finally, for instance in Bulgarian the underlying /d/ surfaces as [t] in [grat] ‘city’ (cf. [gradove] ‘city-P L ’). Word-final devoicing is present in most Slavic languages, with the exception of Ukrainian and most dialects of BCS. It is traditionally viewed as exceptionless, but recently it has been claimed that at least in Russian the neutralization of voicing distinction word-finally may be incomplete (Kharlamov 2014).
5.3.2 Palatalization P A L A T A L I Z A T I O N alternations are attested in all Slavic languages in some form, even though there is a vast variation with respect to palatalization throughout Slavic. In Slavic literature, palatalization refers to two kinds of phonological alternations. First, the term refers to the outcome of the Common Slavic sound changes, such as jod palatalization, which affected all consonants before the glide /j/, and velar palatalizations, which resulted in a shift of the primary place of articulation of a velar in the vicinity of a front vowel to coronal (see Shevelov 1964: 219f., among many others). These alternations, called C O R O N A L I Z A T I O N by Clements & Hume (1995) and later by Rubach (2007), are opaque and morphologically conditioned (cf. Polish [kɔzak] ‘Cossack.N O M . S G ’ vs. [kɔzatʃɛ] ‘Cossack-V O C . S G ’, BCS [sluga] ‘servant-N O M . S G ’ vs. [sluzi] ‘servant-D A T . S G ’,11 or Bulgarian [plakax] ‘weep-1 S G . A O R ’ vs. [platʃa] ‘weep-1 S G . P R E S ’) (see Chapters 7 and 8 in this volume). Second, palatalization refers to phonological alternations that result in the change of secondary articulation of a consonant before a front vowel, 11
Czaplicki (2019) shows that palatalization processes in Polish are mostly morphologically conditioned, with palatalizations attested before front and back vowels and depalatalizations found before front vowels.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
97
98
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
frequently referred to as P O S I T I O N A L P A L A T A L I Z A T I O N . Rubach (2007) dubs this type of alternation S U R F A C E P A L A T A L I Z A T I O N . It is attested in East Slavic languages for all consonants paired for palatalization, as exemplified for Russian in (19a) (on contrastive palatalization in Slavic languages see Chapter 3 in this volume). In other languages, this kind of palatalization is more restricted. Velars are palatalized before [i] in all Slavic languages and before [e] in several of them. In Bulgarian, velars palatalize before front vowels (19b), including across word boundaries in casual speech (Scatton 1993). In Polish, in addition to allophonic secondary palatalization that affects labials and velars before front vowels, palatalization also applies across word boundaries, affecting all coronals and velars before front vowels and glides (19c) (Rubach 2007, 2019). (19) a.
b. c.
Secondary palatalization alternations Russian p~pj tropa ‘path’ t~tj kot ‘cat’ n~nj slon ‘elephant’ r~rj dvor ‘backyard’ g~gj boga ‘god-G E N . S G ’ Bulgarian g~gj kniga ‘book’ Polish t~tj brat ‘brother’ s~sj gwɔs ‘voice’ r~rj bar ‘bar’ x~xj strax ‘fear’
tropje kotjik slonje dvorjik bogji
‘path-D A T ’ ‘cat-D I M ’ ‘elephant-P R E P ’ ‘backyard-D I M ’ ‘god-N O M . P L ’
knigji
‘book-P L ’
bratj ivonɨ gwɔsj ivonɨ barj ivonɨ straxj ivonɨ
‘Ivonne’s brother’ ‘Ivonne’s voice’ ‘Ivonne’s bar’ ‘Ivonne’s fear’
Depalatalization alternations are widely attested as well, as in Bulgarian palatalization neutralization word-finally (cf. [dɛnʲat] ‘the day’ vs. [dɛn] ‘day’), Ukrainian depalatalization of the palatalized rhotic syllable-finally (Shevelov 1993) and the depalatalization of consonants before [ɨ] (cf. [losj] ‘moose’ vs. [losɨk] ‘moose-D I M ’; Rubach 2007: 133). Also, in most dialects of Russian, retraction of /i/ to [ɨ] happens after non-palatalized consonants at word boundaries, for example /brat/ ‘brother,’ /ivan/ ‘Ivan’, [brat ɨvanə] ‘Ivan’s brother.’ Palatalization assimilation in consonant clusters is attested in several Slavic languages. In Russian, palatalization assimilation is not categorical, and the likelihood of the alternation is expressed by the following scale: TTj ≥ TPj ≥ PPj ≥ PTj, where P is any labial sound, and T is any dental sound (after Timberlake 2004: 61–62). Thus, the palatalization of the first consonant in a cluster is more likely in the word o[t jt j]enki ‘overtones’ than in o[db j]it j ‘to fight off’, etc. Before velars, palatalization assimilation is even more restricted, with only a velar consonant participating in it before a velar, as in mja[x jk j]ij ‘soft (adj)’ vs. m ja[g]ok ‘soft (short adj)’. Palatalization assimilation in consonant clusters is also attested in Ukrainian, where dentals assimilate to the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
following palatalized dentals, Belarusian, and Polish, where it has been claimed to be in the process of disappearing (Osowicka-Kondratowicz 2005). Ukrainian exhibits yet another palatalization-related assimilation, where the sequence of a dental (except r) or a palatal consonant followed by a glide j becomes a sequence of identical palatalized consonants (schematically, C+j → CjCj), illustrated in (20a) (cf. (20b) that shows a form ending in a labial that does not undergo assimilation) (Moisienko et al. 2010: 211). (20) a. b.
Assimilation in Ukrainian /podoroʒ-ju/ [podoroʒjʒju] /osinj-ju/ [osinjnju] j j /l ubow- u/ [ljubowju]
‘journey-I N S T R . S G ’ ‘autumn-I N S T R . S G ’ ‘love-I N S T R . S G ’
Historically, this gemination occurred only after the fall of the jers (the -ju ending developed as *ьjǫ > Old East Slavic -ьju so the consonant and the j were not in contact). The same alternation is present in Belarusian, as in /kalosje/ [kalosjsje] ‘ears (of a plant)’ (Čaxovski & Čaxovskaja 2010: 37). Yet another process connected with palatalization is termed B R E A K I N G . Rubach (2008a) discusses nasal breaking in Slovenian, Upper Sorbian, and Polish. In Slovenian, the pre-palatal [ɲ] in the coda alternates with a sequence of [nj] prevocalically (cf. [kɔɲ] ‘horse-N O M . S G ’ vs. [kɔnja] ‘horse-G E N . S G ’). In Upper Sorbian, the opposite situation takes place, where [ɲ] surfaces in the onset but undergoes decomposition to [jn] in the coda (cf. [kojn] ‘horse-N O M . S G ’ vs. [kɔɲa] ‘horse-G E N . S G ’). Finally, Polish can have [ɲ] in all syllabic environments, while nasal decomposition of [ɲ] happens before stops and fricatives, accompanied by place assimilation of nasals to the following obstruent (cf. [baɲa] ‘kegN O M . S G ’, [kɔɲ] ‘horse-N O M . S G ’, but [bajŋka] ‘keg-D I M ’). Similar decomposition happens with rhotics in Slovenian that originate from the palatalized *rj cf. [tʃuvar] ‘keeper-N O M . S G ’ vs. [tʃuvarja] ‘keeper-G E N . S G ’; Priestly 1993).
5.4 Conclusions In this chapter, we outlined the main and most frequent phonologically conditioned alternations that are representative of Slavic languages, as well as reviewed both descriptive and analytical literature that addresses these alternations. The chapter included the discussion of vocalic neutralizations, such as vowel reduction and vowel-zero alternations, and consonantal neutralizations, such as voicing and palatalization-related processes, as well as some language-specific alternations.
References Alexander, R. & Zhobov, V. (Forthcoming). Bulgarian Dialects: Living Speech in the Digital Age, Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
99
100
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
Andersen, H. (1970). Kashubian dobëtk ‘dobytek’ and its kind. Die Welt der Slaven, 15, 61–76. Anderson, J. (1996). The representation of vowel reduction: Non-specification and reduction in Old English and Bulgarian. Studia Linguistica, 50, 91–105. Avanesov R. I. (1972). Russkoe literaturnoe proiznošenie, Moscow: Prosveščenie. Barnes, J. (2006). Strength and Weakness at the Interface: Positional Neutralization in Phonetics and Phonology, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Barnes, J. (2007). Phonetics and phonology in Russian unstressed vowel reduction: A study in hyperarticulation. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University. Bethin, C. Y. (1978). Phonological Rules in the Nominative Singular and Genitive Plural of the Slavic Substantive Declension. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Bethin, C. Y. (1998). Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bezlaj, Fr. (1939). Oris slovenskega knjižnega izgovora, Ljubljana: Natisnila učiteljska tiskarna. Bidwell, C. E. (1969). Outline of Slovenian Morphology, Pittsburgh, PA: University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh. Bondarko, L. V. (1977). Zvukovoj stroj sovremennogo russkogo iazyka, Moscow: Prosveščenie. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387. Carlton, T. R. (1991). Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Carlton, T. R. (1996). Compensatory lengthening, rounding, and sharping in Ukrainian. Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, 38, 385–404. Clements, G. N. & Hume, E. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In J. Goldsmith, ed., Handbook of Phonological Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 245–306. Crosswhite, K. (2001). Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Czaplicki, B. (2019). Measuring the phonological (un)naturalness of selected alternation patterns in Polish. Language Sciences, 72, 160–187. Czaplicki, B. (2020). A listener-oriented account of the evolution of diphthongs and changes in the jers in Kashubian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 28, 104–140. Czekman, W. & Smułkowa, E. (1988). Fonetyka i fonologia języka Białoruskiego z elementami fonetyki i fonologii ogólnej, Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Čaxovski, G. K. & Čaxovskaja, T. L. (2010). Sučasnaja belaruskaja mova. Elektronny kurs lektsyj, Minsk. de Chene, E. B. & Anderson, S. R. (1979). Compensatory lengthening. Language, 55, 505–535. Derbyshire, W. W. (1993). A Basic Reference Grammar of Slovene, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Dukiewicz, L. & Sawicka, I. (1995). Fonetyka i fonologia, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Języka Polskiego PAN. Garde, P. (1985). Le mythe de l’allongement compensatoire en ukrainien. In J. P. Hursky, ed., Studies in Ukrainian Linguistics in Honor of George Y. Shevelov, Clifton, NJ: The Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the US, pp. 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
Greenberg, M. (1988). On the vocalization of jers in Slovak. Die Welt der Slaven, 12, 43–62. Gouskova, M. (2012). Unexceptional segments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, 79–133. Groen, B. M. (1987). On vowel reduction in Contemporary Standard Bulgarian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 10 [Dutch Studies in South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics], 29–39. Gussmann, E. (2007). The Phonology of Polish, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halilović, S., Tanović, I., & Šehović, A. (2009). Govor grada Sarajeva i razgovorni bosanski jezik, Sarajevo: Slavistički komitet. Hall, D. C. (2004). A formal approach to /v/: Evidence from Czech and Slovak. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanović, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 12. The Ottawa Meeting, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Halle, M. (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian, The Hague: Mouton. Hanulíková, A. & Hamann, S. (2010). Slovak. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 40, 373–378. Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 253–306. Iosad, P. (2012). Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 521–571. Jakobson, R. (1956). Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen. In M. Woltner & H. Bräuer, eds., Festschrift für Max Vasmer, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jakobson, R. (1978). Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica, 32, 107–110. Jones, D. & Ward, D. (1969). The Phonetics of Russian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jurgec, P. (2011). Slovenščina ima 9 samoglasnikov. Slavistična Revija, 59, 243–268. Kasatkin, L. L. (2003). Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Kasatkina, R. F. (2005). Moskovskoje akan’je v svete nekotoryx dialektnyx dannyx. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 2, 29–45. Kavitskaya, D. (1999). Voicing assimilation and the schizophrenic behavior of /v/ in Russian. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. Vakareliyska, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7. The Seattle Meeting, 1998, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 225–244. Kavitskaya, D. (2002). Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics, Phonology, Diachrony, New York, NY: Routledge. Kavitskaya, D. (2017). Some recent developments in Slavic phonology. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25, 389–415. Kavitskaya, D. (2020). Compensatory lengthening. In M. L. Greenberg & L. A. Grenoble, eds., Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online, Leiden: Brill Publishers. Kavitskaya, D. (Forthcoming). Vowel reduction. In Oxford Guides to the World’s Languages. The Slavonic Languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
101
102
DARYA KAVITSKAYA
Kharlamov, V. (2014). Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russia: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 47–56. Kulikov, V. (2013). Voicing contrast in consonant clusters: Evidence against sonorant transparency to voice assimilation in Russian. Phonology, 30, 423–452. Kurylo, O. (1928). Sproba pojasnyty proces zminy e, o v novyx zakrytyx skladax u pivdennij hrupi ukrajins’kyx dialektiv, Kyiv. Langston, K. (1998). Compensatory lengthening in Ukrainian revisited. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 42, 107–120. Lenček, R. (1982). The Structure and History of the Slovene Language, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 887–946. Matusevič, M. I. (1976). Sovremennyj russkij iazyk: Fonetika, Moscow: Prosveščenie. Miklosich, F. (1879/1973). Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vol. I. Lautlehre, Osnabrück. Moisienko, A. K, Bas-Kononenko, O. V., Bondarenko, V. V., et al. (2010). Sučasna ukrajins’ka literaturna mova, Kyiv: Znannja. Mołczanow, J. (2007). The problem of the Russian labial fricatives: Why v is different. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 43, 49–74. Osowicka-Kondratowicz, M. (2005). Assimilative palatalization within consonantal clusters in Polish. Studia Phonetica Posnaniensia, 7, 5–22. Padgett, J. (2001). Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In E. V. Hume & K. Johnson, eds., The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 187–218. Padgett, J. (2002). Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v] (or, The mouse that squeaked). Ms. Padgett, J. & Tabain, M. (2005). Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica, 62, 14–54. Pettersson, T. & Wood, S. (1987). Vowel reduction in Bulgarian and its implications for theories of vowel production: A review of the problem. Folia Linguistica, 21, 261–279. Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovene. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 388–451. Rowicka, G. (1999). On Ghost Vowels: A Strict CV Approach. PhD dissertation, LOT/ University of Leiden. Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: The Structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris. Rubach, J. (1986) Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: The yers. Linguistic Review, 5, 247–280. Rubach, J. (2005). Mid vowel fronting in Ukrainian. Phonology, 22, 1–36. Rubach, J. (2007). Feature Geometry from the perspective of Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 85–138. Rubach, J. (2008a). Prevocalic faithfulness. Phonology, 25, 1–36. Rubach, J. (2008b). Palatal nasal decomposition in Slovene, Upper Sorbian and Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 169–204. Rubach, J. (2011). Slavic palatalization. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice, eds., Companion to Phonology, Oxford & Boston, MA: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 2908–2935.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Phonologically Conditioned Alternations
Rubach, J. (2013). Exceptional segments in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 1139–1162. Rubach, J. (2016). Polish yers: Representation and analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 52, 421–466. Rubach, J. (2019). Surface velar palatalization in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37, 1421–1462. Scatton, Er. (1993). Bulgarian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 188–248. Schaarschmidt, G. (1997). The Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian, Heidelberg: Winter. Ščerba L. V. (1912). Russkie glasnye v kačestvennom i količestvennom otnošenii, Saint Peterburg. Shevelov, G. Y. (1964). A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic, Heidelberg: Winter. Shevelov, G. Y. (1985). A remark on extra-systemic vowel lengthening in Slavic: The cases of Ukrainian and Macedonian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 31–32, 385–398. Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 947–998. Short, D. (1993). Slovak. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592. Strycharczuk, P. (2012). Sonorant transparency and the complexity of voicing in Polish. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 655–671. Šuštaršič, R., Komar, S., & Petek, B. (1999). Slovene. In International Phonetic Association, ed., Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–139. Szpyra, J. (1992). Ghost segments in nonlinear phonology: Polish yers. Language, 68, 277–312. Timberlake, A. (1983a). Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 1: Conditions and dialect geography. In V. Markov & D. S. Worth, eds., From Los Angeles to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. Kiev, September 1983, Columbus, OH: Slavica, pp. 207–235. Timberlake, A. (1983b). Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic reconstruction. In M. S. Flier, ed., American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. Kiev, September 1983. Vol. I: Linguistics, Columbus, OH: Slavica, pp. 293–319. Timberlake, A. (1988). The fall of the jers in West Slavic: Kashubian and Upper Sorbian. Die Welt der Slaven, 33, 225–247. Timberlake, A. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Russian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939/1969). Principles of Phonology, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Vygonnaja, L. T. (1978). O redukcii glasnyx v belorusskom literaturnom jazyke. Studia Rossica Posnaniensia, 10, 277–283. Ward, D. (1975). Unaccented vowels in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 2, 91–104.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.006 Published online by Cambridge University Press
103
6 Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure Radek Šimík
6.1 Introduction Information structure is most commonly understood in terms of a set of discourse-pragmatic notions relevant for structuring utterances in a context. I will follow Krifka (2008) and many others in distinguishing three such notions – focus, givenness, and topic. Each of these notions exists in a privative opposition: focus–background, given–new, and topic–comment, whereby the second member of the opposition is typically defined as the absence of the property ascribed to the first one. It is possible to define these notions in purely semantic and pragmatic terms (that is, without reference to form) and ask how they are formally reflected (if at all). This chapter is concerned with the prosodic reflexes of these information-structure notions in Slavic languages. Surveys containing information on closely related issues include Jasinskaja’s (2016) survey on information structure in Slavic languages, Kügler & Calhoun’s (2020) survey on prosodic encoding of information structure across languages, and finally also Titov’s chapter on morphosyntactic reflexes of information structure in Slavic languages (Chapter 22 of this volume). I would like to point out that this chapter is concerned with prosodic reflexes of information structure in declaratives, but not in other types of sentences such as interrogatives or imperatives. The basic findings discussed below should hold independently of the clause type, although non-trivial interactions between information structure and clause-type-related prosody can be expected. Such effects are beyond the scope of this chapter. In Section 6.2 I introduce the basic notions of information structure – focus, givenness, and topic. In Section 6.3, we will see that the prosodic expression of focus and givenness is obligatory in Slavic languages (for which there is such evidence): a focused constituent must be prosodically prominent and a given one must not be (unless it is also focused). The prosodic expression of topicality is optional and less consistent. The phonetic correlates of stress or its lack are fundamental frequency (f0) (the best-studied acoustic property),
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
but also duration and intensity. Section 6.4 briefly discusses the interaction between word order and prosody in the expression of information structure. Section 6.5 concludes and mentions some open issues.
6.2 Notions of Information Structure The nearly two-century-old conceptual and terminological history of information structure is rich, but often confusing. This is not a place to attempt any kind of systematic overview of IS concepts and terms (see e.g. Molnár 1993, Kruijff-Korbayová & Steedman 2003, Krifka 2008, or Šimík 2021). I follow the development of the past decades, succinctly presented in Krifka (2008), and assume three fundamental notions (oppositions): focus (vs. background), given (vs. new), and topic (vs. comment). These notions, or a subset thereof, are also assumed by most recent Slavicist literature (see e.g. Junghanns 2002, Junghanns & Zybatow 2009, Jasinskaja 2016, Jasinskaja & Šimík forthcoming). The notions are defined as semantic and discourse-pragmatic properties of syntactic constituents or more generally linguistic expressions. They are in principle independent of one another, which means that a single expression can be focused, given, and a topic at the same time, although there is a tendency for focused constituents to be new (with the background being given) and for topics to be given (with the comment being new).
6.2.1 Focus (vs. Background) A constituent is focused if it gives rise to alternative denotations relevant in the current discourse (Rooth 1985, 1992, Krifka 2008). What is not focused is called the background. A prototypical instance of focus is a constituent which corresponds to the short answer to a wh-question.1 In B’s response to A, Moscow is the focus because it gives rise to alternatives – contextually relevant cities that Sally might have visited. The rest of the sentence (Sally visited ) is the background because it remains constant across the alternative propositions that might have served as the full answer to A’s question.2 The variable nature of the focus and the constant nature of its background is made clear by the alternative propositions in (2), the so-called focus semantic value (Rooth 1992), representing the possible answers to A’s question. (1) A B
Which city did Sally visit? (Sally visited) [Moscow]F.
(2) {Sally visited Moscow, Sally visited Sofia, Sally visited Warsaw, . . .} 1
2
As Wayles Browne (p.c.) rightly points out, the short-answer criterion is limited in applicability, as some foci cannot function as short answers for grammatical reasons; cf. What did St. George do to the dragon? – *Kill(ed). The background is also given as per the definition in Section 6.2.2. It remains controversial whether background can contain new elements (cf. Wagner 2012).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
105
106
RADEK ŠIMÍK
The focus used in answers to wh-questions is called information focus (also answerhood focus). There are other types of focus, however, some of which are illustrated in (3). Focus can be used for contrast (3a), where the alternative(s) are explicitly mentioned in the discourse, correction (3b), where an explicitly mentioned alternative is contradicted, (exhaustive) identification (3c), as in the cleft construction, or in association with focus particles like only (3d). In Rooth’s (1992) broadly adopted theory of focus, these focus types do not constitute bona fide focus categories, but simply different uses of focus, which give rise to (or are motivated by) various pragmatic or semantic effects. (3) a. b. c. d.
Sally visited [Moscow]F, even though she normally goes to [Warsaw]F. A Last week, Sally visited Warsaw. B No, she visited [Moscow]F. It was [Moscow]F that Sally visited last week. Sally only visited [Moscow]F.
contrast
correction identification associated
Any kind of syntactic constituent can be focused – not just an object or more generally argument, but also a verb, an adjunct, a nominal attribute, and of course also larger constituents like the whole verb phrase, the whole clause or even a complex sentence. Focus thus can be of different ‘sizes’ – from ‘narrow’ focus (illustrated above), via VP/‘intermediate’ focus, to clausal/‘broad’ focus. We will see in Section 6.3.1 that focus in Slavic languages is reflected by prosodic prominence.
6.2.2 Given (vs. New) A constituent is given if it has a synonymic or hyponymic antecedent in the immediately preceding discourse (Chafe 1976, Schmerling 1976, Ladd 1980, Schwarzschild 1999, Krifka 2008, Wagner 2012, Rochemont 2016, Kratzer & Selkirk 2020). Any non-given part of an utterance is new. Typically, it is the background to a focus that is given, as in (1B).3 But not only that. In (4), for instance, the whole sentence I love cabbage/vegetables can be considered focus containing a given constituent, namely the object cabbage/vegetables. The object cabbage is given because it has a synonymic antecedent and the object vegetables is given because it has a hyponymic antecedent – in both cases the object cabbage in A’s immediately preceding utterance. (4) A B
3
I put some cabbage in the soup. Sure, I love [cabbage/vegetables]G.
Since the background is not always a constituent, which is also the case of (1), givenness must sometimes be computed for a constituent containing the background, factoring out any focused constituents by replacing them by existentially quantified variables (Schwarzschild 1999). In (1), for instance, the givenness of the background is encoded by the givenness of the whole answer in (1B). The background is given by virtue of 9x[Sally visited x ] being entailed by the (presupposition of the) immediately preceding question.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
As illustrated by (4), givenness must not be confused with more narrowly defined co-reference (cf. Szwedek 2011): the object cabbage in B’s response has a kind reference (Chierchia 1998), while the cabbage in A’s lead-in utterance is existential and introduces an individual-level referent. Yet the notions are related and it is often the case that discourse-anaphoric expressions – including pronouns or definite NPs – are also given. The kind of givenness introduced above is sometimes called discourse givenness because it is constituted by a discourse relation between a constituent and its discourse antecedent. Other kinds of givenness have been postulated, including referential givenness (co-reference) or visual givenness (extralinguistic presence in the utterance situation). It is discourse givenness, however, which has the most clearly detectable formal reflex, namely the lack of prosodic prominence (see Section 6.3.2).
6.2.3 Topic (vs. Comment) The topic (also: sentence topic, aboutness topic) is the constituent referring to the entity that the sentence is ‘about’. The part of the sentence that conveys what is said about the topic is called the comment. The aboutness relation as the criterion for topichood has its roots in the early nineteenth-century approaches to information structure (Weil 1844, Paul 1880) and was also taken up by Mathesius (1907, 1939), although in a more linguistic (and less ‘psychological’) fashion. Terminologically, the opposition topic–comment (along with its current meaning) was introduced by Hockett (1958) and Chao (1958). Reinhart (1981) is generally considered to be the modern seminal work on the aboutness topic. For recent surveys, see Büring (2016), Tomioka (2021). For a critical view of aboutness, see Jacobs (2001). Aboutness topics – in contrast to foci or given expressions – are not easy to reliably elicit. The reason for this is that it is largely up to the speaker whether and in which way they choose to express the entity that the sentence is about.4 Most linguists would agree that Viktora is the aboutness topic of (5B1). The issue is much less clear in B2. While the entity (Viktor) is expressed – by means of the clitic ho ‘him’ – opinions differ on whether the expression is prominent enough to be considered the topic of the sentence. This in turn has non-trivial consequences for the formal reflexes of the aboutness topic. If ho in B2 is considered the topic, then its formal expression (whether syntactic – such as the clauseinitial position – or prosodic) is clearly optional (counter to the expression of focus and givenness, as we will see). If ho in B2 is not considered the topic, one can entertain the hypothesis that topic has some obligatory formal properties (such as clause-initiality or some pitch accent; see Section 6.3.3).5 4
5
I am grateful to Uwe Junghanns for an extensive discussion on the notion of topic. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any claims made here. The problem with the latter view is that the question ‘How is topic formally reflected?’ becomes trivial because its formal expression is part of its definition (the question is identical to ‘How is the constituent denoting the entity which the sentence is about and which is reflected (say) by clause-initiality formally reflected?’).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
107
108
RADEK ŠIMÍK
(5) A
B1
B2
Co mi můžeš říct o what me.D A T can.2S G say.I N F about ‘What can you tell me about Viktor?’ [Viktora]T včera zatkli. Viktor.A C C yesterday arrested. ‘Viktor was arrested yesterday.’ Včera hoT? zatkli. yesterday him arrested.P L ‘He was arrested yesterday.’
Viktorovi? Viktor
A more tangible subtype of topic is the so-called contrastive topic (Büring 2003, 2016). A contrastive topic denotes what the sentence is about and at the same time implies the relevance of other topics, which may but need not be explicitly mentioned in the discourse. A contrastive topic is similar to focus in that it involves reference to alternative denotations. It is different in that it is always coupled – within the same sentence – by an additional focus. A’s question in (6) introduces the Novák siblings. I assume that it is A and B’s common ground that the siblings are Viktor and his sister Eva. In B1 Viktor is introduced as the contrastive topic – implying the contrast with the other sibling, namely Eva. The comment (subscripted by C) functions as the focus (F) of the sentence, as indicated by the F-subscript.6 Another sentence can be added – this time about the contrasting entity Eva and with a different comment/focus, which in turn contrasts with the focus of the first sentence. What (6B2) shows is that contrastive topics (unlike ordinary aboutness topics, arguably) entail some formal properties: they are typically clauseinitial and they must be able to carry a contrastive stress; the clitic ho does not satisfy either of these properties and hence is not a felicitous contrastive topic. (6) A Co mi můžeš říct o sourozencích Novákových? what me.D A T can.2 S G say.I N F about siblings Novák ‘What can you tell me about the Novák siblings?’ B1 [Viktora]CT [včera zatkli]C/F (ale [Eva]CT je stále na svobodě]C/F). Viktor.A C C yesterday arrested.P L but Eva is still on freedom ‘Viktor was arrested yesterday, but Eva is still free.’ B2 Včera ho*CT zatkli (. . .) yesterday him arrested.P L ‘He was arrested yesterday (. . .).’
6.3 Prosodic Reflexes of Information-Structural Notions Thanks to their flexible word order, there has been a great deal of research into how information structure is reflected by word order in Slavic languages. Yet 6
This is not to say that the comment always coincides with the focus. A focus can also be a proper part of the comment. Consider the example What did the guests eat? – JohnCT [ateB burgersF]C and MaryCT [ateB saladF]C. Thanks to Elena Titov for bringing this out.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
Slavic languages not only have a flexible word order, they also have a flexible prosody at the phrasal and sentence level. Slavic languages thus cannot easily be categorized in terms of Vallduví’s (1990) and Vallduví & Engdahl’s (1996) plasticity parameter (see Šimík & Wierzba 2017 and Hamlaoui et al. 2019 for a recent explicit argument along these lines): they are ‘plastic’ both in their word order (like some Romance languages) and prosody (like Germanic languages). In what follows, I concentrate on the prosodic reflexes of information structure in Slavic languages. See Titov (2023) for the word order aspect. Section 6.4 briefly discusses the relation between the two. The three IS notions have been argued to be associated with well-defined prosodic reflexes in Slavic languages: focus obligatorily attracts prosodic prominence and is associated with a falling tone; (contrastive) topic optionally attracts prosodic prominence and is associated with a rising tone; and finally, givenness is associated with the lack of prosodic prominence. Similar correspondences are attested in many other European languages (mostly Germanic, but also Greek or Finno-Ugric) and also beyond Europe; for discussion and references see Kügler & Calhoun (2020). Yet they are by no means universal; for recent relevant work (on Kinyarwanda and Rwandan English) see Hamlaoui et al. (2021).
6.3.1 Prosodic Reflexes of Focus Slavic languages systematically exhibit the so-called stress–focus correspondence, which can be formulated as in (7). Sentence stress is understood as perceptually the most prominent stress in a sentence/clause. (7) The focused constituent is realized with sentence stress.
An initial illustration from Czech is provided in (8). In B’s answer, the subject ‘the new pupil from the next class’ is focused and, at the same time, it is the constituent where sentence stress is realized (indicated by small caps on the focus exponent – the syllable carrying the stress) – no matter whether it is placed sentence-finally, as in B1, or sentence-initially, as in B2. The position of the stress within the focused phrase is determined by the nuclear stress rule, assigning greatest prominence to the rightmost stressed word within the phrase, which happens to be třídy ‘class’ in this case. Notice that the nuclear stress rule itself is independent of information structure. It applies by default, but can be overridden by information-structural considerations. Sentence stress in B1 is realized in accordance with the nuclear stress rule applied to the whole clause: the greatest prominence goes to the rightmost phrasal stress within the clause, which in turn happens to satisfy the stress–focus correspondence. If the nuclear stress rule were to apply in B2, the result would violate the stress–focus correspondence, which is why the stress is “shifted” to the focused phrase.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
109
110
RADEK ŠIMÍK
(8) A
B1 B2
Kdo bude hrát volejbal? who will play.I N F volleyball ‘Who will play volleyball?’ Volejbal bude hrát [ten nový žák z vedlejší T Ř Í dy]F. volleyball will play.I N F D E M new pupil from next class [Ten nový žák z vedlejší T Ř Í dy]F bude hrát volejbal. D E M new pupil from next class will play.I N F volleyball ‘The new pupil from the other class will play volleyball.’
The obligatory stress–focus correspondence has been observed in most Slavic languages (e.g. Czech: Daneš 1957, 1959, 1960, Sgall et al. 1986, Groeben et al. 2017, Hamlaoui et al. 2019; Polish: Dogil 1980, Dogil & Williams 1999, Hamlaoui et al. 2019; Russian: Bryzgunova 1977, 1980, Alter 1997a, 1997b; Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000; Bulgarian: Arnaudova 2001, 2003, Andreeva & Oliver 2005, Andreeva et al. 2016; Slovenian: Stopar 2017; Serbo-Croatian: Godjevac 2000, 2006; Ukrainian: Féry et al. 2007). For a more theoretically oriented discussion, see Chomsky & Halle (1968), Jackendoff (1972), Gussenhoven (1983), Truckenbrodt (1995), and Reinhart (2006), among many others. The primary and best-studied acoustic correlate of what I refer to as ‘stress’ here (a perceptual/phonological category) is fundamental frequency f0 (pitch or more precisely pitch movement on the stressed syllable), but other acoustic parameters also play a role, including duration (stressed syllables last longer) or amplitude/intensity (stressed syllables are louder); see the above-cited literature. In what follows, we concentrate on fundamental frequency/pitch. The pitch movement usually ascribed to the focus exponent (the stressed syllable) in many Slavic languages is high tone followed by a fall (and sometimes preceded by a rise from a low tone), typically indicated by the sequence HL (or LHL) notation in the ToBI system (abbreviation of ‘tones and break indices’).7 The alignment of the (rise-)falling tone with the stressed syllable can differ depending, among other factors, on the particular language, focus position within the clause, pragmatic focus type, and syntactic focus size. As an initial illustration, consider Figure 6.1, representing the fundamental frequency development while uttering (9), a Russian statement with narrow non-contrastive focus (response to a wh-question). Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000) note that the focus exponent – the first syllable of Jaltu – is aligned with the low tone preceded by a fall from a high tone, whence the HL* ToBI notation. (9) Russian (Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000: 417) Miroslava uexala [v J A L T u]F. Miroslava left to Jalta ‘Miroslava left for Jalta.’ 7
The original ToBI was designed for English by Silverman et al. (1992). Analogous systems have gradually been developed for other languages. Fully developed and standardized ToBI systems for Slavic languages are missing, although some attempts exist; see for example Godjevac (2000) for Serbo-Croatian or Dubě da (2011) or Pešková (2017) for Czech. Many authors rely on some version of ToBI in their descriptions of Slavic languages (e.g. Alter 1997a, or Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000 for Russian, Andreeva & Oliver 2005 for Polish and Bulgarian, Féry et al. 2007 for Ukrainian).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180
HL*
160 140 120 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Figure 6.1 Fundamental frequency/f0 (vertical axis; Hz) development in time (horizontal axis; msec) of utterance (9) used non-contrastively Note. The portion of the contour with square data points corresponds to the focus exponent. (Reprinted with permission from Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000)
Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000) further note that the HL* contour is characteristic for focus exponents of rightmost foci of any size, not just for narrow focus as in (9), but also for VP and sentence focus (focus on uexala v Jaltu and Miroslava uexala v Jaltu, respectively), although the overall contour differs somewhat.8 If the focus is narrow as in (9) the pre-focal (backgrounded) part of the utterance retains a high pitch and the pre-focal stress (on the verb) is not that pronounced. That is in line with the verb being backgrounded/given (see Section 6.3.2). The high pitch on the verb is in turn preceded by a pitch movement related to the subject, which may (but need not be) interpreted as a topic accent (see Section 6.3.3). Figure 6.2 demonstrates the contour of a contrastive/corrective use of (10). There are two differences to the non-contrastive use: the target of the pitch accent is a high tone, which is preceded by a low tone – LH*. The high tone is then followed by a fall to a low tone, which Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000) interpret as a part of the complex pitch accent (LH*L).9 Two other interpretations of the complex tone are imaginable. First, it could be that the pitch accent is terminated by the high tone (LH*) and is followed by gradual fall towards a low phrase accent (L−; cf. Godjevac’s 2000 treatment of Serbo-Croatian) or perhaps to a low boundary tone (L%) associated with the intonation of a statement. Second – and more consistently with the received view – the tone could be primarily falling – H*L – and could be preceded by a left boundary tone %L. (10) Russian (Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000: 419) V Jaltu uexala [MiroS L A va]F. to Jalta left Miroslava ‘Miroslava [not Ljuda] left for Jalta.’ 8
9
Cf. Alter (1997a, 1997b), who claims there to be a different pitch accent for non-contrastive narrow (H*L) vs. broad (HL*) focus. This interpretation is incompatible with the basic tenets of ToBI, as the authors themselves admit. ToBI only allows for pitch accents composed of two tones.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
111
112
RADEK ŠIMÍK
320 300 280 260 240 220
LH*+L
200 180 160 140 120 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Figure 6.2 Fundamental frequency/f0 (vertical axis; Hz) development in time (horizontal axis; msec) of utterance (10) used contrastively Note. The portion of the contour with square data points corresponds to the focus exponent. (Reprinted with permission from Zybatow & Mehlhorn 2000: 428)
The contrastive pitch accent observed in Figure 6.2 is realized independently of the position of the contrastive constituent – not just clause-finally as in (9), but also clause-initially and clause-medially – and not just for argument focus, but also verum/verb focus.10 The pitch range (frequency difference between the low tone and the high target) is greater for initial and medial foci. In all cases, non-focal constituents have a relatively flat intonation (with the exception of the potential high tone of a topic, as visible in Figure 6.2; see Section 6.3.3), which corresponds to the lack of stress of given constituents (Section 6.3.2).11 A comparable pitch contour with a high target has been reported for many other Slavic languages, too. For Slovenian, Stopar (2017) reports a high tone preceded and followed by a low tone on the focus exponent in non-contrastive uses, independently of focus size. Like Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000), he observes a greater pitch range in contrastive focus exponents. The high target is preceded by sharp pitch fall on the preexponent syllable and followed by a similarly sharp fall located on the exponent (Stopar does not use ToBI, but the accent could probably be labeled H*L). Andreeva & Oliver (2005) analyzed focus accents in Bulgarian and Polish. Unlike Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000) or Stopar (2017), whose data were averaged over a large number of speakers, Andreeva & Oliver only had two speakers per language, making it difficult to draw solid generalizations. And
10
11
Verum focus is – pre-theoretically speaking – focus on the polarity (truth or falsity) of a clause; a recent survey is provided by Lohnstein (2016); cf. Gutzmann et al. (2020) (and references cited therein) for a dissenting view, according to which verum focus is, in fact, not an instance of focus. Let us add, for completeness’ sake, that the non-contrastive falling accent HL* and the contrastive (rise-)falling accent (L)H*L were labeled in Bryzgunova’s (1977, 1980) influential work IK1 and IK2, respectively (where IK stands for ‘intonational construction’).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
indeed, they observe significant individual differences. If we abstract away from details, we can conclude that Bulgarian focus exponents generally carry high tone (H*) in broad focus contexts and a rising tone (LH*) in narrow and contrastive foci. Polish broad focus accent (and for one speaker also narrow/ contrastive) is realized by a falling tone according to the authors (either HL* or H*L), while a rising accent (LH*) is reserved for narrow or contrastive foci. Hamlaoui et al. (2019) provide a detailed acoustic analysis of focus marking in Polish and Czech. They concentrate on stress shift within adjective–noun sequences, where the target structures involve focus on the adjective. They demonstrate that focus – independently of its type (answerhood, correction, contrast, parallelism) – is consistently expressed by a tonal rise in both languages (presumably targeting at H*), followed by a sharp fall on the postexponent syllables. Overall, no significant differences between the different focus types are observed. This may well follow from the fact that the focus exponent was not located in the standard rightmost position within the phrase investigated and hence the stress was treated as ‘contrastive’ across the board.12 A qualitatively different situation obtains in Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian is a language with lexical pitch accents, which means that pitch accent – in particular two tones (rising and falling, both of which can be short and long; see e.g. Browne & McCawley 1965/1973; Inkelas & Zec 1988) – can be used to distinguish different word meanings. For this reason, Godjevac (2000, 2006) argues that pitch accent is not used for the expression of focus exponents. Instead, focus exponence is reflected by a low phrase accent (indicated by L−). While the stressed word realizes the lexical pitch accent, L− affects the subsequent (post-focal) material. The phonetic effect is a pitch range compression (an overall lowering of the pitch) relative to which any further lexical pitch accents are realized. Despite this difference, the overall pitch pattern appears to be close to that observed for other Slavic languages: the focus exponent is realized in a relatively high tone register (corresponding to the H tone typically implicated in focus exponence in other Slavic languages), followed by a tonal compression, which is attributed to the L− phrase accent in Serbo-Croatian by Godjevac, and possibly to the destressing of given material in other Slavic languages. In summary, focus in all Slavic languages is reflected by prosodic prominence, as captured by the stress–focus correspondence in (7). The phonetic realization may differ slightly depending on the language (and probably even speaker; cf. Andreeva & Oliver 2005), focus type (non-contrastive vs. contrastive), and possibly focus size (narrow vs. broad). The common denominator appears to be a high pitch accent preceded and/or followed by a low tone. Individual accents may differ in the exact alignment with the 12
A broader repertoire of focus accents is reported for Czech (or more precisely South Moravian dialects) in Pešková (2017), in particular two simple tones – H* and L* – and two complex rising contours – L*H and LH*. More research is needed to see how and whether these different accents correspond to different focus types or sizes.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
113
114
RADEK ŠIMÍK
focus exponent (stressed syllable) – in most cases, the syllable is aligned with the high tone, but alignment with a low tone is also attested. Contrastive focus exponents are characterized by an extended pitch range in the complex accent (a greater rise/fall to/from the high tone). A different type of analysis has been put forth by Godjevac (2000, 2006) for Serbo-Croatian, whose pitch accents are primarily used not for information-structural but lexical purposes.
6.3.2 Prosodic Reflexes of Givenness Givenness has mostly been studied in tandem with focus. The reason for this is that the background to focus counts as given under any standard definition of givenness, including the one provided in Section 6.2.2. It therefore does not come as a surprise that there is a correspondence between being backgrounded and not being stressed. Yet the generalization is stronger: it turns out that given constituents in general (not just backgrounded ones) cannot be realized with sentence stress; (11). (11) A given constituent is not realized with sentence stress.
An initial illustration from Czech is provided in (12). B’s answer to A’s question involves broad (sentence) focus. Yet the focused clause contains a given constituent, namely the object Martu. While in all-new settings, the order of a direct object and a directional PP (here: do nemocnice ‘to hospital’) is free (Šimík & Wierzba 2017: experiment ‘all new’), the given object Martu in B’s answer must not be located in the rightmost position where sentence stress is normally realized. That is, not only must a background to focus lack sentence stress, the same holds of a given constituent located within a focused constituent.13 (12) Czech (Šimík & Wierzba 2017: 688; judgments in accordance with exp. results) A ‘Do you have an idea why Marta made a phone call?’ B1 #Protože prý [teta poveze do because allegedly aunt. N O M take to nemocnice M A R tuG]F. hospital Marta. A C C B2 Protože prý [teta poveze MartuG because allegedly aunt. N O M take Marta. A C C nemocnice]F. DO to hospital ‘Because allegedly the aunt will take Marta to the hospital.’
The observation that given expressions avoid sentence stress (or even stress more generally) in Slavic languages is by no means new, but has been discussed
13
Šimík & Wierzba (2017) present parallel results for Polish and Slovak.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
much less frequently than the stress–focus correspondence (Czech: Petřík 1938, Daneš 1957, Šimík & Wierzba 2015; Polish: Szwedek 1974, 2011; Czech/Slovak/Polish: Šimík & Wierzba 2017; Ukrainian: Antonyuk-Yudina & Mykhaylyk 2013). For a theoretically oriented discussion, see Féry & Samek-Lodovici (2006), Truckenbrodt (2012), and Wagner (2012), among others. When it comes to the phonetic realization of givenness, it is generally assumed that ‘lacking stress’ does not necessarily correspond to lacking any kind of pitch accent.14 In fact, given constituents can be realized with word and phrase stresses if these occur in pre-nuclear positions, that is, prior to sentence stress. In (12B2), for instance, Martu can be realized with word/phrasal accent despite its givenness.15 This is because it is the rightmost stress that is perceived as the most prominent one. See for example Antonyuk-Yudina & Mykhaylyk (2013) for Ukrainian production data which are consistent with this stance. Whether post-focal word/ phrase stress on given constituents is attested is an open issue subject to further inquiry; to date, there is little systematic empirical investigation into this question. One relevant recent finding comes from Hamlaoui et al. (2019), a study mentioned already in Section 6.3.1. Hamlaoui et al. (2019) investigated the prosodic realization of focus in Czech and Polish adjective–noun sequences with focus on the adjective. A side effect of the focusing of the adjective was the backgrounding/givenness of the postfocal noun. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 demonstrate the contours discovered by Hamlaoui et al. (2019). In both languages, the focus exponent in the focus conditions (parallelism, wh, contrast, correction) is realized with the main stress – presumably an (L)H* pitch accent. This accent is followed by a sharp pitch fall after the accented syllable (mo in Czech, wa in Polish), which is motivated by the givenness/backgrounding of the noun. Compare the focus conditions with the new and coordinated condition, where the noun is new and where the pitch fall is much less pronounced. What is also of interest is the tonal realization of the given noun: in Czech, the noun (its first syllable) clearly carries a pitch accent; in Polish, it does not. Extrapolating from Hamlaoui et al.’s finding, we could hypothesize that the situation in Czech vs. Polish may well represent two ways of dealing with the requirement for given constituents not to be stressed. While Polish given expressions in a post-focal area are completely destressed, in Czech such expressions retain stress (at least word-level stress), realized as a pitch
14
15
As with focus, givenness is not only represented by fundamental frequency, but also by duration (given exponents last shorter) and intensity (given exponents have lower intensity); see for example Hamlaoui et al. (2019) for experimental support. This is not to say that pre-focal given constituents must be realized with word/phrasal stress or that pre-focal ‘destressing’ is impossible. In fact, the Russian contour documented by Zybatow & Mehlhorn (2000) for clause-final narrow focus might indicate the lack of stress on the pre-focal given verb; see Section 6.3.1.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
115
116
RADEK ŠIMÍK
New Coordinated Parallelism Wh Contrast Correction
180
Frequency [Hz]
170
160
150
140
130
mo
dré
ba
lon
ky
Syllable Figure 6.3 Time-normalized f0 contours for item 24 (modré balonky ‘blue balloons’) in Czech, averaged across all speakers (Reprinted from Hamlaoui et al. 2019: 369)
accent, but the overall pitch register in the post-focal area is significantly compressed.
6.3.3 Prosodic Reflexes of Topic Unlike focus and givenness, aboutness topic seems to have no obligatory prosodic reflex in Slavic languages, although the issue is heavily dependent on the exact definition of the notion of topic (see Section 6.2.3). What does have a very consistent prosodic expression is the notion of contrastive topic, which, similarly to focus, is obligatorily stressed. This can be captured by the generalization in (13). Notice that (13), unlike the previous statements concerning focus and givenness, does not make reference to sentence stress, but just stress. This is because contrastive topics bear stress, but not sentence stress (which remains with the focus). (13) Contrast (reference to alternatives) is realized with stress.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
220
New Coordinated Parallelism Wh Contrast Correction
Frequency [Hz]
200
180
160
140
120
mu
ro
wa
ne
do
my
Syllable Figure 6.4 Time-normalized f0 contours for item 16 (murowane domy ‘brick houses’) in Polish, averaged across all speakers (Reprinted from Hamlaoui et al. 2019: 368)
The prosodic reflexes of topic have received relatively little systematic attention in Slavic linguistics. Mehlhorn & Zybatow (2000) and Alter & Junghanns (2002), who systematically investigate topic prosody in Russian, claim that topics are reflected by a rising accent – either LH* or L*H. This accent is put into opposition with the Russian focus accent, which (as discussed in Section 6.3.1) is primarily falling (i.e. HL*) and which typically if not necessarily follows the clause-initial topic accent. Alter & Junghanns (2002) report the same kind of topic accent for both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ topics. Internal topics are plain aboutness topics illustrated in Section 6.2.3. External topics are syntactically external to the core clause and are resumed by a pronominal. The only difference observed is the tendency for an intonational pause to occur after external topics; the pitch accent remains unaffected. Moreover, Mehlhorn & Zybatow (2000) report the same kind of accent for aboutness topics and contrastive topics. The only difference is that contrastive topics are optionally realized with a greater pitch excursion, that is, a greater
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
117
118
RADEK ŠIMÍK
rise. It remains an open issue to what extent the difference is distinctive (phonological). Despite the above-mentioned findings, there is an important concern about the putative ‘topic accent’. As Jasinskaja (2016) correctly notes – in line with the above-cited works – the rising accent associated with topics is optionally used for any pre-nuclear phrasal stress, independently of the information status of the stressed expression. The question is, then, whether it is substantiated to call the rising accent a dedicated ‘topic accent’. As I showed in Section 6.2.3, the very status of aboutness topic is questionable, shedding further doubt on the linguistic reality of this information-structural notion (see Büring 2016 for a similar general concern). The situation looks more hopeful for contrastive topics, in line with the conjectured generalization (13). Contrastive topics are obligatorily prominent – they cannot be realized by clitics, for instance. This prominence very often corresponds to prosodic prominence or, more precisely, to the rising accent discussed above.
6.4 Interactions between Prosody and Word Order Both prosody and word order are traditionally assumed to play important roles in the expression of information structure. Slavic flexible word order has attracted a lot of attention over the many years of research, and linguists have frequently claimed the primacy of word order alternations in expressing information-structural categories (recent arguments to this effect can be found in Slioussar 2007 for Russian or Kučerová 2007 for Czech). Yet there is also a competing view according to which prosody is more important and the word order flexibility is exploited for prosodic optimization.16 In this short section, I use two kinds of examples to illustrate this approach. Slavic languages exhibit a strong preference for default rightmost stress placement. This is normally captured by the so-called nuclear stress rule.17 This rule is not absolute and can be violated if there is sufficient – typically information-structural – motivation. One relevant example was provided in (8), where the B2 answer involved clause-initial subject focus and therefore clause-initial stress nuclear stress, in accordance with the stress–focus correspondence. As illustrated by (8B1), however, a word order alternation (the OVS order) can satisfy the stress–focus correspondence without violating the nuclear stress rule. Indeed, this latter possibility has been proposed, for example by Arnaudova (2001, 2003) for Bulgarian subject-final orders,
16
17
It is good to keep in mind that word order is used for many different purposes in Slavic languages; see Jasinskaja & Šimík (Forthcoming) for a recent survey. The classical reference for the nuclear stress rule (NSR) is Chomsky & Halle (1968), but there are many different incarnations; see for example Cinque (1993), Zubizarreta (1998), or Truckenbrodt (2007) for a survey. A similar rule was postulated for Czech already by Daneš (1957).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
illustrated in (14). The idea is that non-canonical order is used in order for rightmost stress to be applied at the clausal level. (14) Bulgarian (Arnaudova 2003: 115–116) Včera pročete knigata yesterday read.P A S T . 3 S G book.D E F ‘Marija read the book yesterday.’
MARIJA. Marija
A similar logic can be applied to givenness-related word order alternations (see Šimík & Wierzba 2015, 2017, but also Szwedek 1974). In Section 6.3.2, we have seen that given expressions avoid sentence stress. If a given expression appears by default in the clause-final position, there are in principle two ways of not stressing the word: either the stress is shifted to a non-final word/phrase or the given expression is realized in a non-final position, giving rise to a noncanonical word order. Šimík & Wierzba (2017) provided experimental evidence that Czech, Slovak, and Polish allow for both strategies, albeit with different preferences: Czech and Slovak prefer non-canonical word order (satisfying the nuclear stress rule) and Polish prefers to shift the stress and stick to the canonical order of constituents (SVO). The respective preferred variants are illustrated for Czech and Polish in (15). It is also good to realize that both the variants are in accordance with the requirement for given expressions not to be realized with sentence stress. Any variant of (15) where the given object was realized with sentence stress was rated as significantly less acceptable.18 (15)
From experimental materials of Šimík & Wierzba (2017) A ‘I heard that we have to show our IDs at the municipality.’ B (i) Czech Myslím, že Frank [občanku]G ztratil. think.1S G that Frank ID lost (ii) Polish Myślę, że Frank zgubił [dowód]G. think.1S G that Frank lost ID ‘I think that Frank lost his ID.’
It is good to note that not all syntactic configurations allow for constituent reordering. In cases like this, illustrated by the focus on the prenominal attribute in Russian (16), stress shift might be the only way of satisfying the correspondences between information structure and prosody.19 (16) Russian Ja kupil [novye]F [knigi]G. I bought new books ‘I bought new [not old] books.’ 18 19
For completeness’ sake, let me add that the B-utterances are considered all-focus. This type of configuration was used in Hamlaoui et al.’s (2019) experiments on Czech and Polish; see Section 6.3.1 for discussion.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
119
120
RADEK ŠIMÍK
In summary, we have seen that word order alternations do not necessarily imply a word-order-based expression of information structure. They could also be motivated by complying with independent prosodic requirements, in particular the default (information structure-independent) nuclear stress rule, the stress–focus correspondence, and the ban on stressing given expressions. Yet prosodically motivated reordering is typically not necessary (and sometimes not even possible) in Slavic languages. Given that Slavic languages are flexible in both word order and prosody, as noted already in the introduction to Section 6.3, prosodically motivated reordering is merely a matter of preference and can be subject to individual and cross-Slavic variation.
6.5 Conclusion and Open Issues There is solid evidence that information structure is reflected prosodically in Slavic languages. Focus is realized with sentence stress, givenness by the lack of such stress, and topic (optionally) by pre-nuclear stress. The primary acoustic correlate of stress is fundamental frequency, and in particular various kinds of pitch accents; focus is often related to a falling accent and topic/prenuclear stress to a rising accent. However, other phonetic parameters, including duration and intensity also play a role. Information structure is of course also expressed by word order in Slavic languages. At least to some extent, however, the word-order-based expression is arguably derivative of prosody in the sense that word order alternations are motivated by optimal prosodic realization. An example of this is the tendency for clause-final focus placement, which follows from the conjunction of stress–focus correspondence and the information-structure-independent nuclear stress rule. Despite many valuable findings and generalizations, systematic and methodologically robust investigations into the interface between information structure and prosody are still missing for most Slavic languages. While the general tendencies for focus to be stressed and for given expressions to be unstressed are strong and likely to be replicated across individual Slavic languages, many particular issues remain unresolved, including the distribution of different accent types (across focus types or sizes), the precise nature of the tonal events (pitch accents vs. phrase accents vs. boundary tones), the nature of the post-focal (and possibly pre-focal) pitch compression, or the issue of ‘destressing’ given constituents (complete loss of prosodic prominence vs. loss of greatest prominence). Finally, it remains to be seen if any specific pitch accent or tonal event is associated with topic – be it aboutness or contrastive topic. The investigations are scarce and their results not very satisfactory.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
References Alter, K. (1997a). Fokusprosodie im Russischen: Phonologische und akustische Korrelate von Informationsstrukturierung. In U. Junghanns & G. Zybatow, eds., Formale Slavistik, Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, pp. 399–414. Alter, K. (1997b). Russian prosody: Phrasing and tonal structure. In M. Lindseth & S. Franks, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 5. The Indiana Meeting, 1996, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 1–17. Alter, K. & Junghanns, U. (2002). Topic-related prosodic patterns in Russian. In P. Kosta & J. Frasek (eds.), Current Approaches to Formal Slavic Linguistics: Contributions of the Second European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL II), Potsdam 1997, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 73–88. Andreeva, B., Barry, W. J., & Koreman, J. (2016). Local and global cues in the prosodic realization of broad and narrow focus in Bulgarian. Phonetica, 73(3–4), 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1159/000448044. Andreeva, B. & Oliver, D. (2005). Information structure in Polish and Bulgarian: Accent types and peak alignment in broad and narrow focus: A cross-language study. In S. Franks, F. Y. Gladney, & M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13. The South Carolina Meeting, 2004, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 1–13. Antonyuk-Yudina, S. & Mykhaylyk, R. (2013). Prosody of scrambling. In S. Kan, C. Moore-Cantwell, & R. Staubs, eds., NELS 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol. 1, Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 31–44. Arnaudova, O. (2001). Prosodic movement and information focus in Bulgarian. In S. Franks, T. H. King, & M. Yadroff, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 9. The Bloomington Meeting, 2000, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 19–36. Arnaudova, O. (2003). Focus and Bulgarian Clause Structure: PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa. Browne, W. & McCawley, J. (1965). Srpskohrvatski akcenat. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, 8, 147–151. Browne, W. & McCawley, J. (1973). Serbo-Croatian accent. In E. C. Fudge, ed., Phonology: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 330–335. Bryzgunova, E. A. (1977). Zvuk i intonacija russkoj reči, Moscow: Russkij jazyk. Bryzgunova, E. A. (1980). Intonacija. In N. J. Švedova, ed., Russkaja gramatika, Moscow: Nauka. Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(5), 511–545. www.jstor.org/stable/25001898. Büring, D. (2016). (Contrastive) topic. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.002. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li, ed., Subject and Topic, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 25–55. Chao, Y. R. (1958). How Chinese logic operates. Anthropological Linguistics, 1, 1–8. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English, New York, NY: Harper and Row.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
121
122
RADEK ŠIMÍK
Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (2), 239–298. www.jstor.org/stable/4178812. Daneš, F. (1957). Intonace a věta ve spisovné češtině, Prague: Československá akademie věd. Daneš, F. (1959). K otázce pořádku slov v slovanských jazycích. Slovo a slovesnost, 20 (1), 1–10. http://sas.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?lang=en&art=972. Daneš, F. (1960). Sentence intonation from a functional point of view. Word, 16(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1960.11659719. Dogil, G. (1980). Focus marking in Polish. Linguistic Analysis, 6(3), 221–245. Dogil, G. & Williams, B. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In H. van der Hulst, ed., EUROTYP 4: Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 273–334. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197082.1.273. Duběda, T. (2011). Towards an inventory of pitch accents for read Czech. Slovo a slovesnost, 72(1), 3–12. Féry, C., Paslawska, A., & Fanselow, G. (2007). Nominal split constructions in Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 15(1), 3–48. www.jstor.org/stable/24599567. Féry, C. & Samek-Lodovici, V. (2006). Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language, 82(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031. Godjevac, S. (2000). Intonation, Word Order, and Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University. Godjevac, S. (2006). Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian, Stanford, CA: CSLI. Groeben, L, Šimík, R., & Kügler, F. (2017). Stress shift, focus, and givenness in Czech. In Y. Oseki, M. Esipova, & S. Harves, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 24. The New York University Meeting, 2015, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 180–199. Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, tone, and nucleus. In On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 11–62. Gutzmann, D., Hartmann, K., & Matthewson, L. (2020). Verum focus is verum, not focus: Cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), S1. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.347. Hamlaoui, F., Engelmann, J., & Szendrői, K. E. (2021). Prosodic marking of focus and givenness in Kinyarwanda and Rwandan English. In S. J. Lee, C. Patin, & K. Riedel, eds., Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 62: Crossing Boundaries: A Festschrift for Laura Downing, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, pp. 135–160. https:// doi.org/10.5842/62-0-896. Hamlaoui, F., Żygis, M., Engelmann, J., & Wagner, M. (2019). Acoustic correlates of focus marking in Czech and Polish. Language and Speech, 62(2), 358–377. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0023830918773536. Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics, New York, NY: Macmillan. Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (1988). Serbo-Croatian pitch accent: The interaction of tone, stress, and intonation. Language, 64(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/415433. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobs, J. (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, 39(4), 641–681. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027. Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Information structure in Slavic. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.25.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure Jasinskaja, K. & Šimík, R. (Forthcoming). Slavonic free word order. In J. Fellerer & N. Bermel, eds., The Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004919. Junghanns, U. (2002). Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Informationsstruktur slavischer Deklar ativsätze [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 80], Leipzig: Leipzig University. Junghanns, U. & Zybatow, G. (2009). Grammatik und Informationsstruktur. In S. Kempgen, P. Kosta, T. Berger, & K. Gutschmidt, eds., Die Slavischen Sprachen/The Slavic Languages: Halbband 1: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 684–707. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9783110214475.1.9.684. Kratzer, A. & Selkirk, E. (2020). Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968. Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, (3–4), 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. & Steedman, M. (2003). Discourse and information structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1024160025821. Kügler, F. & Calhoun, S. (2020). Prosodic encoding of information structure: A typological perspective. In C. Gussenhoven & A. Chen, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 454–467. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.013.30. Kučerová, I. 2007. The Syntax of Givenness. PhD dissertation, MIT. https://hdl.handle .net/1721.1/39580. Ladd, D. R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Lohnstein, H. (2016). Verum focus. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.33. Mathesius, V. (1907). Studie k dějinám anglického slovosledu. Věstník České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 16, 261–274. Mathesius, V. (1939). O tak zvaném aktuálním členění věty. Slovo a slovesnost, 5(4), 171–174. http://sas.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?lang=en&art=308. Mehlhorn, G. & Zybatow, G. (2000). Alte und neue Hüte der russischen Informationsstruk tur. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 74. Molnár, V. (1993). Zur Pragmatik und Grammatik des Topik-Begriffes. In M. Reis, ed., Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 155–202. Paul, H. (1880). Principien der Sprachgeschichte, Halle: Niemeyer. Petřík, S. (1938). O hudební stránce středočeské věty [On the musical aspect of the Central Bohemian sentence], Prague: Filosofická fakulta University Karlovy. Pešková, A. (2017). Czech ToBI. Presented at Phonetics and Phonology in Europe (PaPE) 2017, Cologne, June 2017. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–94. http://logica.ugent.be/philosophica/fulltexts/27-4.pdf. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rochemont, M. (2016). Givenness. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.18.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
123
124
RADEK ŠIMÍK
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI8509599. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. Schmerling, S. (1976). Aspects of English Sentence Stress, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7(2), 141–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1008370902407. Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., & Panevová, J. (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence and Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht: Reidel. Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labelling English prosody. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Vol. 2, Banff, pp. 867–870. Šimík, R. (2021). Information structure and its relation to syntax, semantics, and reference. Manuscript, Charles University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005822. Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2015). The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8(3), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.3. Šimík, R. & Wierzba, M. (2017). Expression of information structure in West Slavic: Modeling the impact of prosodic and word-order factors. Language, 93(3), 671–709. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0040. Slioussar, N. (2007). Grammar and Information Structure: A Study with Reference to Russian. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/ 161_fulltext.pdf. Stopar, A. (2017). The prosody of focus: Non-contrastive, contrastive and verum focus in Slovenian, English and Russian. In S. Komar & A. Stopar, eds., Linguistica 57(1): Sounds and Melodies Unheard: Essays in Memory of Rastislav Šuštaršič, Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press, pp. 293–312. https://doi.org/10.4312/linguistica.57.1.293-312. Szwedek, A. (1974). Co-reference and sentence stress in Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 3, 209–213. Szwedek, A. (2011). The Thematic Structure of the Sentence in English and Polish: Sentence Stress and Word Order, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tomioka, S. (2021). Topic. In D. Gutzmann, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmermann, eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, Vol. 5, Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 3061–3091. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem125. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT. Truckenbrodt, H. (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In P. de Lacy, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 435–456. Truckenbrodt, H. (2012). An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Lingua, 124, 131–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua .2012.06.003. Vallduví, E. (1990). The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. In Y. No & M. Libucha, eds., ESCOL ’90: Proceedings of the 7th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, The Ohio State University, pp. 295–306.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Prosodic Reflexes of Information Structure
Vallduví, E. & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34(3), 459–519. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459. Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In I. Kučerová & A. Neeleman, eds., Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511740084.007. Weil, H. (1844). De l’ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes, Paris: Didier Érudition. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zybatow, G. & Mehlhorn, G. (2000). Experimental evidence for focus structure in Russian. In T. H. King & I. A. Sekerina, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 8. The Philadelphia Meeting, 1999, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 414–434.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
125
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.007 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Part 2
Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
7 Inflectional Endings: Declensions Marek Majer
7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 General Information The complex system of Slavic inflectional morphology covers two domains, nominal and verbal. Nominal inflection or ‘declension’ applies to parts of speech within the noun phrase: substantives (nouns), adjectives (participles, etc.), pronouns (determiners, etc.), and numerals. PSL pronoun inflectional morphology largely differed from substantives; adjectives aligned strictly with substantives, while numerals were split between the two. In Late Common Slavic (LCS) and later Slavic, this configuration evolved towards sovereign adjectival and numeral declensions. The present succinct survey omits many issues; more in-depth descriptions can be found in works such as Dalewska-Greń (1997), Sussex & Cubberley (2006), Hentschel & Menzel (2009), or Janda (2014), all cited liberally below.
7.1.2 Categories of Inflection PSL nominals distinguished seven C A S E forms (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, and vocative) and three N U M B E R S (singular, dual, plural). Parts of speech displaying agreement also inflected for three G E N D E R S (masculine, feminine, neuter). The full distinction of the possible combinations of all these categories was never reached in practice (Section 7.1.3). The earliest written varieties such as OCS or ORus. retain an identical system, while the later Slavic languages introduced various kinds of innovations. The chief ones were the collapse of case and number categories (Section 7.4.3; in the latter sphere, only targeting the dual) or the rise of new ones (peripheral cases of Rus., paucal number, etc.; Section 7.4.2) as well as the development of virility/animacy distinctions (so that the gender systems in the modern Slavic languages are typically more complex – cf. Corbett 1988, Doleschal 2009: 145–147; see also Section 7.4.1).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
130
MAREK MAJER
7.1.3 Basic Structural Properties Inflection is a pervasive feature of Slavic nominals; gaining a declensional paradigm typically indicates that a new item (e.g. loanword or delocutive) has integrated into a given type of nominal (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 228). Instances of indeclinability or defectivity are all the more noteworthy (Section 7.4.4). Inflection mostly uses S U F F I X E S (‘endings’, ‘desinences’); P R E F I X E S mark superlatives and comparatives in some languages (Section 7.3.2). R E D U P L I C A T I O N is likewise an extremely rare strategy in Slavic inflection. It was historically resorted to in a few instances where earlier forms became P H O N O T A C T I C A L L Y inadmissible or cumbersome – for example, following the jer shift, in the N O M . S G . M of pronouns with non-syllabic stems, such as *t-ъ (OCS, ORus. tъ) → *t-ъ-t-ъ (Rus. tot ). The synchronic analysis of such forms as reduplicated is open to doubt. In the prehistory of LCS, case/number markers came to be preceded by ‘T H E M E V O W E L S ’, which later coalesced with the markers themselves (Sections 7.2.2–2.3); hence, overt inflectional endings in Slavic nominal morphology predominantly begin with vowels (Greenberg 2017: 534), with exceptions such as the I N S . P L marker -mi in several modern languages or the G E N . S G . M /N -ho in certain paradigms in Slk. The marking of some categories was further aided by phonological alternations and prosodic distinctions (Sections 7.4.8–4.9). In PSL, the D E C L E N S I O N A L E N D I N G S themselves – typically following theme vowels – could contain between zero and three segments (Janda 2014: 1566). Exceptionally, as a result of processes such as contamination of competing endings or diachronic absorption of thematic morphemes (or even of original derivational suffixes; Section 7.4.7), this maximum composition is longer in some modern languages; in BCS dialects: N O M . S G dan-∅ M ‘day’, D A T /I N S /L O C . P L dan-iman (Imotski/Bekija, Šimundić 1971: 88–89), or in ESSl. dialects: S G serce-∅ N ‘heart’, P L serce-nišč a ‘hearts’ (Nestram; Vidoeski 1999: 182–184). There is a tendency for plural and dual markers to be longer than singular ones (which Jakobson 1971b: 352 famously interprets as an example of I C O N I C marking; cf. Haspelmath 2021 for a F R E Q U E N C Y - and E C O N O M Y -based approach), but as an actual driving force, it often fails to react quickly – or at all – to diachronic phonological developments. Thus, exceptions are not rare (disyllabic u-stem D A T . S G *-ovi ; monosyllabic > null o/ā stem G E N . P L *-ъ). On the other hand, certain novel diachronic interpretations may reveal a greater adherence to this pattern than once thought (cf. Gorbachov 2017 for the argument that the o-stem G E N . D U had the LCS form *-oju, not *-u). Endings of the pronominal (and later adjectival) declension tend to be longer than those found on substantives (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 174), a fact which largely reflects their diachronic origins. Pre-PSL already had fully S Y N T H E T I C endings that could not be broken down into elements marking case and number; whatever internal case vs. number structure had existed in the corresponding singular and plural endings
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Table 7.1 Segmentability of accusative markers in masculine o-stems at different diachronic stages PIE ACC.SG
segmentation ACC.PL segmentation
*-o-m STEM-ACC *-o-m-s STEM-ACC-PL
PSL
LCS
*-u
*-ъ
ACC.SG
ACC.SG
*-ū
*-y
ACC.PL
ACC.PL
was obsolescent in PIE and effaced by PSL due to phonological erosion (cf. Table 7.1). This state persists in the Slavic languages; instances of new quasiagglutinative patterns (note the discussion on extended plural stems further below) do not alter the general picture. S U B T R A C T I V E marking (typological discussion in Manova 2011: 125–147), which found some use in inflection in late PIE and pre-PSL, is not normally encountered in the systems of Slavic declensions, although its reanalyzed effects are attested – particularly in the synchronically ‘non-extended’ N O M (/A C C ).S G forms of consonant stems (Sln. N O M . S G mati ‘mother’, G E N . S G mater-e, D A T . S G mater-i ; the ultimate diachronic source of this pattern is the word-final loss of consonants, although numerous morphological factors were involved). N U L L M A R K E R S in the modern languages are generally found only in the N O M (/A C C ).S G and G E N (/A C C ).P L ; the latter position is far less stable diachronically (as arguably expected considering I C O N I C or F R E Q U E N C Y -related tendencies; Section 7.1.3). Both null markers constitute a product of recent phonological changes; still in LCS, both had the unremarkable shape -V, while in pre-PSL times the structure was even fuller. Other null markers in Slavic declension are exceptional and language-specific (cf. the Rus. ‘N E W V O C A T I V E ’ Maš-∅ ‘Masha!’; Section 7.4.3). In contrast to the verbal domain, declensional endings are typically added to a unitary nominal stem, which therefore carries lexical information only (Hock 2006: 39–41). Exceptional examples of more than one inflectional stem include (i) former S I N G U L A T I V E S with the element -in-, as in BCS singular Arap-in-u ‘ArabS G L - D A T . S G ’ vs. Arap-ima ‘Arab-D A T . P L ’ – synchronically interpretable as a shortened plural stem; (ii) quasi-S U P P L E T I V E paradigms such as Rus. singular cypl-ënk-om ‘chick-S G . S T E M - I N S . S G ’ vs. plural cypl-jat-ami ‘chick-P L . S T E M I N S T R . P L ’, arising from derivational morphology reinterpreted as inflectional (Section 7.4.7); (iii) SSl. patterns in certain masculine nouns, mostly monosyllabic, in which the plural stem is extended by -ov- (Sln. grad-∅ ‘castle’, N O M . P L grad-ov-i, D A T . P L grad-ov-om), historically abstracted from the u-stem component of Macroclass I (Section 7.2.3). Declensional endings generally occur in absolute word-final position, appended to a stem formed from roots, derivational suffixes, etc. Only by way of exception can they be followed by post-inflectional morphemes (‘P O S T F I X E S ’, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 218; typological discussion cf.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
131
132
MAREK MAJER
Körtvélyessy & Štekauer 2018), chiefly found in pronouns (Bul. edi-koj-∅-si ‘soand-so’ I N D F -who-S G . M - I N D F , edi-koj-a-si I N D F -who-S G . F - I N D F – Cze. t-ohoto ‘this’ D E M - G E N . S G . M - D E M , t-ím-to D E M - I N S . S G . M - D E M ) or in participles of reflexive verbs (Rus. brej-ušč -ij-sja ‘shave-P T C P - N O M . S G . M - R E F L ’, brej-ušč ego-sja ‘shave-P T C P - G E N . S G . M - R E F L ’). The Slavic languages attest processes of diachronic rearrangement towards canonical inflection-final order (Haspelmath 1993); for example, the variant root shapes of ‘every’ (Rus. každ-yj, USo. kóžd-y, OPol. kież d-y) point to the erstwhile site of inflection preceding the element -žd-, as still preserved in OCS and other early varieties (k-yi-žьdo ‘every’ which- N O M . S G - I N D F , k-ojego-žьdo which-G E N . S G - I N D F ). For less obvious historical cases see Majer (2015). The transformation can also be observed as an ongoing process in the reinforced demonstratives of colloquial Sln.: standard t-emu-le D E M - D A T . S G . M - R E I N F vs. innovated colloquial tele-mu D E M . R E I N F - D A T . S G . M (Marušič & Žaucer 2012). The organization of inflectional patterns into classes, or ‘declensions’, has shifted quite dramatically over time, with LCS differing considerably both from the modern Slavic languages (where declensional classes correlate more clearly with gender; Section 7.2.3) and from earlier, prehistorical stages (Section 7.2.4). The paradigms of the modern standard languages possess at most six discrete case forms across one given number, and typically fewer (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 266–267). The trend has been towards the reduction of distinctiveness of forms and the concomitant increase in functional burden for the particular endings (Section 7.4.3). There is also a tendency to concentrate more distinctive morphological capacity in the singular than in the plural (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 167), though it is not overly forceful; in fact, the LCS stage happened to contradict this universal propensity as a result of the (diachronically young) homonymy of N O M . S G and A C C . S G in key paradigms. The dual is formally impoverished vis-à-vis the other numbers wherever it is preserved, which continues the state of LCS (and PIE); but see Section 7.4.5. Adjectival/pronominal declensions tend to express somewhat fewer distinctions than substantival ones, and the patterns in numerals are often even less complex (Sections 7.3.1–3.3). The declensional patterns of Slavic have enjoyed extraordinary prominence in theoretical discussions of case and several related fields, particularly at certain formative stages of their development (see Parker forthcoming for an overview).
7.2 Inflectional Patterns of Substantives 7.2.1 General Information Since the arrangement of declensional classes in S U B S T A N T I V E S has seen sweeping changes, labels typically used to classify them (e.g. ‘vocalic’ or ‘consonantal’) also have varying denotations depending on the chronological stage. The following description first reviews the LCS state, subsequently analyzing its later changes as well as its prehistory.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
7.2.2 Common Slavic Patterns As remarked above, the system of LCS was based on so-called ‘T H E M E V O W E L S ’ – morphemes which, though mostly reflecting derivational suffixes from the IE point of view, came to represent stem markers devoid of lexical meaning. Gradual coalescence with case/number markers produced distinct inflectional patterns for each theme vowel (Schenker 1993: 88, Janda 2014: 1565–1566, 1571–1572); they can be considered separate ‘declensions’: o-stem, ā -stem, u-stem, and i-stem (named after the post-PIE, not LCS, value of the respective vowels). Additionally, several varieties of a consonantal declension existed, in which the original case/number markers were added directly to a stem ending in a consonant (at least in parts of the paradigm; istem endings crept in, largely due to an epenthetic *-i- that arose at certain stem-ending junctures in pre-PSL times). The so-called ū -stem paradigm can effectively be considered consonantal too (Section 7.2.4). Theme vowels persisted as abstract notions even after the respective surface segments had largely faded into obscurity (except for isolated slots, e.g. the D A T . P L : cf. o-stem *-o-mъ, ā -stem *-a-mъ, u-stem *-ъ-mъ, i-stem *-ь-mъ; the PSL > LCS sound changes *i > *ь and *u > *ъ must be taken into consideration). The development of the above system entailed the elimination of the class of R O O T N O U N S , that is, structures where a root was followed by inflectional morphemes directly – a common occurrence in PIE. Thus, all LCS consonant-stem nouns reflect PIE suffixed formations (or, exceptionally, root nouns reinterpreted as such). The interaction of the theme vowel-based division with grammatical G E N D E R was significant, but less so than in modern Slavic. The o-stem declension covered solely masculines and neuters, constituting the productive paradigm for both genders (they differed in the N O M , A C C , and V O C markers in all numbers); conversely, the ā -stem declension predominantly contained feminines and constituted the prototypical feminine declension (although it also contained some virile masculines). The u-stems comprised only masculines, ū -stems only feminines, and i-stems both – though mostly the latter. Consonant stems spanned all three genders, although neuters were by far the most common and feminines exceedingly rare. All in all, the possibilities of predicting the gender from a noun’s inflectional forms – or the other way round – were non-trivial, but far more limited than in the modern languages. When the stem ended in *-j- or a ‘soft’ segment resulting from its absorption, the initial vowel of the ending was affected by the well-known LCS I N T R A S Y L L A B I C T O N A L I T Y H A R M O N Y developments, typically consisting in fronting (e.g. *-o- > *-e-). Initially automatic, the resulting alternations gradually became opaque, leading to morphologized ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sub-patterns; this affected the o-stem and ā -stem classes in particular (Janda 2014: 1566, 1574–1575). The H A R D / S O F T differentiation into o-stems/jo-stems and ā -stems/jā -stems had no bearing on gender correlations.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
133
134
MAREK MAJER
The LCS declensional classes are presented in Tables 7.2–7.9. The OCS system is still very close, though less clear-cut; for example, the u-stem paradigm is no longer attested as a compact class, as the convergence with masculine o-stems is already underway.
Table 7.2 LCS hard o-stem declension (masculine, neuter); *dǫ bъ M ‘oak’ / *lě to N ‘summer’ Singular Masc. NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Plural
Neutr.
*dǫ b-ъ *lě t-o *dǫ b-a *dǫ b-u *dǫ b-ъ *lě t-o * dǫ b-omь/-ъmьa *dǫ b-ě *dǫ b-e
Dual
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
*dǫ b-i *dǫ b-ъ *dǫ b-omъ *dǫ b-y *dǫ b-y *dǫ b-ě xъ = NOM
*lě t-a
*dǫ b-a *dǫ b-u *dǫ b-oma *dǫ b-a *dǫ b-oma *dǫ b-u = NOM
*lě t-ě
*lě t-a
*lě t-ě
SSl. *-omь, WSl./ESl. *-ъmь, both under influence of the u-stems; the PSL ending was probably *-ā (> LCS *-a) as expected from PIE *-oh1 and preserved in certain expressions such as (*stati ) dǫ b-a ‘(stand) fast’, lit. ‘oak.I N S ’; *vьč er-a ‘yesterday’, lit. ‘evening.I N S ’. a
Table 7.3 LCS soft jo-stem declension (masculine, neuter); *rojь M ‘swarm’ / *moré N ‘sea’ Singular Masc. NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a b
Plural
Neutr.
*roj-ь *mor-́ e *roj-a *roj-u *roj-ь *mor-́ e *roj-emь/-ьmьb *roj-i *roj-u = NOM
Dual
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
*roj-i *roj-ь *roj-emъ *roj-ę /ě a *roj-i *roj-ixъ = NOM
*mor-́ a
*roj-a *roj-u *roj-ema *roj-a *roj-ema *roj-u = NOM
*mor-́ i
*mor-́ a
*mor-́ i
SSl. *-ę , WSl./ESl. *-ě ; on this famous unclear correspondence, see Olander (2015: 131–133). See Table 7.2, note a.
Table 7.4 LCS u-stem declension (masculine only); *synъ ‘son’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Singular
Plural
Dual
*syn-ъ *syn-u *syn-ovi *syn-ъ *syn-ъmь *syn-u *syn-u
*syn-ove *syn-ovъ *syn-ъmъ *syn-y *syn-ъmi *syn-ъxъ = NOM
*syn-y *syn-ovu *syn-ъma *syn-y *syn-ъma *syn-ovu = NOM
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Table 7.5 LCS i-stem declension (feminine, masculine); *kostь F ‘bone’ / *pǫ tь M ‘way’ Singular Fem. NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
*kost-ь *kost-i *kost-i *kost-ь *kost-ьjǫ *kost-i *kost-i
Plural
Masc.
*pǫ t-ьmь
Fem.
Masc.
*kost-i *kost-ьjь *kost-ьmъ *kost-i *kost-ьmi *kost-ьxъ = NOM
*pǫ t-ьje
Table 7.6 LCS hard ā -stem declension (feminine, masculine); *žena ‘woman’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Singular
Plural
Dual
*žen-a *žen-y *žen-ě *žen-ǫ *žen-ojǫ *žen-ě *žen-o
*žen-y *žen-ъ *žen-amъ *žen-y *žen-ami *žen-axъ = NOM
*žen-ě *žen-u *žen-ama *žen-ě *žen-ama *žen-u = NOM
Table 7.7 LCS soft jā -stem declension (feminine, masculine); *svě t‘a ‘candle’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*svě t’-a *svě t’-ę /ě a *svě t’-i *svě t’-ǫ *svě t’-ejǫ *svě t’-i *svě t’-e
*svě t’-ę /ě *svě t’-ь *svě t’-amъ *svě t’-ę /ě a *svě t’-ami *svě t’-axъ = NOM a
*svě t’-i *svě t’-u *svě t’-ama *svě t’-i *svě t’-ama *svě t’-u = NOM
See Table 7.3, note a.
Table 7.8 LCS consonant-stem declension (neuter s-stem); *slovo ‘word’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*slov-o *slov-es-e *slov-es-i *slov-o *slov-es-ьmь *slov-es-e = NOM
*slov-es-a *slov-es-ъ *slov-es-ьmъ *slov-es-a *slov-es-ya *slov-es-ьxъ = NOM
*slov-es-i *slov-es-u *slov-es-ьma *slov-es-i *slov-es-ьma *slov-es-u = NOM
A (probably recent) transfer from the o-stems.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Dual
*kost-i *kost-ьju *kost-ьma *kost-i *kost-ьma *kost-ьju = NOM
135
136
MAREK MAJER
Table 7.9 LCS consonant-stem declension (feminine r-stem); *mati ‘mother’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Singular
Plural
Dual
*mat-i *mat-er-e *mat-er-i *mat-er-ь *mat-er-ьjǫ *mat-er-e = NOM
*mat-er-i *mat-er-ъ *mat-er-ьmъ *mat-er-i *mat-er-ьmi *mat-er-ьxъ = NOM
*mat-er-i *mat-er-u *mat-er-ьma *mat-er-i *mat-er-ьma *mat-er-u = NOM
7.2.3 Evolution in the Modern Languages All Slavic languages conducted a transformation of the theme-based system towards stronger correlation with G E N D E R (Janda 2014: 1578), with initial stages visible already in OCS (Hock 2006: 39). However, this has not quite resulted in coherent paradigms associated with each gender; thus, an arrangement of Slavic declensions by gender only is still not feasible (cf. DalewskaGreń 1997: 293, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 250; in-depth and theory-rich case study in Manova & Dressler 2001). Thus, in a pan-Slavic perspective, one typically recognizes three morphologized ‘M A C R O C L A S S E S ’ (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 168–189, Janda 2014: 1582, Berdicevskis forthcoming: §5.5.2). Although these constitute mere approximations of the actual inflectional classes in the respective languages and fail to capture numerous details (especially for some languages, e.g. Cze.), overall compatibility is high. Macroclass I (Table 7.10) represents a merger of LCS (j)o-stems and u-stems (with admixtures from masculine i-stems); it covers most masculines and practically all neuters, preserving the gender differentiation as found in LCS (j)ostems. The masculine variety is sometimes referred to as the ‘consonantal’ declension (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 252) since the null-marked N O M . S G yields a consonant-final form; this must be distinguished from ‘consonant stems’ of LCS or earlier stages. The complex repartition of original o-stem and u-stem morphology interacted with virility/animacy distinctions (Section 7.4.1). On the loss of most case morphology in Bul. and Mac., see Section 7.4.3. Macroclass II (Table 7.11) continues the (j)ā -stems and retains its prototypical association with feminines. The virile masculines belonging here develop distinct gender-aligned features, for example plural forms following Macroclass I (Doleschal 2009: 143, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 300–301); in addition, they may acquire virility-specific traits such as D A T . S G *-ovi (Section 7.4.1; Janda 2014: 1579). Macroclass III (Table 7.12) essentially continues the feminine i-stems and is limited to feminines; a usual defining feature is the formal identity of N O M . S G and A C C . S G . Many former consonant stems and ū -stems are integrated into this Macroclass, sometimes retaining partially autonomous patterns (e.g. Sln.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
student-aj student-ow student-omaj student-ow student-omaj student-omaj = NOM
studenc-́ a student-ow student-am student-ow student-ami student-ach = NOM
student-o
studenci-e
studenc-i student-ów student-om student-ów student-ami student-ach = NOM
student-a student-om studenc-́ e
student-∅ student-a student-ej
USo.
student-a student-em studenci-e
student-∅ student-a student-owi
Pol.
Dual
student-i student-ů student-ů m student-y student-y student-ech = NOM
Plural
student-∅ student-a student-u /-ovi student-a student-em student-u /-ovi student-e
Singular
Cze.
študent-a študent-ov študent-oma študent-a študent-oma študent-ih
študent-i/-je študent-ov študent-om študent-e študent-i študent-ih
student-a student-om student-u
študent-a študent-om študent-u
student-i studenat-a student-ima student-e student-ima student-ima = NOM
student-e
student-∅ student-a student-u
BCS
študent-∅ študent-a študent-u
Sln.
= NOM
student-i
student-e
(student-a)a
(student-u)a
student-∅
Bul.
Note. For reasons of space, only a subset of the languages could be represented in this and the following tables illustrating modern Slavic. By and large, the developments in the missing languages resemble those of their closest congeners, although of course meaningful differences exist. a Out of use in the contemporary language.
VOC
LOC
INS
ACC
DAT
GEN
NOM
VOC
LOC
INS
ACC
DAT
GEN
NOM
VOC
LOC
INS
student-y student-iv student-am student-iv student-amy student-ax = NOM
student-a student-om student-e
ACC
DAT
student-y student-ov student-am student-ov student-ami student-ax
student-∅ student-a student-u /-ovi student-a student-om student-u /-ovi student-e
student-∅ student-a student-u
NOM
GEN
Ukr.
Rus.
Table 7.10 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass I noun (masculine virile/animate); ‘student’
138
MAREK MAJER
Table 7.11 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass II noun (feminine); ‘card/map’ Rus.
Ukr.
Pol.
USo.
Cze.
Sln.
BCS
Bul.
kart-a kart-y kart-ě kart-u kart-ou kart-ě kart-o
kart-a kart-e kart-i kart-o kart-o kart-i
kart-a kart-e kart-i kart-u kart-om kart-i kart-o
kart-a
kart-y kar(e)t-∅ kart-ám kart-y kart-ami kart-ách = NOM
kart-e kart-∅ kart-am kart-e kart-ami kart-ah
Singular NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC
kart-a kart-y kart-e kart-u kart-oj kart-e
VOC
kart-a kart-y kart-i kart-u kart-oju kart-i kart-o
kart-a kart-y karci-e kart-ę kart-ą karci-e kart-o
kart-a kart-y karc-́ e kart-u kart-u karc-́ e = NOM
kart-o
Plural NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
kart-y kart-∅ kart-am kart-y kart-ami kart-ax
kart-y kart-∅ kart-am kart-y kart-amy kart-ax = NOM
kart-y kart-∅ kart-om kart-y kart-ami kart-ach = NOM
kart-y kart-ow kart-am kart-y kart-ami kart-ach = NOM
kart-e kart-i karat-a / kart-i kart-ama kart-e kart-ama kart-ama = NOM = NOM
Dual NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
karc-́ e kart-ow kart-omaj karc-́ e kart-omaj kart-omaj = NOM
kart-i kart-∅ kart-ama kart-i kart-ama kart-ah
nouns in -ev-∅, G E N . S G -v-e, or the reflexes of *mati ‘mother’ and *dъt’i ‘daughter’ in a number of languages). Thus, the feminine gender is exceptional in that it is associated with two Macroclasses (Kondrašov 1986: 29, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 293–294), although the productivity of Macroclass III is restricted to the abstract suffix *-ostь (and, in Sln., deverbal -tev ; Greenberg 2017: 534). The most internal diversity is found within Macroclass I, whose masculine subtypes are the venue for most virility/animacy effects (Section 7.4.1). The neuter is generally much less varied (typical faithful preservation of LCS o-stem G E N . S G *-a, D A T . S G *-u; on the other hand, its subtypes tend to integrate vestiges of the LCS consonantal declensions (Kondrašov 1986: 29, DalewskaGreń 1997: 303–304), mostly limited to *-en- and *-ę t-, but in Sln. also *-es-. Save for the often aberrant N O M . S G forms, these remnants usually amount to stem extensions preceding the general endings of Macroclass I (Pol. imi-ę , N O M . P L imi-on-a – BCS im-e, N O M . P L im-en-a ‘name’ – Rus. im-ja, N O M . P L im-en-a ; Cze. tel-e, N O M . P L tel-at-a – Bul. tel-e, P L tel-et-a ‘calf’; Sln. kol-o, N O M . P L koles-a ‘wheel’), although some languages retain differences in a subset of the endings as well (Rus. im-ja, G E N . S G im-en-i, vs. general ending -a). Total
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
139
Table 7.12 Declension of a prototypical Macroclass III noun (feminine); productive suffix *-ost-ь Rus.
Ukr.
Pol.
USo.
Cze.
Sln.
BCS
Bul.
-ost-∅ -ost-i -ost-i -ost-∅ -ost-í -ost-i -ost-i
-ost-∅ -ost-i -ost-i -ost-∅ -ost-jo -ost-i
-ost-∅ -ost-∅ -ost-i -ost-i -ost-∅ -ošc-́ u / -ost-i -ost-i -ost-i
-ost-i -ost-í -ost-em -ost-i -ost-mi -ost-ech = NOM
-ost-i -ost-i -ost-im -ost-i -ost-mi -ost-ih
-ost-i -ost-i -ost-ima -ost-i -ost-ima -ost-ima = NOM
Singular NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC
-ostʹ-∅ -ost-i -ost-i -ostʹ-∅ -ostʹ-ju -ost-i
VOC
-istʹ-∅ -ost-i -ost-i -istʹ-∅ -ist-ju -ost-i -ost-e
-osć -́ ∅ -ośc-i -osć -i -ośc-́ ∅ -osć i-ą -ośc-i -osć -i
-osc-́ ∅ -osc-́ e -osc-́ i -osc-́ ∅ -osc-́ u -osc-́ i = NOM Plural
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
-ost-i -ost-ej -ost-jam -ost-i -ost-jami -ost-jax
-ost-i -ost-ej -ost-jam -ost-i -ost-jamy -ost-jax = NOM
-osć -i -ośc-i -osć -iom -ośc-i -osć -iami -ośc-iach = NOM
-osc-́ e -osc-́ ow -osc-́ am -osc-́ e -osc-́ emi -osc-́ ach = NOM Dual
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
-osc-́ i -osc-́ ow -osc-́ omaj -osc-́ i -osc-́ omaj -osc-́ omaj = NOM
-ost-i -ost-i -ost-ma -ost-i -ost-ma -ost-ih
regularization is also commonly encountered, either via the integration of the consonantal element into the stem (Cze. jmén-o ‘name’, Rus. koles-o ‘wheel’) or via its elimination (Pol. koł-o, N O M . P L koł-a ‘wheel’). Although the transition of the LCS theme vowel types into the modern Macroclasses involved considerable interference, little morphological material has been completely discarded. For example (Janda 1996), despite the early and irrevocable loss of morphological autonomy, almost the totality of the LCS ustem paradigm survives in some capacity in the Slavic languages (generally within Macroclass I). The degree to which the H A R D / S O F T differentiation in substantival morphology is retained in the modern Slavic languages varies but is mostly low (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 304–305). WSl. languages preserve the most meaningful differences, particularly Cze. (where the opaque alternation was revitalized by U M L A U T ). Rus., conversely, obliterated most of the historical hard/soft distinctions in nominal paradigms (although this is not the case in verbal inflection; Janda 2014: 1566, 1574): crucially, the surface distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ here is largely an artifact of O R T H O G R A P H Y (e.g. and instead of and ; Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 257). SSl. preserves certain -o-/-ealternations within Macroclass I in several endings (BCS I N S . S G brat-om
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
-ost-i
140
MAREK MAJER
‘brother’ vs. prijatelj-em ‘friend’, muž-em ‘husband’ – Sln. brat-om vs. prijateljem, mož-em), but even here dissimilative processes involving the root vowel have obscured the mapping based on the stem-final consonant (BCS I N S . S G kejom ‘wharf’, jež-om ‘hedgehog’). In WSSl., Macroclass II practically reflects the soft jā -stem paradigm (some dialects diverge); in Macroclass I the impact of jostems is substantial too. In all languages one encounters lexicalized deviations from the Macroclassgender mappings. The LCS word for ‘way, road’, *pǫ tь (masculine i-stem), is frequently cited as yielding such abnormalities (cf. Janda 2014: 1578): Rus. putʹ-∅, G E N . S G put-i (masculine, most forms aberrantly in Macroclass III), BCS put-∅, I N S . S G put-em (masculine, in Macroclass I but aberrantly ‘soft’; the status of regular put-om depends on the norm).
7.2.4 Prehistory and Position within Indo-European The assertion that Slavic preserves a markedly archaic Indo-European look of nominal inflection (e.g. Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 217) is true inasmuch as seven cases and three numbers are distinguished, which indeed approximates the situation in the ancient IE languages. However, the same cannot be said about the theme vowel-based organization of declensional paradigms, which represents a fundamental innovation; similar arrangements found in many IE languages (e.g. Latin) likewise differ from the original situation. In P R O T O -I N D O -E U R O P E A N , save for the partly divergent o-stems, differences between ‘stem classes’ mostly amounted to the effects of incidental, surface phonological processes, while the transparent case/number markers were identical for all stems. Conversely, meaningful differences among inflectional paradigms were organized around the interplay of accent and apophony (cf. Fortson 2010: 119–120). In PSL, oppositions between these A C C E N T / A P O P H O N Y T Y P E S were eliminated as inflectional types became dependent solely on the abstracted ‘theme vowels’. Thus, while in PIE a stem in -i- such as *lóu̯ k-i-s ‘shining’ (G E N . S G *léu̯ k-i-s) inflected differently from a stem in -i- such as *mén-ti-s ‘thought’ (G E N . S G *mn̥ -téi̯-s), their descendants in Slavic inflect exactly alike (*luč -ь ‘light’, G E N . S G *luč -i; *[pa]mę t-ь ‘memory’, G E N . S G *[pa]mę t-i). See Furlan 2013 on some potential Slavic remnants of the older situation. In PIE, minimal correlation between gender and stem-final segment was limited to certain suffixed formations. Many Slavic innovations foreshadow the later post-LCS gender-oriented rearrangements: (i) loss of feminine o-stems (PIE *snus-o- F ‘daughter-in-law’ ≫ LCS *snъx-a, as though < *snus-ā - < *snus-eh2-), neuter and feminine u-stems, etc.; (ii) split of i-stems into feminine and masculine subtypes (cf. N O M . P L *gost-ьje, I N S . S G *gost-ьmь M ‘guest’ vs. N O M . P L *kost-i, I N S . S G *kost-ьjǫ f. ‘bone’; cf. Table 7.5); (iii) autonomous ū -stem declension, integrating consonantal inflection with elements of ā -stems (cf. N O M . P L *-ъv-e but I N S . P L *-ъv-a-mi, Vaillant 1958: 264–265; synchronic classification as ‘consonantal’ or ‘vocalic’ is problematic, cf. Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 249). Other changes are mere simplifications, such as: (i) almost complete merger of PIE stems in *-ih2- and *-i̯eh2- (the paradigms of *old-i ‘boat’ and *zemľ-a ‘earth’ https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
differ solely in the N O M . S G ); (ii) loss of root nominals (Section 7.2.2); (iii) reduction of consonant stems to a small subset of eligible segments (no such constraints obtained in PIE or the early IE languages); (iv) merger of genitive and A B L A T I V E into the Slavic genitive; (v) generalization of *-m- at the cost of *-bʰ- in endings (LCS D A T . P L *-mъ vs. Lat. -bus), shared with Baltic and Germanic. Many individual markers are innovated too; even if Langston’s (2018: 1542) observation that “fewer than half of the endings [. . .] can be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE proto-forms by regular sound changes” may be a slight overstatement, it is closer to the truth than a simple description of Slavic declension as faithful to IE inheritance.
7.3 Inflectional Patterns of Other Nominals 7.3.1 Pronouns Inflectional morphology added to P R O N O U N S diverged appreciably from that found on substantives. The clearest outliers were the genderless P E R S O N A L P R O N O U N S of the first and second persons as well as the reflexive (cf. Tables 7.13–14). These wholly isolated patterns are characterized by (i) Table 7.13 Declension of LCS first person pronouns (full and clitic where applicable)
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Singular
Plural
Dual
*(j)a(zъ) *mene *mъně /*mьně *mi *mene *mę b *mъnojǫ *mъně = NOM
*my *nasъ *namъ *nasъ *nami *nasъ = NOM
*vě a *naju *nama *na, *nya *nama *naju = NOM
*ny *nyb
*na
a Some of the dual forms are hard-won from the texts and less securely reconstructible (cf. Reinhart 2002: 138–139). b Short A C C forms were not yet obligatorily cliticized in LCS.
Table 7.14 Declension of LCS second person pronouns (full and clitic where applicable)
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*ty *tebe *tobě *tebe *tobojǫ *tobě = NOM
*vy *vasъ *vamъ *vasъ *vami *vasъ = NOM
*vy, *vaa *vaju *vama *vy, *vaa *vama *vaju = NOM
*ti *tę b
*vy *vyb
See Table 7.13, note a. b: See Table 7.13, note b.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
*va
141
142
MAREK MAJER
blurred boundaries between stem and case ending; (ii) some endings without parallels in other nominals; (iii) distinct unaccented (C L I T I C ) forms in some slots; (iv) more or less tangible S U P P L E T I O N between N O M and other case forms, as well as between S G and P L forms. These special traits continue the situation in PIE and have generally survived into modern Slavic (some aspects, e.g. the clitic forms, have even been extended to third person pronouns). Interactions with substantival patterns have only occurred sporadically; see the I N S in -ō m in BCS pronouns of the 1S G and 2S G (mnȏ m, tȍ bō m), matching the innovated ending in Macroclass II (žèn-ō m ‘woman’), or – remarkably – the rise of separate masculine and feminine N O M forms of 1/2P L and 1/2D U pronouns in Sln. (mi ‘we.M ’, me ‘we.F ’), matching the corresponding N O M . P L endings in Macroclasses I and II. (Not unusual typologically, the distinction is abnormal in Indo-European; cf. the rare parallel in the 1S G pronoun in Tocharian, Jasanoff 1989.) Personal pronouns are the last holdout of case morphology in Bul. and Mac. (cf. Section 7.4.3), not unlike in English or most of Romance. The inflection of other pronouns (demonstrative, relative, interrogative, etc.) recalled the substantival o-stem paradigm for the masculine/neuter and ā -stem for the feminine, although some items also integrated elements of other etymological formations, for example in *-i-. Divergence vis-à-vis substantives consisted in: (i) some distinct endings (e.g. G E N . S G . M / N *-ogo); (ii) erstwhile stem extensions coalescing with inflectional suffixes (e.g. D A T . S G . F *-oj-i, G E N . P L *-ě -x-ъ, D A T . S G . M /N *-m-u; cf. Schenker 1993: 89–90); (iii) non-distinction of gender in the plural outside of N O M and A C C . Much of this represents PIE inheritance, although some of the particulars (e.g. the morpheme *-go) are diachronically opaque. Hard and soft subtypes emerged, mirroring the developments seen in substantives (see Tables 7.15–7.18). A prominent vehicle of the soft subtype was the anaphoric/personal pronoun of the third person (G E N . S G . M /N *j-ego etc.); the N O M forms here were supplied by demonstratives (N O M . S G . M *on-ъ etc.; on the nature of this S U P P L E T I O N cf. Hill 2015). The roughly similar patterns of the interrogative/indefinite pronouns *kъto ‘who’ and *č ьto ‘what’ (Table 7.19) featured important deviations: (i) nondistinction of number and gender; (ii) N O M (/A C C ) postfix *-to (forms without it are attested too, cf. Č akavian č a ‘what’, Cze. pro-č ‘why < for what’); in *č ьto Table 7.15 LCS hard pronominal declension, masculine and neuter; *tъ ‘that’ Singular
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
Plural
Dual
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
*t-ъ *t-ogo *t-omu *t-ъ *t-ě mь *t-omь = NOM
*t-o
*t-i *t-ě xъ *t-ě mъ *t-y *t-ě mi *t-ě xъ = NOM
*t-a
*t-a *t-oju *t-ě ma *t-a *t-ě ma *t-oju = NOM
*t-ě
*t-o
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
*t-a
*t-ě
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Table 7.16 LCS hard pronominal declension, feminine; *tъ ‘that’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*t-a *t-oję /ě a *t-oji *t-ǫ *t-ojǫ *t-oji = NOM
*t-y *t-ě xъ *t-ě mъ *t-y *t-ě mi *t-ě xъ = NOM
*t-ě *t-oju *t-ě ma *t-ě *t-ě ma *t-oju = NOM
See Table 7.3, note a.
Table 7.17 LCS soft pronominal declension, masculine and neuter; *mojь ‘my’ Singular
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Plural
Dual
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
Masc.
Neutr.
*moj-ь *moj-ego *moj-emu *moj-ь *moj-imь *moj-emь = NOM
*moj-e
*moj-i *moj-ixъ *moj-imъ *moj-ę /ě a *moj-imi *moj-ixъ = NOM
*moj-a
*moj-a *moj-eju *moj-ima *moj-a *moj-ima *moj-eju = NOM
*moj-i
*moj-e
*moj-a
See Table 7.3, note a.
Table 7.18 LCS soft pronominal declension, feminine; *mojь ‘my’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*moj-a *moj-eję /ě a *moj-eji *moj-ǫ *moj-ejǫ *moj-eji = NOM
*moj-ę /ě *moj-ixъ *moj-imъ *moj-ę /ě 12 *moj-imi *moj-ixъ = NOM 12
See Table 7.3, note a.
Table 7.19 Declension of LCS genderless interrogative/indefinite pronouns
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC
‘Who’
‘What’
*k-ъ(-to) *k-ogo *k-omu *k-ogo *c-ě mь *k-omь
*č -ь(-to) *č -eso *č -emu *č -ь(-to) *č -imь *č -emь
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
*moj-i *moj-eju *moj-ima *moj-i *moj-ima *moj-eju = NOM
*moj-i
143
144
MAREK MAJER
further: (iii) synchronically unmotivated ‘soft’-like pattern, etymologically a pronominal stem in -i/e-; (iv) isolated (though historically expected) ending *-eso in the G E N ; in *kъto further: (v) initially anomalous G E N =A C C syncretism, providing the fuse for later extensive innovations (Section 7.4.1). Modern Slavic preserves a similar overall picture of pronominal inflection, sharply distinct from substantives; a typical innovation is convergence with adjectival inflection (Section 7.3.2). The patterns of ‘who’ and ‘what’ tend to lose the most peculiar LCS features, but novel irregularities arise (e.g. the original G E N . S G only survives as such in Sln. č esa, but a reduced form of *č eso was reinterpreted as a new N O M /A C C in WSl.: Cze./Pol./Ksb. co). In the prehistorical period, there was a tendency for pronominal inflection to infiltrate substantival paradigms, particularly o-stems and ā -stems; LCS substantival endings with a pronominal pedigree include the o-stem N O M . P L . M *-i (< PIE pronominal *-o-y, vs. substantival *-o-es [-ō s]), o-stem N O M /A C C . S G . N *-o (< PIE pronominal *-o-d, vs. substantival *-o-m), probably the ā -stem I N S . S G *-ojǫ , and a few others. In the post-LCS era, the opposite direction becomes dominant (e.g. WSSl. replaced *-go, *-so in the G E N . S G . M /N with *-ga, *-sa under the influence of substantival o-stem *-a).
7.3.2 Adjectives In PIE and pre-PSL, A D J E C T I V E S were indistinct from nouns except for inflecting for gender and for degree; they could belong to any ‘stem class’. By LCS, however, all adjectives (though cf. Section 7.4.4) were integrated – primarily by suffixation – into the o-stem pattern for the masculine/neuter and the ā -stem pattern for the feminine (certain remnants of consonant-stem inflections are found in participles and in the comparative degree). These patterns, fully parallel to the respective substantival paradigms (recall Tables 7.2–7.3 and 7.6–7.7), came to be known as the ‘ S H O R T ’ A D J E C T I V A L I N F L E C T I O N . By way of a famous innovation, a ‘ L O N G ’ I N F L E C T I O N also arose, originally consisting of the short form followed by the corresponding form of the anaphoric/relative pronoun *jo- (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 264–266, Janda 2014: 1580, Wandl 2022b). This construction was initially not restricted to adjectives, but also found, for example, with prepositional phrases: OCS bez-um-a-i ‘ignorant-N O M . S G . M ’ without-reason-G E N . S G -that. N O M . S G . M ( Hock 2006: 40–41, Koch 1992). In adjectives, however – due to contractions, haplologies, and other innovations at the juncture of the respective inflected forms (e.g. I N S . P L . F *dobr-ami-j-imi ≫ *dobr-y-jimi) – the shape of these paradigms became different than the sum of their ingredients already in LCS (cf. Tables 7.20–7.21). At later stages, this device – originally expressing D E F I N I T E N E S S , though the details are more fine-grained – became the unmarked default (incipient already in OCS, cf. Vaillant 1964: 119), while the foundational, short pattern generally became marginalized. While a teleological interpretation is questionable, this indisputably resulted in the rise of a distinct adjectival inflectional pattern in late LCS (Topolinjska: 2014: 1607), akin
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Table 7.20 LCS long adjectival declension (hard subtype), masculine and neuter; *novъ ‘new’ Singular Masc. NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Neutr.
*nov-ъ-jь *nov-o-je *nov-a-jego *nov-u-jemu *nov-ъ-jь *nov-o-je *nov-y-jimь *nov-ě -jemь = NOM
Plural Masc.
Dual
Neutr.
*nov-i-ji *nov-a-ja *nov-y-jixъ *nov-y-jimъ *nov-y-ję /ě a *nov-a-ja *nov-y-jimi *nov-y-jixъ = NOM
Masc.
Neutr.
*nov-a-ja *nov-ě -ji *nov-u-ju *nov-y-jima *nov-a-ja *nov-ě -ji *nov-y-jima *nov-u-ju = NOM
See Table 7.3, note a.
Table 7.21 LCS long adjectival declension (hard subtype), feminine; *novъ ‘new’
NOM GEN DAT ACC INS LOC VOC
a
Singular
Plural
Dual
*nov-a-ja *nov-y-ję /ě a *nov-ě -ji *nov-ǫ -jǫ *nov-ǫ -jǫ *nov-ě -ji = NOM
*nov-y-ję /ě 14 *nov-y-jixъ *nov-y-jimъ *nov-y-ję /ě 14 *nov-y-jimi *nov-y-jixъ = NOM
*nov-ě -ji *nov-u-ju *nov-y-jima *nov-ě -ji *nov-y-jima *nov-u-ju = NOM
See Table 7.3, note a.
to but distinct from the pronominal one. In keeping with general morphonological requirements, the pattern acquired hard and soft subtypes, the stem of the underlying short form guiding the development: *nov-ъ-jь ‘new’ vs. *ť uď-ь-jь ‘foreign’. In later Slavic, this pattern could converge with pronominal inflection (Section 7.3.1), which – coupled with phonological developments (chiefly contraction across -j-) – resulted in the patterns shown in Table 7.22. The degree of this rapprochement with pronouns varies from language to language (LCS G E N . S G . M /N *t-ogo mold-a-jego ‘that young’, G E N . P L *t-ě xъ mold-y-jixъ – Cze. G E N . S G . M /N t-oho mlad-ého, G E N . P L t-ě ch mlad-ých – Rus. t-ogo molod-ogo, t-ex molod-ych – BCS t-ȍ g mlȃ d-ō g, t-ı̑ h mlȃ d-ı̄ h – Pol. t-ego młod-ego, t-ych młod-ych). Synchronically, patterns reflecting the original pronominal inflection are often classified as a ‘special’ subtype of the now prototypical adjectival inflection – which latter term is conventional too, as its domain extends to certain numerals, etc. (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 263, 269). The H A R D / S O F T distinction has been less durable here than in substantives, especially beyond automatic, synchronically motivated alternations (DalewskaGreń 1997: 317–319).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
145
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
b
a
nov-yj nov-oho nov-omu nov-yj nov-ym nov-im / -omu = NOM
nov-i nov-yx nov-ym nov-i nov-ymy nov-yx = NOM
nov-yj nov-ogo nov-omu nov-yj nov-ym nov-om
nov-ye nov-yx nov-ym nov-ye nov-ymi nov-yx
now-e now-ych now-ym now-e now-ymi now-ych = NOM
now-y now-ego now-emu now-y now-ym now-ym = NOM
Pol.
Cze.
nov-é nov-ých nov-ým nov-é nov-ými nov-ých = NOM
now-ej now-eju now-ymaj now-ej now-ymaj now-ymaj = NOM
Masculine (inanimate/impersonal) dual
now-e now-ych now-ym now-e now-ymi now-ych = NOM
Masculine (inanimate/impersonal) plural
nov-ý nov-ého nov-ému nov-ý nov-ým nov-ém = NOM
Masculine (inanimate) singular now-y now-eho now-emu now-y now-ym now-ym = NOM
USo.
Cf. Section 7.4.6. The domains of the longer forms vary across the norms in both usage and prescription.
VOC
LOC
INS
ACC
DAT
GEN
NOM
VOC
LOC
INS
ACC
DAT
GEN
NOM
VOC
LOC
INS
ACC
DAT
GEN
NOM
Ukr.
Rus.
nov-a nov-ih nov-ima nov-a nov-ima nov-ih
nov-i nov-ih nov-im nov-e nov-imi nov-ih
nov-i nov-ega nov-emu nov-i nov-im nov-em
Sln.
Table 7.22 (Long) adjective declension in the modern Slavic languages (hard subtype where applicable)
nov-i nov-ih nov-im nov-e nov-im nov-im = NOM
nov-i nov-og(a)a nov-om(u/e)b nov-i nov-im nov-om(e)b = NOM
BCS
nov-i(te)a
nov-i(jat)a
Bul.
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
The degree of retention of the original S H O R T A D J E C T I V E pattern varies across modern Slavic (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 173–174, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 262–264, Janda 2014: 1580); at least in some instances (e.g. Cze.), its persistence coincides with earlier or archaicizing standardization (Topolinjska 2014: 1607). Synchronically, the phenomenon can be construed as substantive-like elements in the inflection of adjectives. The least impoverished paradigms, though never entirely devoid of S U P P L E T I O N with long forms, are preserved in WSSl. (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 276–278, 311–314); note that this correlates with the retention of some aspects of the original definite/ indefinite distinction. In Rus., short forms are limited to predicative function and thus devoid of case forms other than the historical N O M ; in the remaining ESl. languages, the status of short forms is even more restricted. In WSl., only certain basic adjectives build short forms; their paradigms are greatly reduced, often tantamount to a N O M . S G . M form lacking the final -V. Short forms sometimes survive outside of the declensional paradigm proper (Section 7.4.7), for example old D A T . S G . M /N -u in adverbial expressions like Pol. po angielsku ‘in English’, po ludzku ‘humanly’. Short inflection is preserved more robustly – partly to the exclusion of long forms – in P O S S E S S I V E A D J E C T I V E S (or derived surnames, etc.) formed with the suffixes *-ovъ and *-inъ (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 251, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 314–317). Here, Rus. inflects most of the oblique cases in accordance with the short paradigm: Petr-ov-∅, G E N . S G Petr-ov-a, D A T . S G Petr-ov-u (surname), as does Cze.; other languages corroborate the special status by innovations (cf. Slk. G E N . S G . M /N dobr-ého ‘good’ but otcov-ho ‘father’s’). In the norms of BCS, short forms in the oblique cases of possessive adjectives are prescribed – and realized – to different extents (D A T . S G . M Mark-ov-u brat-u or Mark-ov-om brat-u ‘Marko’s brother’). ESSl., in a separate line of development, retains short forms as default (the long form of the N O M . S G . M has served as the basis of the modern D E F I N I T E form: Mac. I N D F mlad-∅ < *mold-ъ but D E F mlad-iot < *mold-ъ-jь + *tъ; Section 7.4.6). The morphological distinction between adjectives and substantives has thus again been reduced, although the general disappearance of case morphology diminishes the significance of this development. The former long form of the N O M . S G . M without the new definite morpheme may function as a dedicated V O C : Bul. drag ‘dear’ < *dorg-ъ, V O C drag-i < *dorg-ъ-jь (DalewskaGreń 1997: 266). All standard languages, even Bul. and Mac., feature classes of adjectives that exclude short forms. The reflex of the formant *-ьskъ-jь is one typical locus: Rus. kitajskij, Cze. č ínský, BCS kineski, Bul. kitajski ‘Chinese’ (sole possible N O M . S G . M form everywhere). Though not strictly declensional (under many views not even inflectional), D E G R E E forms are a significant component of Slavic adjectival morphology (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 321–324, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 459–462, Mannewitz 2009, Gvozdanović 2001). In most standard languages, the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
147
148
MAREK MAJER
synthetic C O M P A R A T I V E (competing everywhere with A N A L Y T I C structures) is formed via a suffix preceding declensional endings. The morpheme displays a shorter and longer variant (LCS *-jьš- and *-ě jьš-); the distribution is complex and diachronically unstable, but the allomorphy persists in most standards (cf. LSo. star-y ‘old’, C P V star-š-y vs. kšut-y ‘robust’, C P V kšus-́ ejš-y; Sln. mlad-∅, ‘young’, C P V mlaj-š-i vs. nov-∅, ‘new’, C P V nov-ejš-i; Ukr. m´´jak-yj ‘soft’, C P V m´´jak-š-yj vs. mudr-yj ‘wise’, C P V mudr-iš-yj ). Earlier Slavic preserved elements of consonantal inflection in these forms, with *-(ě )-j- in N O M /A C C . S G . M /N alternating with *-(ě )-jьš- elsewhere in the paradigm: OCS N O M . S G . M mǫ dr-ě i ‘wiser’ vs. N O M . P L . M mǫ dr-ě iš-e. The modern standards have mostly generalized the form with š, as seen in the above examples. Still, several languages have done the opposite to a certain extent (most widely BCS); the shorter allomorph is then signaled solely by A L T E R N A T I O N S (Section 7.4.8), chiefly involving the stem-final consonant, as well as by P R O S O D Y (Section 7.4.9): BCS mlȃ d-∅ ‘young’, C P V mlȁ đ-ı̄ ‘younger’, G E N . S G mlȁ đ-ē g; star-∅ ‘old’, C P V star-ij-i, G E N . S G star-ij-eg. For certain groups of overtly suffixed adjectives, the comparative morpheme is added directly to the root, substituting the positive formant: Pol. słod-k-i ‘sweet’, C P V słod-sz-y; BCS vis-ok-∅, C P V viš-i. Typically operating on basic adjectives formed with *-ъkъ and *-okъ, this process – ultimately a remarkable retention of a PIE-age pattern – sometimes extends its domain to other suffixes (Cze. snad-n-ý ‘easy’, C P V snaz-š-í next to snad-n-ě jš-í ). A number of S U P P L E T I V E comparatives are found in each standard language, although the stems and their pairings diverge. In Rus., save for lexicalized exceptions, synthetic comparative forms are restricted to predicative position and I N D E C L I N A B L E (Section 7.4.4): bystr-yj N O M . S G . M ‘quick’, C P V bystr-ee with no agreement markers. ESSl. has lost the suffixed formation altogether and the comparative is built via prefixing po- to the positive: Bul. nov ‘new’, C P V po-nov (hyphenated orthographically), Mac. nov, C P V ponov. The area of this innovative structure extends to BCS dialects. In most standard languages, the synthetic S U P E R L A T I V E is formed by prefixing *najь- to the form of the comparative: Ukr. najmudrišyj ‘wisest’, BCS najmlađi ‘youngest’ (in ESSl., to the positive: Bul. naj-nov(ijat), Mac. najnov(iot); this is found dialectally in other languages too). This relative uniformity is due to secondary convergence. In OCS, nai- was not obligatory for expressing the superlative, while the morpheme itself is also attested across Slavic in variants such as *na-, *nad-, *nažь-, and *najь-žь- (a few of these are embraced by current standard languages – Ksb. nômłodszi ‘youngest’, nôlepszi ‘best’; LSo. nejžlě pšy ‘best’ next to nejlě pšy – whereas others are limited to historical and dialectal varieties) and often maintains prosodic or even syntactic autonomy from the adjective (detailed overview: Wandl 2022a). In Rus., synthetic superlatives (suffixed with *-ě jьš- and optionally prefixed with nai-) are literary Church Slavonicisms; A N A L Y T I C constructions are the norm. The application of the above-described morphology to nominals other than adjectives is highly exceptional, albeit less so in the case of the ESSl. prefixes.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
7.3.3 Cardinal Numerals Though universally declinable, C A R D I N A L N U M E R A L S possessed no dedicated patterns in LCS, instead following various substantival or pronominal models: *jedinъ/*jedьnъ ‘1’ and *dъva ‘2’ inflected like pronouns, *sъto ‘100’ like an o-stem noun, *tysǫ ťi/*tysę ťi ‘1000’ like a jā -stem noun, etc. Most others behaved as i-stem nouns (actually occurring forms varied greatly as a result of divergent numeral syntax). Some numerals, however, displayed minor peculiarities: *trьje ‘3’ possessed a N O M /A C C . N *tri, with no counterpart in substantives as i-stem neuters had been lost; *desę tь ‘10’ displayed elements of consonant-stem inflection; etc. This state, still registered in OCS, underwent far-reaching alterations in the modern Slavic languages: numerals became a separate morphological class commanding specific declensional endings (Suprun 1969, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 274–277, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 337–341). The spawning ground of many consequential innovations was *dъva ‘2’, whose endings – originally simply reflecting the dual number (cf. Section 7.4.5) – could be reinterpreted as numeral-specific once the syntactic category of the dual was lost. The most important markers involved were G E N /L O C *-(oj)u and D A T /I N S *-(o/ě )ma. The resulting patterns tend to spread to other Q U A N T I F I E R S : Pol. I N S -(o)ma (dw-oma ‘2’, pię ci-oma ‘5’, etc., but also il-oma ‘how many’, kilk-oma ‘a few’), G E N /D A T /L O C -u (szesć i-u ‘6’ etc., but also par-u ‘several’). The latter also holds for numeral-specific inflectional markers stemming from sources other than ‘2’, for example the Mac. V I R I L E ending -mina (pet-mina ‘5’, osum-mina ‘8’, but also e.g. nekolku-mina ‘a few’, poveḱ e-mina ‘most’), originally a derived collective. The rise of dedicated virile forms from assorted diachronic sources is attested almost throughout modern Slavic (Rus. and Cze. being two important exceptions among the standard languages; cf. Janda 1999). Another trend is the collapse of distinctive case forms in numeral declensions (Rus. N O M /A C C st-o, G E N /D A T /I N S /L O C st-a ‘100’); advanced stages are observed in BCS, where case inflection on the numerals from ‘2’ to ‘4’ may be abandoned and replaced with prepositional constructions, particularly in less formal registers, while most of the higher numerals are completely I N D E C L I N A B L E (Section 7.4.4). Certain languages – e.g. Sln. – display fewer effects of all of the above processes, with case morphology found on cardinal numerals not deviating significantly from substantives and adjectives. This, however, results only in part from conservatism and largely from diachronic convergence. In some languages, autonomous morphological structures reflecting an amalgamation of various sources have also arisen in C O L L E C T I V E / D I S T R I B U T I V E N U M E R A L S (cf. Pol. pię cior-o ‘5’, G E N pię cior-g-a, D A T pię cior-g-u).
7.4 Particular Issues and Topics The ensuing sections mostly deal with innovations vis-à-vis the LCS state, also briefly analyzing their synchronic results.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
149
150
MAREK MAJER
7.4.1 Encoding Virility and Animacy The emergence of V I R I L I T Y and A N I M A C Y as syntactically relevant categories had a significant effect on the shape of declensional paradigms across Slavic (Kondrašov 1986: 30–32, Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 172–173, Klenin 2014: 153–154), particularly in Macroclass I – where S U B G E N D E R paradigms develop – as well as in cross-Macroclass structures in the plural (and dual). The relevant distinctions are predominantly encoded by: (i) propagation of S Y N C R E T I S M s: A C C =G E N animate, A C C =N O M inanimate (Sln. N O M . mož-∅, G E N /A C C mož-a ‘husband’ vs. N O M /A C C log-∅, G E N log-a ‘grove’ – Ukr. N O M . P L babus-i, G E N /A C C . P L babusʹ-∅ ‘grandmother’ vs. N O M /A C C . P L vulyc-i, G E N . P L vulycʹ-∅ ‘street’); (ii) repartition of former u-stem and o-stem morphology, typically: inanimate G E N . S G *-u vs. animate G E N . S G *-a (Cze. G E N advent-u ‘advent’ vs. student-a ‘student’); animate D A T . S G and secondarily L O C . S G *-ovi vs. inanimate D A T . S G *-u and L O C . S G *-ě (Slk. D A T /L O C koň -ovi ‘horse’ vs. D A T hrad-u, L O C hrad-e ‘castle’); (iii) N O M . P L *-i (originally o-stem), *-ove (u-stem) or *-ьje (i-stem) used in animates/ viriles vs. A C C . P L *-y extended to N O M in inanimates/non-viriles (Pol. N O M . P L chłop-i ‘peasants’ vs. N O M . P L snop-y ‘sheaves’). These devices are employed to different degrees across Slavic (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 296–300), with most of the phenomena only found in a subset of the modern languages. They are also of uneven chronological depth: although some emerge in LCS, most develop at later times, with intermediate stages quite unlike the modern picture (Krysʹko 2014). A famous outlier is the Novgorodian dialect, where the virile A C C =G E N syncretism developed in the plural, but – unlike elsewhere – not in the singular (the early innovation of a distinct o-stem N O M . S G . M -e certainly played a role). WSl. is currently the principal locus of the above-indicated distinctions, which often amount to more nuanced systems involving S U B G E N D E R S and Q U A S I G E N D E R S (e.g. D E P R E C I A T I V E forms in Pol.: dobrzy profesorowie ‘good professors’ vs. dobre profesory ‘good professors.D E P R ’, patterning as non-virile; Swan 2015). SSl., on the other hand, possesses the fewest means of encoding virility and animacy; in the standard languages, they are limited to the A C C . S G syncretism patterns. This is not due to a simple retention of the LCS state, however, as virility-related use of D A T . S G -ovi is known from OCS (Hock 2006: 40), as are instances of -y encroaching into the N O M . P L of inanimates (Iordanidi & Krysʹko 2000: 192–193; Krysʹko 2014: 1601), while animacy- and virility-sensitive distinctions occur in the declensional paradigms of certain Č akavian dialects (Vermeer 1984). Conversely, reductions of animacy marking surpassing those of the SSl. standards are found in Kajkavian, where the A C C . S G =G E N . S G syncretism has been generalized throughout Macroclass I (Stankiewicz 1968: 32). A characteristically ESl. innovation is the extension of the A C C =G E N animate feature into the plural of all Macroclasses (Section 7.4.3).
7.4.2 Encoding Innovative Case/Number Categories Marking innovative synthetically expressed categories is achieved almost exclusively by manipulating pre-existing inflectional material (formerly associated with separate theme vowel paradigms and subsequently turning redundant);
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
other means, such as the grammaticalization of derivational suffixes or resegmentation, are rare (example in Section 7.3.3). For example, the emergence of the ‘ S E C O N D L O C A T I V E ’ (or locative proper, as opposed to ‘ P R E P O S I T I O N A L ’) case in Rus. is formally associated with the distinct stressed ending -ú (historically u-stem L O C . S G ): na nos-ú ‘on the nose’ vs. o nós-e ‘about the nose’. Other minor morphosyntactic patterns considered separate cases under some criteria are even less prosperous formally: they never have discrete morphology at their disposal, but rather rely on distributional properties. An instance of this is the ‘ S E C O N D G E N I T I V E ’ or P A R T I T I V E of Rus. (stakán č áj-u ‘glass of tea’ vs. vkus č áj-a ‘taste of tea’), whose form coincides with the D A T in the singular (cf. D A T č áj-u) but is always identical to the G E N in the plural; even less morphologically grounded are the potential ‘I N C L U S I V E C A S E ’ (vključ itelʹnyj padež) and ‘E X P E C T A T I V E C A S E ’ (ždatelʹnyj padež) (Zaliznjak 1973, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 228, Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 166–167). Several languages innovated a P A U C A L (special morphological form occurring with numerals 2–4: Rus. N O M . P L syn-ovʹja ‘sons’, P A U C č etyre syn-a ‘4 sons’; BCS N O M . P L zȅ mlj-e ‘countries’, P A U C trı̑ zèmlj-e ‘3 countries’) or E N U M E R A T I V E (after numerals generally; Bul. P L grad-ove ‘cities’ vs. E N U M dvajset grad-a ‘20 cities’); see Sussex & Cubberley (2006: 225), Breu (2020). Its morphological expression derives entirely from former dual markers (Section 7.4.5). The paucal does not develop a separate paradigm inasmuch as all forms other than the N O M /A C C are supplied by the plural.
7.4.3 Syncretism A salient process observed throughout modern Slavic (never in a radical form except for ESSl.) is the gradual reduction of the complexity of nominal inflection paradigms and distinctiveness of forms. This is associated with the term ‘ S Y N C R E T I S M ’, which may refer to: (i) diachronic loss of pre-existing distinctions, or (ii) synchronic instances in which morphology fails to mark facts relevant for syntax (in Slavic context, cf. Parker forthcoming: §.5.5; general typology in Baerman 2009). Some occurrences of syncretism are of a fairly ‘local’ or sporadic nature, not endangering the existence of categories as a whole. Many instances of this kind reach PIE times and do not reflect a loss, but a potential morphological distinction that had not arisen (e.g. the identity of N O M and A C C in all neuter substantives across all numbers). Others did arise diachronically, resulting from phonological changes – or, exceptionally, morphological restructurings – from PIE to LCS, but have been recalcitrant and mostly persist into modern Slavic (e.g. the identity of G E N . S G and N O M /A C C . P L in Macroclass II, of D A T . S G and L O C . S G in Macroclass II, of most oblique cases of the S G in Macroclass III, or of the G E N . P L and L O C . P L in pronominal/adjectival inflections). In contrast to the prehistorical era, most instances of syncretism arising in post-LCS times did not result from phonological erosion, but from systemwide rearrangements (an exception is Cze., where U M L A U T has obliterated many distinctions in recent history, although the system of categories remains conservative; Dalewska-Greń 1997: 273–274). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
151
152
MAREK MAJER
More systematic instances of syncretism result from morphological levelings operating via different axes. Levelings across paradigms underlie the historical rise of the Macroclasses, conspiring towards the creation of gender-specific structures (Section 7.2.3). However, concomitant developments have also led to the rise of number-specific structures (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 171, Janda 2014: 1577): while early languages such as OCS still had theme vowel-based classes spanning the singular(, dual,) and plural, in modern Slavic the plural tends to display higher convergence across the Macroclasses than the singular (LCS I N S . P L *vьlk-y ‘wolves’, *ryb-ami ‘fish’, *sě t-ьmi ‘nets’; Rus. volk-ami, ryb-ami, setʹ-jami, Pol. wilk-ami, ryb-ami, sieci-ami). Among the standard languages, Cze., Sln., and BCS resist this process to the largest extent, while in ESl. it is the most pronounced; it has helped propagate sensitivity to animacy throughout the plural (Kondrašov 1986: 31). The most dramatic variety of syncretism consists in the complete loss of formal distinction between categories, leading to the polyfunctionality of the inflections in question (within a given range or across the board). The L O C A T I V E is the category that has tended to forfeit its morphological autonomy (at least within certain domains) the most easily, attaining formal identity with D A T and/or I N S markers (LCS D A T . S G *gord-u ≠ L O C . S G *gord-ě ‘fortification’ – Sln. grȃ d-u = grȃ d-u; LCS I N S . S G . M /N *dobr-y-jimь ≠ L O C . S G . M *dobr-ě -jemь ‘good’ – Pol. dobr-ym = dobr-ym; Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 227– 228). A drastic example is the pervasive D A T . P L =I N S . P L =L O C . P L syncretism in standard BCS (dialectal Štokavian systems attest other configurations too, e. g. G E N . P L =L O C . P L ). These are virtually never guided by sound change alone, but rather system-driven shifts; newer syncretic patterns may replace older ones. Thus, the above-mentioned development in BCS has led to the loss of the otherwise resilient L O C . P L =G E N . P L syncretism in pronouns and adjectives. Similarly, the introduction of animacy-related syncretisms across the plural in ESl. has overridden the N O M =A C C pattern in neuters (Ukr. N O M . P L dytjat-a ‘children.N ’, A C C . P L dytjat-∅). Despite this preponderantly non-phonological motivation, overarching functional explanations for Slavic case-syncretic innovations have proved problematic (cf. Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 170 vs. Jakobson 1971a). Certain rearrangements of syncretism have to do with the development of innovative syntactic categories, particularly along the virility/animacy scale (cf. Section 7.4.1). The morphological status of V O C A T I V E markers is atypical. It has been debated whether the category is a genuine case form (in Slavic context, cf. Anstatt 2008, Janda 2014: 1568, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 264–266; more broadly Daniel & Spencer 2009), or in fact whether the Slavic V O C markers can be considered inflectional endings at all (Andersen 2012). The issue has a deeper theoretical background connected with the concept of appeal (Bühler 1965: 30–32, Kuryłowicz 1949: 40). On the morphological level, V O C is only distinguished from N O M in the singular of some non-neuter paradigms, and solely in substantives (historically also in short adjectives; OCS V O C . S G rab-e vě rьn-e ‘o faithful servant’). Incidental deviations from this do develop, often via socially
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
conventionalized formulae (Ukr. N O M . P L pan-y ‘sirs’, V O C . P L pan-ove; cf. also Section 7.3.2 on Bul. drag-i V O C ‘dear’); besides, suprasegmental differences (Section 7.4.9) may have marked the contrast far more widely: BCS N O M . P L junác-i ‘heroes’, V O C . P L jȕ nā c-i; N O M . d(ij)ét-ē N ‘child’, V O C d(ij)ȇ t-e (cf. Dalewska-Greń 1997: 266). The latter facts have also been explained by reference to higher suprasegmental tiers, given that V O C forms display further anomalies, such as the non-raising of unstressed -o in Bul. (Olander 2015: 18, 186). The diachronic retention of V O C markers correlates poorly with general conservatism in declensional morphology (cf. loss in Kajkavian, Sln., or Slk. vs. retention in Bul. and Mac.; Janda 2014: 1568, 1577); likewise unpredictable is the secondary rise of new distinct V O C forms (examples above; cf. also the Rus. type Maš-∅ ‘Masha!’; Section 7.1.3). Many varieties of ESSl., including standard Bul. and Mac., attest an almost complete L O S S O F C A S E M O R P H O L O G Y (except the V O C ) and its replacement with prepositional constructions and/or syntactic means. This trend toward A N A L Y T I C I T Y , although competing with synthetic morphology less aggressively, also pervades the history of other Slavic languages (Gvozdanović 2009: 133–136). The morphology-internal rationale for these innovations is rarely self-evident; thus, they are generally to be described at the syntactic level (often via contact phenomena, as e.g. in the B A L K A N zone; Sobolev 2009). Notably, the Slavic languages most affected by this have retained an intricate system of synthetic verbal inflections. The marginalization or L O S S O F T H E N E U T E R , encountered in several discontinuous areas (though in none of the standards), is certainly related to this gender’s boasting the fewest distinctive declensional exponents (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 241). Nonetheless, this circumstance can hardly be made entirely responsible, even in conjunction with phonological processes such as akan’e. The fact that the development is found in high C O N T A C T zones – for example, with B A L T I C or R O M A N C E – is more suggestive (Berdicevskis forthcoming: §5.5.5.2).
7.4.4 Defectivity and Indeclinability D E F E C T I V I T Y (cf. Sims 2015, richly illustrated with Slavic verbal morphology) has no consistent patterns in Slavic declension. Instances are incidental and often phonotactic in nature; see the lack of G E N . P L forms in -∅ for items such as Rus. mgl-a ‘haze’ or meč t-a ‘dream’ (Hentschel & Menzel 2009: 165–166). I N D E C L I N A B I L I T Y in nominals is more widespread and poses interesting theoretical challenges (Worth 1966, Gvozdanović 2009: 136, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 250). Native uninflected substantives arise extremely rarely, usually isolated survivals of otherwise extinct morphological types (e.g. BCS doba N . I N D C L ‘period’, probably a trace of PIE r-stem neuters; inflected byforms exist). More often, indeclinability is associated with weakly integrated L O A N W O R D S . As regards substantives, the SSl. standard languages are less prone to tolerate such items, instead using various strategies to host inflection
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
153
154
MAREK MAJER
(Thomas 1983, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 242–243); see Rus. atelʹje I N D C L ‘atelier’, Pol. atelier [atɛlˈjɛ] I N D C L vs. Sln. atelje-∅, G E N . S G atelje-j-a – BCS atelje-∅, G E N . S G atelje-a – Bul. ateli-e, P L ateli-eta. Indeclinable adjectives representing loanwords are found across Slavic, however. A rarer type comprises native conversions from adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc.: Sln. poceni I N D C L ‘cheap’ < po ceni lit. ‘for price’; bore I N D C L . ‘meager’ (now archaic) < fossilized V O C form (Section 7.4.7). Interestingly, LCS possessed a whole class of indeclinable adjectives in *-ь (OCS isplъnь I N D C L ‘full’, etc.), though later lost; these probably continue PIE adjectives with the suffix *-i-, but with an intermediate stage of adverbialized usage (Majer 2021).
7.4.5 Role of Dual Markers Although the distinctive capabilities of D U A L N U M B E R paradigms in LCS were restricted (Sections 7.2–7.3), they did feature several characteristic markers (principally D A T /I N S *-ma and G E N /L O C *-(oj)u; also certain N O M /A C C endings). These, following the loss of the dual as a syntactic category in most of Slavic, are often maintained in some capacity (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 225– 226, Janda 2014: 1567, 1576–1577, Žolobov & Krysʹko 2001), namely: (i) particular forms qua plurals in nouns denoting paired body parts (e.g. in Macroclass II: Cze. ruk-a ‘hand’, I N S . P L ruka-ma, L O C . P L ruk-ou; Mac. nog-a ‘foot’, P L noz-e ; in irregular nouns: Pol. ok-o ‘eye’, G E N . P L ocz-u, I N S . P L oczyma); (ii) spread to certain plural paradigms without an obvious semantic cue: in Macroclass I (cf. Rus. bereg-∅ ‘shore’, N O M /A C C . P L bereg-a); in Macroclass III (cf. BCS kost-∅ ‘bone’, G E N . P L kost-iju); (iii) wholesale spread across plural paradigms: Cze. colloquial I N S . P L -ma; Ksb. variation I N S . P L -mi ~ -ma; BCS D A T /I N S / L O C . P L -ma); (iv) utilization for marking novel structures/categories, for example paucal (Section 7.4.2) or numeral inflection (Section 7.3.3). The above developments are practically absent from the few standard languages retaining the dual as a category (i.e. Sln. and Sor.; dialects differ).
7.4.6 Definiteness Markers The LCS strategy of marking D E F I N I T E N E S S in adjectives lost momentum as the former definite paradigm yielded the unmarked ‘adjective declension’ (Section 7.3.2). Later, however, some languages innovated definiteness morphemes marking the nominal phrase (from E N C L I T I C I Z E D demonstrative pronouns, mostly *tъ). A peripheral locus of this phenomenon are certain northern dialects of Rus., but the major one is ESSl., including standard Bul. and Mac. (the development mirrors B A L K A N languages such as Albanian and Romanian; cf. Lindstedt 2014). Whether these markers constitute inflection is disputed, as they follow the number(/case) marker proper (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 251) and are only present on one member of a given phrase; they also correspond formally to unremarkable syntagmas in other Slavic languages (Pol. artykuł ten ‘this article’). However, their interaction with declensional paradigms in ESSl. is
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Table 7.23 Declension of definite forms for ‘old man’ and ‘sister’ in the dialect of Bobošč ica/ Boboshticë, Albania Masc.
Fem.
Singular NOM DAT ACC
starec-∅-o starc-u-tomu starc-a-togo
sestr-a-ta sestr-jä-tuj sestr-a-ta
Plural NOM DAT ACC
starc-i-ti starc-i-tim starc-i-ti
sestr-jä-te sestr-jä-tem sestr-jä-te
(Adapted from Vidoeski 1999: 196–197 and Topolinjska 2009: 182–183)
significant and complex. This holds especially for those varieties which, unlike standard Bul. and Mac., preserve relatively vibrant case marking (Topolinjska 2009: 182–183, 2014: 1611), as visualized in Table 7.23. In the standard languages, this repertoire is far more limited and insensitive to case (exception: the Bul. norm prescribes a diachronically artificial and poorly observed distinction between N O M . -ǎ t and obl. -a in the M . S G ). The shape of the morpheme is mostly regulated by the grammatical gender of the nominal (M . S G Bul. -ǎ t/-a, Mac. -ot ; F . S G -ta ; N . S G -to ; M /F . P L -te; N . P L -ta), although instances of ad formam matching are found in particular configurations (cf. Bul. sluga-ta ‘the servant.M ’, Mac. luǵ e-to ‘the people’). Standard Mac. also possesses two additional series marked for proximal (-ov etc.) and distal (-on etc.), grammaticalized from other demonstrative pronouns. Dialectal ESSl. systems also attest forms based on the pronoun *sь.
7.4.7 Transfers to and from Declensional Morphology Inflectional markers can be diachronically extracted from their paradigms, for example via lexicalization or grammaticalization; etymological declensional markers may thus be found outside of synchronic paradigms of nominals. F O S S I L I Z E D PIE case forms are hidden in verbal morphemes such as I N F I N I T I V E *-ti (D A T or L O C , probably the former, of verbal noun in *-ti-) or S U P I N E *-tъ (A C C of verbal noun in *-tu-); both grammaticalizations are of Balto-Slavic date (cf. Villanueva Svensson 2019). Trivial intra-Slavic cases involve declensional markers on participles harnessed for periphrastic constructions (chiefly, but not exclusively, the l-participle). Those languages that lost particular case categories often retain their fossilized exponents in A D V E R B S and other indeclinables. For example, Mac. adverbs in -um such as vik-um ‘loudly’, del-um ‘partly’ are ultimately based on the I N S . S G *-omь (vik
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
155
156
MAREK MAJER
‘shout’, del ‘part’); Sln., which lost the vocative, preserves items such as bore I N D C L ‘meager’ (now archaic) < *ubože, original V O C . S G of ubog ‘poor’. Instances of extraneous elements penetrating into the domain of inflectional morphology are rare, practically limited to derivational suffixes reinterpreted as inflectional; see plural markers such as Mac. -inja, Bul./Mac. -išta, based on derived collectives (this happens to replicate the PIE prehistory of the LCS neuter plural *-a; Fortson 2010: 118), or the type Bul. djad-o ‘grandfather’, P L djad-ovci (quasi-S U P P L E T I V E plural marker for masculine nouns in -o, etymologically containing the composite suffix *-ovьcь) (cf. Section 7.1.3). B O R R O W I N G of declensional markers is likewise sporadic and, in the standard languages, mostly limited to learned imports such as Cze. N O M . S G rytm-us ‘rhythm’ (G E N . S G rytm-u).
7.4.8 Segmental Alternations in Declensional Paradigms The declensional systems of Slavic languages are rich in segmental A L T E R N A T I O N S (see Chapter 5 in this volume). The null endings of some N O M ( / A C C ) . S G forms in Macroclasses I and III and of some G E N (/A C C ).P L ones in Macroclasses II and I are a locus classicus of vowel and consonant alternations resulting from final jer loss – word-final devoicing (Section 5.3.1), vowel-zero alternations (Section 5.2.2), and compensatory lengthening (Section 5.2.3). Entrenched in synchronic phonology or at least widely distributed across morphology, these are not connected exclusively with declension. Morphologized alternations tied specifically to certain case/number endings are mostly associated with LCS P A L A T A L I Z A T I O N processes or their corollaries (alternations of an older pedigree are practically absent) and are of the type K : C (more rarely K : Č ); these may be found essentially in any forms whose LCS exponents started with front vowels (Ukr. noh-a ‘leg’, D A T /L O C noz-i – BCS trbuh-∅ ‘stomach’, N O M . P L trbus-i – Cze. jazyk-∅ ‘tongue’, L O C . P L jazyc-ích – Cze. velk-ý ‘big’, N O M . P L . M . A N I M velc-í ). In many languages, alternations tend to be lost diachronically – either by simple leveling of alternants (Slk. noh-a, L O C . S G noh-e – Sln. trebuh-∅, N O M . P L trebuh-i – Sln. jezik-∅, L O C . P L jezik-ih – BCS velik-i, N O M . P L . M velik-i – Slk. vel’k-ý, N O M . P L . M . A N I M vel’k-í ) or by the replacement with historically non-inducing endings (Slk. jazyk-∅ ‘tongue’, L O C . P L jazyk-och; Ukr. jazyk-∅, L O C . P L jazyk-ax). There are interesting differences between the retention of alternations in nominal and verbal morphology (e.g. Rus. strongly reduced the former while retaining many of the latter, whereas the opposite is found in Cze.; Janda 2014: 1566). Younger palatalization processes (Section 5.3.2) have added further layers of alternations of the type D: D’ and their outputs (Ksb. miasto ‘city’, L O C . S G miesc-e; Bel. horad-∅ ‘city’, L O C . S G horadz-e). For comprehensive descriptions of numerous other segmental alternations in Slavic declension, see Dalewska-Greń (1997: 165–197), Sussex & Cubberley (2006: 208–209, 268–269).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
7.4.9 Prosody in Declensional Paradigms In those Slavic varieties in which a free S T R E S S system (sometimes accompanied by P I T C H distinctions) is preserved, it is utilized to assist declensional endings in marking certain categories (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 198–199, 258, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 123–126). Its functional load is never dramatically large, but instances of systematic resolution of segmental H O M O N Y M Y are found in each of the relevant languages; see Ukr. G E N . S G sestr-ý ‘sister’ vs. N O M . P L séstr-y – BCS mlád-a ‘young.F ’ vs. mlȃ d-a ‘bride’ – Sln. G E N . S G grad-ȗ ‘castle’ vs. D A T . S G grȃ d-u (additional examples in Section 7.4.3). Historical changes include both simplifications of the inherited state – that is, a gradual departure from the LCS system of accentual paradigms as standalone suprasegmental entities (Dybo 1981) – and reinforced morphologization of more localized accentual patterns: association of particular endings with stressedness (cf. Section 7.4.2 on the Rus. ‘second locative’ in -ú), striving towards a consistent accentual opposition between singular and plural (Rus. N O M . S G léto ‘summer’, L O C . S G lét-e vs. N O M . P L let-á, L O C . P L let-áx), and similar developments (Baerman 2014). See also Chapter 1 in this volume.
References Andersen, H. (2012). The new Russian vocative: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica, 58(1), 122–167. Anstatt, T. (2008). Der slavische Vokativ im europäischen Kontext. In L. Geist & G. Mehlhorn, eds. Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik XV, Munich: Sagner, pp. 9–26. Baerman, M. (2009). Case syncretism. In Malchukov & Spencer, pp. 219–230. Baerman, M. (2014). Historical development of Slavic inflectional accent. In Gutschmidt et al., pp. 1590–1596. Berdicevskis, A. (forthcoming). Gender and declension. In J. Fellerer & N. Bermel, eds., Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breu, W. (2020). Paucal. In M. Greenberg, ed. Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online. Brill Reference Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/25896229_ESLO_COM_031985. Bühler, K. (1965). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, 2nd ed., Stuttgart: Fischer. Corbett, G. (1988). Gender in Slavonic from the standpoint of a general typology of gender systems. The Slavonic and East European Review, 66(1), 1–20. Dalewska-Greń , H. (1997). Ję zyki słowiań skie, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Daniel, M. & Spencer, A. (2009). The vocative – an outlier case. In Malchukov & Spencer, pp. 626–634. Doleschal, U. (2009). Nominale Kategorien: Genus. In Kempgen et al., pp. 143–146. Dybo, V. A. (1981). Slavjanskaja akcentologija, Moscow: Nauka. Fortson, B. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture, 2nd ed., Chichester & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Furlan, M. (2013). K identifikaciji zgodnjepraslovanske akrostatič ne deklinacije ijevskih samostalnikov. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 19(1), 51–70.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
157
158
MAREK MAJER
Gorbachov, Y. (2017). The Proto-Slavic genitive-locative dual: A reappraisal of (South-)West Slavic and Indo-European evidence. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25 (1), 63–94. Greenberg, M. (2017). Slavic. In M. Kapović, ed. The Indo-European Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 519–551. Gutschmidt, K., Kempgen, S., Berger, T., & Kosta, P., eds. (2014). Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Vol. II, Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter. Gvozdanovic,́ J. (2001). Vergleichen und Einordnen: Graduierung im Slavischen. In H. Jachnow, B. Norman, & A. Suprun, eds., Quantität und Graduierung als kognitivsemantische Kategorien, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 560–573. Gvozdanovic,́ J. (2009). Synthetismus und Analytismus im Slavischen. In Kempgen et al., pp. 129–142. Haspelmath, M. (1993). The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics, 31, 279–309. Haspelmath, M. (2021). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics, 73(3), 605–633. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535. Hentschel, G. & Menzel, Th. (2009). Nominale Kategorien: Kasus. In Kempgen et al., pp. 161–176. Hill, E. (2015). Suppletion replication in grammaticalization and its triggering factors. Language Dynamics and Change, 5(1), 52–91. Hock, W. (2006). Das Altkirchenslavische. In P. Rehder, ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen, 5th ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 35–48. Iordanidi, S. I. & Krysʹko, V. B. (2000). Istorič eskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. Vol. I. Množestvennoe č islo imennogo sklonenija, Moscow: Azbukovnik. Jakobson, R. (1971a). Morfologič eskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem. In Selected Writings. Vol. II, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 154–183. Jakobson, R. (1971b). Quest for the essence of language. In Selected Writings. Vol. II, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 345–359. Janda, L. (1996). Back from the Brink. A Study of How Relic Forms in Languages Serve as Source Material for Analogical Extension, Munich: LINCOM Europa. Janda, L. (1999). Whence virility? The rise of a new gender distinction in the history of Slavic. In M. Mills, ed. Slavic Gender Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, pp. 201–228. Janda, L. (2014). Introduction to Slavic historical morphology: Slavic noun classes. In Gutschmidt et al., pp. 1565–1582. Jasanoff, J. (1989). Language and gender in the Tarim Basin: The Tocharian 1 sg. pronoun. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, 3, 125–148. Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Berger, T., & Gutschmidt, K., eds. (2009). Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Vol. I, Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter. Klenin, E. (2014). Animacy, personhood. In Kempgen et al., pp. 152–161. Koch, Ch. (1992). Zur Vorgeschichte des relativen Attributivkonnexes im Baltischen und Slavischen. In B. Barschel, M. Kozianka, & K. Weber, eds., Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch, Munich: Peter Lang, pp. 45–88. Kondrašov, N. A. (1986). Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Prosvešč enie. Körtvélyessy, L. & Štekauer, P. (2018). Postfixation or inflection inside derivation. Folia Linguistica, 52(2), 351–381.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Declensions
Krysʹko, V. B. (2014). Entstehung der Kategorie der Belebtheit/Personalität. In Gutschmidt et al., pp. 1596–1605. Kuryłowicz, J. (1949). Le problème du classement des cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Ję zykoznawczego, 9, 20–43. Langston, K. (2018). The morphology of Slavic. In J. Klein, B. Joseph, & M. Fritz, eds., Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. III, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1397–1413. Lindstedt, J. (2014). Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance: from congruence to convergence. In J. Besters-Dilger et al., eds., Congruence in Contact-Induced Language Change, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 168–183. Majer, M. (2015). Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katé ̨ ri: vowel variation in the reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koterъ(jь) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica, 61(2), 154–179. Majer, M. (2021). Slavic ‘i-stem adjectives’ and their alleged inflection loss: the derivational prehistory and synchronic status of a category. In A. Blanc & I. Boehm, eds., Dérivation nominale et innovations dans les langues indo-européennes anciennes, Lyon: MOM Éditions, pp. 65–81. Malchukov, A. & Spencer, A., eds. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Case, Oxford & New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mannewitz, C. (2009). Nominale Kategorien: Steigerung. In Kempgen et al., pp. 188–199. Manova, S. (2011). Understanding Morphological Rules: With Special Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, Dordrecht & New York, NY: Springer. Manova, S. & Dressler, W. (2001). Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 67, 45–81. Marušič , F. & Žaucer, R. (2012). On Slovenian demonstrative reinforcers and the internal structure of demonstratives. In M. Markovic,́ S. Halupka-Rešetar, N. Milicé vic,́ & T. Milic,́ eds., Selected Papers from SinFonIJA 3, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 76–104. Olander, Th. (2015). Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology, Leiden: Brill. Parker, J. (forthcoming). Case with special reference to syncretism and indeclinables. In J. Fellerer & N. Bermel, eds., Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinhart, J. (2002). Morphologische Innovationen des Altkirchenslavischen. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 48, 133–148. Schenker, A. (1993). Proto-Slavonic. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 60–121. Sims, A. (2015). Inflectional Defectiveness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sobolev, A. N. (2009). From synthetic to analytic case: variation in South Slavic dialects. In Malchukov & Spencer, pp. 716–729. Stankiewicz, E. (1968). Grammatical genders of the Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 11, 27–41. Suprun, A. E. (1969). Slavjanskie č islitelʹnye. Stanovlenie č islitelʹnyx kak osoboj č asti reč i, Minsk: Izdatelʹstvo BGU im. V.I. Lenina. Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swan, O. (2015). Polish gender, subgender, and quasi-gender. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 23(1), 83–122.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
159
160
MAREK MAJER
Šimundić, M. (1971). Govor Imotske krajine i Bekije, Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Thomas, G. (1983). A comparison of the morphological adaptation of loanwords ending in a vowel in contemporary Czech, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 25(1), 180–205. Topolinjska, Z. (2009). Definiteness (Synchrony). In Kempgen et al., pp. 176–188. Topolinjska, Z. (2014). Definiteness (Diachrony). In Gutschmidt et al., pp. 1606–1615. Vaillant, A. (1958). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. II: Morphologie. 1. Flexion nominale, Lyon: Editions IAC. Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel du vieux slave. I. Grammaire, Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Vermeer, W. (1984). Opozicija tipa “živo/neživo” u množini u jednom č akavskom sistemu (Omišalj). Nauč ni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, 13, 275–287. Vidoeski, B. (1999). Dijalektite na makedonskiot jazik. III, Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite. Villanueva Svensson, M. (2019). The infinitive in Baltic and Balto-Slavic. IndoEuropean Linguistics, 7(1), 194–221. Wandl, F. (2022a). Superlative morphology from syntax: Slavic nai-/naj- and internal definiteness marking in Old Lithuanian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 120 (1), 103–127. Wandl, F. (2022b). Trapped morphology and the rise of the Slavic definite adjective inflection: A reexamination. Folia Linguistica Historica, 43. https://doi.org/10.1515/ flin-2022-2012. Worth, D. (1966). On the stem/ending boundary in Slavic indeclinables. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, 9, 11–16. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1973). O ponimanii termina “padež” v lingvistič eskix opisanijax. In Problemy grammatič eskogo modelirovanija, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 53–87. Žolobov, O. F. & Krysʹko, V. B. (2001). Istorič eskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. II. Dvojstvennoe č islo, Moscow: Azbukovnik.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.008 Published online by Cambridge University Press
8 Inflectional Endings: Conjugation Ian Press
8.1 Setting the Scene C O N J U G A T I O N in the Slavic languages is suffixal. In Proto-Slavic a rich tensemood system and participial system were present. Changes over time led to variation, much richer case inflection (including the participles) in the North, and a richer tense-mood inflection in the South. The former are covered in Chapters 7 and 9. Consideration is given here to the categories of P E R S O N (first, second, third), N U M B E R (singular, dual (Upper and Lower Sorbian, Slovenian/ Slovene), plural), G E N D E R (in the modern past tense), T E N S E (P R E S E N T , P A S T (originally the P E R F E C T tense), F U T U R E , I M P E R F E C T (non-completed past tense), A O R I S T (completed past tense), P L U P E R F E C T (perfect in the past), with other combinations, e.g. in Bulgarian), V O I C E (active, passive, reflexive), M O O D (I N D I C A T I V E , C O N D I T I O N A L , I M P E R A T I V E ), and R E N A R R A T I O N (Bulgarian and Macedonian). Focus is on person, number, and gender as manifested in the tenses and imperative.1 First we link reconstructed Proto-Slavic (PSL), made more ‘real’ through the attested Old Church Slavonic (OCS), with the distant Proto-IndoEuropean (PIE). The literature is massive and vigorous. Szemerényi (1990) provides good lists (for the date); more is in the Bibliography. This chapter presents the ‘inflectional endings’. These often include the final component of the S T E M (such combinations, rendering simple, unambiguous ‘endings’ difficult to isolate, encourage us to describe such languages as fusional – see Kapovic’́ s ‘verb shape’ below). For the present there is
1
Sussex & Cubberley (2006: 278–279; henceforth S&C ). Their whole section, pp. 278–308, is extremely useful. I here sincerely acknowledge the exhaustive help of my editors and readers. A good number of examples in the chapter are taken from S&C, de Bray (dated, but nonetheless still a precious source), and in particular the chapters in Comrie and Corbett (henceforth C&C ), which provided many examples. Focus in this chapter has very much been on concision; abundant material and analysis of considerable value and relevance will be found in other chapters, notably Chapter 9.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
162
IAN PRESS
remarkable closeness. In sounds, much is regular; in forms, there is analogy, innovation, and repatterning.
8.2 Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic For PIE, Kapović (2017: 91–93) places the present, aorist, and perfect under aspect (aspect may well chronologically anticipate tense, arising in the meaning of the nascent verbs and later being closer to word formation).2 There are active and middle voices, and indicative, imperative, optative, and subjunctive moods. The PIE perfect, middle, imperative, and subjunctive are lost in Slavic. The PIE optative provides the Slavic imperative. A relic may be the form vě dě ‘I know’, if accepted as a perfect with a middle ending or the hic & nunc particle *i (*woydh2ey ‘I am in the state of having seen, therefore I know’). The PIE verb shape (Kapović (2017: 92) can be assumed to be: root (+ affix) (+ thematic vowel) + ending (+ particle).3 We start with the P R E S E N T , as reconstructed for PIE, reflected in OCS, and described by Leskien. Leskien’s Classes I, II, and III have a T H E M A T I C V O W E L e/o, which follows the bare stem (Class I), an -n- (Class II), or a -j- (Class III). Class IV has a verbal suffix -i- (from PIE (*-ej-/-ı̄ -), and there is no verbal thematic vowel. Class V is athematic. The endings proper are then attached. We start with the first–third persons singular and third person plural forms: *-m, *-s, *-t, *-nt (the PIE ‘S E C O N D A R Y E N D I N G S ’); adding the particle i, we have the ‘P R I M A R Y E N D I N G S ’ (there was probably no variation in the first person plural and second person plural).4 The table below is based on Kapović (2017: 93); the PIE 3P seems also to have had a later form with *o, reflected in the more common OCS form, for example nesǫ tъ ‘they carry’ and sę tъ alongside the more frequent sǫ tъ ‘they are’.5 The i in the OCS 2S may suggest a middle-voice form. This is the ending in the four Slavic A T H E M A T I C S *byti, *jě sti (*jasti), *dati, *vě dě ti ‘be, eat, give, know’ – one would expect -ь. The last three of the four athematics have 3P -ę tъ. As just noted, OCS also had this in sę tъ (reflected in Mac se). The verb imati ‘have’ seems part-athematic, perhaps reflecting a complex development (e.g. ‘have taken’ > ‘have’). The symbol h below refers to the laryngeals, probably three, perhaps causing e-, a-, and o-coloring of an adjacent *e, and adding length if following that adjacent vowel. 1S PIE *h1es-m-i OCS esmı̆ 2
3
4 5
2S *h1e(s)-s-i esi
3S *h1es-t-i estъ
1P 2P *h1s-me/o *h1s-te esmъ este
3P *h1s-ent-i sǫ tъ
‘Slavonic is here reserved for ‘Church Slavonic’, ‘Old Church Slavonic’, and as used in the names of publications and citations. The thematic vowel comes between the stem and the inflectional suffix; it is reckoned that lexical items without a thematic vowel, viz. athematic, are older. That question is here left open. Henceforth 1S, 2S, 3S, 1D, 2D, 3D, 1P, 2P, 3P. The jers, ь and ъ, are used for later stages of PSL and for OCS, for *ı̆ and *ъ, respectively.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
Above we see the ending added to the root, thus athematic, and with primary endings. The thematic endings are as follows: 1S 2S *-o-h2 *-e-h1-i *-e-s-i OCS -ǫ -e-š-i
PIE
3S 1P *-e-t-i *-o-me/o
2P *-e-te
-etъ
-ete
-emъ
3P *-o *-o-nt-i -ǫ tъ
In the 2S we have reflexes of *-ešı̆ in later Slavic endings. But OCS has mainly -eši. There must have been variation (within PSL *i > *ь, but long *i and i-diphthongs give and may give, respectively, *i ). In West and most of South Slavic (apart from part of the Macedonian area) 3S forms display -e with no following t; some East Slavic dialects likewise. OCS 3S/P -tъ for expected -tь is unexpected, but is also found in Russian from around the fourteenth century. It may reflect the demonstrative *tъ (see a reference in Kiparsky 1963: 189). So OCS idǫ , ideši, idetъ, idemъ, idete, idǫ tъ from Leskien I iti ‘go’. In later Slavic languages one might note a variety of possibilities for the 1P, for example BCMS and Ukrainian -mo,6 Polish -my, and Bulgarian (partly) and Macedonian -me (this is unlikely to be connected with a wider variety of possible 1P endings across PIE).7 The dual remains uncertain, which may explain its instability within Slavic. OCS has -(e)vě , -(e)ta, -(e)te. The 1D in Slovenian is -va, perhaps under the influence of the numeral *dъva. 2D and 3D tend to overlap. In Slavic there are I M P E R F E C T I V E and P E R F E C T I V E A S P E C T S (see Chapter 10), three S Y N T H E T I C T E N S E S (present-future (often referred to as the ‘non-past’), aorist, imperfect), imperative, and compound forms. The verbal adjectives (present active and passive, past active and passive, resultative or l-participle), verbal adverbs (not in OCS), verbal substantive, infinitive, and supine belong to the realm of nouns and adjectives – see Schenker (1995: 145– 147 for a fine description).8 In comparison with PIE this is a very light system. Isač enko (1962: 41–42) writes of a ‘deverbalization of Russian’: the verbal system is remote from PIE and nominal forms, namely the l-participle, serve to make some of the forms of verbs. Nonetheless, the intricacies of the verbal systems in Slavic invite analysis. The T H E M A T I C E N D I N G S suggest two C O N J U G A T I O N S : e/ǫ and i/ę . The former displays the PIE thematic vowel and is reflected in L E S K I E N I-II-III. We seem to have *e except before *n, *m, and a laryngeal, where we have *o (the 2S requires an explanation; 1P acquired *e by analogy). The latter is arguably thematically opaque, that is, has a suffix but no thematic vowel, and reflected in Leskien IV. The *ı̄ may reflect a PIE causative *-eye/o-, at an intervening stage 6 7
8
BCMS = Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian. It also occurs as ‘BCS’ and formerly as ‘Serbo-Croat(ian)’. One may even note the intriguing bookish 1P esmja of byti in Muscovy from the end of the fourteenth century. Even more intriguing is the rarer 2P form estja, from the sixteenth century! A connection with Ancient Greek esmén is resistible. See Bulaxovskij (1958: 101, 215). The I N F I N I T I V E and S U P I N E , PSL *-ti and *-tъ respectively, seem to have arisen from PIE deverbal nouns with a *t-suffix, the former a dative or locative of an *ı̆ -stem and the latter an accusative *ъ-stem.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
163
164
IAN PRESS
*i + *e/o, the *e disappearing and the *i before the *o (1S) becoming j. S Y L L A B I C (see Chapters 2, 3, and 4) does not affect the 1S: though *-ǫ is a back vowel, it can follow palatal and non-palatal consonants alike. Let us run through the Leskien verbal classes as reflected in OCS.
SYNHARMONISM
Leskien I: verbs with the thematic vowel after the root, a ‘bare stem’: nes |ti – nesetъ ‘carry’, moš|ti (*mog|ti ) – možetъ ‘be able’, nač ę |ti – nač ьnetъ ‘begin’.9 Here belong four verbs with an n-infix, for example sě s |ti – sę detъ ‘take a sitting position’, and verbs with a suffix, for example bьr |a|ti – beretъ ‘take, bear’ (an example of the difficulty of identifying a stem). Leskien II: the suffix *n and an infinitive -nǫ ti: dvig|nǫ |ti – dvignetъ ‘move’ (and the solitary st |a|ti – stanetъ ‘take an upright position’). Leskien III: the suffix *j. This is associated with an *a in the infinitive, which after a consonant (other than j ) alternates with the jot (and thus jotation) in the present tense. Thus zna|ti – znajetъ ‘know’, razum|ě |ti – razumě jetъ ‘understand’, b|i |ti – bı̆ jetъ ‘beat’ (arguably Leskien I), vě r |ova|ti – vě rujetъ ‘believe’ (this productive class of mainly denominal verbs reflects the suffix *ow becoming *ov before a vowel and monophthongizing to *u when not, i.e. when in a closed syllable), plak |a|ti – plač etъ ‘weep’ (and where *kj yields č throughout the present tense). Leskien IV: infinitives in -iti, -ě ti, and -ati (the last are the product of -ě ti after the palatals č , ž, š, and j ). Thus nos|i |ti : nošǫ , nosiši, nositъ, nosimъ, nosite, nosę tъ ‘carry’ (an i in every ending but the 1S, where it became a jot), sě d |ě |ti – sě ditъ ‘be seated’, mlъč |a|ti – mlъč itъ ‘be silent’, boj |a|ti sę – boitъ sę ‘be afraid’.10
Each class is subdivided according to the infinitive/aorist stem, reflecting a two-stem system. The verb xot|ě |ti ‘want’ is enigmatic, with a Leskien III present except for the 3P (an old athematic?): xoštǫ – xošteši – xoštetъ – xoštemъ – xoštete – xotę tъ. In some Slavic languages we have reflexes of *xъt- rather than *xot-. This is an important verb, providing as an auxiliary the future tense in BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. In BCMS we have ht( j )eti, manifested as (ho)cú , (ho)cé š, (ho)cé , (ho)cé mo, (ho)cé te, (ho)cé . Most often we have the clitic form, without ho ; it is used with the infinitive (in Serbia it may be used with da + present tense). If it follows the infinitive, say at the beginning of the sentence, we have for example č itacú or č itat cú ‘I shall read’, and icí cú ‘I shall go’ for infinitives in -cí . Otherwise it occurs separately, earlier in the sentence, for example X cé mo ga vidjeti ‘X we shall see him’. In Bulgarian and Macedonian it manifests itself as invariable šte and k’e respectively, used with the present tense forms to provide the future tense. Bulgarian also has a future-in-the-past, using imperfect-like forms štjax, šteše, šteše, štjaxme, štjaxte, štjaxa + da + present-tense forms. The athematic verb 9
10
The vertical line roughly indicates the morphological stem (the root excluding any prefixes) to its left. A double vertical line roughly points to the location of an element which belongs to or impacts on the stem in conjugation. Much is questionable here; the aim is to convey the separation between the infinitive/aorist and the present stems (these names refer to prominent forms which can be derived from the respective stems). This convention is not applied throughout the chapter. In listings of forms, certain forms, notably the dual, may be left out.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
*imati has evolved to provide the forms -mu, -meš, -me, -memo, -mete, -mut’ affixed to the infinitive in Ukrainian, for example ja robytymu ‘I shall do’ (synthetic imperfective future) (the forms may be detached in West Ukrainian dialects). The PIE A O R I S T was ‘perfective’, a declaration neutral in the sense of having no time reference. Using overall the same endings as the non-past, without the i-particle, it and the non-past seem related. PIE may well have developed tenses later, say with the augment, *h1e ‘then’, which created past-tense forms, as in Greek and Indic. Slavic did not have the augment. So, in PIE we may have: (i) root aorist – no thematic vowel; ablaut e-grade singular, zero-grade plural, as in the non-past; (ii) s- or sigmatic aorist – like the root aorist, with the suffix *-s- and long-grade root; (iii) thematic aorist – with thematic vowel and zero-grade root.
The second and third seem to have arisen within PIE at a later date. Kapović (2017: 96) suggests Slavic *by ‘be, become’ may reflect a PIE root aorist. The sigmatic aorist variant gives, for example, OCS 1S vě sъ – 2S vede – 3S vede – 1D vě sově – 2D vě sta – 3D vě ste – 1P vě somъ – 2P vě ste – 3P vě sę ‘lead (ved-, ves|ti )’, with normal (not lengthened) grade in the 2S and 3S. OCS padъ, pade, pade, padomъ, padete, padǫ ‘fall (pad-, pas|ti )’ may be referred to as a root aorist, but note that it has acquired thematic vowels, like the sigmatic aorist. A development of the s-aorist is the x-aorist, the x arising from *s: OCS rě xъ, reč e, reč e, rě xomъ, rě ste, rě šę from reš|ti ‘speak’. Here x arises by the ruki-rule (Indo-European *s > Pre-Slavic *x after *i, *u, *r, and *k), from the *k of the root (*rek|ti) up against the *s; in the 2S, 3S, and 3P we appear to have the First Slavic Palatalization (*k > č , *k > č , *x > š resp.). See Chapters 2 and 3. Very common and productive after a consonant-final root is the ox-aorist: OCS rekoxъ, reč e, reč e, rekoxomъ, rekoste, rekošę . Here (and in dě laxъ ‘do (dě l | a|ti )’, etc.), we see analogical extension of the x/s/š-forms, the source of the analogy being the Leskien IV verbs. Thus nosixъ, nosi, nosi, nosixomъ, nosiste, nosišę ‘carry (nos|i |ti )’, where we have the operation of the ruki-rule, *s > x after *i or its antecedents, so long as a consonant, here t, does not follow. The I M P E R F E C T T E N S E is obscure. The PIE imperfect (which does not survive in Slavic) is the present with aorist endings, suggestive of an imperfective base. The PSL suffix, possibly late, seems to have been *-ě a- or *-aja(perhaps a ‘stativizing’ suffix, referred to in Chapter 10), contracted gradually to *-( j )a-, followed by the aorist *s and the thematic vowel and endings. This suffix perhaps had an iterative and/or imperfective nuance (it is arguably related to the j and j/a alternation in Leskien III verbs). See Schenker (1995: 132–133 and 143–144 – the -aj- verbs) and Darden (HCHIEL 2018: 1998). Thus, OCS -jaxъ – -jaše – -jaše – -jaxově – -jašeta – -jašete – -jaxomъ – jašete – jaxǫ . Note how the 3P aorist has the reflex of *-enti and the imperfect that of *-onti (probably without the *i ). The e between the š and t may be deleted. Sometimes we find -ě - alone before the endings, and there may be hesitation between aorist and non-past stems (and jotation).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
165
166
IAN PRESS
Let us set out OCS byti ‘be’ (Lunt 2001: 137–138), as this verb is important in the formation of the compound tenses. (One may add, for BCMS, Polabian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian, the verb xotě ti/xъtě ti, and for Ukrainian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Kashubian, the verb *ьm-ě j/*ьm-a/*ьm-Ø.) (i) I M P E R F E C T I V E : Present: esmı̆ , esi, estъ, esvě , esta, este, esmъ, este, sǫ tъ. Negative present in nĕ smı̆ , etc., except for ne sǫ tъ; rarely 3S/P without an ending: e – ně – sǫ – note this for most Slavic languages. Imperfect: bě aše, bě ašete, bě axǫ (3S/D/P) Aorist: bě xъ, bě , bě , *bě xově , *bě sta, bě ste, bě xomъ, *bě ste, bě šę The imperfect and imperfective aorist may overlap in form and meaning. (ii) P E R F E C T I V E /I M P E R F E C T I V E : Future: bǫ dǫ , bǫ deši, bǫ detъ, bǫ devě , bǫ deta, bǫ dete, bǫ demъ, bǫ dete, bǫ dǫ tъ Imperative: –, bǫ di, bǫ di, bǫ dě vě , bǫ dě ta, –, bǫ dě mъ, bǫ dě te, bǫ dǫ (iii) P E R F E C T I V E : Aorist: byxъ, bystъ (by), bystъ (by), byxově , bysta, byste, byxomъ, byste, byšę This set of forms (but not bystъ) may replace the conditional forms: (iv) C O N D I T I O N A L : bimı̆ , bi, bi, –, –, –, bimъ, biste, bǫ or bišę The conditional of byti may have these forms alone or have either them or byxъ, etc. with the l-participle bylъ (see the following paragraph). The R E S U L T A T I V E or l- P A R T I C I P L E occurs in the nominative form, built on the infinitive stem: bylъ M A S C . S G , byla F E M . S G , bylo N E U T . S G , byla M A S C . D U , bylě F E M . D U , bylě N E U T . D U , byli M A S C . P L , byly M A S C . P L , byla N E U T . P L . In OCS byti creates, as auxiliary, compound forms: perfect (using the present; the 3S is often omitted), two pluperfects (using the imperfect and imperfective aorist), conditional (see above), and, rarely, the future perfect. The PIE perfect, a S T A T I V E (‘has been, so is’) is absent from Slavic, except perhaps for the form vě dě mentioned earlier. The Slavic I M P E R A T I V E comes from the PIE O P T A T I V E , which had athematic and thematic forms (Kapović 2017: 102). The athematic suffix, S *-yeh1-, P *-ih1-, if truncated in the singular to *-y-, could account for OCS jotated forms (e.g. 2S daždь ‘give’, jě ždь ‘eat’). The plural form could account for OCS dadimъ, jě dite, etc. In the thematic we have a PIE affix *-o-yh1, singular and plural. The *i and *ě (singular and dual/plural, resp.) reflexes fit with later Slavic, and cause the Second Slavic Palatalization. In OCS we have –, -Ø, -Ø, -ě vě , -ě ta, -, -ě mъ, -ě te, -ǫ (Lunt 2001: 98–99). Overall, the aorist and imperfect survive in BCMS, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Sorbian, and the extinct Polabian. Note that they were repurposed in Bulgarian and Macedonian and are severely reduced in use in BCMS. We have the dual in Slovenian, Polabian, and Upper and Lower Sorbian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
Morphological case is much reduced in Macedonian and Bulgarian – is their rich, innovative verbal system compensation for this?11
8.3 The Individual Languages Let us now survey the individual languages, mainly as they are now, with commentary as appropriate, and very brief reference to earlier stages in East Slavic and to Polabian.
8.3.1 The P R E S E N T First, we set out the present endings in post-OCS Slavic (PSL in the first column of each except for the 3P, with individual languages identifiable from the following text – overall the reflexes are straightforward for individual languages). One will note that A T H E M A T I C E N D I N G S have prevailed in some languages (South Slavic) and T H E M A T I C E N D I N G S in others (East Slavic). This is, intentionally, an extremely informal table, showing the range of endings and allowing the readers the satisfying job of working things out for themselves; to a very large extent they are perfectly explicable on the basis of Slavic phonological development; see Chapter 2. 1S *-mь
*-ǫ
2S *-šь
-m (preceded by various vowels, notably -am in all Macedonian verbs but sum ‘be’; the m is everywhere hard; note that the 1P had -mъ, see below) -ę (note that this reflects a short nasal, front and back, in early Polish) -(j)u -a (-ă – the pronunciation in Bulgarian) -i (ǫ is from -ŏh2 > -ō plus secondary m) *-ši
*-si -sy 3S *-tь -t 1D *-vě -va 2D/3D *-ta -te 1P *-mъ, (-mos?, -mon?) 11
-š -s ́
(š is regular in Leskien IV – analogical elsewhere) -si
-Ø -moj
-mej -ta
-me
-my
-(š)taj -mo
-m
-(š)tej -më
-ma
Macedonian and Bulgarian have lost synthetic case inflection. Even in BCMS, compared with Polish or Russian, there is attrition of inflections in the plural (with dative-instrumental-locative syncretism), reduction in the inflection of the numerals, etc.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
167
168
IAN PRESS
2P *-te -te -cie -cé -só -ce 3P *-nti *-ǫ tь/ъ -(j)ut(') -(j)u *-ę tь/ъ -(j)at(') -(j)ą -(j)a -(j)o -í, -ou -e, -ia (note here that ą reflects a long nasal in early Polish; note too that this ending, which seems to lack a jot, nonetheless may affect a preceding consonant as if it had included a jot, e.g. Polish siedziec ́ ‘sit’: 1S siedzę (jotation) – 3P siedzą (unexpected jotation), cf. the ‘correct’ Ukrainian sydity ‘sit’: 1S sydžu – 3P sydjat’, with a soft d) 8.3.2
South Slavic: P R E S E N T
8.3.2.1 Slovenian Endings: -m, -š, -Ø, -va, -ta, -ta, -mo, -te, -jo. The 1S is striking for the universal -m: the athematic ending has taken over. The 3P in -i-jo has a stressed variant in -e and -e-jo one in -o. Note also the a-conjugation by contraction, found everywhere but East Slavic. Thus: peč i: peč em, peč eš, peč e, peč eva, peč eta, peč eta, peč emo, peč ete, peč ejo (note archaic and etymologically ‘correct’ 3P peko, with the velar retained and the o stressed) ‘bake’; delati: delam, delaš, dela, delamo, delate, delajo (note the VjV (‘V’ = ‘vowel’) contraction except in the 3P, which may give the pattern for -ejo and -ijo) ‘do, work’; moliti: molim, moliš, moli, molimo, molite, molijo ‘pray’; biti: sem, si, je, sva, sta, sta, smo, ste, so (note the loss of the first syllable except in the 3S, and the inserted element in the 1S – compare with other languages) ‘be’. 8.3.2.2 BCMS Endings: -m (except hocú , cú ; mogu ‘will, can’ resp.), -š, -Ø, -mo, -te, -u/-e. Thus: pecí : peč em, peč eš, peč e, peč emo, peč ete, peku ‘bake’; č itati: č itam, č itaš, č ita, č itamo, č itate, č itaju ‘read’; moliti: molim, moliš, moli, molimo, molite, mole ‘request’; biti: jesam, jesi, jest(e), jesmo, jeste, jesu – clitic forms sam, si, je, smo, ste, su ‘be’; ht(j)eti: hocú , hocé š, hocé , hocé mo, hocé te, hocé ‘want’. 8.3.2.3 Bulgarian Endings: -(j)ă or -m, -š, -Ø, -m(e), -te, -(j)ă t (ă reflects the pronunciation – the spelling has -a, -ja). The structure has either a before the endings or (zero in the 1S and 3P) e or i.12 Thus: piša, pišeš, piše, pišem, pišete, pišat ‘write’; pravja, praviš, pravi, pravim, pravite, pravjat ‘do’ (3P expected -et; likely analogy with the 1S); gledam, gledaš, gleda, gledame, gledate, gledat ‘watch’ (note how in this type of inflection the -t is simply added in the 3P); să m, si, e, sme, ste, sa ‘be’; dam, dadeš, dade, dadem, dadete, dadat ‘give’; jam, jadeš, jade, jadem, jadete, jadat ‘eat’. Note 1P -me where 1S is -m (except where the stem differs, as in the also encountered 1S forms dadem ‘give’ and jadem ‘eat’). 12
The citation form for Bulgarian verbs is the 1S. In Macedonian, this is the case only for the verb sum ‘be’ (see below); otherwise, it is the 3S there.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
8.3.2.4 Macedonian Endings: -am, -š, -Ø, -me, -te, -at. Not only does every verb have 1S -m, but it is -am – the stem-final vowel is deleted. Thus for ‘read, request, write, weep, gather, be able’: č ita, moli, piše, plač e, bere, može + -am, -š, -Ø, -me, -te, -at (č itam, č itaš, č ita, č itam, č itate, č itaat; molam, moliš, moli, molim, molite, molat; pišam, pišeš, piše, pišem, pišete, pišat; plač am, plač eš, place, plač em, plač ete, plač at; beram, bereš, bere, berem, berete, berat; možam, možeš, može, možem, možete, možat). Note that in the č ita inflection the 3P is č itaat, the thematic vowel being retained; note the spread of ž to the 1S and 3P in može; and note that -at is added to the stem everywhere in the 3P. ‘Be’: sum, si, e, sme, ste, se (note the 1S fill vowel – a common feature: elsewhere sem, jesam, să m, jsem, som, etc.). 3P continues PSL *sę tı̆ . Note the 1S of this verb, an exception.
8.3.3 East Slavic: Present/Non-Past We insert ‘non-past’ here because East and West Slavic use present-tense endings (except in compound forms) to convey the future too. 8.3.3.1 Russian Endings: -(j)u, -š, -t, -m, -te, -(j)ut or -(j)at. The e-(o (ë) under stress)conjugation converges with the i-conjugation when the endings other than the 1S and 3P are unstressed (the unstressed 3P endings tend towards those of the e-conjugation). The 1S endings are theme-less. We have these two, and no contracted conjugation, in East Slavic; plus athematics and irregulars. For the absence of contraction (i.e. -aje- remains and does not become -a-), note č itat' ‘read’: č itaju, č itaeš', č itaet, č itaem, č itaete, č itajut. And note the third-person -t in the standard language. Here are two examples, end-stressed 1S, otherwise unstressed. Thus for ‘write, carry’: pisat’: pišu, pišeš’, pišet, pišem, píšete, pišut; nosit’: nošu, nosiš’, nosit, nosim, nosite, nosjat. Athematic 1S dam ‘give’, em ‘eat’ are retained. 2S eš', daš' < 2S imperatives ě žь, dažь. 3S est' ‘is’, dast, est have various interpretations – something of a mystery! 1S and 1P coincidence may have led to 1P dadim, edim. 2P dadite, edite originally imperatives. 3P edjat, sut’ continue PSL jedę tı̆ , sǫ tı̆ (the latter now rare). Dadut replacing dadjat is uncertain. 8.3.3.2 Ukrainian Endings: -(j)u, -š, -Ø or -t'/-t', -mo, -te, -(j)ut' or -(j)at'. Thus for ‘read’: č ytaty: č ytaju, č ytaješ, č ytaje, č ytajemo, č ytajete, č ytajut’ (-eš- suggests -ši was retained a while, the syllable remaining open – in closed syllables e > i), and ‘carry’: nošu, nosyš, nosyt’, or nose, nosymo, nosyte, nosjat’. J O T A T I O N is extended to the second-conjugation 3P in the case of labials, doubtless reflecting the softness here before a, for example robyty – roblju, robyš, . . ., robljat’. Athematics: daty ‘give’, jisty ‘eat’, -visty ‘know’ (like jisty): dam, dasy, dast’, damo, daste, dadut’; jim, jisy, jist’, jimo, jiste, jidjat’. Buty is je for all persons and numbers. Note the PSL athematic 2S *-i, with its reflex -y.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
169
170
IAN PRESS
8.3.3.3 Belarusian Endings: -(j)u, -š, -Ø or -c'/-c', -m, -ce or -cë, -(j)uc' or -(j)ac'. Three athematics: byc' (only ësc', all persons); esci and dac' are, as in Ukrainian, close to PSL. The 1P and 3P have been adapted to the second and first conjugations resp. Note the 2S athematic. Thus for ‘carry, fly, eat’: nesci: njasu, njaseš, njase, njasëm, nesjace, njasuc'; ljacec': ljač u, ljaciš, ljacic', ljacim, ljacice, ljacjac' ; esci: em, jasi, esc', jadzim, jasce or jascë, jaduc'.
8.3.4
West Slavic: Present/Non-Past
8.3.4.1 Upper and Lower Sorbian Endings: three persons and three numbers, with 2D/3D identical. The dual endings are enigmatic. Upper Sorbian has three conjugations: e-; i-; a-, with the endings -u or -m, -š, -Ø, -moj, -taj/-tej, -taj/-tej, -my, -cé , -u or -eja, -a. Thus: I: njesc:́ njesu, njeseš ‘carry’; II: rozumjec:́ rozumju, rozumiš ‘understand’; III: dźě łac:́ dźě łam, dźě łaš ‘work’. The last has -m as against -u in the others and displays the familiar contraction aje > a. Lower Sorbian has four conjugations: o- or jo-; i-; a-; j-, with the endings -om or -im/-ym or -am or -jm, after which replace m with -š, -Ø, -mej, -tej, -tej, my, -só , I -u or II/IV -e or III -aju. Thus for ‘carry, sleep, hear, work, stand’: I: njasc ́ – njasu/njasom, njasoš ‘carry’; II: spas:́ spim, spiš ‘sleep’; słyšas:́ słyšym, słyšyš ‘hear’; III: źełas:́ źełam, źełaš ‘work’; IV: stojas:́ stojm, stojš ‘stand’. There is far more 1S -m in Lower than in Upper Sorbian. Athematics except for byc/́ bys ́ are regularized: Upper Sorbian sym, sy, je, smój, staj/stej, staj/stej, smy, scé , su – Lower Sorbian som, sy, jo, smej, stej, stej, smy, scó , su. Compare with South Slavic. 8.3.4.2 Kashubian Kashubian has an honorific second person form -ce: wë môcë ‘you have’ – nonhonorific wa môta ‘you have’ using the former 2D form. The vowels e, i, ô in all but the 1S and 3P give four conjugations: -ę or -m, -sz, -Ø, -më or -ma, -ta, -ą or -ią or -ją , plus -ce. Thus: I: niesc: niosę , niesesz, niese, niesemë, nieseta, niosą , wë niesece ‘carry’; II: robic: robię , robisz, robi, robimë, robita, robią , wë robice ‘do’; III (contracted): grac; gróm, grôsz, grô, grómë, grôta, grają , wë grôce; (uncontracted): grac: graję , grajesz, graje, grajemë, grajeta, grają , wë grajece ‘play’; IV (the athematics): jesc: jém, jész (jés), jé, jémë (-ma), jéta, jédzą , wë jéce ‘eat’; bëci: jem, jes, je, jesmë, jesta, są , wë jesce ‘be’. 8.3.4.3 Polabian Endings: -ą or -m, -s, -Ø, -, -, -tă or -to, -mĕ , -tĕ , -ą . The imperfective future is composed either of forms of the verb cą (< *xъtjǫ ‘I want’) or of met ‘have’ and the imperfective infinitive: cą , cis, ci, –, –, –, cimĕ , cite, –; mom, moš, mo, –, –, –, –, -motĕ , –.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
8.3.4.4 Czech Endings: -m, -u (or -i); -š (except být); -e, -í, -á; -me; -te; -ou, -í (or -ou). We have the new á-conjugation arising from VjV contraction and arguably modeled on dát. Many verbs in -í have -ě jí/-ejí, by analogy with -ají. For irregularities we have athematics and chtít. Dát and mít are regular á-verbs; jíst and vě dě t are basically í-conjugation (the latter has 3P vě dí, but colloquially vě dě j and often a ‘regular’ ví – there is quite a bit of interplay between alternative 3P forms in Czech); chtít may be seen as e-conjugation, that is, note jedí, vě dí, and chci – chce – chtě jí. Být; jsem, jsi, je, jsme, jste, jsou (1S dialectally jsu, 2S informally jseš). Thus: nést: nesu, neseš, nese, neseme, nesete, nesou ‘carry’; zdvihnout: zdvihnu, zdvihneš, zdvihne, zdvihneme, zdvihnete, zdvihnou ‘lift’; plakat: pláč i/pláč u, pláč eš, place, pláč eme, pláč ete, pláč í/pláč ou ‘weep’; prosit: prosím, prosíš, prosí, prosíme, prosíte, prosí ‘request’; dě lat: dě lám, dě láš, dě lá, dě láme, dě láte, dě lají ‘do’. 8.3.4.5 Slovak Endings: -m, -š, -ie/-e/-í/-á, -me, -te, -ú/-ia/-ajú. Note the ubiquity of -m. Thus: brat': beriem, berieš, berie, berieme, beriete, berú (ie is a long vowel) ‘take’; zdvihnút': zdvihnu, zdvihneš, zdvihne, zdvihneme, zdvihnete, zdvihnú ‘lift’; písat’: píšem, píšeš, píše, píšeme, píšete, píšu ‘write’; chválit': chválim, chváliš, chváli, chválime, chválite, chvália (ia is a long vowel, retained even after a long vowel) ‘praise’; volat': volám, voláš, volá, voláme, voláte, volajú ‘call’; rozumiet': rozumiem, rozumieš, rozumie, rozumieme, rozumiete, rozumejú ‘understand’. Athematics: byt': som, si, je, sme, ste, sú ‘be’; mat': mám, máš, má, máme, máte, majú ‘have’; dat': dám, dáš, dá, dáme, date, dajú ‘give’; jest': jem, ješ, je, jeme, jete, jedia ‘eat’; vediet’: viem, vies, vie, vieme, viete, vedia ‘know’; chciet': chcem, chceš, chce, chceme, chcete, chcú ‘want’. 8.3.4.6 Polish Endings: -ę or -m, -sz, -Ø, -my, -cie, -ą . Schenker (1973, Vol. I: 127–132) proposes three conjugations: -e-; -y-/-i-; -a- (contracted). Thus: niesć :́ niosę , niesiesz, niesie, niesiemy, niesiecie, niosą ‘carry’; mówic:́ mówię , mówisz, mówi, mówimy, mówicie, mówią ‘speak’; znac:́ znam, znasz, zna, znamy, znacie, znają ‘know’. In znać note how we have contraction except in the 3P. Note that like in other West Slavic languages, and in Slovenian and BCMS, we have the loss of -t in the 3S and 3P. Bulgarian and Macedonian retain it in the 3P. Być exhibits a reformation, with endings attached to the 3S base except in the 3P: jestem, jestes,́ jest, jestesm ́ y, jestesć ie, są .
8.3.5 The Aorist and Imperfect Now let us bring in the aorist and imperfect. First, the OCS aorist and imperfect endings (idealized, for the latter):
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
171
172
IAN PRESS
1S 2S and 3S 1D 2D and 3D 1P 2P 3P
-ъ (-xъ, -oxъ) -e, -Ø -ově -sta -ste -(s/x/ox)omъ -ste -šę
-ě axъ -ě aše -ě axově -ě ašeta -ě ašete -ě axomъ -ě ašete -ě axǫ
8.3.5.1 BCMS Endings: aorist -h, -Ø, -Ø, -smo, -ste, -še; imperfect -(ij)jah, -(ij/j)aše, -(ij/j)aše, -(ij/j)asmo, -(ij/j)aste, -(ij/j)ahu. Thus, aorist: rekoh, reč e, reč e, rekosmo, rekoste, rekoše ‘speak’; imperfect: tresijah, tresijaše, tresijaše, tresijasmo, tresijaste, tresijahu ‘shake’; aorist: nosih, nosi, nosi, nosismo, nosiste, nose ‘carry’; imperfect: nošah, nošaše, nošaše, nošasmo, nošaste, nošahu ‘carry’. Note the extension of the s and the 1P -mo ending. The endings -smo, -ste suggest extension of the verb biti ‘be’. An ‘aorist’ of biti is used with the l-participle for the conditional: bih, bi, bi, bismo, biste, bi. The imperfect has bijah/bjeh, bješe, bješe, bijasmo/bjesmo, bijaste/bjeste, bijahu/bjehu (or bejah/beh, . . .). 8.3.5.2 Bulgarian Endings: aorist = infinitive stem: -(o)x, -Ø, -Ø (or -e, -e), -(o)xme, -(o)xte, -(o) xa. Thus: č etox, č ete, č ete, č etoxme, č etoxte, č etoxa ‘read’; kovax, kova, kova, kovaxme, kovaxte, kovaxa ‘forge’. Imperfect: non-past stem + complex suffix e – a (a is stressed): -x, -še, -še, -xme, -xte, -xa. Note the extension of x. For ‘be’ we have aorist/imperfect bjax, beše/be, beše/be, bjaxme, bjaxte, bjaxa and conditional auxiliary bix, bi, bi, bixme, bixte, bixa. 8.3.5.3 Macedonian Endings: č ita ‘read’, moli ‘request’, piša ‘write’, plaka (3S plač e) ‘weep’, bra ‘take’, dado (3S dade) ‘give’, reko (3S reč e) ‘speak’ + -v, -Ø, -Ø, -vme, -vte, -sa. The verb ‘be’ has bi, used as an invariable auxiliary verb (perhaps now a ‘particle’) plus the l-participle, for the conditional. Imperfect: č ita, mole, piše, place, bere, dade, reč e + -v, -še, -še, -vme, -vte, -a. The v is a quite regular replacement for x. The verb ‘be’ has aorist/imperfect bev, beše, beše, bevme, bevte, bea. 8.3.5.4 East Slavic Here just a note on the earlier periods: these tenses lasted here, artificially, in the written language (R U S S I A N ) until the seventeenth century. Root aorist (padъ ‘fall’), sigmatic (s) aorist (ję sъ ‘take’), sigmatic (x) aorist (znaxъ ‘know’, molixъ ‘request’), and extended sigmatic aorist (nesoxъ ‘carry’) are all found. The imperfect started with ě a added on to a stem: nesě axъ > nesjaxъ, vidjaxъ, bьra(a)xъ ‘carry, take’.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
8.3.5.5 Upper and Lower Sorbian Endings: -ch, -Ø, -Ø, -chmoj, -štaj/-štej, -štaj/-štej, -chmy, -šcé , -chu (Upper and Lower Sorbian imperfect 2S/3S are -še and -šo, respectively). Upper Sorbian: -njesech, -njese(še), -njese(še), -njesechmoj, -njeseštaj, -njesechmy, -njesešcé , -njesechu ‘carry’; -słyšach, -słyša (aorist) and -słyšeše (imperfect), -słyšachmoj, -słyšeštaj /-słyšeštej, -słyšachmy, -słyšešcé , słyšachu (note the a > e between palatals) ‘hear’. Sorbian has e and a before the endings (Conjugations I and II/III). Lower Sorbian dialects have lost both tenses. Upper Sorbian northern dialects tend to replace them with the perfect. The aorist is made from perfective verbs and the imperfect from imperfective. 8.3.5.6 Polabian The PSL aorist and imperfect survive in Polabian but are opaque.
8.3.6 The Conditional The simple conditional in East Slavic, Slovak, Lower Sorbian, Slovenian, and Macedonian uses the l-participle (see Section 8.3.7) either with a clitic particle coming from the earlier aorist: East Slavic, Slovak, and Lower Sorbian by; Slovenian and Macedonian bi; or, in BCMS, Czech, Polish, Upper Sorbian, and Bulgarian, with a conjugated auxiliary form of ‘be’ (non-clitic in Bulgarian and Upper Sorbian; clitic in the others).13 For illustration: Ukrainian nis by, nesla by, neslo by, nesly by ‘would carry’ (nesty); Czech ř ekl/ř ekla/ř eklo bych/ bys/by (1/2/3S, masculine, feminine, neuter), ř ekli/ř ekly bychom/byste/by (1/2/3P, masculine animate, others excluding masculine animate) ‘would say’ (ř íct). There is a past conditional, but this adds nothing to our topic here.
8.3.7 The Imperative Focus is on the historical (i.e. synthetic or ‘one-word’) forms as reflected in the modern languages. Their source is the present stem. In S L O V E N I A N the imperative endings are 2S -iØ -jØ, 1D -iva -jva, 2D -ita -jta, 1P -imo -jmo, 2P -ite -jte (the former, with an i-suffix, attach to consonantal present stems; the latter, with a j-suffix, attach to vocalic present stems). Verbs with 1S -am and -im lose the m and verbs in 1S -e/ i/o/u- + -jem lose the -em and add the -j- variant; other verbs (i.e. those in -em), drop the -em and add the -i- variant: delaj, etc. ‘do’; kupuj, etc. ‘buy’; misli ‘think’; zač ni ‘begin’. Athematics include bodi ‘be’ (biti), jej ‘eat’ (jesti). There are ‘irregular’ forms. In B U L G A R I A N , M A C E D O N I A N , and R U S S I A N imperatives are second person only. Bulgarian: -i, -ete; -j, -jte. There is some loss of ending: vlez ‘enter’. Macedonian: gledaj – gledajte; nosi – nosete; pij – pijte. Russian: -Ø or -i, both 13
See S&C: 297.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
173
174
IAN PRESS
plus -te: piši(te) ‘write’; plač ’(te) ‘weep’; ver’(te) ‘believe’; pomni(te) ‘remember’; bud’(te) ‘be’. The zero form obtains when the stress is never on the ending, unless a consonant group is stem-final, in which case the i-variant is used. The superfluous soft sign (e.g. in plač ' ), is an orthographic artifice, an imperative marker. B E L A R U S I A N uses the historical 1P too: č ytaj, č ytaem, č ytajce ‘read’; pišy, pišem, pišyce ‘write’; mali, malem, malice ‘request’. The 2P seems to have been affected by the 2S. Note athematic esci: eš, jadzim, ešce ‘eat’. U K R A I N I A N is similar to Belarusian and has -y, -im, -it’ or -’, -’mo, -’te: nesy, nesim, nesit’ ‘carry’; plač , plač mo, plač te ‘weep’; č ytaj, č ytajmo, č ytajte ‘read’ (non-past stem + -j, -jmo, -jte); prynos’, prynos’mo, prynos’te ‘bring’; bud’, bud’mo, bud’te ‘be’. The C Z E C H imperative is historical in the 2S, 1P, and 2P: either -(‘ )Ø, -(‘ )me, -(‘ )te (after a single final consonant or after removal of the 3P final vowel) or -i, -(ě )me, -(ě )te (after two consonants): nes, nesme, neste ‘carry’(nést); dě lej, dě lejme, dě lejte ‘do’ (dě lat – note the a > e change, perhaps related to the Czech umlaut; though it does not occur, perhaps by analogy with the rest of the present, in the 3P dávají); chod’, chod’me, chod’te ‘go’ (chodit) (stem-final d, t, n soften); mysli, mysleme, myslete ‘think’ (myslet), vezmi, vezmě me, vezmě te ‘take’ (vzít). Exceptions are rare. The athematics vě dě t ‘know’ and jíst ‘eat’ retain their imperatives in -z: odpově z ‘reply’(odpově dě t), jez ‘eat’. S L O V A K is similar to C Z E C H : ber, berme, berte ‘take’; dávaj, dávajme, dávajte ‘give’; zájdi, zájdime, zájdite ‘call on (at)’. Note athematic odpovedz ‘reply’ and jedz ‘eat’, as Czech but with the Slovak reflexes. In P O L I S H the a-conjugation is the 3P minus the vocalic ending; otherwise it is the 3S minus its stem vowel (but -ij/-yj is added to consonant groups): nies,́ niesm ́ y, niesć ie ‘carry’ (niesć )́ ; pisz, piszmy, piszcie ‘write’ (pisac)́ ; pros,́ prosm ́ y, prosć ie ‘request’ (prosic)́ ; upadnij, upadnijmy, upadnijcie ‘fall’ (upasć )́ ; daj, dajmy, dajcie ‘give’ (dac;́ 3P dadzą , thus an exception to the 3P rule). S O R B I A N (U P P E R S O R B I A N examples, but L O W E R S O R B I A N is similar) has the non-past stem plus -j or -i and 2S -Ø, -moj, -taj/-tej, -my, -cé . After more than one consonant or where there is no stem vowel, the ending is -i: kopaj ‘hack’, stań ‘stand up’, spi ‘sleep’. Some are simply irregular: jě s! or jě z! ‘eat!’ from jě sc.́ Attestations are few in P O L A B I A N .
8.3.8 The L- P A R T I C I P L E The l- or resultative participle is formed on the infinitive stem; if this ends in a consonant, various types of resolution of the consonant + l take place in the masculine singular form. This participle is crucial in the formation of compound tenses. S L O V E N I A N : -l -la -lo; -la -li -li; -li -le -la (masculine, feminine, neuter within singular, dual, plural). Compound tenses/moods are formed with the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
l-participle: sem délal . . . bo délal . . . médve bi délali . . . si bilà délala (perfect, future, conditional, pluperfect respectively) (delati ‘do’). There is a fill vowel in the masculine singular where the infinitive stem ends in a consonant: tresel (tresti ‘shake’), mogel (moč i ‘be able’). BCM S: Sam or jesam with l-participle (all-purpose past). Also other compound tenses. Note the strong-jer-like fill vowel in the masculine singular in this example: tresao, tresla, . . . (tresti ‘shake’). The participle has masculine, feminine, and neuter forms in both numbers, thus -o, -la, -lo, -li, -le, -la. B U L G A R I A N and M A C E D O N I A N : gender in the singular; in the plural Bulgarian -li and Macedonian -le. Forms: pisal – pišel. The new, latter form is based on the non-past stem (replace imperfect 1S x/v in Bulgarian, Macedonian resp. with l ). Note Bulgarian mogă l, Macedonian donesol fill vowels where the infinitive stem ends in a consonant. Bulgarian has a rare conditional in -vam, -vaš, etc. added to the verbal root (e.g. jadvam ‘I may/ would eat’). E A S T S L A V I C has a single plural form, with endings added to the infinitive stem: Russian sdelal, sdelala, sdelalo, sdelali (sdelat’ ‘do’), prinës, prinesla, prineslo, prinesli (prinesti ‘bring’), mog, mogla, moglo, mogli (moč ’ ‘be able’; no masculine singular fill vowel). Ukrainian: č ytav, č ytala, č ytalo, č ytaly (č ytaty ‘read’). Belarusian: maliъ, malila, malilo, malili (malic’ ‘request’). C Z E C H and S L O V A K : Consonantal stems insert o in the masculine singular: niesol – niesla in Slovak (not in Czech: nesl) (Slovak niest’, Czech nést ‘carry’). Agreement is as East Slavic. The first and second persons use the auxiliary. P O L I S H has synthesized auxiliary + l-participle. The first and second persons remain moveable clitics: byc:́ byłem/byłam, byłes/́ byłas,́ był/była/było, bylism ́ y/byłysm ́ y, bylisć ie/byłysć ie, byli/były – in the plural the masculinepersonal is given first. In the conditional the personal endings are attached to by- alone, that is, the aorist/conditional conjugated form has been lost: bym, bys,́ –, bysm ́ y, bysć ie, –. The gender endings remain on the l-participle. S O R B I A N uses the whole auxiliary paradigm for the perfect: sym, si, je, smój, staj, smy, scé , su + masculine dźelał, feminine dźelała, neuter dźelało, dual dźelałoj, plural dźelali and dźelałe ‘work’ – of the plural forms, the former, the masculine-personal, tends to be used. The Upper Sorbian conditional (and iterative perfect) is the l-participle with a set of forms from byc:́ bych, by, by, bychmoj, byštaj/byštej, byštaj/byštej, bychmy, byšcé , bychu. Lower Sorbian just uses by. The Sorbian passive may use the same form. Lower Sorbian has a special form too, with u for y: buch, bu, bu, buchmoj, buštaj/buštej, buštaj/ buštej, buchmy, bušcé , buchu. K A S H U B I A N can use the participle plus the non-past of bëc: jem, jes, je, jesmë, jesta, sa, jesce. The conditional: l-participle with bë, which may have a personal ending: bëm, bës, bë, bësmë, bësta, bë, bësce. P O L A B I A N data: singular -l/-la, plural -lai (< *-li). The personal pronouns and/or the forms of bait ‘be’ provided the personal forms: jis, jis, ją /jă , –, –, jistă , jismă i/jismĕ , –, –.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
175
176
IAN PRESS
8.4 Conclusion This survey indicates that persistence, innovation, and loss shout their presence. Analogy has played a considerable role, as is only to be expected. The languages, jointly and severally, offer countless areas for research. A lifetime’s fascination with languages has shown me the beauty of the trees, in comparison with the wood! And that almost anything goes in languages – a link between the dearth of case and richness of the verb in Bulgarian and Macedonian invites exploration. After much thought and in view of the space constraints, I have left Baltic to one side, but the Balto-Slavic relation in this area invites attention.
Bibliography This bibliography is severely constrained, with very deserving works omitted, notably textbooks (so often underrated, and Slavic studies has so many outstanding ones). Alexander, R. (with the assistance of O. M. Mladenova) (2000). Intensive Bulgarian. A Textbook and Reference Grammar. Volumes 1–2, Madison, WI & London: University of Wisconsin Press. Alexander, R. (2006). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, A Grammar. With Sociolinguistic Commentary, Madison, WI & London: University of Wisconsin Press. Andersen, H. (1998). Slavic. In Ramat & Ramat, pp. 415–453. Baláž, P., Darovec, M., & Trebatická, H. (1976). Slovak for Slavicists, Bratislava: SPN. Beekes, R. S. P. (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 306–387. Browne, W. & Alt, T. (2004). A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, Durham, NC: SEELRC Duke University. https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/projects/grammars. Bulaxovskij, L. A. (1958). Istorič eskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku, Kyiv: Radjans’ka škola. Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G., eds. (1993). The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Dalewska-Greń , H. (2012). Ję zyki słowiań skie, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Darden, B. J. (2018). Balto-Slavic morphology. In Klein et al., pp. 1985–1999. de Bray, R. G. A. (1980). Guide to the Slavonic Languages, 3rd ed., Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Faßke, H. (1981), Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie, Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag. Fortson, B. W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction, Oxford & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 249–305. Greenberg, M. L. (2006). A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene, University of Kansas. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/5469/m.l.green berg_slovene_grammar_8dec06.pdf;sequence=1.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
Greenberg, M. L. (2017). Slavic. In Kapović, pp. 519–551. Herrity, P. (2000). Slovenian: A Comprehensive Grammar, 1st ed. (2nd ed. not consulted due to Covid), London & New York, NY: Routledge. Isač enko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Teil 1. Formenlehre, Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer. Kapović, M., ed., (2017). The Indo-European Languages, 2nd ed., London & New York, NY: Routledge. Kapovic,́ M. (2017). Proto-Indo-European morphology. In Kapovic,́ pp. 61–110. Kiparsky, V. (1963). Russische historische Grammatik, Band II. Die Entwicklung des Formensystems, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Klein, J., Joseph, B., & Fritz, M., eds. (in cooperation with M. Wenthe) (2018). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Vol. 3, Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Langston, K. (2018). The morphology of Slavic. In Klein et al., pp. 1538–1556, especially pp. 1551–1555. Lenč ek, R. L. (1982). The Structure and History of the Slovenian Language, Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Leskien, A. (1962). Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache, 8th ed., Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Lundquist, J. & Yates, A. D. (2018). The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In Klein et al., pp. 2079–2195. Lunt, H. G. (2001). Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 7th ed., Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 887–946. Meillet, A. (1934). Le slave commun, 2nd ed., Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Mykhaylyk, R. (2010). Diachronic universals and morpheme order in the Ukrainian synthetic imperfective future. Morphology, 20, 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11525-010-9182-1. Nandriş, G. (1959/1965). Handbook of Old Church Slavonic. Part 1: Old Church Slavonic Grammar, London, Toronto, & New York, NY: University of London, The Athlone Press. Nichols, J. (2018). The evolution of Slavic. In Klein et al., pp. 1600–1621. Olander, T. (2015). Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology. A Comparative Handbook, Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill. Polań ski, K. (1993). Polabian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 795–824. Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovenian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 388–451. Ramat, A. G. & Ramat, P., eds. (1998). The Indo-European Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, especially Chapters 5 (C. Watkins), 14 (H. Andersen), and 15 (W. R. Schmalstieg. Rothstein, R. A. (1993). Polish. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 686–758. Scatton, E. A. (1993). Bulgarian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 188–248. Schenker, A. M. (1973). Beginning Polish, 2 vols, revised ed., New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press. Schenker, A. M. (1993). Proto-Slavonic. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 60–121. Schenker, A. M. (1995). The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology, New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press. Schmalstieg, W. R. (1998). Baltic. In Ramat & Ramat, pp. 454–479. Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 947–998.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
177
178
IAN PRESS
Short, D. (1993). Czech. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 455–532. Short, D. (1993). Slovak. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 533–592. Stone, G. (1993). Sorbian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 593–685. Stone, G. (1993). Kashubian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 759–794. Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University. Szemerényi, O. J. L. (1990). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Timberlake, A. (1993). Russian. In Comrie & Corbett, pp. 827–886. Timberlake, A. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Russian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vaillant, A. (1966). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe, Paris: Klincksieck. Watkins, C. (1969). Indogermanische Grammatik. Band III: Formenlehre. Erster Teil: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Watkins, C. (1998). Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and reconstruction. In Ramat & Ramat, pp. 25–73 (especially pp. 54–67). Werner, E. (1996). Studien zum sorbischen Verbum, Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag. Young, S. (2017). Balto-Slavic. In Kapovic,́ pp. 479–485. Young, S. (2017). Baltic. In Kapovic,́ pp. 486–518.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.009 Published online by Cambridge University Press
9 Tense and Mood Forms Hagen Pitsch
9.1 Overview The modern Slavic languages show both fundamental similarities and crucial differences regarding their inventory of verb forms.1 Forms common to all Slavic languages are the present tense (P R S ; Section 9.2.1), the imperative (I M P ; Section 9.3), and the conditional (C O N D ; Section 9.4). There is also at least one future (F U T ; Section 9.2.3). While BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian have a periphrastic perfect (P E R F ) and two synthetic past tenses (aorist [A O R ] and imperfect [I P F ]), the remaining languages have a global past (P S T ) (Sections 9.2.2.1–9.2.2.4). All languages except Russian have also a pluperfect (P L P F ; Section 9.2.2.5). Differences concern the availability of a future II (Section 9.2.3.2), a conditional II (Section 9.4.2), and a future (II)-in-the-past (F U T [ I I ]- P S T ; Sections 9.2.2.7–9.2.2.8). Bulgarian and Macedonian alone have evidential forms (E V ; Section 9.5).2 Non-finite forms typically include an infinitive (I N F ) (citation form), two gerunds, and two participles (present active, past passive). East Slavic has two more participles (present passive, past active). In general, verbal l-forms figure prominently in paradigms. Lower Sorbian and Slovene retain a supine (S U P ).3 Bulgarian and Macedonian lack an infinitive.4 See the inventory of verb forms in Slavic in Table 9.1 (from Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 281; see Panzer 1999: 375). 1
2
3 4
This chapter addresses Belarusian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian (BCMS), Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Sorbian (Lower and Upper), and Ukrainian. Older stages – Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Proto-Slavic (PSL), Late Common Slavic (LCS), Old Church Slavic (OCS) – are occasionally adduced to shed light on historical developments. Viewpoint aspect is only mentioned as far as tense distinctions are concerned (for more details, see Chapter 10). Moreover, this chapter portrays only active-voice forms (see Chapter 21 on the passive). Czech grammars still mention a supine, the only verb with a distinctive form being spat ‘sleep.S U P ’. The citation form in Bulgarian is the 1 S G , in Macedonian the 3 S G (only for sum ‘be’ is it the 1 S G ). Bulgarian has a ‘vestigial infinitive’ formally identical to the 2 / 3 S G . A O R . It occurs rarely and only optionally in the written language (Scatton 1984: 230).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
S S S S S S S S S S S
BCMS Slovene Bulgarian Macedonian Belarusian Russian Ukrainian Polish Sorbian Czech Slovak
(S) — S S — — — — S — —
AOR/IPF
P P — — S S S S P P P
PST
(P) (P) P P — — — — (P) — —
PERF
P P P P (P) — P (P) P (P) P
PLPF
P P P P S/P S/P S/P S/P S/P S/P S/P
I
P — P P — — — — P — —
II
II-PST
— — P P — — — — — — —
I-PST
— — P P — — — — — — —
FUT
— — P P — — — — — — —
EV
S S S S S S S S S S S
IMP
P P (S)/P P P P P S P P P
I
COND
P P — — — — [P] P [P] P P
II
S S — — P P P P P P P
INF
— S — — — — — — (S) (S) —
SUP
Note. S: synthetic form, P: periphrastic form, S/P: synthetic or periphrastic according to aspect, (S/P): rarely or not commonly used. (P) under P E R F indicates that the perfect is used in its basic meaning only in the literary language, in the spoken language, it functions as a global past. (P) under P L P F : rarely used or archaic. [P] under C O N D I I : obsolete. S under I M P refers to the 2 S G ; first person imperatives are S/P; third-person imperatives are P.
PRS
Language
Table 9.1 Inventory of tense and mood forms
Tense and Mood Forms
9.2 Indicative The indicative lacks a dedicated morphological marker. It is implied by the presence of whatever tense marking (Lehmann 2013: 256). In its primary meaning, it imparts to the addressee that the message is to be understood as real. However, it may also serve to express situations not yet realized. 9.2.1 Present The present tense is the only consistently synthetic paradigm shared by all Slavic languages, and despite quite a few changes since PSL, its forms are still very similar. The classification of verbs is usually based on their morphological makeup (see Chapter 8). The present tense can refer to current and non-current (habitual, iterative, generic) situations; see (1) and (2), respectively (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 347).5 Both cases usually involve imperfective forms. (1)
On własń ie teraz rozwią zuje he just now solve.P R S . 3 S G ‘He is solving the task right now.’
(2)
On codziennie rozwią zuje he daily solve.P R S . 3 S G ‘He solves problems every day.’
zadanie. task
(Polish)
zadania. tasks
In appropriate contexts, the imperfective present can also denote future eventualities (always with a reading of scheduling or prophecy)6 or past situations (‘historical present’). Present-tense forms of the perfective aspect can be used in the historical present and in habitual and generic contexts, too. Otherwise, their use differs strongly: while East and West Slavic languages employ them quite generally for future reference (Section 9.2.3.1), they are virtually barred from main clauses in South Slavic (except Slovene). Sentential negation requires the negation marker to immediately precede present-tense forms. All modern Slavic languages have rebuilt their conjugations as compared to LCS/OCS (see Townsend & Janda 1996: 201; details in Chapter 8). While some of the old classes merged, all except East Slavic languages developed at least one new class (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 282); see Table 9.2 (excluding athematic verbs). Tables 9.3–9.5 give a synopsis of Slavic present-tense paradigms. Tables 9.6–9.7 list the forms of ‘be’ and ‘have’, as they serve as auxiliaries in periphrases.
5 6
Glossing follows the Leipzig Glossing Rules (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). This and the fact that perfective present-tense forms denote future eventualities in East and West Slavic (Section 9.2.3) makes it seem more adequate to use the term ‘non-past’. The present description will nonetheless use the traditional terminology.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
181
182
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.2 Conjugational classes LCS class
Modern class
I + II + III
-e-
Belarusian, Russian,
IV
-i-a-
Ukrainian
Bulgarian, Macedonian, BCMS, Slovene, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Upper Sorbian
Lower Sorbian
-j-
See Chapter 8 on the development of I N F L E C T I O N S . Here it may suffice to give a synopsis of Slavic present-tense inflections (Table 9.8).7
9.2.2
Past
9.2.2.1 Aorist and Imperfect BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian retain the synthetic past tense forms aorist and imperfect.8 The aorist presents past situations as finished, the imperfect as continuous (Sonnenhauser 2006, 2013). Not surprisingly, aorists are typically perfective, imperfects imperfective. This matching is complete in BCMS, Sorbian, and Macedonian (Friedman 1993: 269). By contrast, Bulgarian employs all possible pairings.9 Therefore, it is fair to say that the opposition aorist/imperfect is distinct from the opposition perfective/imperfective in Bulgarian,10 whereas the former merely ‘doubles’ the latter in BCMS, Macedonian, and Sorbian. Inflections are in Table 9.9.11 Only the 2/ 3 S G and 3 P L (BCMS) are distinctive. Except for Sorbian and -a-verbs in Bulgarian,12 identification of the remaining forms is assured by different stems: While aorist stems are diverse, imperfect stems regularly end in a marker based on LCS -ě (modern -e-/-a-). Table 9.10 gives illustrations. Table 9.11 lists imperfect ‘be’ given its relevance for the pluperfect (Section 9.2.2.5). Table 9.12 gives the imperfect forms of Bulgarian štă , as it occurs in the future (II)-in-the-past (Sections 9.2.2.7– 9.2.2.8).
7
8
9
10
11
12
The tables give only -tъ for LCS 3 S G /P L , omitting palatal -tь. The latter is reflected in part in East Slavic (e.g. Russian est' ‘s/he is’, sut’ ‘they are’). They are rarely used in BCMS and Sorbian where spoken language replaces them with the perfect, then used as a global past (Section 9.2.2.2). Perfective imperfects occur in temporal and conditional clauses where their interpretation is habitual (see Rivero et al. 2017). Both are best characterized as aspectual since they encode the speaker’s view on the situation: while perfective/ imperfective are about its internal boundaries, aorist/imperfect concern external boundaries. An alternative segmentation separates -x-/-h-/-v- (palatalized -š-, sometimes Ø) as a past-tense suffix followed by an agreement marker, hence Bulgarian -x-me ‘P S T - 1 P L ’ . See details in Chapter 8. Bulgarian forms are optionally distinguished by a stress shift from root to theme in the aorist.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
nésci njasú njaséš njasé — — — njasëm nesjacé njasúc'
nesti nesǫ neseši nesetъ nesevě neseta nesete nesemъ nesete nesǫ tъ
nestí nesú nesëš' nesët — — — nesëm nesëte nesút
Rus
nestý nesú neséš nesé — — — nesém(ó) neséte nesút'
Ukr
Mac — -nesam -neseš -nese — — — -neseme -nesete -nesat
Bul — -nesắ -neséš -nesé — — — -nesém(e) -neséte -nesắ t -nijē ti -nèsē m -nèsē š -nèsē — — — -nèsē mo -nèsē te -nèsū
BCMS nésti nésem néseš nése néseva néseta néseta néseno nésete nésejo/nesó
Sln njasć njasu/-om njasoš njaso njasomej njasotej njasotej najsomy njasośo njasu
LSo
njesć njesu njeseš njese njesemoj njesetaj/-tej njesetaj/-tej njesemy njeseć e njesu
USo
Note. In this class belong also verbs with the suffixes -uj- (e.g. Czech pracuj-u, pracuj-e-š, etc.) and -n- (e.g. Russian max-n-ú, max-n-ë-š', etc.). a The Czech 1 S G can be -u or -i with most verbs of this class.
1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL
INF
Bel
LCS
Table 9.3 Present tense -e-class
nieść niosę niesiesz niesie — — — niesiemy niesiecie niosą
Pol
nést nesu neseš nese — — — neseme nesete nesou
Czea
niest' nesiem nesieš nesie — — — nesieme nesiete nesú
Slk
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
INF
xvalíc' xvaljú xváliš xválic' — — — xválim xválice xváljac'
xvaliti xvaljǫ xvališi xvalitъ xvalivě xvalita xvalite xvalimъ xvalite xvalę tъ
xvalít' xavljú xváliš' xválit — — — xválim xválite xváljat
Rus
xvalýty xvaljú xvályš xvályt' — — — xválymo xvályte xváljat'
Ukra Mac — hvaljam hvališ hvali — — — hvalime hvalite hvaljat
Bul — xváljă xváliš xváli — — — xválim(e) xválite xváljă t hváliti hvâlı̄ m hvâlı̄ š hvâlı̄ — — — hvâlı̄ mo hvâlı̄ te hvâlē
BCMS hvalı̄ hválim hváliš hváli hváliva hválita hválita hválimo hválite hválijo
Sln chwaliś chwalim chwališ chwali chwalimej chwalitej chwalitej chwalimy chwaliśo chwale
LSo chwalić chwalu chwališ chwali chwalimoj chwalitaj/-tej chwalitaj/-tej chwalimy chwalić e chwala
USo
chwalić chwalę chwalisz chwali — — — chwaimy chwalicie chwalą
Pol
chválit chválím chválíš chválí — — — chválíme chválíte chválí
Cze
chválit' chválim chváliš chváli — — — chválime chválite chvália
Slk
a Ukrainian has epenthetic -l- after labial consonants in 1 S G and 3 P L ( 1 S G ljubljú, 2 S G ljúbyš . . . 3 P L ljúblat' ‘love’). Class I verbs with velar stems (e.g. mohtý [< *mog-ti] ‘can’) show the palatalized reflex of the velar in the whole paradigm (1 S G móžu, 2sg móžeš . . . 3 P L móžut' ) (Belarusian and Russian preserve the velar in 1 S G and 3 P L ).
1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL
Bel
LCS
Table 9.4 Present tense -i-class
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
INF
1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL
Mac
— padam padaš pada — — — padame padate padaat
Bul
— pádam pádaš páda — — — pádame pádate pádat
LCS
[padati] [padajǫ ] [padaješi] [padajetъ] [padajevě ] [padajeta] [padajete] [padajemъ] [padajete] [padajǫ tъ]
pȁ dati pȁ dā m pȁ dā š pȁ dā — — — pȁ dā mo pȁ dā te pȁ dajū
BCMS pádati pâdam pâdaš pâda pâdava pâdata pâdata pâdamo pâdate pâdajo
Sln padaś padam padaš pada padamej padatej padatej padamy padasó padaju
LSo padać padam padaš pada padamoj padataj/-tej padataj/-tej padamy padać e padaju/-ja
USo
Table 9.5 Present tense -a-class (South and West Slavic) and -j-class (Lower Sorbian)
padać padam padasz pada — — — padamy padacie padają
Pol padat padám padáš padá — — — padáme padáte padájí
Cze
padat’ padám padáš padá — — — padáme padáte pádajú
Slk
[stojati] [stojǫ ] [stojiši] [stojitъ] [stojivě ] [stojita] [stojite] [stojimъ] [stojite] [stoję tъ]
LCS
stojaś stojm stojš stoj stojmej stojtej stojtej stojmy stojso ́ stoje
LSo
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
byc' ësc' a ësc' a ësc' a — — — ësc' a ësc' a ësc' a
byti (j)esmь (j)esi (j)estъ (j)esvě (j)esta (j)este (j)esmъ (j)este sǫ tъ
byt' est' a est' a est' a — — — est' a est'* est'*/sut' b
Rus búty je(st')a,c je(st')a,c je(st')a,c — — — je(st')a,c je(st')a,c je(st')a,c
Ukr
Macd — sum si e (Ø) — — — sme ste se (Ø)
Buld — să m si e — — — sme ste sa
bı̏ ti (jè)sam (jè)si (jȅ st[e]) je — — — (jè)smo (jè)ste (jè)su
BCMS bíti sə̏ m sı̏ jȅ svȁ stȁ stȁ smȍ stȅ sȍ
Slne byś som sy jo smej stej stej smy sć o su
LSo być sym sy je smój staj/stej staj/stej smy sć e su
USo być (jeste)m (jeste)ś jest (Ø) — — — (jeste)sm ́ y (jeste)ście są (Ø)
Pol
být jsem jsi je (Ø) — — — jsme jste jsou (Ø)
Cze
byt' som si je (Ø) — — — sme ste sú (Ø)
Slk
Note. Except for East Slavic, brackets discriminate clitics (always shorter) used as auxiliaries in periphrases. a Emphatic present-tense forms in East Slavic. b Archaic. c Ukrainian jest' is uncommon (the paradigm jes'm, jes'/jesý, jest'; jes'mó, jesté, sút' is archaic). d Bulgarian and Macedonian have alternative be-paradigms with the stem bă d- and bid-, respectively, for use in future periphrases and da-constructions. e Slovene 1 S G sə̏ m is phonetic (orthography: sem). The bíti-forms are clitic in the perfect periphrasis. Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS: nísam, nísi, níje . . . nísu; Lower Sorbian: njejsom, njejsy . . . njejsu; Slovene: nísəm, nísi, ní, . . . níso; Upper Sorbian: njejsem, njejsy . . . njejsu; East Slavic: ne (nét with elided predicate nominals; cf. Russian ón studént, a já nét ‘he is a student, but I am not’). (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307; extended)
1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL
INF
Bel
LCS
Table 9.6 Present tense ‘be’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
INF
imét' iméju iméeš iméet — — — iméem iméete iméju
mec' máju máješ máje — — — májem májece májuc'
máty máju máješ máje — — — májem(o) májete májut'
Ukr
Mac — imam imaš ima — — — imame imate imaat
Bul — ímam ímaš íma — — — ímame ímate ímat ìmati ı̏ mā m ı̏ mā š ı̏ mā — — — ı̏ mā mo ı̏ mā te ı̏ mā jū
BCMS iméti imám imáš imá imáva imáta imáta imámo imáte imájo
Sln mě ś mam maš ma mamej matej matej mamy masó maju
LSo mě ć mam maš ma mamoj mataj/matej mataj/matej mamy mać e maja
USo
mieć mam masz ma — — — mamy macie mają
Pol
mít mám máš má — — — máme máte mají
Cze
mat' mám máš má — — — máme máte majú
Slk
Note. LCS had three verbs based on the root (j)ę m-/(j)ьm- (Townsend & Janda 1996: 216): (i) athematic jьmě ti ‘have’ (jьmamь, jьmasi . . . jьmǫ tъ or jьmě jǫ tъ), (ii) (j)ę ti ‘take’ (jьmǫ , jьmeši . . . jьmǫ tъ), and (iii) jьmati ‘grasp, seize’ ((j)emjǫ , (j)emješi . . . (j)emjǫ tъ). Reflexes of (ii) underly the Ukrainian ‘m-future’ (Section 9.2.4). Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS nêmā m, nêmā š . . . némajū ; Bulgarian: njámam, njámaš . . . njámat; Macedonian: nemam, nemaš . . . nemaat; Slovene: nímam, nímaš . . . nímajo; Upper Sorbian: nimam, nimaš . . . nimaja (but I N F njemě ć ). (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 307)
1SG 2SG 3SG 1DU 2DU 3DU 1PL 2PL 3PL
Rus
Bel
Table 9.7 Present tense ‘have’
188
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.8 Present-tense inflections SG
LCS Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
DU
PL
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
-ǫ /-mь -ă /-m -m -m -m -m -u/-i/-m -u/-m -u/-m -ę /-m -u -u -u
-ši -š -š -š -š -š -š -š -š -sz -š -š' -š
-tъ -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø/-c' -t -Ø/-t'
-vě — — — -va — — -mej -moj — — — —
-ta — — — -ta — — -tej -taj/-tej — — — —
-te — — — -ta — — -tej -taj/-tej — — — —
-mъ -m(e) -me -mo -mo -me -me -my -my -my -m -m -mo
-te -te -te -te -te -te -te -śo -ć e -cie -ce -te -te
-ǫ ntъ/-ę ntъ -(j)ă t -(j)at -(j)u/-e -(j)o (-e) -(j)u/-ia -ou/-(j)í -u/-e -(j)u/-(j)a -(j)ą -uc'/-jac' -ut/-jat -ut'/-jat'
Table 9.9 Aorist and imperfect inflections
BCMS
Bulgarian
Macedonian
Lower Sorbian
Upper Sorbian
SG
DU
PL
1 2
-h -Ø // -še
— —
-smo -ste
3
-Ø // -še
—
-še // -hu
1 2
-x -Ø // -še
— —
-xme -xte
3
-Ø // -še
—
-xa
1 2
-v -Ø // -še
— —
-vme -vte
3
-Ø // -še
—
-a
1 2
-ch -Ø // -šo
-chmej -štej
-chmy -šć o
3
-Ø // -šo
-štej
-chu
1 2 3
-ch -Ø // -še -Ø // -še
-chmoj -štaj/-štej -štaj/-štej
-chmy -šć e -chu
9.2.2.2 Periphrastic Perfect/Global Past Alongside aorist and imperfect, BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Sorbian retain a periphrastic perfect.13 It denotes a present state as being the result of a past situation. A common distinction is between resultative and experiential/ existential perfect: In Slavic, the former uses perfective L - F O R M S (e.g. Upper Sorbian sym napisała ‘I have written’) and focuses on the resultant state. The latter 13
The perfect is really an aspect–tense combination. Grammars mostly classify it as a past tense.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.10 Aorist and imperfect forms SG
BCMS č ȕ -ti ‘hear’ mòl-i-ti ‘ask’a
Bulgarianb píš-ă ‘write’ č et-ắ ‘read’c íma-m ‘have’
Upper Sorbian njesć ‘carry’
PL
AOR
IPF
AOR
IPF
1 2 3 1 2 3
č ȕ -h č ȕ -Ø č ȕ -Ø mòl-i-h mȍ l-ı̄ -Ø mȍ l-ı̄ -Ø
č ȕ j-ā -h č ȕ j-ā -še č ȕ j-ā -še mȍ l-j-ā -h mȍ l-j-ā -še mȍ l-j-ā -še
č ȕ -smo č ȕ -ste č ȕ -še mȍ l-ı̄ -smo mȍ l-ı̄ -ste mȍ l-ı̄ -še
č ȕ j-ā -smo č ȕ j-ā -ste č ȕ j-ā -hu mȍ l-j-ā -smo mȍ l-j-ā -ste mȍ l-j-ā -hu
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
pís-a-x pís-a-Ø pís-a-Ø č ét-o-x č ét-e-Ø č ét-e-Ø ím-á-x ím-á-Ø ím-á-Ø
píš-e-x píš-e-še píš-e-še cetj-á-x cetj-á-še cetj-á-še ím-a-x ím-a-še ím-a-še
pís-a-xme pís-a-xte pís-a-xa č ét-o-xme č ét-o-xte č ét-o-xa ím-á-xme ím-á-xte ím-á-xa
píš-e-xme píš-e-xte píš-e-xa cetj-á-xme cetj-á-xte cetj-á-xa ím-a-xme ím-a-xte ím-a-xa
1 nanjes-e-ch 2 nanjes-e-Ø 3 nanjes-e-Ø
njes-e-ch njes-e-še njes-e-še
nanjes-e-chmy nanjes-e-šć e nanjes-e-chu
njes-e-chmy njes-e-šć e njes-e-chu
Stem-final -i- becomes -j- before the imperfect suffix -ā -. Unlike -e-, the -á-suffix palatalizes preceding consonants. c Both píšă and č etắ belong to the -e-class but differ as to their infinitive stems: pís-a- vs. č et-. The latter requires the insertion of -o/e- (never stressed) before the aorist inflection. a
b
uses imperfective l-forms (sym pisała) and focuses on the situation preceding the result without precisely locating it on the time axis. The remaining Slavic languages lost aorist and imperfect forms. Their temporal functions are today expressed by what still looks like a perfect but is a global past. Its forms denote situations before the moment of speech, leaving further details unspecified. Therefore, they can, in appropriate contexts, be interpreted like an im-/perfective past, perfect, or pluperfect. Forms are very similar in Czech, Polish, Slovak, Sorbian, BCMS, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Slovene (see Section 9.2.2.3 on East Slavic). They contain a present-tense form of the be-auxiliary (see Table 9.7) and an l-form agreeing in number and (often) gender with the subject. Unlike the remaining languages, Bulgarian and Macedonian have two variants of l-forms, one based on the infinitive/aorist stem, the other on the imperfect stem (present stem + imperfect marker). Both types can be of either aspect in Bulgarian. In Macedonian, the former is always perfective, the latter always imperfective. See Chapter 8 for more details. Third person auxiliaries are null in Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Macedonian. The Polish auxiliaries are enclitic and syntactically mobile (Embick 1995, Dalewska-Greń 1997: 372, Franks & Bań ski 1999); see (3).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
189
190
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.11 Imperfect ‘be’ SG
DU
PL
BCMSa
1 2 3
bı̏ j-ā -h bı̏ j-ā -še bı̏ j-ā -še
— — —
bı̏ j-ā -smo bı̏ j-ā -ste bı̏ j-ā -hu
Bulgarianb
1 2 3
bj-á-x b-é-še (bé)c b-é-še (bé)
— — —
bj-á-xme bj-á-xte bj-á-xa
Macedoniand
1 2 3
b-e-v b-e-še b-e-še (bi)
— — —
b-e-vme b-e-vte b-e-a
Lower Sorbian
1 2 3
b-ě -ch b-ě -šo (bě ) b-ě -šo (bě )
b-ě -chmej b-ě -štej b-ě -štej
b-ě -chmy b-ě -šć o b-ě -chu
Upper Sorbian
1 2 3
b-ě -ch b-ě -še (bě ) b-ě -še (bě )
b-ě -chmoj b-ě -štaj b-ě -štej
b-ě -chmy b-ě -šć e b-ě -chu
These forms are ijekavian. Ekavian uses the stem bȅ j-. An alternative ijekavian variant is bj-ȅ -h, bj-ȅ še . . . bj-ȅ -hu (Browne 1993: 338). b Note that the notation ‘bj-’ follows Cyrillic orthography. The consonant is actually only palatalized by the following imperfect marker (hence b'-á-). c In brackets is an alternative aorist form used like an imperfect. It is not used in periphrases in Bulgarian and is marginal in Macedonian. d The Macedonian reflex of LCS *-ě - is consistently -e-. It does not palatalize preceding consonants. a
Table 9.12 Imperfect štă ‘want’ (Bulgarian)
1 2 3
(3)
SG
PL
štj-á-x št-é-še št-é-še
štj-á-xme štj-á-xte štj-á-xa
a. Posz-l-i=sć ie? go-L - P L =2 P L ‘Did you go?’
(Polish)
b. Gdzie=sć ie posz-l-i? where=2 P L go-L - P L ‘Where did you go?’
Sentential negation differs: in South Slavic and Sorbian, the negation attaches to the auxiliary. In West Slavic (except Sorbian), it is on the l-form. Table 9.13 gives illustrations. Languages using auxiliaries in all persons are in the upper half.14 14
S G and D U (Slovene) examples illustrate genders as follows: first person = M , second person = F , third person = N . Upper Sorbian D U forms are masculine-personal in the second person and non-masculine-personal in the third
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.13 Periphrastic perfect/global past forms in Slavic languages SG
DU
PL
BCMS písati ‘write’
1 2 3
písa-o-Ø sam písa-l-a si písa-l-o je
— — —
písa-l-i smo písa-l-e ste písa-l-a su
Bulgarian č etắ ‘read’
1 2 3
č é-l-Ø să m č é-l-a si č é-l-o e
— — —
č é-l-i sme č é-l-i ste č é-l-i sa
Lower Sorbian słyšaś ‘hear’
1 2 3
słyša-ł-Ø som słyša-ł-a sy słyša-ł-o jo
słyša-ł-ej smej słyša-ł-ej stej słyša-ł-ej stej
słyša-l-i smy słyša-l-i sć o słyša-l-i su
Slovene pohváliti ‘praise’
1 2 3
pohváli-l-Ø səm pohváli-l-a si pohváli-l-o je
pohváli-l-a sva pohváli-l-i sta pohváli-l-i sta
pohváli-l-i smo pohváli-l-e ste pohváli-l-a so
Upper Sorbian dźě łać ‘work’
1 2 3
dźě ła-ł-Ø sym dźě ła-ł-a sy dźě ła-ł-o je
dźě ła-ł-oj smój dźě ła-ł-aj staj dźě ła-ł-ej stej
dźě ła-l-i smy dźě ła-l-i sć e dźě ła-ł-e su
Czech udě lat ‘do’
1 2 3
udě la-l-Ø jsem udě la-l-a jsi udě la-l-o Ø
— — —
udě la-l-i jsme udě la-l-y jste udě la-l-a Ø
Macedonian moli ‘beg’
1 2 3
mole-l-Ø sum mole-l-a si mole-l-o Ø
— — —
mole-l-e sme mole-l-e ste mole-l-e Ø
Polish prosić ‘ask’
1 2 3
prosi-ł-Ø=em prosi-ł-a=ś prosi-ł-o=Ø
— — —
prosi-l-i=śmy prosi-ł-y=sć ie prosi-ł-y=Ø
Slovak vola‘ ‘call’
1 2 3
vola-l-Ø som vola-l-a si vola-l-o Ø
— — —
vola-l-i sme vola-l-i ste vola-l-i Ø
9.2.2.3 Synthetic Global Past East Slavic past tenses are l-forms without auxiliaries. As l-forms agree only in number and (in the singular) gender, the lack of person agreement is regularly compensated for by the (non-emphatic) use of subject pronouns. Table 9.14 gives illustrations. 9.2.2.4 N/T-Perfect Macedonian (especially Western Macedonian [Friedman 1993: 270]; marginally Bulgarian [Lindstedt 2010: 410]) possesses a second perfect formed with sum ‘be’ or ima ‘have’ plus an n/t-participle. If ima is used (which is mostly with transitive verbs), the participle shows default agreement (D E F ) (imam vide-n-o ‘I have seen’). If sum is used (intransitive verbs), the participle agrees with the person. Where available, P L examples illustrate masculine-personal in the first person, non-masculine-personal in the second person, and N in the third person.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
191
192
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.14 Synthetic global past-tense forms in East Slavic SG
PL
Belarusian č ytác’ ‘read’
1 2 3
(ja) č ytá-ŭ -Ø (ty) č ytá-l-a (janó) č ytá-l-o
(my) č ytá-l-i (vy) č ytá-l-i (janý) č ytá-l-i
Russian prosít' ‘ask’
1 2 3
(ja) prosí-l-Ø (ty) prosí-l-a (onó) prosí-l-o
(my) prosí-l-i (vy) prosí-l-i (oní) prosí-l-i
Ukrainiana búty ‘be’
1 2 3
(ja) bu-v-Ø (ty) bu-l-á (vonó) bu-l-ó
(my) bu-l-ý (vy) bu-l-ý (voný) bu-l-ý
a
South-Western Ukrainian dialects have past tense forms involving agreement markers: e.g. xodý-l-y=s'mo ‘go-L - P L = 1 P L ’ (Žovtobrjux & Moldovan 2005: 544).
subject (sme dojde-n-i ‘we have come’). This new perfect is increasingly expanding into the written language. Once established, it encodes resultativity, whereas the old l-perfect loses this function and becomes associated with evidentiality (Section 9.5). The example in (4) illustrates the former point (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 382). (4)
Č lenot se ima razvie-n-o (Macedonian) article.D E F REFL have.P R S . 3 S G develop-P T C P - D E F od pokazni zamenki. from demonstrative pronouns ‘The article has developed from demonstrative pronouns.’
N/t-perfects (always with ‘have’) are also found in spoken Czech; see (5) (Short 1993a: 499).15 (5)
At'
to tu máte pě kně uklize-n-o, (Czech) this here have.P R S . 2 P L beautifully tidy.up-P T C P -D E F než př ijde séf! before come.3 S G boss ‘Make sure you have the place properly tidied up before the boss gets here!’ PART
Similar structures with participles agreeing with the direct object are attested in Czech, Polish, Russian, and Sorbian; see (6) (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 296, Giger 2009: 272, Anstatt et al. 2020: 123). (6)
a.
b.
15
Mam ksiaż k-ę have.P R S . 1 S G book-A C C . S G . F ‘I have the book (all) read.’ U menjá obéd at me.G E N lunch.N O M . S G . M ‘I have the lunch cooked.’
prze-czyta-n-ą . (Polish) P F V -read-P T C P -A C C . S G . F s-váre-n-Ø.
The participle may also agree with the direct object as in (6) (Cvrč ek et al. 2010: 241).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(Russian)
P F V -cook-P T C P -N O M . S G . M
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.15 Periphrastic pluperfect with imperfect-tense auxiliaries SG
DU
PL
BCMSa písati ‘write’
1 2 3
písao bı̏ jā h písala bı̏ jā še písalo bı̏ jā še
— — —
písali bı̏ jā smo písale bı̏ jā ste písala bı̏ jā hu
Bulgarian č etắ ‘read’
1 2 3
č él bjáx č éla béše č élo béše
— — —
č éli bjáxme č éli bjáxte č éli bjáxa
Lower Sorbian słyšaś ‘hear’
1 2 3
słyšał bě ch słyšała bě šo (bě ) słyšało bě šo (bě )
słyšałej bě chmej słyšałej bě štej słyšałej bě štej
słyšali bě chmy słyšali bě šć o słyšali bě chu
Macedonianb moli ‘beg’
1 2 3
molel bev molela beše molelo beše
— — —
molele bevme molele bevte molele bea
Upper Sorbian dźě łać ‘work’
1 2 3
dźě łał bě ch dźě łała bě še (bě ) dźě łało bě še (bě )
dźě łałoj bě chmoj dźě łałaj bě štaj dźě łałej bě štej
dźě łali bě chmy dźě łali bě šć e dźě łałe bě chu
a
Imperfect auxiliaries are rarely used in BCMS (Browne 1993: 330–331), so the forms in Table 9.16 are more common. b Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 296) mention a pluperfect variant in Macedonian formed with beše (imperfect 3 S G of sum ‘be’) plus the periphrastic perfect (e.g. beše sum storil ‘I had done’).
c.
Mam poliwk-u have.P R S . 1 S G soup-A C C . S G . F ‘I have the soup prepared.’
z-warje-n-u.
(Upper Sorbian)
P F V -cook-P T C P -A C C . S G . N
9.2.2.5 Pluperfect All Slavic languages except Russian have a pluperfect (see Sič inava 2013; Russian dialects retain successor constructions, see Petruxin & Sič inava 2006: 206–210). While in its standard meaning, it denotes a past situation anterior to another past situation, it expresses further meanings in appropriate contexts. In general, the pluperfect is stylistically marked (colloquial, bookish, or/and archaic). The main verb is an l-form of either aspect. Depending on what type(s) of past tense a language uses, the auxiliary is either imperfect or global past. Tables 9.15–9.16 give illustrations.16 9.2.2.6 n/t-Pluperfect Parallel to the n/t-perfect, Macedonian has an n/t-pluperfect. It involves imperfect-tense auxiliaries where the n/t-perfect has present-tense ones. This new pluperfect has by now completely assumed the resultative meaning once immanent in the old l-pluperfect. It is limited to witnessed situations (Friedman 1993: 271–272). For non-witnessed situations, its auxiliary is an l-form (e.g. imala ‘[she] had’). 16
The subdivision in Table 9.16 mirrors the presence/absence of present-tense auxiliary forms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
193
194
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.16 Periphrastic pluperfect with global-past auxiliaries SG
DU
PL
BCMS č etắ ‘read’
1 2 3
písao sam bı̏ o písala si bíla písalo je bîlo
— — —
písali sme bîli písa-l-e ste bíle písa-l-a su bíla
Lower Sorbiana słyšaś ‘hear’
1 2 3
słyšał som był słyšała sy była słyšało jo było
słyšałej smej byłej słyšałej stej byłej słyšałej stej byłej
słyšali smy byli słyšali sć o byli słyšali su byli
Slovene pohváliti ‘praise’
1 2 3
pohválil səm bîl pohválila si bilȁ pohválilo je bilô
pohválila sva bilȁ pohválili sta bilî pohválili sta bilî
pohválili smo bilî pohválile ste bilȅ pohválila so bilȁ
Upper Sorbian dźě łać ‘work’
1 2 3
dźě łał sym był dźě łała sy była dźě łało je było
dźě łałoj smój byłoj dźě łałaj staj byłaj dźě łałej stej byłej
dźě łali smy byli dźě łali sć e byli dźě łałe su byłe
Czechb udě lat ‘do’
1 2 3
udě lal jsem byl udě lala jsi byla udě lalo Ø bylo
— — —
udě lali jsme byli udě laly jste byly udě lala Ø byla
Polishc prosić ‘ask’
1 2 3
prosił=em był prosiła=ś była prosiło=Ø było
— — —
prosili=sm ́ y byli prosiły=sć ie były prosiły=Ø były
Slovak volat’‘call’
1 2 3
volal som bol volala si bola volalo Ø bolo
— — —
volali sme boli volali ste boli volali Ø boli
Belarusiand pryéxac' ‘come’
1 2 3
(ja) pryéxaŭ byŭ (ty) pryéxala bylá (janó) pryéxalo byló
— — —
(my) pryéxali bylí (vy) pryéxali bylí (janý) pryéxali bylí
Ukrainian xodýty ‘go’
1 2 3
(ja) xodýv buv (ty) xodýla bulá (vonó) xodýlo buló
— — —
(my) xodýly bulý (vy) xodýly bulý (voný) xodýly bulý
a
This pluperfect formation is dialectal in Sorbian (Šewc 1968: 179, Stone 1993: 636). The pluperfect is strongly archaic in present-day Czech. c The pluperfect is obsolete in Polish but still found as an archaism (Rothstein 1993: 711). d The Belarusian pluperfect is confined to colloquial speech and the language of literature. Unlike Mayo (1993: 913) and Dalewska-Greń (1997: 373), Sussex & Cubberley (2006: 296) claim that it can only have the form ‘global past of byc' + past gerund’ (janá bylá prač ytáŭ šy ‘she had read’) which is reminiscent of the ‘new perfect’ attested in some (North-)Western East Slavic dialects. b
9.2.2.7 Future-In-The-Past This form (also called past future, futurum praeteriti) is unique to Bulgarian and Macedonian. It denotes situations that were to be completed in the past and are posterior relative to another past situation. Grammars usually classify it as a tense, whereas many scholars regard it as a modal category given its frequent use in conditional clauses. In Bulgarian, the periphrasis consists of the imperfect of štă (Table 9.12) plus da plus present tense. In Macedonian, the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.17 Future-in-the past in Bulgarian and Macedonian SG
PL
Bulgarian č etắ ‘read’
1 2 3
štjax da č etắ šteše da č etéš šteše da č eté
štjáxme da č etém štjáxte da č etéte štjáxa da č etắ t
Macedonian moli ‘beg’
1 2 3
ḱ e molev ḱ e moleše ḱ e moleše
ḱ e molevme ḱ e molevte ḱ e molea
Table 9.18 Future II-in-the past (Bulgarian)
Bulgarian č etắ ‘read’
1 2 3
SG
PL
(ne) štjax da să m č el (ne) šteše da si č éla (ne) šteše da e č élo
(ne) štjáxme da sme č éli (ne) štjáxte da ste č éli (ne) štjáxa da sa č éli
future particle ḱ e combines with an imperfect-tense form of the main verb; see Table 9.17. Sentential negation in Bulgarian involves ne on the auxiliary (ne štjáx da č etắ ).17 In Macedonian, either ne is attached to ḱ e, or ḱ e is replaced by invariant (3 S G ) nemaše da. 9.2.2.8 Future II-in-the-Past Unique to Bulgarian, this form (also called past future perfect, futurum exactum praeteriti) denotes past situations posterior relative to another past situation which itself is anterior relative to a third past situation. It is rarely used and commonly replaced by the future-in-the-past. Its forms replace the present-tense verb after da with the respective perfect form; see Table 9.18.
9.2.3 Future All Slavic languages have at least one future form (‘future I’). BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian have two (‘future II’). 9.2.3.1 Future I In East and West Slavic plus Slovene, the future I has synthetic and periphrastic forms the choice between which typically correlates with aspect (synthetic perfective, periphrastic imperfective). By contrast, South Slavic languages lack synthetic future forms altogether. There is another divide: In periphrases, East and West Slavic use the be-auxiliary, 17
An archaic alternative is njámaše + da + present tense (Scatton 1984: 327).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
195
196
HAGEN PITSCH
whereas South Slavic employs auxiliaries related to LCS ‘want’. Slovene is special, as it has a periphrasis with ‘be’ and of either aspect. Additionally, Slovene has a synthetic perfective future. Synthetic Future Forms Present-tense perfective verbs with future reference (East and West Slavic, Slovene) are illustrated in (7).18 (7)
a.
b.
c.
Z-róbl-jat' povtornyj analiz. (Ukrainian) P F V - make-P R S . 3 P L repeated analysis ‘They shall make a second analysis.’ Wozm-u wšo. (Upper Sorbian) take.P F V . P R S . 1 S G everything ‘I shall take everything.’ To na-právi-m jútri. (Slovene) this P F V -do-P R S . 1 S G tomorrow ‘I shall do this tomorrow.’
Ukrainian has a synthetic imperfective future (‘m-future’) which developed from an analytic structure: imperfective infinitive + present tense of nowadays obsolete játy (cf. LCS ję ti ‘take’: jьmu, jьmeši . . . jьmǫ tъ): č ytáty-mu, č ytátymeš, č ytáty-me; č ytáty-memo, č ytáty-mete, č ytáty-mut' ‘shall read’.19 Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian have a synthetic imperfective future for verbs denoting a unidirectional motion, adding the prefix po-: Czech po-pluji ‘I shall swim’; Upper Sorbian po-njesu ‘I shall carry’. The future of Sorbian ‘have’ is formed in a similar fashion: z-mě ju ‘I shall have’ (Stone 1993: 637). Periphrastic Future Forms In East and West Slavic languages plus Slovene, the periphrastic future uses beauxiliaries (Table 9.20). They combine with an imperfective infinitive (East and West Slavic) or an imperfective l-form (Polish, Slovene, eastern dialects of Slovak [Stieber 1973]); see (8) and (9), respectively.20 (8)
a.
b.
(9)
18
19
20
a.
Bude-m prosi-t'. be;F U T -1 S G ask. I P F V -I N F ‘I shall be asking.’ Vin bude prosy-ty. he be;F U T .3 S G ask.I P F V -I N F ‘He shall be asking.’ Bę dzie-cie prosi-l-i. be;F U T -2 P L ask. I P F V -L - P L . M P S ‘You shall be asking.’
(Slovak)
(Ukrainian)
(Polish)
Only unique non-negated situations are interpreted such that their completion is in the future (the preparatory activity may have started already). Non-unique situations give rise to a repeated, habitual, or generic interpretation. In appropriate contexts, the future I can be interpreted as a future perfect. The m-marker is syntactically mobile in South-Western dialects (mu xodýty ‘I shall go’; Žovtobrjux & Moldovan 2005: 544). Sussex & Cubberley (2006: 288) note that Belarusian, too, has an m-future which is now marginal and archaic. The Slovene auxiliary is enclitic. The two variants in Polish are functionally equivalent. Slovak uses also íst' ‘go’ to form a ‘close future’ (idem sa ženit' ‘I am going to get married’; Short 1993b: 554).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
b.
Prosí-l-a bo-m. ask.I P F V -L - S G . F be;F U T -1 S G ‘I shall be asking.’
(Slovene)
In Slovene, the l-form can also be perfective, as can be the infinitive in colloquial and dialectal Sorbian (Fasske 1981: 253, Stone 1993: 637, Anstatt et al. 2020: 130); see (10) and (11), respectively. (10)
Po-hváli-l-Ø P F V -praise-L - S G . M
‘I shall praise.’ (11)
Ja bud-u I be;F U T -1 S G ‘I shall write.’
bom. be;F U T -1 S G na-pisa-s.́
(Slovene)
(Lower Sorbian)
P F V - write-I N F
Sentential negation is on the future auxiliary (Czech nebudu . . ., Polish nie bę dę . . ., Russian ne búdu . . .). In Slovene, the emerging prosodic unit bears stress on the auxiliary (Brȁ t se ne bô ožénil ‘My brother will not marry’; Priestly 1993: 429). BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian future auxiliaries are related to LCS xъtě ti/xotě ti ‘want’. In BCMS, they are (mostly clitic) forms of htȅ ti ‘want’ (Table 9.21) and combine with an infinitive of either aspect; see (12). (12)
Slâvko cé (na-)písa-ti S. want.F U T .3 S G P F V - write-I N F ‘Slavko shall be writing (write) a letter.’
písmo. M.ACC
(BCMS)
If the infinitive precedes the clitic auxiliary, infinitival -ti is dropped as shown in (13a), although it survives in Croatian spelling; see (13b).21 (13)
a.
b.
Vı̏ d(j)e=c-́ u Màriju. see[.I N F ] =want.F U T -1 S G M.A C C ‘I shall see Marija.’ Vı̏ dje-t c-́ u Màriju. see-I N F want.F U T -1 S G M.A C C ‘I shall see Marija.’
(Bosnian/Serbian)
(Croatian)
Sentential negation uses ne- directly on the auxiliary (necú , etc.). Bulgarian and Macedonian have a future particle which combines with a present-tense verb of either aspect; see (14). When negated, it is replaced with invariant njáma da/nema da. Alternatively, ne attaches to the particle (Bulgarian ne šté, Macedonian ne ḱ e), a variant usually associated with modal nuances (Rivero & Simeonova 2015).22 (14)
21
22
a.
šte (pro-)č et-á want.F U T P F V - read- 1 S G ‘I shall be writing’
(Bulgarian)
Infinitives in -cí like dócí ‘come’ always keep the marker: dócí cú ‘I shall come’. Especially Bosnian and Serbian dialects often use da plus present tense in place of the infinitive (see Browne 1993: 330). The negations njáma da/nema da have in fact the (usually modal) affirmative counterpart íma da (Friedman 1993: 271).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
197
198
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.19 Inventory of future tense forms Periphrastic
Synthetic
PFV
‘want’ INF
Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
b.
IPFV
‘be’ PRS
INF
‘want’ - l-
INF
+ +
‘be’ PRS
INF
- l-
PFV
IPFV
+
+ + + + + + + + +
+
+ +
+
+ (+)
+ + + + + + + + +
(+) (+)
ḱ e want.F U T ‘I shall be writing’
(pro-)č ita-m
+
(Macedonian)
P R V - read- 1 S G
Table 9.19 shows the inventory of future forms in Slavic (see Dalewska-Greń 1997: 378; see Andersen 2006 on their evolution). Tables 9.20–9.21 list the paradigms of future be- and want-auxiliaries for those languages that employ them. 9.2.3.2 Future II BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian have a future II (future perfect). In Bulgarian, it is formed by adding šte (negated njáma da) to [să m/bắ da ‘be’ + l-form].23 In BCMS, it involves the future be-auxiliary (Table 9.20) plus an l-form and is mainly used in adverbial clauses introduced by kȁ d ‘when’ and ȁ ko ‘if’ (Browne 1993: 331).24
9.3 Imperative The Slavic imperative expresses directive speech acts (order/request/ permission when affirmative; prohibition/warning when negated). Strictly speaking, an imperative proper cannot be used with communicative participants other than speaker and addressee and is therefore limited to the second person and the 1 P L . If the speaker utters that they wish other persons to 23
24
Macedonian ḱe + sum + l-form is a reported future I: [Majka mi reč e deka] Vie ḱe ste patuvale so avtomobil ‘[My mother says that] You will be travelling by car’ (Rehder 2009: 340). Only the perfective future II is a future perfect. Otherwise, it is a simple future. Its raison d'être is to yield a future interpretation in embedded clauses which imperfective present forms fail to express.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
bȕ dē š boš budeš budeš buźoš budźeš bę dziesz búdzeš búdeš' búdeš
bȕ dē m bom budem budu budu/buźom budu bę dę búdu búdu búdu
bȕ dē bo bude bude buźo budźe bę dzie búdze búdet búde
3 — bova — — buźomej budźemoj — — — —
1 — bosta/bota — — buźotej budźetaj/-tej — — — —
2
DU
— bosta/bota — — buźotej budźetaj/-tej — — — —
3 bȕ dē mo bomo budeme budeme buźomy budźemy bę dziemy búdzem búdem búdemo
1
bȕ dē te boste/bote budete budete buźosó budźeć e bę dziecie búdzece búdete búdete
2
PL
bȕ dū bodo/bojo budú budou budu budu/budź(ej)a bę dą búduc' búdut búdut'
3
Note. The Slovene auxiliary is a second-position clitic. As for the rest, the neutral word order is auxiliary > main verb (e.g. Russian búdu pisát' ) but can be reversed (pisát' búdu).
BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
2
1
SG
Table 9.20 Slavic future auxiliaries based on LCS byti ‘be’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
hòć u (ć u) šte ḱ e
htȅ ti — —
SG
hȍ ć eš (ć eš) šte ḱ e
2 hȍ ć e (ć e) šte ḱ e
3 — — —
1 — — —
2
DU
— — —
3
hȍ ć emo (ć emo) šte ḱ e
1
PL
hȍ ć ete (ć ete) šte ḱ e
2
hòć e (ć ē ) šte ḱ e
3
Idiosyncratic negation: BCMS: néć u, nêć eš . . . néć ē ; Bulgarian: njáma da (ne šté with modal nuances); Macedonian: nema da (ne ḱ é with modal nuances); Slovene: nóč em/néč em, nóč eš/ néč eš . . . nóč ejo/néč ejo (no future auxiliary!); Lower Sorbian: njok, njocoš . . . njekśě ; Upper Sorbian: nochcu, nochceš . . . nochcedźa (in colloquial speech replaced with present-tense forms of njechać ). a Bulgarian šte and Macedonian ḱ e are fossilized 3 S G forms. Bulgarian šte is also part of the present-tense paradigm of štă (štă , šteš, šte, etc.).
BCMS Bulgariana Macedoniana
1
INF
Table 9.21 Future auxiliaries based on LCS xotě ti/xъtě ti ‘want’
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.22 2S G imperative
LCS Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
‘take’
‘write’
‘praise’
‘know’
vъzьm-i vzem-í zem-i ùzm-i vzêm-i vezm-i vezm-i wez-Ø/wzej-Ø wozm-i weź-Ø/weźm-i vaz'm-í voz'm-í viz'm-ý
piš-i piš-í piš-i píš-i píš-i piš-Ø piš-Ø piš-Ø piš-Ø pisz-Ø piš-ý piš-í pyš-ý
xval-i xval-í fal-i hvál-i hvál-i [chvaľ-Ø] chval-Ø chwal-Ø chwal-Ø chwal-Ø xval-í xval-í xval-ý
znaj-i znaj-Ø znaj-Ø znâj-Ø znàj-Ø -znaj-Ø znaj-Ø znaj-Ø -znaj-Ø znaj-Ø znaj-Ø znaj-Ø znaj-Ø
perform the action, the interpretation is rather optative or permissive, and the linguistic encoding is not by synthetic but by analytic forms.
9.3.1
Synthetic Imperatives
9.3.1.1 Second Singular Present-day (especially South) Slavic languages use the suffix -i (< PSL *-ói ) attached to the present stem, although there is a tendency to reduce it to zero.25 While the latter process is complete for present stems in -j-, -i is preserved when stress falls on the inflection or when the stem ends in a consonant cluster; see Table 9.22. 9.3.1.2 Second Plural, First Dual, Second Dual 2 P L , 1 D U , or 2 D U imperatives are formed by adding the respective marker from the present-tense paradigm to a 2 S G imperative.26 Czech, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Ukrainian continue a PSL-based alternation which today reflects the number distinction: While -i is used in the 2 S G (Table 9.22), -e- (-ě -) occurs in all plural forms (Ukrainian shows -y and -i-, respectively); see Tables 9.23–9.25. 9.3.1.3 First Plural Synthetic 1 P L imperatives (‘hortative’) exist in all languages except Belarusian, Russian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian. The present-tense 1 P L marker is added to the singular/plural imperative stem. Languages without dedicated forms
25
26
The shift from -i to -Ø is traceable in the form of palatalized consonants before -Ø (Czech promiň -Ø ‘forgive!’, Russian vstan'-Ø ‘stand up!’). Ukrainian I M P . 2 P L imperatives show -te with verbs that have -Ø in the 2 S G . Otherwise, 2 P L imperatives end in -it'.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
201
202
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.23 2P L imperative
Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
‘take’
‘write’
‘praise’
‘know’
vzem-é-te zem-e-te ùzm-i-te vzem-í-te vezm-i-te vezm-ě -te wez-Ø-ć o wozm-i-ć e weź-Ø-cie vaz'm-í-ce voz'm-í-te viz'm-í-t'
piš-é-te piš-e-te píš-i-te píš-i-te piš-Ø-te piš-Ø-te piš-Ø-ć o piš-Ø-ć e pisz-Ø-cie piš-ý-ce piš-í-te pyš-í-t'
xval-é-te fal-e-te hvál-i-te hvál-i-te chvaľ-Ø-te chval-Ø-te chwal-Ø-ć o chwal-Ø-ć e chwal-Ø-cie xval-í-ce xval-í-te xval-í-t'
znáj-Ø-te znaj-Ø-te znâj-Ø-te znâj-Ø-te -znaj-Ø-te znaj-Ø-te znaj-Ø-ć o -znaj-Ø-ć e znaj-Ø-cie znáj-Ø-ce znáj-Ø-te znáj-Ø-te
Table 9.24 1D U imperative
Slovene Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian
‘take’
‘write’
‘praise’
‘know’
vzem-í-va wez-Ø-mej wozm-i-moj
píš-i-va piš-Ø-mej piš-Ø-moj
hvál-i-va chwal-Ø-mej chwal-Ø-moj
znâj-Ø-va znaj-Ø-mej -znaj-Ø-moj
Table 9.25 2D U imperative
Slovene Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian
‘take’
‘write’
‘praise’
‘know’
vzem-í-ta wez-Ø-tej wozm-i-taj/-tej
píš-i-ta piš-Ø-tej piš-Ø-taj/-tej
hvál-i-ta chwal-Ø-tej chwal-Ø-taj/-tej
znâj-Ø-ta znaj-Ø-tej -znaj-Ø-taj/-tej
‘take’
‘write’
‘praise’
‘know’
[vzémem] [zememе] ùzm-i-mo vzem-í-mo vezm-i-me vezm-ě -me wez-Ø-my wozm-i-my weź-Ø-my [vóz'mem] [voz'mëm] viz'm-í-mo
[píšem] [pišeme] píš-i-mo píš-i-mo piš-Ø-me piš-Ø-me piš-Ø-my piš-Ø-my pisz-Ø-my [píšam] [píšem] pyš-í-mo
[xválim] [falime] hvál-i-mo hvál-i-mo chvaľ-Ø-me chval-Ø-me chwal-Ø-my chwal-Ø-my chwal-Ø-my [xválim] [xválim] xval-í-mo
[znáem] [znaeme] znâj-Ø-mo znâj-Ø-mo -znaj-Ø-me znaj-Ø-me znaj-Ø-my -znaj-Ø-my znaj-Ø-my [znáem] [znáem] znáj-Ø-mo
Table 9.26 1P L imperative
Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS Slovene Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.27 Analytic imperative: particle + indicative verb
Bulgarian Macedonian BCMS
Svı̏ No
Slovene Imé Slovak Czech Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
Particle
Indicative
Translation
Da Néka Neka Da nek da Naj naj Nech At' Daś Njech Niech Davájce Daváj Púst' Daváj(te) (Ne)xáj Xaj
píšeP R S . 3 S G ! píšeP R S . 3 S G ! vika(at)P R S . 3 S G ( P L ) ! kažeš! plȁ č ū P R S . 3 P L ! sjȅ dnē moP R S . 1 P L ! míslitaP R S . 3 D U ! mu boF U T . 3 S G Jánez! voláP R S . 3 S G ! se tam pě kně chovášP R S . 2 S G ! joP R S . 3 S G žywy serbski lud! waritejP R S . 3 D U ! (prze)czytają P R S . 3 P L ! napíšamP R S . 1 P L ! búdzemF U T . 1 P L pracavac'! ón pridëtP R S . 3 S G ! obsúdimP R S . 1 P L voprós! (ne) prýjdeP R S . 3 S G ! ja pracjuvátymuF U T . 1 S G z vámy.
‘Let him write!’ ‘Let him write!’ ‘Let him (them) shout!’ ‘Do say!’ ‘Let them all cry!’ ‘Let us sit down!’ ‘Let the two of them think!’ ‘May his name be Janez!’ ‘Let her/him call!’ ‘Behave yourself well there!’ ‘Long live the Sorbian people!’ ‘Let the two of them cook!’ ‘Let them read!’ ‘Let us write!’ ‘Let us work!’ ‘Let him come!’ ‘Let us discuss the question!’ ‘Let him (not) come!’ ‘Let me work with you!’
substitute them with present-tense forms; see Table 9.26 (substitutes in brackets). Russian 1 P L forms in imperative function can be suffixed with 2 P L -te when the speaker invites more than one person to perform the action together with them, or in case of a formal relationship to the addressee (Isač enko 1962: 306–309). 9.3.1.4 Third Singular Slavic languages do not have synthetic 3 S G imperative forms, but some languages use 2 S G imperatives instead, mostly in prayers and greeting formulae (Polish Świę cÍ M P się imię Twoje ‘Hallowed be Thy name!’, BCMS Pomozi Bog ‘God help [us]!’; Dalewska-Greń 1997: 358, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 364).
9.3.2 Analytic Imperatives Analytic imperatives are typically used when there is no synthetic form but can also be full-fledged alternatives to them. They always involve a particle which combines with one of the following verb forms: present, future I, conditional I/II, infinitive, supine, da-construction. The particles are of verbal origin, mostly LCS nexaji ‘let’ or daj ‘give’. In some languages, they have plural variants (Bulgarian nedéjte; Russian davájte; BCMS nèmō jmo/-te). Tables 9.27–9.29 show illustrations (Dalewska-Greń 1997: 387–388, Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 247, 363–366).27 27
BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian da is treated as a particle proper if it stands alone but as a connector if it links a particle to the verb.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
203
204
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.28 Analytic imperative: particle + conditional
Slovene
Particle
Conditional
Translation
Naj
biC O N D . 3 S G (bíl) pádel!
‘Would he fall! / Would he had fallen!’
Table 9.29 Analytic imperative: particle + infinitive/supine/da-construction
Bulgarian
BCMS
Slovene Belarusian Russian
Particle
Infinitive/supine/da-construction
Translation
Nedéj/te Nedéj Néka Nèmō jmo Nèmō jte Nèmō jte Neka Daj Daj Davájce Daváj(te) Puskáj
se sméI N F ! da glédameP R S . 1 P L ! da píšă tP R S . 3 P L ! písatiI N F ! písatiI N F ! da pîšē teP R S . 2 P L ! da svı̑ rā mo! že povédatiI N F ! ga krónatS U P ! vuč ýccaI N F ! pet'I N F ! veselját'sjaP R S . 3 P L mladšie!
‘Don’t laugh!’ ‘Let us look!’ ‘Let them write!’ ‘Let’s not write!’ ‘Don’t (PL) write!’ ‘Don’t (PL) write!’ ‘Let us play!’ ‘Let’s talk!’ ‘Let us crown him king!’ ‘Let us learn!’ ‘Let us sing!’ ‘Let the younger ones have fun!’
9.4 Conditional All Slavic languages have a conditional I (present conditional), some a conditional II (past conditional). Bulgarian alone has a synthetic conditional. The conditional I expresses potentiality and is used in conditional clauses but also for polite requests, recommendations, and warnings. The conditional II encodes counterfactuality. It is frequently replaced by the conditional I. Moreover, BCMS, Bulgarian, and Macedonian indicative forms often replace the conditional (imperfect for potentiality, pluperfect and future-in-the-past for counterfactuality).28 The conditional marker is either an inflected auxiliary or a particle; see Table 9.30 (Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 297, Xrakovskij 2009: 276–277).
9.4.1 Conditional I The conditional marker combines with an l-form of either aspect. Some languages can use more than l-forms: East Slavic and Polish combine by with the infinitive (mostly in subjunctive clauses) and impersonal modals (like Polish trzeba, Russian nado ‘necessary’). Moreover, Polish has conditionals with no/to-forms (Migdalski 2006: 253). East Slavic uses even more forms, among them nominals (Panzer 1967: 21–22, Xrakovskij & Volodin 1986, Xrakovskij 2009: 276, Dobrušina 2016). 28
In Bulgarian and Macedonian, the future-in-the-past adds increased certainty on the part of the speaker as to the realizability of the situation, while the conditional presupposes a probability of maximally 50 percent (Nicolova 2017: 551–552).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Table 9.30 Conditional markers Verb Late Common Slavic
Particle
●
Verbal paradigm SG DU PL
●
Bulgarian
SG PL
Macedonian BCMSa
●
● (●)
SG PL
● ●
Slovene Slovak
SG PL
●
Czech
SG PL
Lower Sorbian Upper Sorbian
●
● SG DU PL
Polish
●
Belarusianb Russianb Ukrainianb
● ● ●
SG PL
bimь, bi, bi // byxъ, by, by bivě , bista, biste // byxově , bysta, byste bimъ/bixomъ, biste, bǫ /bišę // byxomъ, byste, byšę bíx, bi, bi bíxme, bíxte, bíxa bi bı̏ h, bı̏ , bı̏ bı̏ smo, bı̏ ste, bı̏ bi by som, by si, by by sme, by ste, by bych, bys, by bychom, byste, by by bych, by, by bychmoj, byštaj/-štej, byštaj/-štej bychmy, byšć e, bychu bym, bys,́ by byśmy, byście, by b(y) b(y) b(y)
a Standard BCMS has an inflecting auxiliary but many dialects use the particle bi (Panzer 1967: 39, Xrakovskij 2009: 276), hence (●) in the table. b East Slavic languages have a full (by) and a reduced (b) variant. The two are in stylistic variation in Russian. In Belarusian and Ukrainian, by is used after consonants, b after vowels.
9.4.2 Conditional II A conditional II exists in BCMS, Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Slovene (it is obsolete in Upper Sorbian and Ukrainian). It is formed with the conditional I of ‘be’ plus the l-form of the main verb; see (15). (15)
a.
b.
c.
d.
bı̏ -l-a bi-h písa-l-a be-L - S G . F COND-1SG write-L - S G . F ‘I (F ) would have written’ by-l-a by-x udě la-l-a be-L - S G . F C O N D - 1 S G done-L - S G . F ‘I (F ) would have done’ bo-l-a by som vola-l-a be-L - S G . F C O N D be.P R S . 1 S G call-L - S G . F ‘I (F ) would have called’ bi bí-l-a po-hváli-l-a COND be-L - S G . F P F V -praise-L - S G . F ‘I (F ) would have praised’
(BCMS)
(Czech)
(Slovak)
(Slovene)
9.4.3 Synthetic Conditional Only Bulgarian has, in its vernacular, synthetic conditional forms (Hill 2009: 316). They involve the suffix -va- plus (i) present-tense inflections for
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
205
206
HAGEN PITSCH
Table 9.31 1S G indicative and renarrative forms Bulgarian
Present Aorist Perfect Future
Macedonian
Indicative
Renarrative
Indicative
Renarrative
píšă písax písala să m šte píšă
píšela să m písala să m bíla să m písala štjála să m da píšă
pišam napisav sum pišela, imam pišeno ḱ e pišam
sum pišela sum napišela sum imala napišаno ḱ e sum pišela
(Scatton 1984: 214)
Table 9.32 3S G indicative and renarrative forms Bulgarian
Present Aorist Perfect Future
Macedonian
Indicative
Renarrative
Indicative
Renarrative
píše písa písala e šte píše
píšela Ø písala Ø bíla Ø písala štjála Ø da píše
piše napisaše Ø pišela, ima pišeno ḱ e piše
Ø pišela Ø napišela Ø imala napišаno ḱ e sum pišela
potentiality (pís-va-m ‘I would write’) or (ii) imperfect-tense inflections for counterfactuality (pís-va-x ‘I would have written’; Xrakovskij 2009: 278).29
9.5 Evidential Bulgarian and Macedonian are the only Slavic languages with forms to denote eventualities which the speaker cannot personally vouch for (Hauge 1999: 120–124). The most common description for them uses the opposition witnessed/reported. However, the more cautious opposition confirmative/nonconfirmative seems advantageous, as ‘non-confirmative’ subsumes the instances of report, conclusion, and disbelief. It is an open question if evidential forms fit into the indicative (e.g. Levin-Steinmann 2004) or constitute one or multiple mood/s. Grammars reflect the latter view in the form of moods called ‘renarrative’, ‘conclusive’, ‘dubitative’, and ‘(ad)mirative’. By contrast, the relevant forms are nowadays viewed in linguistics as reflecting a distinct category, evidentiality. Bulgarian and Macedonian evidential forms include both variants of l-forms (Section 9.2.3.2). While Macedonian third person forms generally lack an auxiliary, Bulgarian grammars disagree when it comes to decide whether (and which) third person evidential forms include an auxiliary. The established view is that the auxiliary is dropped in third person ‘renarrative’ forms which
29
Hill (2009: 316) dubs these forms ‘present future’ and ‘present future-in-the-past’, respectively.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
then serves to distinguish them from the indicative perfect (cf. Table 9.31 with Table 9.32). Bulgarian renarrative forms can be emphasized by putting the auxiliary itself in the evidential: Tój bíl píšel román ‘(I heard:) He writes a novel’. Such forms usually encode doubt on the part of the speaker (hence ‘dubitative’). Another evidential subtype is called ‘conclusive’. It uses overt third-person auxiliaries: Tój e píšel pismóto ‘He [presumably] wrote the letter’ (Scatton 1984: 215). Temporal oppositions (present/past, future/future-in-the-past, future-in -the-past/future II-in-the-past) are neutralized in evidential forms, so that each evidential (except for the aorist) corresponds to two indicative tenses.
9.6 Outlook Tense and mood present a vast area for linguistic research on any language or language group. Several specific topics related to the peculiarities of the Slavic verb come to mind that deserve the (continuous) attention of linguists. Among them is the cross-Slavic as well as intralinguistic variation of tense and mood forms; the tense/aspect/mood (TAM) architecture with a focus on the interactions of, and interfaces between, semantics, morphosyntax, and pragmatics; the theoretical status of verbal roots, the aspectual function of affixes and stems, the role and possible semantic or grammatical contribution of thematic markers, the locus of interpretation of inflectional features, etc. Although a lot of work has already been done, the morphosyntax, use, and interpretation of auxiliary omission in South Slavic l-periphrases are far from clear. These issues point to the broader question of whether the relevant languages really possess one or more evidential mood(s). At the same time, they open a cross-Slavic, comparative perspective on topics related to grammaticalization, such as the development and change of (the use of) auxiliaries or the finite/non-finite status of specific verb forms. Another area of increasing interest is the impact of language contact for historical and contemporary changes in the system(s) of Slavic tense and mood forms. Even more fundamentally, there is still no widely accepted answer to the question of how many world- and speaker-related categories (modality, evidentiality, mood, reality status, etc.) there are in individual Slavic languages, and what their hierarchical relation to each other is. Not least from an interdisciplinary perspective do discourse and perspectivation properties of mood and tense forms in Slavic languages deserve further attention.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
207
208
HAGEN PITSCH
Bibliography Andersen, H. (2006). Periphrastic futures in Slavic: Divergence and convergence. In K. Eksell & T. Vinther, eds., Change in Verbal Systems: Issues in Explanation, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–45. Anstatt, T., Clasmeier C., & Wölke S. (2020). Obersorbisch: Aus der Perspektive der slavischen Interkomprehension, Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. Aronson, H. (1968). Bulgarian Inflectional Morphophonology, The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Bondaruk, A. & Rozwadowska, B. (2019). Polish object experiencer verbs in the stative and eventive passive. In A. Bondaruk & K. Jaskuła, eds., All Around the Word. Papers in Honour of Bogdan Szymanek on his 65th Birthday, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 47–78. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387. Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G., eds. (1993). The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge. Cvrč ek, V. et al. (2010). Mluvnice souč asné č eštiny 1: Jak se píše a mluví, Prague: Karolinum. Dalewska-Greń , H. (1997). Ję zyki słowiań skie, Warsaw: PWN. Desclés, J.-P. & Guenchéva, Z. (1990). Discourse analysis of aorist and imperfect in Bulgarian and French. In N. B. Thelin, ed., Verbal Aspect in Discourse, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 237–261. Dobrušina, N. R. (2016). Soslagatel'noe naklonenie v russkom jazyke. Opyt issledovanija grammatič eskoj semantiki, Prague: Animedia. Embick, D. (1995). Mobile inflections in Polish. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 25(2), 127–142. Fasske, H. (1981). Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Morphologie, Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag. Fiedler, W. (1999). Tempus, Modus und Aspekt in den Sprachen Südosteuropas. In U. Hinrichs & U. Büttner, eds., Handbuch der Südosteuropalinguistik, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 487–517. Franks, S. & Bań ski, P. (1999). Approaches to ‘schizophrenic’ Polish person agreement. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. Vakareliyska, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7. The Seattle Meeting, 1998, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 123–143. Friedman, V. A. (1986). Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, NY: Ablex, 168–187. Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305. Friedman, V. A. (2004). The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In O. M. Tomić, ed., Balkan Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 101–134. Gabka, K. et al. (1988). Russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Bd. 2: Morphologie, Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Giger, M. (2009). Der Resultativ in den slavischen Sprachen. In S. Kempgen et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–274. Gołą b, Z. (1964). The problem of verbal moods in Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 8(1), 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Tense and Mood Forms
Halle, M. (1951). The Old Church Slavonic conjugation. Word, 7, 155–167. Hauge, K. R. (1999). A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian, Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Hill, P. (2009). Das Bulgarische. In P. Rehder, ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 310–325. Isač enko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart I: Formenlehre, Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer. Jakobson, R. (1948). Russian conjugation. Word, 4, 155–167. Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Gutschmidt, K., & Berger, T., eds. (2009). The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, V. (2013). Linguistik des Russischen: Grundlagen der formal-funktionalen Beschreibung, Munich: Otto Sagner. Levin-Steinmann, A. (2004). Die Legende vom bulgarischen Renarrativ: Bedeutung und Funktion der kopulalosen l-Periphrase, Munich: Otto Sagner. Lindstedt, J. (1994). On the development of the South Slavonic perfect. Three papers on the perfect. EUROTYP Working Papers, 6(5), 32–53. Lindstedt, J. (2010). Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian. In B. Rothstein & R. Thieroff, eds., Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 409–421. Lunt, H. G. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje: Državno Knigoizdatelstvo na NR Makedonija. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 887–946. Mehlig, H. R. (1999). Die grammatischen Kategorien des Verbs unter funktionalen Gesichtspunkten. In H. Jachnow, ed., Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 182–272. Migdalski, K. (2006). The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic, Utrecht: LOT. Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds. (2005). Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia. Nicolova, R. (2017). Bulgarian Grammar, Berlin: Frank und Timme. Panzer, B. (1967) Der slavische Konditional: Form – Gebrauch – Funktion, Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Panzer, B. (1999). Die slavischen Sprachen in Gegenwart und Geschichte: Sprachstrukturen und Verwandtschaft, 3rd. ed., Bern: Peter Lang. Petruxin, P. V. & Sič inava, D. V. (2006). Russkij pljuskvamperfekt v tipologič eskoj perspective. In A. M. Moldovan et al., eds., Verenica liter: K 60-letiju V. M. Živova, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury, pp. 193–214. Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovene. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 388–451. Rehder, P. (2009). Das Makedonische. In P. Rehder, ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 331–346. Rehder, P., ed. (2009). Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG. Rivero, M. L. & Simeonova, V. (2015). The inferential future in Bulgarian: An evidential modal proposal. In M. Szajbel-Keck, R. Burns, & D. Kavitskaya, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The First Berkeley Meeting, 2014, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 282–301.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
209
210
HAGEN PITSCH
Rivero, M. L., Arregui, A., & Slavkov, N. (2017). The grammaticalization of ‘big’ situations: The IMPF operator and perfective imperfects in Bulgarian. In O. Fernández-Soriano, E. Castroviejo Miró, & I. Pérez-Jiménez, eds., Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 152–172. Rothstein, R. A. (1993). Polish. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 686–758. Rothstein, B. & Thieroff, R., eds. (2010). Mood in the Languages of Europe, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Scatton, E. A. (1984). A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Šewc, H. (1968). Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rě č e, 1: Fonematika a morfologija, Bautzen: Domowina. Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 947–998. Short, D. (1993a). Czech. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 455–532. Short, D. (1993b). Slovak. In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592. Sič inava, D. V. (2013). Tipologija pljuskvamperfekta. Slavjanskij pljuskvamperfekt, Moscow: AST Press. Sonnenhauser, B. (2006). Aspekt und Aorist/Imperfekt im Bulgarischen – eine intervall-basierte Analyse. Die Welt der Slaven, 51, 116–140. Sonnenhauser, B. (2013). ‘Evidentiality’ and point of view in Bulgarian. Să postavitelno ezikoznanie, 38(2–3), 110–130. Stieber, Z. (1973). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej ję zyków słowiań skich. II: Fleksja werbalna, Warsaw: PWN. Stone, G. (1993). Sorbian (upper and lower). In B. Comrie & G. G. Corbett, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 593–685. Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomason, R. H. (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner, eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 135–165. Tomic,́ O. M. (1999). Negation and imperatives. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 191–206. Tomic,́ O. M. (2008). Mood and negation in Balkan Slavic. In G. Zybatow et al., eds., Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 461–477. Townsend, C. E. (1975). Russian Word Formation, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Townsend, C. E. & Janda, L. A. (1996). Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and Inflection, Columbus, OH: Slavica. Xrakovskij, V. S. (2009). The conditional. In S. Kempgen et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 484–505. Xrakovskij, V. S. & Volodin, A. P. (1986). Semantika i tipologija imperativa: Russkij imperative, Leningrad: Nauka. Žovtobrjux, M. A. & Moldovan, A. M. (2005). Ukrainskij jazyk. In A. M. Moldovan et al., eds., Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia, pp. 513–548.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.010 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10 Aspect in Verbs Stephen M. Dickey
10.1 Introduction Slavic languages are ‘aspect’ languages, as they all have a P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition at the core of their verbal and grammatical systems. The P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition of Slavic is anchored in the lexicon, as it is marked by prefixation and suffixation (and not inflectional endings). At the same time, it is a thoroughly grammatical category with considerable referential functions (with cross-Slavic differences). For example, in all Slavic languages the expression of a single completed event with its ensuing result is a function of the perfective aspect, whereas the expression of an ongoing process is contrastingly the function of the imperfective. Further, in Russian (and East Slavic) and Bulgarian perfective verbs refer almost invariably to single, unique actions, whereas in other Slavic languages such as Czech and BCMS perfective verbs occur freely to refer to repeated events. The Slavic P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition also interacts in major ways with the grammatical categories of tense, case, and voice. Aspect interacts with tense in a very basic way in East and West Slavic: the present-tense forms of perfective verbs refer by default to future events and the compound future tense is restricted to imperfective verbs (in contrast, in South Slavic languages perfective verbs occur in the compound future tense along with imperfective verbs). As for case, in East Slavic and Polish the opposition between the partitive genitive and the accusative case in direct objects is largely limited to perfective verbs (e.g. Russian vypil moloka drank. P F V milk.G E N ‘drank some milk’ vs. vypil moloko drink.P F V . M . S G . P S T milk. A C C ‘drank the milk’). The interrelationship between P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition and grammatical voice is an enormous topic, and the reader is referred to Wiemer (2017) for a comprehensive overview. Here it suffices to point out that in all Slavic languages, past-passive participial constructions primarily occur
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
212
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
with perfective verbs (e.g. Russian moloko vypito milk.N O M drink.P F V . N . S G . P T C P ‘the milk has been drunk up’). However, in West and South Slavic imperfective past-passive participial constructions do occur, whereas in East Slavic they are so infrequent as to be negligible for all intents and purposes. The interactions between P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition and other grammatical categories are extremely complex (also differing from language to language), and therefore cannot be treated here. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 10.2 presents an overview of the morphology of Slavic aspect and derivational patterns of verbs, and relates the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition to situation type. Section 10.3 discusses the usage patterns and functions of perfective and imperfective verbs in the contemporary Slavic languages, with some attention to differences between an eastern and a western aspectual type, and ends with a brief consideration of the referential properties of the aspects. Section 10.4 presents a very brief discussion of issues of the diachronic development of Slavic aspect. Lastly, Section 10.5 describes current directions of aspectual research. Note that unless otherwise indicated, Russian examples are taken from the Russian National Corpus (https://ruscorpora.ru/), Czech examples from Czech Web 2017 (www.sketchengine.eu/cstenten-czech-corpus/), and BCMS (Croatian) examples from hrWaC (www.clarin.si/noske/all.cgi/first_form?corpname= hrwac;align=).
10.2 The Morphology of Slavic Aspectual Correlations: Actional Defaults and Aspectual Construals Slavic aspectual systems are based on pairs of derivationally related perfective and imperfective verbs that exist within larger clusters or networks of aspectually correlated verbs (on aspectual clusters of verbs in Russian, see Janda 2007). A description of the details of verbal derivation and its interaction with verbal aspect in even a single Slavic language would require more space than is possible here. In what follows I present the basic mechanisms of the Russian system (representative of East Slavic as a whole), with some basic observations on how the systems of other Slavic languages differ. The cornerstone of Slavic aspectual systems is perfectivizing prefixation (on perfectivizing prefixation as an areal phenomenon in European and Caucasian languages, see Arkad'ev 2015). Prefixed perfective verbs constitute functional aspectual pairs with imperfective simplex verbs (as in pisat' write.I P F V ' – napisat' ‘on-write = write.P F V ') or lexically identical aspectual pairs with prefixed correlates containing an additional imperfectivizing suffix (e.g. za-pisat' ‘behind-write = record.P F V ' – za-pis-yva-t' ‘record.I P F V ’). Note that according to Muč nik’s (1971, cited in Gorbova 2019) statistics, aspectual pairs formed by imperfective suffixation of a prefixed perfective account for 64 percent of the Russian verbal inventory. As a lexical process, perfectivizing prefixation
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
represents a system of verb classification (cf. Janda et al. 2013, Dickey & Janda 2015), whereby members of a network of prefixes (around 16 in Russian, depending on how one counts allomorphs) classify verbs by specifying the outcome of an action as literal instantiations of their spatial meanings (e.g. idti ‘go.I P F V ’ > vy-jti ‘out-go = go/come out.P F V ’) or as metonymic or metaphorical extensions therefrom (e.g. pit' ‘drink.I P F V ’ > vy-pit' ‘out-drink = drink up. P F V ’, stojat' ‘stand.I P F V ’ > vy-stojat' ‘out-stand = survive.P F V ’). Perfectivization occurs as a by-product of this classification by outcome. Due to the spatial meanings of most prefixes, prefixation generally alters the lexical meaning of the source verb either literally or in a figurative sense to such an extent that the prefixed verb is no longer felt to be identical to the source verb, as in the case of za-pisat' ‘record.P F V ’ and pisat' ‘write.I P F V ’, which necessitates suffixation to derive a new imperfective verb lexically identical to the prefixed perfective (here: za-pis-yva-t' ‘record.I P F V ’). In pairs such as pisat' ‘write.I P F V ’ – na-pisat' ‘write.P F V ’, prefixation appears merely to change the aspect, but in fact the spatial meaning of the prefix (here: na- ‘on[to] a surface’) overlaps with some component of the meaning of the imperfective source verb (here: pisat' ‘mark text on a surface’). For compelling arguments in favor of the position that prefixes retain their meanings even when they appear to be lexically ‘empty’, see Janda et al. (2013). The chief exception in Russian is the prefix po-, which has lost its original spatial meaning of S U R F A C E - C O N T A C T (even with motion verbs, as discussed by Nesset 2020) and perfectivizes verbs mostly with an abstract resultative meaning (e.g. stroit' ‘build.I P F V ’ > po-stroit' ‘build.P F V ’) or a delimitative meaning (e.g. pisat' ‘write.I P F V ’ > po-pisat' ‘write.P F V [for a while]’), the latter of which is its currently productive meaning. Delimitative verbs are a prime example of prefixation deviating from the well-known function of creating completive perfective verbs. Such noncompletive prefixation, known in English as P R O C E D U R A L prefixation (Forsyth 1970) or A K T I O N S A R T prefixation, modifies the meaning of the source verb with respect to the phase, the rate, or quantity of the situation (Isač enko 1960). The main types of Russian procedural prefixation are given in Table 10.1. As these examples show, a single prefix can create various kinds of perfective verbs, and a single prefix can add different meanings to a verb: za-pisat' can mean either ‘record.P F V ’ or (colloquially) ‘start-writing.P F V ’. From the above it should be clear that a given imperfective source verb can enter into aspectual correlations with a number of prefixed perfectives. It is for this reason that Janda (2007) emphasizes clusters or networks of verbs as opposed to the traditional notion of aspectual pairs, while recognizing the special status of a natural perfective, that is, a perfective verb that “describes the logical completion of the corresponding [i]mperfective [a]ctivity” (Janda 2007: 609). Indeed, Šatunovskij (2009: 12–13) argues that, given the various kinds of semantic differences between derivationally related perfective and imperfective verbs, “searching for purely aspectual pairs or pairs in general
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
213
214
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Table 10.1 Procedural prefixation in Russian Delimitative poIngressive zaPerdurative proFinitive otCompletive doCumulative naDistributive pere-, poAttenuative po-, pri-, pod-
Saturative na- . . . -sja Intensive-resultative: various prefixes with reflexive -sja
po-viset' ‘hang.P F V [for a while]’ po-pisat' ‘write.P F V [for a while]’ za-plakat' ‘start-crying.P F V ’ za-pisat' ‘start-writing.P F V ’ pro-stojat' ‘stand.P F V [for a long period of time]’ ot-rabotat' ‘finish-working.P F V ’ do-rabotat' ‘complete-work-on.P F V ’ na-kupit' ‘buy-a-lot.P F V ’ pere-kusat' ‘bite-all-of.P F V ’ po-vljubljat'sja ‘fall-in-love.P F V [of all or many]’ po-rassprosit' ‘inquire-a-little.P F V ’ pri-vstat' ‘get-up-a-little.P F V ’ pod-zabyt' ‘forget-a-little.P F V ’ na-est'-sja ‘eat-one’s-fill.P F V ’ za-dumat'-sja ‘think-hard/get-lost-in-thought.P F V ’ do-sidet'-sja ‘sit-[to the point of negative result].P F V ’ ot-govorit'-sja ‘talk-one’s-way-out-of something.P F V ’
Table 10.2 Imperfective procedurals in Russian Intermittent-attenuative po- . . . -yva-/-ivaConcomitant pri- . . . -yva-/-ivapod- . . . -yva-/-ivaHabitual -yva-/-iva-
po-kur-ivat' ‘smoke-from-time-to-time.I P F V ’ pri-govar-iva-t' ‘speak-while-doing something-else.I P F V ’ pod-dak-ivat' ‘say-yes-to-another-speaker.I P F V ’ č it-yva-t' ‘read-habitually.I P F V ’
[. . .] loses all meaning. It is not clear why one then needs to have purely aspectual pairs in a theory of aspect. To exclude all other correlations from examination?” However, despite the complexity of the issue of aspectual pairs, there are tests for aspectual pairhood. Most notable is Maslov’s (1948: 307) test in which a past-tense perfective verb is replaced by its imperfective partner in a switch of the sentence to the narrative present. Forsyth (1970: 40) adds a ‘modal’ test in which an affirmative imperative with a perfective verb is replaced by its imperfective partner when the imperative is changed to a negative command. These tests indicate that there is some reality to the notion (for a defense of the concept of aspectual pairs, see Zaliznjak et al. 2015). Note that in addition to derivational models producing perfective procedural verbs, there are also models that produce imperfective procedurals, notably those shown in Table 10.2. Habitual verbs are archaic in Russian (East Slavic) and marginal in most other Slavic languages, but are productive in Czech and Slovak. It is important to point out that in every Slavic language there are verbs, most of which at present are loan verbs, that occur both in contexts requiring perfective verbs and those requiring imperfective verbs (e.g. Russian ratificirovat' ‘ratify’, Czech analyzovat ‘analyze’, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
Serbian formatirati ‘format’). Such verbs are ordinarily considered to be biaspectual (on Russian biaspectuals, cf. Piperski 2018 and the references cited there) or anaspectual (cf. Bermel 1997: 9, who also discusses the difference between the two concepts). The status of biaspectual verbs varies from language to language, and the stability of a verb as biaspectual can differ in standard and colloquial registers. For instance, Polish tends to integrate loan verbs into its aspectual system relatively quickly (cf. Łaziń ski 2020: 79–80), for example interpretowac ́ ‘interpret.I P F V / P F V ’ has been prefixed yielding the perfective zinterpretowac ́ ‘interpret.P F V ’. It thus makes sense that according to the numbers Łaziń ski cites, both Czech and Russian have higher numbers of biaspectuals than Polish (Łaziń ski 2020: 80 and the references cited there), and he observes that Polish prefixed perfective loan verbs have unprefixed biaspectual equivalents in Czech more often than in Russian. Bláha’s (2020b: 135) statistics for biaspectual lemmas among the most frequent 1,000 verbs in Czech and Russian comport with Łaziń ski’s observations, inasmuch as he finds a higher number of biaspectual loans in Czech than in Russian in two data samples from the SYN2015 corpus (Czech) and the Russian National Corpus. Thus, it would seem that the number of biaspectuals in Czech is the highest among these three languages. For Croatian, Kolaković (2021) shows that the probability of perfectivizing prefixation of biaspectual verbs is dependent on several factors: (1) native Slavic biaspectuals tend to be prefixed more than loan verbs; (2) biaspectuals containing a visible, fused prefix are less likely to be prefixed than those without such a prefix; (3) biaspectuals for which there is a suffixed correlate are more likely to be prefixed than those without; (4) biaspectuals with more polysemous meanings are more likely to be prefixed than those with simpler meanings; (5) biaspectual loan verbs are more likely to be attested in corpora with colloquial and unedited texts. A further complication with biaspectuals has been noted by Bunč ić (2013), who demonstrates that biaspectuals in Russian cannot be analyzed as homophonous pairs of verbs (e.g. izolirovat' ‘isolate.I P F V ’ and izolirovat' ‘isolate. P F V ’), because in a questionnaire experiment native speakers rejected conative sentences of the type Bioxemiki v laboratorii izolirovali virus, no ne izolirovali ego biochemist.P L . N O M isolate.I P F V / P F V . P L . P S T virus.S G . A C C but not isolate.I P F V / P F V . P L . P S T it.M . A C C ‘The biochemists in the lab tried to isolate the virus, but did not isolate it’. Bunč ić (2013: 49–50) further suggests that biaspectual loans in Russian are rarely completely aspectually ambiguous; rather, many show tendencies to be interpreted as imperfective or perfective according to their basic situation type (see below). Bláha (2020b: 135) makes the same suggestion regarding biaspectuals in Czech. The above discussion shows that despite their peripheral status (or precisely because of it), biaspectual verbs resist a quick analysis. As the category ‘situation type’ is relevant not only for Slavic verbal derivation but also for various aspectual usage patterns, a brief overview is given here, based on Comrie’s (1976) and Smith’s (1997) developments of Vendler’s (1957) typology. Table 10.3 shows a typology of the five situation types most
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
215
216
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Table 10.3 The five situation types and the Russian P E R F E C T I V E : Situation type
States
English know, examples hang Features + duration – dynamic – telic IPFV viset' ‘hang' PFV poviset' ‘hang for a while’
IMPERFECTIVE
opposition
Activities
Accomplishments
Achievements
Semelfactives
build write + duration + dynamic – telic pisat' ‘write' popisat' ‘write for a while’
build a house write a letter + duration + dynamic + telic pisat' pis'mo ‘write a letter’ napisat' pis'mo ‘write a letter’
lose forget – duration + dynamic + telic odin raz zabyvat' sumku ‘forget one’s purse once’ odin raz zabyt' sumku ‘forget one’s purse once’
spit sneeze – duration + dynamic – telic odin raz pleval ‘spat once’ odin raz pljunul ‘spat once’
relevant for Slavic verbal derivation. They can be distinguished with three features: ± duration, ± dynamicity, and ± telicity. States are durative, but not dynamic (are not characterized by any motion/ change as a result of the expenditure of energy) and have no inherent endpoints. Activities are durative and also dynamic, but lack inherent endpoints. As states and activities have no inherent endpoints, they are atelic. Accomplishments have inherent endpoints (often provided by the bounds of a specific/quantified patient) which are preceded by durative, dynamic activities; they consist of an activity that produces a change of state beyond which it cannot continue as part of the same event. Achievements are punctual situations with no perceptible duration, consisting of an immediate, dynamic attainment of an inherent endpoint. Thus, accomplishments and achievements are telic. Semelfactives are momentary situations that do not produce a noticeable change of state; rather, the world remains unchanged after the punctual, dynamic situation. Semelfactives have no duration, are dynamic, but do not produce a change of state. Let us consider the five situation types with regard to aspectual derivation in order. States and activities. Imperfective simplex verbs are atelic by default, referring to unbounded states and activities. True states lie largely outside the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition, some states are perfectivized by delimitative po- (e.g. viset' ‘hang.I P F V ’ > po-viset' ‘hang.P F V for a while’), but many are not (e.g. there is no *po-znat' ‘know for a while’). Activities are productively perfectivized most neutrally by delimitative po-, for example pisat' ‘write.I P F V ’ > po-pisat' ‘write.P F V for a while’, and colloquial veganit' ‘practice veganism.I P F V ’ > po-veganit' ‘practice veganism.P F V for a while’. Accomplishments. A substantial number of aspectual pairs of basic-level accomplishment predicates are formed via prefixation that appears only to change the aspect of the imperfective source verb, for example pisat' [pis'mo] ‘write.I P F V [a letter]’ > na-pisat' [pis'mo] ‘write.P F V [a letter]’ or stroit' [dom]
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
‘build.I P F V [a house]’ > po-stroit' [dom] ‘build.pfv [a house]’. The reason that simplex-prefixed pairs are common with accomplishment predicates is that the activity stages are easily accessible as components of the accomplishment situation, and the addition of the prefix produces a telic perfective verb that asserts the attainment of the logical endpoint of the activity. However, most accomplishment predicates are prefixed – prefixed-suffixed pairs, for example za-pisat' ‘record.P F V ’ > za-pis-iva-t' ‘record.I P F V ’. Achievements. As achievements consist of momentary changes of state, their default conceptualization is telic and they are also represented by prefixed – prefixed-suffixed pairs, for example za-byt' ‘forget.P F V ’ > za-byva-t' ‘forget.I P F V ’. Only a few achievement predicates are represented by simplex-prefixed pairs, for example terjat' ‘lose.I P F V ’ > po-terjat' ‘lose.P F V ’. Semelfactives. Semelfactives represent single quanta of iterative or cyclical activities, and are derived from activity verbs by suffixation with -nu- (and the newer -anu-, which originated as an intensive-semelfactive suffix), for example rezat' ‘chop.I P F V ’ > reznut'/rezanut' ‘chop-once.P F V ’ (on Russian semelfactives and their history, see Nesset 2013). The interrelationship between situation type and the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition in Russian is complex, and it is erroneous to assume that the imperfective aspect expresses states and activities while the perfective expresses accomplishments, achievements, and semelfactives. In other words, the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition is not a means of expressing situation type. In this regard, it must be stressed that, as Table 10.3 shows, four of the five situation types occur in both aspects; the main exception are states, which are not regularly perfectivized. Thus, activities and some states are expressed not only by imperfective verbs, but also by perfective delimitatives in po-. Conversely, telic situations are not inherently perfective. Even single achievements and semelfactives, which are paradigm examples of total situations, can be expressed by imperfective verbs in suitable contexts, as the following examples show. (1) Sejf ne brala i daže odin raz safe.S G . A C C NEG take.I P F V . F . S G . P S T and even one time zabyvala č emodan zakryt'. forget.I P F V . F . S G . P S T suitcase.S G . A C C close. ‘I didn’t rent a safe and one time I even forgot to close my suitcase.’ 'https://tophotels.ru/hotel/al680/questions-new?page=2 (2) Esli ty pomniš', ja na nego uže if you.S G . N O M remember.I P F V . 2.S G . P R E S I.N O M on he.A C C already odin raz pleval! one.M . S G . A C C time.S G . A C C spit.I P F V . M . S G . P S T ‘If you remember, I already spat on him once!’ http://maxima-library.org/mob/b/454017?format=read
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
217
218
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Thus, while actional default construals account for tendencies in aspectual coding, the usage of perfective and imperfective verbs is determined by other factors. Indeed, situation type can be fluid within a single episode, as shown in the following case with the accomplishment uznavat'I P F V – uznat'P F V ‘find out’. (3) — Ty xot' predstavljaeš' skol'ko s menja you P T C L realize.I P F V . 2 . S G . P R E S how much from I.G E N nalogov voz'mut? tax.P L . G E N take.P F V . 3 . P L . P R E S — Trinadcat' procentov! uverenno otvetil thirteen percent.P L . G E N confidently answer.P F V . M . S . P S T Jan. Ja uznaval! Jan.N O M I.NOM find out.I P F V . M . S . P S T — Uznaval, da ne uznal . . . find out.I P F V . M . S . P S T P T C L NEG find out.P F V . M . S . P S T pokač al golovoj papa. shake.P F V . M . S . P S T head.S . I N S T dad.N O M ‘ “ Do you know how much they’ll take from me in taxes?” “Thirteen percent!” answered Jan assuredly, “I found out!” “You tried, but you did not find out,” dad said, shaking his head.”’ https://tinyurl.com/2buavrpp
In (3), the first occurrence of the imperfective past-tense uznaval ‘found out’ represents an accomplishment in the mind of the speaker, as he considers his action to have been successfully concluded. However, his father uses it to refer to an unsuccessful activity, that is, an attempt: Uznaval, da ne uznal ‘tried to find out, but did not find out’. Such usage, along with examples (1)–(2) raises the issue of what determines aspectual usage in Russian and the other Slavic languages. In view of the description of Russian above, it should be pointed out that in other Slavic languages, such as Czech and BCMS, the associations of situation type and aspectual coding are somewhat simpler, but even in these languages the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition cannot be considered an expression of situation type. Before turning to issues of usage, a last important area of Slavic aspectual morphology deserves comment – verbs of motion. The basic facts are given in Table 10.4 (on Russian, see Mrhač ová 1993, on Czech, see Saicová Římalová 2010, and on Bulgarian see Lindsey 2011). In the East and West Slavic languages, the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition is complemented by a D E T E R M I N A T E : I N D E T E R M I N A T E opposition in the imperfective. But only in East Slavic and Polish do ‘go’ and the other determinate motion verbs have ingressive perfective correlates prefixed in po-. In Czech, Slovak, Upper and Lower Sorbian there are no prefixed perfective correlates of determinate motion verbs (e.g. Czech jít ‘go.I P F V ’; note that these same languages form the imperfective future of determinate motion verbs with the prefix po-, e.g. Czech pů jdu ‘I will go.I P F V ’). BCMS has prefixed ingressive perfectives similar to the Russian perfectives (though the BCMS verbs tend to be used with a spatially ablative sense, and in the case of ‘go’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
Table 10.4 Overview of aspect and motion verbs in Slavic Imperfective
Perfective
Indeterminate
Determinate
East Slavic: Russian
xodit' ‘go/walk’ nosit' ‘carry’
idti ‘go’ nesti ‘carry’
po-jti ‘start to go’ po-nesti ‘start to carry’
West Slavic: Czech
chodit ‘go/walk’ nosit ‘carry’
jít ‘go’ nést ‘carry’
—
ić i ‘go’ nositi ‘carry’
po-ć i ‘depart, start to go’ po-n(ij)eti ‘carry’
South Slavic: BCMS
—
po-cí ‘depart.P F V ’ has a prefixed imperfective correlate po-laziti ‘depart.I P F V ’), but Macedonian and Bulgarian do not. In South Slavic, the D E T E R M I N A T E : I N D E T E R M I N A T E opposition does not exist (and probably never did, cf. Dickey 2010). In brief, indeterminate motion verbs are employed in East and West Slavic for (1) aimless motion, (2) repeated trips, (3) statements of ability. In East Slavic, they also occur in imperfective statements of fact referring to single round trips, as in ex. (4). (4) — Ty vč era xodil k nej, kažetsja? you yesterday go.I P F V . I N D E T . 2 . S G . P S T to she.D A T seem.I P F V 3 .S G .P R E S ‘You went to her yesterday, it seems?’
Here again we see differences in usage patterns that are inextricably bound up with the morphology of Slavic aspect. Before turning to usage patterns in Section 10.3, we conclude this section with a few of the noteworthy differences between Slavic languages in aspectual prefixation and suffixation, focusing on Czech and Russian, summarized in Table 10.5 (for a comparative study on differences between Russian and Slovak, see Sekaninová 1980). The values are not all-or-nothing, rather a plus means the model is well represented and a minus means the model is marginal or non-existent. As can be seen, Czech patterns differently from Russian in that Russian has a greater number of productive models of perfective prefixation beyond the formation of completive perfective verbs. Conversely, Czech is characterized by imperfective habitual verbs (e.g. psávat ‘write habitually’), in contrast to Russian. Probably the single most significant difference is the high productivity of po- in Russian to form atelic perfectives from activity verbs.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
219
220
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Table 10.5 Some derivational differences between Russian and Czech Derivational model
Czech
Russian
Delimitative poDespatialized poIngressive zaProductive intensive-resultative verbs Imperfective habitual verbs
− − − − +
+ + + + −
10.3 Completion and Beyond: The Usage Patterns of Slavic Perfective and Imperfective Verbs The subject of the usage patterns of Slavic perfective and imperfective verbs has been the topic of whole volumes (cf. e.g. Forsyth 1970, Bondarko 1971, Leinonen 1982, and Šatunovskij 2009 on Russian, Kopeč ný 1962 on Czech, Stankov 1976 on Bulgarian, as well as Galton 1976, Dickey 2000, and Benacchio 2010 on Slavic). All that can be done here is briefly outline the main usage types and the main differences between the languages. Cross-linguistically, the prototypical function of the perfective is to express a single completed event with a well-defined result state in the past (cf. Dahl 1985: 78), and the Slavic perfective commonly refers to such events, which are instances of its so-called perfect meaning, as shown for Russian and Czech in (5). (5) a. A možet byt', on uže prišel? (Russian) but may.3 . S . P R E S be.I N F he.N O M already come.P F V . M . S . P S T ‘But maybe he has already arrived?’ b. Už přijel Standa? (Czech) already come by car.P F V . M . S . P S T Standa ‘Has Standa arrived?’
In such examples the result of the event (here: that someone is at the location of the speaker) obtains at the moment of speech. But the single event and its subsequent result may also be predicted for the future, as in (6). (6) a. Ja že vam skazal, on I.N O M PTCL you.P L . D A T said.P F V . M . S . P S T he.N O M skoro podojdet. soon come.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S ‘I told you, he will arrive/be here soon.’ b. Jsi si jistá, že brzy be.2 . S G . P R E S R F L . D A T sure. F . S G . N O M that soon přijde? come.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S ‘Are you sure that he will get here soon?’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(Russian)
(Czech)
Aspect in Verbs
As mentioned in Section 10.1, a major difference between East and West Slavic on the one hand and South Slavic on the other is that in the former the perfective present has a major future-tense function, whereas the South Slavic languages have a dedicated perfective future tense (see Chapter 9), as in (7). (7) Ubrzo cé docí soon aux.F U T . 3 . S come.P F V . I N F ‘Soon he will come for me.’
po for
mene. I.A C C
(BCMS)
Another feature of the eastern South Slavic languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian), which cannot be considered here, is the existence of an additional aspectual opposition in the past tense, the A O R I S T : I M P E R F E C T opposition, in addition to their perfect tenses. The Slavic imperfective is obligatory in the expression of a situation ongoing at the moment of speech, as in (8). (8) P'ju / drink.I P F V . 1 . S . P R E S ‘I am drinking milk.’
*Vyp'ju drink.P F V . 1 . S . P R E S
moloko. (Russian) milk.S . A C C
It is also obligatory in constructions with phase verbs such as ‘begin’, ‘continue’ and ‘finish’, for example Russian nač al pit'I P F V /*vypit'P F V moloko ‘began to drink milk’, and the inability to occur in this construction is a reliable diagnostic for the perfectivity of a verb across Slavic. Examples (5)–(7) show that perfective verbs refer to single, completed events in the past and future. The present tense in reference to an ongoing event is incompatible with the perfective construal (on this conflict in Slavic and beyond, see De Wit 2016). However, in some languages, notably Czech, Slovak, and Slovene and BCMS, the present tense of perfective verbs occurs frequently to refer to habitually repeated situations that are construed as completed by default, as shown in (9) for Czech. (9) Denně vypije 3 daily drink.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S 3 ‘He drinks three beers a day.’
piva. beer.P L . A C C
(Czech)
In these languages the perfective is likewise employed for other non-actual present-tense usage, notably the narrative present, as shown in (10). (10) Bobo hned nato vypije (Czech) Bobo immediately afterward drink.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S svou sklenici whiskey. own.F . S . A C C glass.S . A C C whiskey.G E N ‘Immediately afterward, Bobo drinks up his glass of whiskey.’
In contrast, in East Slavic and Bulgarian, the perfective aspect is very restricted in reference to habitually repeated events and the narrative present (cf. Galton 1976: 88–91, 97–103, Dickey 2000: 49–94, 126–154). As for
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
221
222
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
habitually repeated events, a context of sequentiality is necessary, as shown in (11a–b). (11) a. A dlja tex, kto vypivaet but for that.P L . G E N who.N O M drink.I P F V . 3 . S . P R E S / *vyp'et / drink.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S po č ut'-č ut' ežednevno, risk snižaetsja D I S T little-little daily risk decrease.I P F V . 3 . S . P R E S na celyx 30%. onto whole. P . G E N 30%. (Russian) ‘But for those who drink just a little every day, the risk goes down by a whole 30%.’ b. Moja tože, kak vyp'et, orat' My.F . also as soon as out.drink.P F V . 3 . S . P R E S shout.I N F S.NOM nač inaet. (Russian) begin.I P F V . 3 . S . P R E S ‘My wife does too, as soon as she has a drink, she starts shouting.’
In (11a) the repeated drinking situation is isolated from a sequential context; in (11b) the drinking situation is viewed in a temporal/causal sequence with the shouting. A variant of this sequencing is a deviation from a norm (cf. Bondarko 1971: 211–212), as shown in (12). (12) Otmetki nevažnye – bol'še troeč ki. Inogda s grade.P L . N O M poor.P L . N O M mostly C.P L . N O M sometimes with udivleniem sxvatit č etvërku. surprise.S G . I N S T grab.3 S G . P F V . P R S B.S G . A C C ‘His grades are poor – mostly Cs. Sometimes to his surprise he gets a B.’
Though the emergence of receiving an exceptional B grade from the background of ordinarily receiving poor grades is not strictly sequential, there is nevertheless a correlation of the perfective predicate with a previous situation. In any case, Bondarko (1971: 213) observes that the restriction of the Russian perfective present in the expression of habitual repetition to constructions containing two or more sequential events is “a defining feature of contemporary Russian.” The inability of the Russian perfective aspect to refer to single events in contexts of habitual repetition in contrast to the ease with which this occurs in Czech has led some scholars (e.g. Stunová 1986, Dickey 2000) to construct contrastive analyses of the semantics of the perfective aspect in the two languages. Thus, the Czech perfective signals that the situation is construed as a totality (i.e. as completed, having reached its inherent endpoint), whether as a single event, as in examples (5b), (6b), or as a repeated total event, as in example (9). In contrast, the Russian perfective signals that the situation is construed as in a temporal/causal sequence of events, either with the moment of speech, as in example (5a), or some predicted subsequent state of affairs in the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
future, as in (6a), or with another situation within a typical scenario, as in example (11b). The idea that the Russian perfective asserts the place of a situation in a sequence of events (either implicitly or with explicit mention of the other situations in the context) can be connected to the high productivity of the Russian prefix po- in the derivation of atelic perfective activity verbs. One of the main functions of such verbs is to ensure the ability to code atelic sequences as perfective in sequences of events, as shown in (13), taken from Petruxina (2011: 180) where a Russian perfective delimitative corresponds to a Czech imperfective verb in a sequence of events. (13) a. Peč ka pogorela i pogasla. stove.S . N O M burn.P F V . F . S . P S T and go out.P F V . F . S . P S T (Russian) ‘The stove burned for a while and went out.’ b. V peci chvíli hořelo, pak v ní in stove. S . L O C a while.A C C burn.I P F V . N . S . P S T then in she. S . L O C zhaslo. (Czech) go out.P F V . N . S . P S T
Here one can see that in Russian the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition has been extended to activity predicates, whereas in Czech the opposition is relatively more restricted to telic predicates. To be sure, Czech has a number of delimitative verbs of various kinds in po- and za- (for details, see Petruxina 2011: 159–192), but they often have additional nuances (e.g. satisfaction) and are not as productive or employed as much as in Russian in the meaning of simple temporal duration. The preceding discussion has presented a sample of aspectual differences in which differing usage patterns of perfective and imperfective verbs combine with derivational models to produce two distinct systems of Slavic aspect. Differences in aspectual usage are discussed by Galton (1976; cross-Slavic focus), and by Stunová (1986, 1993; Russian and Czech) among others. Dickey (2000) constructs a cross-Slavic comparative analysis, based on aspectual patterning for seven parameters (habitual repetition, statements of fact, the narrative present, running instructions and demonstrations, performatives and coincidence, sequences of events, and the derivation of verbal nouns), according to which the Slavic languages divide into two aspectual types, an eastern type (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian), a western type (Czech, Slovak, Slovene, and Upper and Lower Sorbian), and two transitional zones: Polish in the north, which patterns closer to the eastern type, and Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian and Macedonian in the south, which pattern closer to the western and eastern groups, respectively (for a recent study of Polish aspect in a cross-Slavic context, see Łaziń ski 2020, and for a discussion of Macedonian, see Kamphuis 2014). The central/prototypical meaning of the perfective in the western type is totality or completion, whereas the central/prototypical meaning of the eastern type is sequential connection (termed temporal definiteness, following Leinonen 1982). The transitional zones represent mixed types, where both concepts are
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
223
224
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Table 10.6 Parameters of Slavic aspect PARAMETER
WEST
B/C/S
POL
EAST
1. P F V common for present-tense habitual events 2. P F V common for past-tense habitual events 3. Statements of fact are not a major usage type of the I P F V 4. P F V common in the narrative present 5. P F V common in running instructions, demonstrations 6. P F V common in performative predicates 7a. I P F V common in sequences of events 8. P F V : I P F V opposition retained in verbal nouns 9. P F V common with negation in durative contexts
+ + + + + (+) + + +
+ (+) + + + (−) + (+) +
(+) (+) (+) − − (−) (+) + (+)
− (−) − − − (−) − − −
(From Dickey 2000 and Dickey & Kresin 2009)
accessible as the aspectual meaning of perfective verbs. A similar east–west division is evident in aspectual usage in the imperative, analyzed in detail by Benacchio (2010). Table 10.6 presents an overview of differences in aspectual usage between the eastern and western aspectual types. In Table 10.6 a plus sign signals a high degree of the phenomenon in question; a minus sign signals a very low degree; a plus sign in parentheses signals a somewhat lower degree than a plus sign, and a minus sign in parentheses somewhat more than a minus sign. The parenthetical values are in part motivated by variation inside the eastern and western types (see Dickey 2000, 2015 for details). Another way of formulating the difference in the systems is that in the western group (and to a considerable extent in BCMS), aspectual usage is based on default ‘lexical’ construals of actions: with the exception of the requirement of using the imperfective for accomplishments in progress and the availability of the imperfective for habitual repetition and other nonactual contexts, telic actions are coded perfective, whereas activities and states are predominantly imperfective. An example of imperfective usage based on default construals is what Ivanč ev (1961) termed the ‘contextually conditioned ingressive use of the imperfective past’, which is the use of imperfective verbs in narrative sequences when the activity is characterized by some (even fairly minimal duration) as represented by a Czech example in (14). (14) Hned tu první noc jsem (Czech) immediately that.F . S . A C C first.F . S . A C C night.S . A C C A U X . 1 . S sedla k poč ítač i a psala.1 sit down.P F V . F . S . P T C P to computer.S . D A T and write.I P F V . F . S . P T C P ‘That first night I immediately sat down at the computer and wrote.’
1
www.idnes.cz/onadnes/vztahy/blogerka-mirka-simkova-klarcin-blog.A120718_122138_spolecnost_jup.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
In (14) all that is referred to is an open-ended activity predicate, and so it is coded imperfective despite its location in a sequence of events. Such usage is very marginal in the eastern languages, which require some kind of perfective construction in sequences of events, as shown in (15), in which Russian employs a perfective phase verb because the event is in a sequence. (15) Ja sel za stol i nač al I.N O M sit down.P F V . M . S . P S T at table.S . A C C and begin. P F V . M . S . P S T pisat'.write.I P F V . I N F (Russian) ‘I sat down at the table and began to write.’
Determining the meaning of the imperfective has been problematic in Slavic linguistics, and following Jakobson (1957) many Slavic linguists have assumed that the imperfective aspect is unmarked for the meaning of the perfective, mostly because of the need to explain its ability to refer to single completed events, as in examples (1)–(3) above. More recent work has assumed that the imperfective aspect has some kind of meaning of its own, for example Leinonen (1982), who characterizes the Russian imperfective aspect as expressing temporal indefiniteness. Perhaps the best solution is to assume that imperfective verbs are simply lexical type specifications, a suggestion first made by Forsyth (1970), who suggests that the core function of the imperfective in Russian is the ‘simple denotation’ of a situation as a lexical type. Following Forsyth, one can simply assume that at its core the imperfective in a given Slavic system cancels the assertion(s) communicated by the perfective, so that the imperfective in the western type is the contradictory opposite of totality (i.e. processuality), whereas the imperfective in the eastern group cancels the sequentiality asserted by perfective verbs. These difficulties raise the issue of the referential properties of the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition in Slavic, especially in Russian (East Slavic), where the referential functions seem to be most prominent. As mentioned above, Leinonen (1982) constructs an analysis according to which the Russian perfective aspect refers to temporally unique, or temporally definite situations, whereas the imperfective aspect refers to a situation as nonunique (e.g. habitually repeated), or otherwise outside of a causal/temporal relationship to other situations. Crucial in this regard is the ability of the Russian imperfective to refer to single completed events, such as the single event of forgetting to lock one’s suitcase in (1) or the single аction of spitting in (2). A detailed consideration of such examples cannot be undertaken here. However, one can see that these events are mentioned outside of an episodic context in which they could be located as unique events in a temporal/causal chain; further, one can argue that in such examples the imperfective merely refers to the action as a type of event, in contrast to the perfective, which prototypically refers to a specific token of an event (for discussion, see Mehlig 2001, 2013). Ultimately, the purpose of the speaker must be taken into account in explaining such usage (for a discussion, see Dickey 2018a). The distinction
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
225
226
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
between event types versus tokens is less relevant for languages of the western type, for example Czech.
10.4 Diachronic Issues The history of the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition, as a simultaneously lexical and grammatical phenomenon, involves the history of Slavic verbal derivation as well as the history of the usage patterns of verb types, and is thus extraordinarily complex. In what follows, I merely provide a brief sketch of the overall development and present some outstanding issues. We may divide the diachrony of Slavic aspect into two broad sets of issues: (1) The issue of the origin and initial establishment of Slavic aspect as a grammatical category. (2) The history of its subsequent development and grammaticalization.
These two sets of issues are briefly considered in order. (1) The origin of Slavic aspect lies in the prehistoric period, and the rudiments of the systems as we know them today (i.e. a basic division of the verbal inventory into perfective and imperfective verbs with corresponding usage patterns) were already in existence by the time of the earliest OCS texts (Dostál 1954). Eckhoff & Janda (2014) provide empirical confirmation of this point by comparing the distribution of OCS verbs across subparadigms with the split of modern Russian perfective and imperfective verbs across subparadigms. How the division arose is not entirely clear. Recent analyses link the innovation of imperfective suffixation to the imperfect tense of Proto-Slavic (itself a Slavic innovation). Wiemer & Seržant (2017) interpret imperfectivizing suffixation as an unusual combination of stativizing suffixation (which also produced the Slavic imperfect) – originally a modification of simplex verbs (e.g. suffixation with -ja- produces both OCS da-ja-xǫ ‘give.I M P F .3 . P L . P S T ’ and da-ja-ti ‘give. I M P F . I N F ’) – with an increasingly aspectual function of prefixation. Kamphuis (2020) offers a different hypothesis, according to which the imperfect tense of prefixed verbs formed the morphological and functional basis for imperfectivizing suffixation (e.g. icě ljaaxъ ‘heal. P F V . 1 . S G . I M P F ’ the imperfect of prefixed icě liti ‘heal.P F V . I N F ’, provides a stem for an imperfective icě ljati ‘heal.ipfv.inf’). As for prefixation, Dickey (2017) argues that that Common Slavic perfectivizing prefixation was an unusual combination of univerbation with the process of prefixal bleaching (most evident in the early resultative prefix u-), which led to a grammatical aspectual function of the assertion of a resultant state. These developments then combined to produce a system in which accomplishment predicates could be alternatively presented as ongoing or already having reached their endpoint. At this point in time, the basic system was in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
place, with the locus of the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition in accomplishment predicates (cf. in this regard Bermel 1997), though the opposition was still at a relatively low level of grammaticalization. The place of simplex verbs in this early system is subject to debate. Kamphuis (2020) considers a large class of simplex verbs, for example OCS ležati ‘lie’ and iskati ‘seek’, to have been anaspectual due to the lack of aspectual morphology on the verb. Some simplex verbs (e.g. tvoriti ‘create’) were undoubtedly on the periphery of the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition. However, given the fact that the bulk of such anaspectual verbs became imperfective in Slavic languages, one should probably consider verbs lacking aspectual morphology to be imperfective by default (and ležati ‘lie’ contains an allomorph of the stative suffix -ě -, so that it cannot be properly considered morphologically unmarked). (2) The subsequent development of the system outlined above is at least subject to empirical study, as the extant texts provide at least limited data for an analysis through time. Bermel (1997), the most thorough diachronic analysis of Russian aspect to date, demonstrates that Russian aspect developed into a fully-fledged grammatical category by the spread of the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition from the class of accomplishment predicates to achievement predicates as well as atelic (activity) predicates. Bermel concludes that Russian aspect became completely grammaticalized much later than is commonly assumed, around the sixteenth century. Bermel’s conclusions accord with those reached independently by Nørgård-Sørensen (1997), who argues that aspect crystallized as a grammatical category in Russian in the seventeenth century. This late estimation of the definitive grammaticalization of Russian aspect comports well with the seventeenth-century surge of productivity of delimitative po- in Russian (and the eastern languages), which effectively spread the P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition to the class of atelic (activity) predicates. The development of the modern east–west aspect opposition discussed in Section 10.3 was not the product of a single development, but of a coalescence of factors. Here it should be pointed out that the aspect in the western languages (e.g. Czech) represents a more archaic system that is closer to the system in OCS. As East Slavic was the epicenter of a set of innovations that sharply reduced or even eliminated the usage of perfective verbs in non-actual contexts (e.g. habitual repetition, the narrative present) on the one hand and eliminated the contextually conditioned ingressive use of the imperfective past on the other (as well as other innovations discussed by Dickey 2000: 282–287, 2015), we can take early East Slavic as the point of departure. A relatively early loss of the A O R I S T : I M P E R F E C T opposition in East Slavic (by the twelfth century in low-register/non-literary texts) set the stage for the newer derivational P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition to take over the erstwhile aspectual opposition in the past tense (cf. Dickey 2018b). In contrast, the western languages as well as all of South Slavic retained remnants of the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
227
228
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
A O R I S T : I M P E R F E C T opposition for a longer period of time (continuing to the present day in Balkan Slavic) and also developed other resultative constructions (e.g. habeo factum constructions), which competed with the derivational aspectual system (for a cross-Slavic overview of such constructions, see Wiemer 2017). That initial differential development, combined with the differing paths of productive perfectivizing prefixation – atelic po- in the east versus innovative telic s-/z- in the west (cf. Dickey 2005) – consolidated the emergent differences in the aspectual systems of subsets of Slavic languages. A last major factor that has yet to receive a definitive treatment is the effect of German language contact on the western languages. Dickey (2011) argues that Czech and the other western languages created equivalencies between their own models of prefixation and those of German, notably between Slavic po- and German be-, which led to a situation where German language contact ultimately contributed to the limitation of innovations in the aspectual systems of these languages. The details and complexities of the development of Slavic aspectual systems are vast, and work on this subject will surely continue. As a final point, it should be mentioned that usage continues to change, for example as shown for Czech by Bláha (2020a), who shows an increase in the present tense and accordingly in imperfective simplex verb forms in journalistic texts from 1990–2014.
10.5 Current Directions Slavic aspectology has changed greatly from the early twentieth century, when it in fact ushered the linguistic study of aspect into general linguistics. Structuralist analyses have given way in recent decades to functional analyses that take the pragmatic effects of the usage of perfective and imperfective verbs into account and also consider the referential properties of aspect (i.e. the ways in which aspect functions to refer to specific and non-specific events). The latter is no small subject when we remember that apart from Balkan Slavic the standard Slavic languages do not have article systems, and verbal aspect contributes to clausal reference to varying degrees in the individual languages. Recent functional analyses have also turned their attentions to non-finite usage, for example Benacchio’s (2010) landmark cross-Slavic study of aspectual usage in the imperative. It must be pointed out that alongside functional approaches, formal Slavic linguistics has in recent years devoted considerable attention to Slavic aspect with respect to its issues of situation type (e.g. Borik 2006, Braginsky & Rothstein 2008, Tatevosov 2015), aspectual usage (e.g. Grønn 2003, Sonnenhauser 2006), and with respect to aspect as a referential category (Ramchand 2005). Slavic aspect is also being approached from a typological perspective, both synchronically (De Wit 2016) and diachronically (Wiemer & Seržant 2017).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
The quantitative turn in linguistics has produced important statistical studies of aspect, for example Janda et al. (2013), who use quantitative methods to investigate the issue of whether there are ‘empty’ perfectivizing prefixes in Russian, as mentioned in Section 10.2. Similarly, as discussed in Section 10.4, Eckhoff & Janda (2014) use a quantificational approach to answer the question of whether there was a P E R F E C T I V E : I M P E R F E C T I V E opposition in Old Church Slavic. A quantificational approach can also facilitate entirely new interpretations of data. One example is Kuznetsova & Makarova (2012), who employ a statistical analysis to show that the relationship between the Russian semelfactive suffixes -nu- and -anu- is phonologically based. Another major direction is the development of psycholinguistic studies of aspect. Batiukova et al. (2012) use priming experiments to show that Russian native speakers identify po- delimitatives as an intermediate category between processuals and resultatives, but closer to the former, despite their perfective aspect. They also conclude that po- delimitatives are in fact vague regarding completion, and are usually interpreted as lacking completion due to the existence of a canonical resultative perfective correlate. Clasmeier (2015) combines a corpus analysis with a nonce-verb experiment and a flashcard placement experiment to investigate the mental status of aspectual correlations; she concludes that the lexical aspect correlations of Russian are part of speakers’ ‘mental grammar’ and further that I M P E R F E C T I V E – P E R F E C T I V E correlations are not limited to telic prefixal-suffixal correlates (e.g. otkryt' ‘open.P F V ’ – otkryvat' ‘open.I P F V ’) but also to atelic simplex-prefixal correlates (e.g. plakat' ‘cry.I P F V ’ – poplakat' ‘cry some. pfv’ and zaplakat' ‘start to cry.P F V ’). One more very interesting study is described by Mertins (2018: 189–215), which shows that Russian and Czech speakers process and encode events experienced in video clips differently: Czech speakers focus on the inherent endpoint (even when not shown in a video) and employ a perfective verb (cf. also Shull 2003, who arrived at a similar result with video reactions), whereas Russians focus on the interval leading up to the inherent endpoint and employ derived imperfectives much more frequently. This provides circumstantial evidence from language processing that despite the formal similarities, Czech and Russian speakers aspectually process events differently, which makes sense if their languages belong to different aspectual types. Last but not least, quantitative and psycholinguistic methods have been central to recent investigations of the acquisition of aspect. Vinnitskaya & Wexler 2001, Stoll (2005), and Gagarina (2009) are important studies in this area, a direction of research that will surely grow.
References Arkad'ev, P. M. (2015). Areal'naja tipologija prefiksal'nogo perfektiva (na materiale jazykov Evropy i Kavkaza), Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury. Batiukova, O., Bertinetto, P. M., Lenci, A., & Zarcone, A. (2012). Semantic priming study of Russian aspect and resultativity. Oslo Studies in Language, 4 (1), 177–206.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
229
230
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Benacchio, R. (2010). Vid i kategoria vežlivosti v slavjanskom imperative. Sravnitel'nyj Analiz, Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner. Bermel, N. (1997). Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bláha, O. (2020a). Ně které vývojové tendence ve vidovém systému souč asné č eštiny. Naše ř eč , 103(4), 320–336. Bláha, O. (2020b). Vidová neparovost v č eštině ve srovnání s ruštinou. In L. Veselý, ed., Kapitoly o slovesném vidu nejen v č eštině , Prague: Akropolis, pp. 127–141. Bondarko, A. V. (1971). Vid i vremja russkogo glagola, Moscow: Nauka. Borik, O. (2006). Aspect and Reference Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braginsky, P. & Rothstein, S. (2008). Vendlerian classes and the Russian aspectual system. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16 (1), 3–55. Bunč ic,́ D. (2013). Biaspektuelle Verben als Polyseme: Über Homonymie, Aspektneutralität und die konative Lesart. Die Welt der Slaven, 58 (1), 36–53. Clasmeier, C. (2015). Die mentale Repräsentation von Aspektpartnerschaften russischer Verben, Munich: Kubon & Sagner. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Wit, A. (2016). The Present Perfective Paradox across Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dickey, S. M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A Cognitive Approach, Stanford, CA: CSLI. Dickey, S. M. (2005). S-/Z- and the grammaticalization of Slavic aspect. Slovene Linguistic Studies, 5, 3–55. Dickey, S. M. (2010). Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ verbs of motion were really manner-of-motion verbs. In V. Hasko & R. Perelmutter, eds., New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 67–109. Dickey, S. M. (2011). The varying role of P O - in the grammaticalization of Slavic aspectual systems: Sequences of events, delimitatives, and German language contact. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19 (2), 175–230. Dickey, S. M. (2015). Parameters of Slavic Aspect reconsidered: The east-west aspect division from a diachronic perspective. In M. Schrager et al., eds. Studies in Accentology and Slavic Linguistics in Honor of Ronald F. Feldstein, Bloomington, IN: Slavica, pp. 29–45. Dickey, S. M. (2017). Prefixation in the rise of Slavic aspect. In R. Benacchio et al., eds., The Role of Prefixes in the Formation of Aspect and Related Categories. Problems of Grammaticalization, Florence: Firenze University Press, pp. 85–102. Dickey, S. M. (2018a). Thoughts on the ‘Typology of Slavic Aspect’. Russian Linguistics, 42 (1), 1–35. Dickey, S. M. (2018b). The collapse of the Common Slavic tense system as a catastrophe in the development of the Slavic aspectual category. In C. Y. Bethin, ed., American Contributions to the 16th International Congress of Slavists, Belgrade 2018. Volume 1: Linguistics, Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, pp. 67–86. Dickey, S. M. & Janda, L. A. (2015). Slavic aspectual prefixes and numeral classifiers: Two kinds of lexico-grammatical unitizers. Lingua, 168, 57–84. Dickey, S. M. & Kresin, S. H. (2009). Aspect and negation in Russian and Czech. Russian Linguistics, 33 (2), 121–176.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs Dostál, A. (1954). Studie o vidovém systému v staroslově nštině , Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Eckhoff, H. & Janda, L. A. (2014). Grammatical profiles and aspect in Old Church Slavonic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 112 (2), 231–258. Forsyth, J. (1970). A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gagarina, N. (2009). Verbs of motion in Russian: An acquisitional perspective. Slavic and East European Journal, 53(3), 451–470. Galton, H. (1976). The Main Functions of the Slavic Verbal Aspect, Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Gorbova, E. V. (2019). Dvuxkomponentnaja model' russkogo vida: položenija, predskazanija, podtverždenija. Slavistika, 23 (1), 45–61. Grønn, A. (2003). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Ivanč ev, S. (1961). Kontekstovo obuslovena ingresivna upotreba na glagolite ot nesvă ršen vid v č eškija ezik. Godišnik na Sofijskija Universitet, 54(3), 1–152. Isač enko, A. V. (1960). Grammatič eskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Č ast' vtoraja: morfologija, Bratislava: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk. Jakobson, R. (1957). Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Janda, L. A. (2007). Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language, 31(3), 607–648. Janda, L. A., Endresen, A., Kuznetsova, J., Lyashevskaya, O., Makarova, A., Nesset, T., & Sokolova, S. (2013). Why Russian Aspectual Prefixes Aren't Empty: Prefixes as Verb Classifiers, Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Kamphuis, J. (2014). Macedonian verbal aspect: east or west? In E. Fortuin et al., eds., Dutch Contributions to the Fifteenth International Congress of Slavists, Minsk: Linguistics, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 127–153. Kamphuis, J. (2020). Verbal Aspect in Old Church Slavonic, Leiden: Brill. Kolakovic,́ Z. (2021). Factors contributing to prefixation of biaspectual verbs in Croatian. Russian Linguistics, 45 (1), 201–225. Kopeč ný, F. (1962). Slovesný vid v č eštině , Prague: Nakladatelství Č eskoslovenské Akademie vě d. Kuznetsova, J. & Makarova, A. (2012). Distribution of two semelfactives in Russian: -nu - and -anu-. Oslo Studies in Language, 4 (1), 155–176. Łaziń ski, M. (2020). Wykłady o aspekcie polskiego czasownika, Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Leinonen, M. (1982). Russian Aspect, “Temporal'naja Lokalizacija” and Definiteness/ Indefiniteness, Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Lindsey, T. S. (2011). Bulgarian Verbs of Motion: Slavic Verbs in a Balkan Context. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Maslov, J. S. (1948). Vid i leksič eskoe znač enie glagola. Izvestija AN SSSR. Otdelenie literatury i jazyka, 7(4), 303–316. Mehlig, H. R. (2001). Verbal aspect and the referential status of verbal predicates: On aspect usage in Russian WHO-questions. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8 (1), 99–125. Mehlig, H. R. (2013). Obšč efaktič eskoe i edinič no-faktič eskoe znač enija nesoveršennogo vida v russkom jazyke. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Ser. 9, 4, 19–47.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
231
232
STEPHEN M. DICKEY
Mertins, B. (2018). Sprache und Kognition. Ereigniskonzeptualisierung im Deutschen und Tschechischen, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Muč nik, I. P. (1971). Grammatič eskie kategorii glagola i imeni v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke, Moscow: Nauka. Mrhač ová, E. (1993). Korelativní slovesa pohybu ve slovanských jazycích, zvláště v ruštině , Ostrava: Sfinga. Nesset, T. (2013). The history of the Russian semelfactive: The development of a radial category. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 21 (1), 123–169. Nesset, T. (2020). What’s in a Russian aspectual prefix? A cognitive linguistics approach to prefix meanings. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 28 (2), 141–162. Nørgård-Sørensen, J. (1997). Tense, aspect and verbal derivation in the language of the Novgorod Birch Bark letters. Russian Linguistics, 21, 1–21. Petruxina, E. (2011). Aspektual'nye kategorii glagola v russkom jazyke v sopostavlenii s č ešskim, slovackim, pol'skim i bolgarskim jazykami, Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Piperski, A. (2018). The grammatical profiles of Russian biaspectual verbs. In M. Kopotev, O. Lyashevskaya, & A. Mustajoki, eds., Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language, London: Routledge, pp. 115–136. Ramchand, G. C. (2005). Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd, 32 (2), 323–361. Saicová Římalová, L. (2010). Vybraná slovesa pohybu v č eštině . Studie z kognitivní lingvistiky, Prague: Karolinum. Šatunovskij, I. (2009). Problemy russkogo vida, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur. Sekaninová, E. (1980). Sémantická analyza predponového slovesa v ruštine a slovenč ine, Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. Shull, S. (2003). The Experience of Space: The Privileged Role of Spatial Prefixation in Czech and Russian, Munich: Kubon & Sagner. Smith, C. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect, 2nd ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sonnenhauser, B. (2006). Yet There’s Method in It: Semantics, Pragmatics and the Interpretation of the Russian Imperfective Aspect, Munich: Kubon & Sagner. Stankov, V. (1976). Konkurencija na glagolnite vidove v bă lgarskija knižoven ezik, Sofia: Bă lgarska akademija na naukite. Stoll, S. (2005). Beginning and end in the acquisition of the perfective aspect in Russian. Journal of Child Language, 32, 805–825. Stunová, A. (1986). Aspect and iteration in Russian and Czech: A contrastive study. In A. A. Barentsen, B. M. Groen, & R. Sprenger, eds., Dutch Studies in Russian Linguistics [Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 8], Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 467–510. Stunová, A. (1993). A Contrastive Analysis of Russian and Czech Aspect: Invariance vs. Discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Tatevosov, S. G. (2015). Akcional'nost' v leksike i v grammatike, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66 (2), 143–160. Vinnitskaya, I. & Wexler, K. (2001). The role of pragmatics in the acquisition of Russian aspect. First Language, 21, 143–186. Wiemer, B. (2017). Slavic resultatives and their extensions: Integration into the aspect system and the role of telicity. Slavia, 86(2–3), 124–168.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Aspect in Verbs
Wiemer, B. & Seržant, I. A. (2017). Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In W. Bisang & A. Malchukov, eds., Unity and Diversity in Grammaticalization Scenarios, Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 239–307. Zaliznjak, A. A., Mikaèljan, I. L., & Šmelev, A. D. (2015). Russkaja aspektologija: v zašč itu vidovoj pary, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.011 Published online by Cambridge University Press
233
11 Lexical Derivation Frank Y. Gladney
11.1 Introduction Lexical derivation is taken here to be word formation. We assume a lexicon of morphemes and rules for combining them into words. Morphemes combine into words similarly as words combine into sentences. The sentence is formed by phrase-structure rules that expand S(entence) into the phrasal categories NP (noun phrase), VP (verb phrase), AP (adjective phrase), PP (prepositional phrase), and a functional category Inflection Phrase which governs the verb’s inflection. Phrase-structure rules further expand phrasal categories into the lexical categories N(oun), V(erb), A(djective), and P(reposition). The sentence acquires phonetic substance when lexical categories are lexicalized, that is, paired with morphemes from the lexicon. Word formation comes into play when lexical categories instead of being lexicalized are expanded by wordstructure rules into their constituent categories and these are lexicalized. But the lexicon may also be said to contain words, and then lexical derivation becomes a matter of relating some words to others. If the lexicon contains only the basic Noun, Adjective, and Verb, rules are needed for attaching suffixes to them.1 The suffixes are -N (noun suffix), -A (adjective suffix), and -V (verb suffix). The rule N → A -N derives the deadjectival noun N [A -N]; the rule A → N -A derives the denominal adjective A[N -A]. If the lexicon contains both base words and derived words, word-formation rules have the task of relating the two. If the lexicon contains both a noun N and a denominal adjective A[N -A], it is redundant if it lists the form and meaning of N in both entries. To reduce redundancy, in the A[N -A] entry we list only the meaning of -A (e.g. ‘pertaining to N’) and let the meaning of N in 2 A[N -A] be supplied by the reference to N.
1 2
Thus Aronoff (1985: §4), Anderson (1992:260), and Manova (2011:2). According to Jackendoff (1975), the N -A entry in this case is ‘impoverished’.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Derivation
A word approach has word-formation rules operating in the lexicon. For the noun jadovitost' ‘toxicity’,3 for example, the noun /äd/ ‘poison’ is joined with the adjective suffix /ovit/ and with the noun suffix /ost/. The word so assembled is available for insertion into the sentence under N. With a morpheme approach morphemes combine in the sentence. An N in the sentence is expanded to N[ A -N], the A of which is expanded to A[N -A]. The derived N [A[N -A] -N] structure is lexicalized as N[ A[ N[/äd/] -A[/ovit/]] -N[/ost/]]. No lexical insertion is called for because the noun has been formed already in the sentence.
11.2 Morphemes and Phonemes 11.2.1 Morphemes The morphemes in the lexicon are abstracted from words as they occur in sentences, and in that sense they are abstract. But they are never totally abstract, lacking phonetic substance. Observing the traditional definition of morpheme as a pairing of sound and meaning, we reject non-phonetic, null morphemes.4 Alleged null morphemes are better accounted for in other ways. The null endings occurring in many nom. sg. and gen. pl. noun forms are fleeting vowels (Section 11.2.2), which are deleted by a phonological rule. Null derivational suffixes are not needed as heads of derived words. Rather than X → [Y -X] with a null X suffix, we prefer zero derivation, the recategorization X → Y that results in X[ Y], a Y morpheme with X syntax.
11.2.2 Phonemes Morphemes may be said to consist of phonemes. But morphemes take various forms in various sentence environments and so do their constituents.5 Accounting for this allomorphy is the task of phonology. Phonological rules turn A, a morpheme segment represented by a set of phonetic features, into B, a segment with a slightly different set of phonetic features, in environment C, also represented by a set of phonetic features. We observe Postal’s (1966: 56) Naturalness Condition, that the relation between the lexical representations of morphemes and their phonetic representations be a natural one, both stated in phonetic features. Hence the ubiquitous fleeting vowels (jers), for example in son ‘sleep’ (G E N . S G sna), are not, as sometimes represented, abstract nonphonetic /#/s which are turned into vowels by morphophonemic rules. They are real vowels, sets of phonetic features. Halle & Matushansky (2006) describe them as high and lax, that is, produced without advanced tongue root. They 3 4
5
Unlabeled words are Russian. In Distributed Morphology (cf. Embick & Halle 2005), past tense, a feature of the sentence’s Inflectional Phrase, is presented as the abstract morpheme P A S T , which is subsequently ‘spelled out’ with phonemes. Morphemes do not require spelling out if they are already spelled out in the lexicon. This is discussed in Hockett 1961.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
235
236
FRANK Y. GLADNEY
represent them with small cap i’s, barred for the back jer. Here they are represented with the Cyrillic letters /ь/ (non-back) and /ъ/ (back). Rejecting non-phonetic /#/ is consistent with rejecting non-phonetic (null) morphemes. Representing morphemes in the lexicon calls for a larger set of phonemes than representing their surface form. In addition to /i e a o u/, there need to be a tense mid front /ě /, a low front /ä/, and a high back unrounded /y/.
11.3 Suffixation The principal rule for combining morphemes into words is suffixation. It has the form X → Y -X and expands X into X[ Y -X], a Y root (N, A, or V) and a -X suffix (-N, -A, or -V). The suffix heads the word and determines its category and inflection. X → Y -X is recursive: it may apply to Y and also to its constituents. For the verb bezdel'nič at’ ‘be idle’, V expands to V[N], the noun of which, bezdel'nik ‘idle person’, contains the A[ PP -A] bezdel'nyj ‘without business’, which contains the prepositional phrase bez del ‘without business’. X → Y -X rules provide for the alternation of suffixal categories but do not say which suffix occurs in a given slot, why the noun containing /pust/ ‘empty’ is pustota, not *pustost', and why the adjective containing pustota is pustotnyj, not *pustotskij. With the lexicon containing only morphemes, it is with morphemes that information about the suffixal makeup of the word must be associated. It is a feature of /pust/ that it selects /ot/, not /ost/, and also a feature of /pust/ that what follows /ot/ is /ьn/, not /ьsk/. The occurrence of an adjective with a productive suffix may block its occurrence with a more productive suffix. The productive suffix /ot/ in polnota ‘fullness’, slepota ‘blindness’, and č istota ‘purity’ blocks these adjectives from occurring with the more productive /ost/6 (no *polnost', *slepost', *č istost' ). But when the /ot/ noun is reified, as in kislota ‘acid’ and ostrota ‘witticism’, /ost/ occurs for the abstract non-reified meaning kislost' ‘sourness’ and ostrost' ‘sharpness’. In Polish the reified wspólnota ‘commonwealth’ with /ot/ leaves /ost/ available for abstract wspólnosć ́ ‘joint ownership’. With the lexicon containing only morphemes, the meaning of a root–suffix combination, if idiomatic, must be encoded with the root. Idiomaticity varies inversely with the productivity of the suffix: the more productive the suffix, the less likely its combination with a root will be idiomatic. Productive /ost/ and /ot/ mostly just recategorize adjectives as nouns, but the non-productive suffix /j/ forms N[A -N[/j/]] nouns with unpredictable meanings. It combines with gustoj ‘thick’ to form gušč a ‘dregs’, with gryzt' ‘gnaw’ to form gryža ‘hernia’, and with pustoj ‘empty’ to form pušč a ‘dense forest’. In Polish /j/ combines with tłusty ‘fat’ to form tłuszcz ‘grease’, with gę sty ‘thick’ to form gą szcz ‘thick undergrowth’, and with suchy ‘dry’ to form susz ‘dried fruit’. 6
Zaliznjak (n.d.) lists around 120 nouns ending in -ota but over 3,000 in -ost’.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Derivation
Roots combine with suffixes for six word types: deadjectival nouns (N[A -N]) like BCS punocá ‘fullness’, Cze. blbost ‘stupidity’,7 and Pol. sĺ epota ‘blindness’; deverbal nouns (N[ V -N ]) like BCS berba ‘picking’, Cze. uč itel ‘teacher’, and Pol. badacz ‘researcher’; denominal adjectives (A[ N -A]) like BCS sunč an ‘sunny’, Cze. rohový ‘corner’, and Pol. sławny ‘famous’; deverbal adjectives (A[ V -A]) like osedlyj ‘settled’, Cze. plynulý ‘continuous’, and Pol. zamieszkały ‘resident’;8 denominal verbs (V[ N -V]) like BCS kartati se ‘play cards’, Cze. stylizovat ‘stylize’, and Pol. standardyzowac ́ ‘standardize’; and deadjectival verbs (V[ A -V]) like BCS gladnjeti ‘become hungry’, Cze. vulgarizovat ‘vulgarize’, and Pol. popularyzowac ́ ‘popularize’.9
11.4 Same-Category Suffixation There are also branching rules of the form X → X -X, chiefly N[ N -N ] for denominal nouns. With root and suffix of the same category, it may be unclear which is the head morpheme, whether it is a matter of -N characterized by its relationship to N or of N modified by -N. OCS rybarjь ‘fisherman’ is clearly right-headed, a person, -arj-, with a relationship to fish, ryb-, while OCS rybica is left-headed, denotes a fish, ryb-, qualified as small, -ic-. This reading is supported by the syntactic roles of the suffixes: /arj/ determines the morphology of the noun to which it is suffixed; diminutive /ic/ does not. It lacks gender of its own and simply passes on the gender of the root. This is true also of bratec, which is masculine like brat ‘brother’, sestrica, which is feminine like sestra ‘sister’, and vinco, which is neuter like vino ‘wine’. Similarly in Polish, kawałek is masculine like kawał ‘piece’, sŕ ubka is feminine like sŕ uba ‘screw’, and piwko is neuter like piwo ‘beer’. In these left-headed nouns the right-hand part has a weak claim to morpheme status and may be better regarded as a theme (see Section 11.8). A suffix with its own gender has a better claim to head morpheme status. Take nouns with the neuter suffix /ent/ which denote the young of the species. Next to OCS osьlъ ‘donkey’ there is suffixed osьlę , gen. osьlę te, next to Cze. husa ‘goose’ there is the /ent/ form house, gen. housete, and next to Pol. kot ‘cat’ there is the /ent/ form kocię , gen. kocię cia. Note that the gender contrast of husa and kot is neutralized by neuter /ent/. This suffix with orël ‘eagle’ shows up in plural orljata, gen. orljat. In the singular, /ent/ loses the /t/ and selects the singulative suffix /ъk/: orlënok, orlënka. The morphological reshaping of the noun due to /ent/ supports the right-headed meaning ‘the young of the N species’ rather than the left-headed reading ‘an N that is young’. In South
7
8
9
Blbost contains the adjective blbý ‘stupid’, which contains the noun blb ‘stupid person’. It is structured N[A[N [/blb/ ] ] -N [/ost/ ] ]. Participles, such as uexavšij ‘having left’, Cze. jdoucý ‘going’, and Pol. ż yją cy ‘living’ are also deverbal adjectives. But they are normally regarded as inflected members of the verbal paradigm and not the products of word formation. Slavic lacks verbal suffixes other than borrowed /ir/, /iz/, and /is/.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
237
238
FRANK Y. GLADNEY
Slavic, /ent/ is preceded by /ъk/, for example in Bul. momč e, plur. momč eta ‘boy’ and in BCS č obanč e, gen. č obanč eta ‘shepherd’. Another morphologically dominant suffix is the neuter non-count suffix /ij/. It occurs with nouns denoting inanimate objects, for example prut'ë ‘branches’, OCS dǫ bije ‘trees’, Cze. dř íví ‘trees’, and Pol. kwiecie ‘flowers’. Suffixed to nouns denoting persons, for example in bab'ë ‘women’ and starič 'ë ‘old men’, it is pejorative. Also morphologically dominant is the singulative /in/ which occurs with plural animate nouns like graždane ‘citizens’ (sg. graždanin) and Pol. chrzesć ianie ‘Christians’ (sg. chrzesć ianin). On formal and semantic grounds the abstract suffix /ьstv/ ‘state of’ should be considered the head in gosudarstvo ‘state’, Cze. kně ztvo ‘principality’, and Pol. pań stwo ‘state’. On the other hand, clearly left-headed are deadjectival adjectives like Pol. słabawy ‘rather weak’ and cię ż kawy ‘rather heavy’, and diminutives like tolstjušč ij (cf. tolstyj ‘fat’), Cze. tichouč ký (cf. tichý ‘quiet’), and Pol. prę dziutki (cf. prę dki ‘fast’). The root here is the head constituent and the suffix a modifier.
11.5 Suffixless Recategorization In addition to recategorizations via branching rules of the form X → Y -X, there are also the non-branching recategorizations X → Y, which generate X[ Y ] words having Y form and X syntax. These rules generate deverbal nouns (N[ V ]) like lož’ ‘lie’, Cze. skok ‘jump’, and Pol. sĺ izg ‘slide’; deadjectival nouns (N [ A]) like šir’ ‘breadth’, Cze. hloub ‘depth’, and Pol. dal ‘distance’; denominal verbs (V[ N]) like obrazovat’ ‘form’, Cze. sloužit ‘serve’, Pol. miesć ic ́ ‘place’;10 and deadjectival verbs (V[ A]) like belit’ ‘whiten’, Cze. č ernit ‘blacken’, and Pol. dziczec ́ ‘grow wild’. Suffixless denominal adjectives (A[ N]) are few in number: perhaps Rus. rjaboj ‘speckled’ and zolotoj ‘golden’ (unless its relationship to zoloto ‘gold’ is different and zoloto is N[[A/zolot/]]). Deverbal adjectives (A[ V]) include živoj ‘living’ and plëvyj ‘worthless’ and Pol. luby ‘pleasant’. In the absence of a suffix, the morphology of a recategorized word is determined by its syntax. The deadjectival nouns šir’ ‘breadth’, glub’ ‘depth’, and tiš’ ‘stillness’, etc. owe their i-declension forms to their N[ A] structure. The thematic /i/ of belit’ ‘whiten’ reflects its transitivity; compare intransitive belet' ‘show white’ with thematic /ě /. The gender and declension class of suprug ‘husband’ and supruga ‘wife’ and of kum ‘godfather’ and kuma ‘godmother’ are not a matter of word formation, but of syntax. The phrase-structure rule that expands NP to N subcategorizes it as + animate or − animate (to account for agent/instrument nouns like 10
The phonemes separating root from ending in these forms are discussed in Section 11.8.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Derivation
istrebitel’ ‘destroyer’ with contrasting accusative forms reflecting animacy) and subcategorizes animate nouns as + feminine or − feminine.
11.6 Fused Suffixes Viewing words as structured strings of sound–meaning pairings (morphemes), we expect each to make its contribution to the meaning of the word. This expectation is met in the derivational family pustoj, pustota, pustotnyj, pustotnost’, which share the adjective /pust/ ‘empty’ and where each recategorization is meaningful, as pustotnyj differs in meaning from pustoj and pustotnost’ differs from pustota. It is also met in babnič at’1 ‘womanize’, the verbal recategorization of the noun babnik ‘womanizer’ (one, /ik/, who relates, /ьn/, to women, /bab/, in a certain way). But there is also babnič at’2, which means simply ‘behave like a woman’ or ‘be a midwife’. Here /ik/ is semantically empty and /ьn/ has no function. Semantically, babnič at’2 is a verbalized V[ N [ /bab/ ] ], which could be realized as *babet’ like vdovet’ ‘be a widow’. But it includes /ьn/ and /ik/. These two morphemes in losing meaning have lost morpheme status and have fused into the suffix /ьnik/, which occurs also in lakejnič at’ ‘be a lackey’ and koketnič at’ ’be a coquette’ (note the non-occurence of *lakejnik and *koketnik). So while babnič at’1 is a suffixless derivative of babnik, babnič at’2 is derived from /bab/ with the fused suffix /ьnik/.
11.7 Bound Roots The rule N → N -N accounts for the nouns ispanec ’Spanish man’ and ispanka ‘Spanish woman’, except that ‘Spain’ is not *Ispan, but Ispanija. The Russian Academy Grammar (RG) holds that a word can only be derived from (motivated by) another word. Aronoff (1985: 22) agrees, stating that word-formation rules operate only on words, not on morphemes, and that rules “can only derive meaningful words from meaningful bases.” The bound morpheme / ispan/ although not a word is clearly meaningful. We could relax the word requirement and accept bound morphemes in the lexicon. More problematical are nemec ‘German man’ and nemka ‘German woman’. They appear to be structured N[ N[/ně m/] -N[/ьc/]] and N[ N[/ně m/] -N[/ъk/]]. But /ně m/, a bound morpheme like /ispan/, is not immediately meaningful. Yet nemec and nemka are as meaningful as ispanec and ispanka. Nemec denotes a resident of Germany just as ispanec denotes a resident of Spain. The meaning of /ně m/ here is ‘Germany’. which it derives from the meaning of its derivatives.11 Maintaining the word criterion, RG derives ispanec from Ispanija via the truncation of /ij/. More questionably, RG derives nemka from N[ N[/ně m/] -N[/ьc/]] via the truncation of /ьc/. 11
It is related to its homonym /ně m/ ‘mute’ only historically.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
239
240
FRANK Y. GLADNEY
Jagodica ‘buttock’ and Pol. piwnica ‘cellar’ appear to contain the noun roots /ägod/ ‘berry’ and /piv/ ‘beer’. To understand jagodica as the part of the body that is smooth and round like a berry is simile; to understand piwnica as a place where beer is stored or served is metonymy. Simile and metonymy are common semantic operations in everyday language use. These operations must be active in jagodica and piwnica; otherwise these nouns have no structure.
11.8 Morphemes versus Themes While most of the word constituents discussed in this chapter – prefixes, roots, suffixes, and endings – are morphemes, not all word constituents are morphemes. Some are themes, phonemes introduced as buffers between morphemes by readjustment rules. Their introduction is often morphologically motivated. When a consonant-final prefix precedes a consonant-initial root or a consonant-initial suffix follows a consonant-final root, the resulting consonant cluster may undergo a sound change that obscures the word’s morphological structure. For example, the prefixes /ot/ ‘from’ and /ob/ ‘around’ before a consonant-initial root conditioned cluster simplification, so that in Old Russian V[P[ /ot/ ] V[/xoditi / ] ] ‘go away’ and V[ P[/ob/ ] V[/xoditi / ] ] ‘go around’ fell together as oxoditi. A readjustment rule introduced /ъ/ between prefix and verb to keep these verbs distinct. The noun /kamen/ ‘stone’ in Old Church Slavonic was followed by the adjective suffix /n/, resulting in kamě nъ with an altered root. But thematic /ь/ was introduced between root and suffix, and the more transparent kamenьnъ resulted. ‘You eat’ in Old Russian was structured V[ V[/ě d/] E[/te/]] and realized as ě ste with an obscured root. But this form has since been thematized to V[ V[/ě d/] /i/ E[/te/]] for present-day edite. It is thematization that made this form more transparent, not being restructured with a present-tense suffix. It is widely held that prefixed imperfective verb forms in Russian and other Slavic languages are derived from their perfective counterparts by means of an imperfective suffix, impfv. spasat’ ‘save’ from pfv. spasti with a suffix /a/ and impfv. zapisyvat’ ‘write down’ from pfv. zapisat’ with a suffix /yva/. But no imperfective suffix relates impfv. prinosit’ ‘bring’ to pfv. prinesti. These forms differ only in their thematization. It is likewise by their thematization that spasat’ differs from spasti and zapisyvat' differs from zapisat’.12 A string of phonemes can be a suffix in some words and not in others. Russian has a productive class of deverbal adjectives like gibkij ‘flexible’, padkij ‘susceptible’, and vërtkij ‘nimble’, structured A[ V -A ] with a verb root and the adjective suffix /ъk/. Russian also has a smaller, unproductive set of /ъk/ adjectives like gladkij ‘smooth’, nizkij ‘low’, and uzkij ‘narrow’. They do not have X[Y -X ] structure because the roots are adjectives and what follows is not 12
This is discussed in Gladney 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Derivation
a categorizing suffix. Note that the two classes of adjectives differ in their comparative forms: A[V -A ] adjectives include the /ъk/ suffix (gibč e, vërtč e), but gladkij, nizkij, and uzkij do not (glaže, niže, uže). RG ascribes the absence of /ъk/ in these forms to truncation, but the phonology assumed in this chapter does not countenance the deletion of phoneme sequences from a word form. What needs to be accounted for is the presence of /ъk/ in gladkij and nizkij, not its absence in glaže and niže. The /ъk/ in gladkij and nizkij is thematic; it is not a suffix.13
11.9 Prepositions and Prefixes Prepositions and prefixes are a single lexical category P, but they differ syntactically. Prepositions are introduced into the sentence with the expansion of the phrasal category PP to P NP, whereas prefixes are introduced with the expansion of X to P X. Here P is an adjunct, not a head determining the word’s category and inflection: N[ P N ] is a noun, A[ P A ] is an adjective, and V[ P V ] is a verb. Suffixes categorize the word while contributing little to its meaning; prefixes contribute to the word’s meaning while not categorizing it.
11.9.1 Prefixed Nouns Some prefixed nouns, for example antisemit ‘anti-Semite’, are structured simply N[ P N ]. But when the prefix is followed by a suffixed noun, we have the familiar structural ambiguity of a three-morpheme sequence: is it [[A B] C] or [A [B C]]? Antikommunizm ‘anticommunism’ means opposition to communism, so the noun is structured [A [B C]]. But antidarvinizm ‘antiDarwinism’ could be understood as opposition to Darwin, rather than to his theories, so it could be structured [[A B] C].
11.9.2 Prefixed Adjectives Prefixed adjectives include raskrasivyj ‘very beautiful’, Cze. př ihloupý ‘somewhat stupid’, and Pol. przesĺ iczny ‘very beautiful’. They are structured A[P A ]. In Russian, /bez/ ‘without’ as a word constituent is mostly a preposition, for example in dephrasal bezvodnyj ‘arid’ and bespravnyj ‘lawless’. But besč eloveč nyj means ‘inhuman’, not ‘lacking a human being’, so it is structured A[ P A[N -A ]] with /bez/ a prefix. Russian has a homophonous pair of adjectives differing in structure: sverxsroč nyj ‘extra-term’ (sc. service) is 13
This is supported by its history. The Balto-Slavic predecessor of gladkij belonged to the u-declension, characterized by thematic /u/; compare Lith. glodùs ‘smooth’. The u-declension for adjectives was not productive in Slavic, and the adjectives that belonged to it were switched to the productive o-declension marked by thematic /k/. Thus A[ A[ /glad/ ] /u/ E[ /s/ ] ] with thematic /u/ was further thematized to A[ A[ /glad/ ] /u/ /k/ /o/ E[ /s/ ] ]. The /uko/ phoneme sequence (Slavic /ъk/) started occurring with verb roots and thereby gained morpheme status. With adjective roots it still lacks it.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
241
242
FRANK Y. GLADNEY
dephrasal A[ PP -A ], whereas sverxsroč nyj ‘very urgent’ is a prefixed adjective, A[ P A[ N -A ] ]. Structured like the former is sverx'’estestvennyj ‘supernatural’; structured like the latter is sverxč uvstvitel’nyj ‘highly sensitive’.
11.9.3 Prefixed Verbs The expansion V → P V may be lexicalized as V[ P[ /za/ ] V[ /pis/ ] ],14 where /za/ changes the meaning of the verb from ‘write’ to ‘write down’ and makes it acceptable in a perfective sentence. In an imperfective sentence the prefix conditions extended thematization to zapis-yva-t’. In a prefixed V[P V ] both P and V can be expanded, P to P[ P P ] and V to V[ P V ]. The former expansion, to V[P[P P] V], is seen in perezarjadit’ ~ perezarjažat’ ‘recharge’ and Pol. odpowiedziec ́ ~ odpowiadac ́ ‘answer’. Here P[ P P ] has the same aspectual function as P in zarjadit’ ~ zarjažat’ ‘charge’ and powiedziec ́ ~ powiadac ́ ‘tell’. The latter expansion, to V[P V[P V]], is seen in pererasprašivat’ ‘question’ (many people) and Pol. pozamykac ́ ‘close’ (many things). In these perfectiveonly verbs pere- and po- have the same aspectual function as po- in posidet’ ‘sit a while’ and Pol. pochodzic ́ ‘walk a little’.
11.9.4 Recategorized Prepositional Phrases A prepositional phrase can be recategorized as a word. Dephrasal nouns include podol ‘hem’, Cze. nádoba ‘vessel’, and Pol. bezdech ‘asthma’. Dephrasal adjectives include beznogij ‘one-legged’, Cze. bezbř ehý ‘boundless’, and Pol. bezwłosy ‘hairless’. BCS obešumiti ‘deforest’ shows the phrase PP[ P[ /bez/ ] N[ /šum/] ] recategorized as a verb. Similar in structure is besslavit’ ‘dishonor’. But rasslavit’ ‘praise to the skies’ is a prefixed denominal verb, structured V[ P[ /raz/ ] V [ N[ /slav/ ]]]. The verb in a deverbal noun may be prefixed, thus N[ V[ P V ] ]. In zapas ‘supply’ this structure is supported by the aspеct pair zapasti ~ zapasat’ ‘stock, supply’. Likewise deverbal is Cze. postř ik ‘spraying’, which shares V[ P V ] with postř ikat ‘spray’. However, privetstvovat’ ’’greet’ does not contain the verb V [ P[ /pri/ ] V[ /vě t/ ] ], but the noun N[ P[ /pri/ ] V[ /vě t/ ] ]. Likewise in Polish, pokłonic ́ się ‘bow’ contains the noun N[ P[/po/ ] V[ /klon/ ] ], not the verb V[ P[/po/ ] V[ /klon/ ] ], as there is no aspect pair pokłonic ́ się ~ *pokłaniač się .
11.10 Summary Lexical derivation is presented here as word formation. Words are formed in the sentence by word-structure rules that expand root categories like N and 14
The view (Gladney 2019) that verbal prefixation is base-generated differs from the view (Svenonius 2004) that verbal prefixes are generated both within and outside the verb phrase and come to be prefixed to the verb by a movement transformation.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Derivation
A to derived structures like N[A -N] and A[N –A], followed by the lexicalization of the root and suffix categories with morphemes from the lexicon. Differing from the morpheme approach to morphology is the word approach, which assumes a lexicon of words and favors processes over items. The advantage of processes is that they can deal with phenomena like ablaut, infixation, morpheme subtraction, and zero morphemes. Zero morphemes are touched on in Section 11.2.1. Ablaut and infixation may be dealt with in the phonology. Morphological subtraction is mentioned in Section 11.8. Grammars claim that subtraction is how some morphologically simple words are derived from morphologically complex ones, for example the noun intellektual ‘an intellectual’ from the adjective intellektual’nyj ‘intellectual’. The adjective could well have been known to Russian speakers before the noun, in which case the subtraction of the adjective suffix was, by backformation, a diachronic change. Synchronically, the noun is a simple N while the adjective is a derived A[N -A]. A central problem of morphology is overproductivity: it generates more morpheme combinations than actually occur in sentences. It is suggested above that suffix distribution can be coded in the root morpheme, that, for example, what Russian speakers know about the adjective /pust/ ‘empty’ is that it selects the noun suffix /ot/, not /ost/, and that the combination [N[A /pust] N[/ot/]] selects the adjective suffix /ьn/, not /ьsk/. But this suffixation information may be too much of a load to place on a root. Several writers (e.g. Halle 1973) have suggested that in addition to a lexicon of morphemes there must also be a dictionary of actually occurring words. Morpheme combinations not in the dictionary would be blocked from occurring in a sentence. A dictionary of words would be one solution to the overproductivity caused by context-free morpheme combining.
References Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronoff, M. (1985). Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Embick, D. & Halle, M. (2005). On the status of stems in morphological theory. In T. Geerts et al., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November, pp. 37–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/cilt.270.03emb. Gladney, F. Y. (2019). On the morphosyntax of Russian verbal aspect. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19, 117–160. Halle, M. (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 3–16. Halle, M. & Matushansky, O. (2006). The morphology of Russian adjectives. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 351–404. Hockett, C. F. (1961). Linguistic elements and their relations. Language, 37, 29–53.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
243
244
FRANK Y. GLADNEY
Jackendoff, R. (1975), Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51, 639–671. Manova, S. (2011). Understanding Morphological Rules: With Special Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. Postal, P. M. (1966). On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In G. Dinneen, ed., Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 201–224. Svenonius, P. (2004). Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Norlyd, 32, 205–253. Švedova, N. J. Russkaja grammatika (RG), Moscow: ANSSSR & Nauka. www.rusgram .narod.ru. Zaliznjak. A.A. (n.d.). Obratnyj (inversionnyj) indeks k russkomu jazyku A.A, Zaliznjaka v 4-x č astjax. ivanov-portal.ru.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.012 Published online by Cambridge University Press
12 Lexical Composition Mate Kapović
12.1 Introduction Compounds, as usually understood, can be defined as lexical words composed of two or more lexical morphemes,1 for example Common Slavic listo-padъ ‘October/November’ < ‘leaf-fall’. Lexical morphemes are morphemes with a ‘full’ meaning, that is, bases (roots) of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and to an extent numbers and pronouns (the first four are synchronically an open set and the last two are not), while grammatical morphemes have mostly a functional meaning, and consist of free (pre/postpositions, conjunctions, particles) and bound grammatical morphemes (inflectional – grammatical endings; and derivational – prefixes, infixes, and suffixes). This division is not without problems – see for example BCMS prı̏ je-ratnı̄ and prèd-ratnı̄ , which both mean ‘pre-war’ (adjective), with the first constituent having basically the same meaning (‘pre-’). However, prı̏ je ‘before’ is an adverb and thus prı̏ je-ratnı̄ would be a compound, while pred ‘in front of, before’ is a preposition and thus prèd-ratnı̄ would be a derivative (rȁ tnı̄ is ‘war [adj.]’).2 A true compound behaves as one word, usually with one accent and with morphological endings (in Slavic) only at the end,3 though there are some I would like to thank Mislav Benić (for his valuable comments on the first draft and some interesting examples), Marc L. Greenberg and Marta Pirnat Greenberg (for help with the accent of a Slovene word), David Mandić (for discussions on the topic), Mikhail Oslon (for numerous useful comments on the first draft and information on North Slavic), and Slavica Košć a-Vrlazić (for native speaker expertise on Macedonian). The comments of the editors of the volume, Danko Šipka & Wayles Browne, and the reviewer, Boż ena Cetnarowska, as well as those of another anonymous reviewer, have also been helpful. 1 For different kinds of definitions, see for example Bauer 2005: 719, Ralli 2013: 10, Olsen 2015: 364. Bauer 2017 is a monograph on compounding in world languages. 2 Defining compounding “as a process which creates morphologically complex elements from at least two words” (cf. Ralli 2013: 9 with references) would encompass prefixed derivatives as well. It is important to note that there is an old tradition, stemming back to Jacob Grimm, to consider prefixed words as prefix-compounds. However, here we shall treat all affixes (both suffixes and prefixes) as part of derivation and not composition, as is usual today (cf. Olsen 2015: 364–365). 3 Cf. Lieber & Štekauer 2011: 6, 16, Ralli 2013: 13–15, 21.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
246
MATE KAPOVIĆ
exceptions and transitional cases. One other trait pointing to compounds can be the occurrence of a linking element (e.g. -o- in Slavic and elsewhere in IndoEuropean), though this is not always present.4 The boundary between lexicon and syntax is often fuzzy and not as clear as it might appear at first glance.5 One can speak of a compound continuum – there are compounds with both one accent and one grammatical ending (‘true compounds’), there are those with only one of those traits (‘semi-compounds’), and those without both (‘quasicompounds’). Of course, these observations are applicable to languages like Slavic which have accent and inflection. In Mandarin, for instance, where most morphemes have a separate tone (e.g. Zhō ng-guó-rén ‘Chinese’, literally: ‘middle-land-man’) and there is no inflection, this kind of treatment would make no sense. In Slavic, unlike some other Indo-European languages, there are only traditional two-part compounds, it seems.6 However, there are some innovative exceptions to this. One exception are the twentieth-century Soviet-style stump compounds like Rus. Sov-nar-kóm (< Sovét naródnyx komissárov ‘Council of People’s Commissars’), on which see more below. The other are semicompound adjectives like BCMS pȏ zno-hladno-rȁ tovskı̄ ‘late Cold War [adj.]’ or hr̀ vā tskō -ènglē skō -rȕ skı̄ ‘Croatian-English-Russian’ (e.g. a dictionary or a society and the like), with potentially infinite recursion (i.e. more than three constituents). In these, not all constituents decline separately and they have a linking -o- (which makes them compounds); however, all three constituents retain their accents (cf. gensg hr̀ vā tskō -ènglē skō -rȕ skō ga), which makes them less ‘compoundy’ than traditional compounds. In a wider sense, grammatical words composed of two morphemes (e.g. ili ‘or’ from i ‘and’ and li [question particle]) can also be regarded as compounds. However, affixal derivation (prefixation and suffixation in Slavic) is traditionally not regarded as composition but as derivation (see Chapter 11 on lexical derivation in this volume). Thus, two lexical or two grammatical morphemes respectively would make a compound, but a combination of lexical and grammatical morphemes would be a derivative. Prefixes are usually connected to prepositions (na- ~ na ‘on’, vъ- ~ vъ ‘in’, o(b)- ~ o(b) ‘about’, etc.) but not always (pa- ‘fake’, pra- ‘grand-, old’, etc.). In the case of compounds, the first constituent of a complex word can potentially also be the second constituent in another compound, for example BCMS glav-ò-bolja ‘head-ache’ and tvrd-ò-glav ‘stubborn’ (literally ‘hard-headed’),7 while prefixes (like vy- ‘out’, sǫ - ‘con-’) occur only initially. However, in some cases it is difficult to differentiate between prefixation and composition, for example sъ- ‘good, well’ < PIE *h1su- in Slavic sъ-mrьtь ‘death’ (literally/originally tabuistic ‘good death’), where sъ- functions as a kind of a prefix (it cannot be a potential second constituent of a compound) but has adjectival meaning. Compositional suffixes (suffixes that are a part of the 4
5
The fact that “many compounds are semantically non-compositional, that is [that] they show a high degree of semantic opacity, and very often, their meaning does not follow from the meanings of their components” (Ralli 2013: 18–20) is not very useful for definition of compounds since it does not distinguish them from derivatives, which behave similarly. 6 7 Cf. Lieber & Štekauer 2011: 17. Zimmer 2016: 149. See also, for example, Ralli 2013: 16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
compound-suffix process) occur only after the second constituent. Suffixes can occur in the first compound constituent, for example in OCS andelьsko-obrazьnъ ‘of angelic face’,8 with the adjectival suffix -ьsk-, but only precompositionally (i.e. the suffixation process precedes the compounding process). Composition was already a trait of Proto-Indo-European (e.g. *wikj-potis ‘house-master’), inherited in Slavic (e.g. in names like Rad-o-gost ‘willing guest’ or Old Pol. Lud-(o)-miła ‘dear to people’), and still alive in modern Slavic languages (cf. Cro. mȅ tl-o-bō j ‘broom-fight’ and Slk. metl-o-bal ‘broomball’ as translations of a Harry-Potter English term Quidditch), though much less frequent than derivatives and less common than in some other IndoEuropean branches, like modern Germanic or Old Indic.9 The chapter will aim to provide an overview of the phenomenon in Slavic, starting with Common Slavic compounds as the basis and providing information on later developments in subsequent Slavic languages. Pan-Slavic words attested in Old Church Slavonic (like č el-o-vě kъ ‘man’ – attested in all Slavic languages, e.g. BCMS č òvjek, Rus. č elovék, Cze. č lově k, Pol. człowiek, etc.) or Church Slavic will be given in Common Slavic form without an asterisk (as traditionally reconstructed – phonetically very close to (Old) Church Slavic). Common Slavic words not attested in (Old) Church Slavic are adduced with an asterisk (like *bos-o-nògъ ‘bare-foot’, which is not attested in OCS but is pan-Slavic, cf. BCMS bosònog, Rus. bosonóg(ij), Cze. bosonohý, Pol. bosonogi, etc.). Thus, what is marked as simply ‘Slavic’ (or without a specific name) means ‘Common Slavic’ (if with an asterisk) or ‘(Old) Church Slavonic’ (without it), representing pan-Slavic words (i.e. relatively old words attested in at least a couple of Slavic languages). If a word is (Old) Church Slavonic only (not reconstructible for Common Slavic, i.e. not pan-Slavic), it is marked as (O)CS – these are usually various (O)CS literary compounds, often calqued from Greek and belonging to a specific corpus of ecclesiastic words (like OCS blag-o-vě rьnъ ‘pious, god-fearing’). Various reflexes of Common Slavic words in Slavic languages will not be regularly provided since they can be easily checked in the available literature (e.g. ESSJ, ESJS, SP, Derksen’s dictionary). Individual Slavic forms which will be most frequently cited are OCS, BCMS, Rus., Pol., and Cze., representing all geographic groups and most widely known Slavic literary languages. The focus of this survey is on the patterns of compounding that have survived from Common Slavic to modern Slavic languages taken as a whole. The system is illustrated mainly by morphologically transparent Common Slavic compounds (inherited in later Slavic languages) and later compounds in separate Slavic languages. We shall not deal exhaustively with usually nontransparent, older compounds (sometimes inherited even from Proto-IndoEuropean) or dwell on dubious etymologies (e.g. for drь-kolь ‘stick’, whether it be originally a ‘tear-stick’ or a ‘tree-stick’). For compounds to be considered 8
Vaillant 1974: 752.
9
Olsen (2015: 366) brands Slavic (and Romance) as “not highly compounding languages”.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
247
248
MATE KAPOVIĆ
real compounds, they should be morphologically transparent – that is, native speakers should be aware of the ‘building blocks’ in a compound. That can obviously be on somewhat shaky ground since it is not always clear what is synchronically morphologically transparent and to whom, especially if we try to assume whether something was morphologically transparent in, for example, Common Slavic, which is not a living language. Still, it is clear that Slavic older compounds, inherited from Proto-Indo-European, like jastrę bъ ‘hawk’ (< PIE *h1oh1kju-ptr- ‘fast-flier’ – cf. Derksen), were not morphologically transparent already in Common Slavic. Words like these are not counted as compounds on the Slavic level since they were morphologically nontransparent. The compound gu-mьno ‘threshing-floor’ (~ *govę̋ do ‘head of cattle’ + mę ti – mьnǫ ‘compress’) is an interesting case in point – it was probably not transparent anymore in Common Slavic, but in Proto-Slavic, when it was still *gau̯ -mina (~ *gaw-inda, *min-tē i̯ ),10 it might still have been. Rus. č el-o-vék ‘man’ still formally/morphologically looks like a compound (though more innovative Slavic forms like Sln. č lóvek or Bul. č ovèk do not), but it is questionable whether *č el-o-vě ̋ kъ (originally something like ‘kinchild’) was semantically completely transparent even in Common Slavic – *č el- might have been connected to č eljadь ‘people’ (though hardly to kolě no ‘knee > generation’), but *vě kъ (cf. Lithuanian vaĩkas ‘child’) would have probably been murky (vě kъ ‘life span’ is semantically off). There are other old non-transparent compounds like potь-bě ga ‘divorced wife’ (literally: ‘masterrunner’) and gos-podъ ‘lord’ (literally ‘guest-master’), where the old PIE *potis ‘master’ (with an unregular t > d in the second form) was probably forgotten early in Common Slavic, with the gostь ‘guest’ as the first constituent of the second word also having been obscured due to the loss of -t-. Compounds will primarily be classified formally/morphologically (according to their word type and word types of their constituents, e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)11 and not semantically (dvandva/copulative compounds, tatpuruša/determinative/endocentric compounds, bahuvrı̄ hi/exocentric compounds).12 Thus, we shall for example look at nominal compounds (i.e. compounds that are nouns),13 such as č el-o-vě kъ ‘man’ (which is N + N, i.e. made of two noun bases), medv-ě dь ‘bear’ (which is N + V, i.e. made of a nominal and a verbal base, literally: ‘honey-eater’),14 etc. 10 11
12
13 14
For such a reconstruction of a realistic Proto-Slavic, see now Holzer 2020. This can be tricky sometimes because the word type is not always clear and a single lexical morpheme can occur in more than one word type, for example BCMS glȃ s ‘voice’ (noun), glás-iti ‘to be addressed to’ (verb), glȁ s-an ‘loud’ (adjective), and word-type changing suffixes are often included together with compounding. Thus, BCMS višè-glas-an ‘poly-phonic’ is derived from glȃ s via compounding and suffixation and not from glȁ san as apparent semantically. Cf. Slavic malъ-žena ‘husband and wife’ for dvandva (the meaning is the combination of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, see below), Novъ-gorodъ ‘new city’ for tatpuruša (‘a city that is new’), and medv-ě dь ‘bear’ for bahuvrı̄ hi (literally: ‘honeyeater’). Here, we use the term nominal as pertaining to nouns only. This is perhaps an ancient compound, inherited from Proto-Indo-European (cf. Old Indic madhv-ád-), but is relatively transparent even today in some Slavic languages (the narrative of a honey-eating bear is still alive), for example in BCMS.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
The second constituent of a compound is sometimes identical to the simple noun, for example in OCS bog-o-mati ‘mother of god’ (bogъ ‘god’ + mati ‘mother’, cf. Rus. Bog-o-máter’). The second constituent can be a suffixal derivative noun, for example OCS vьse-vladyka ‘master of all’ (vlad-yka ‘master’). However, the suffix at the end of the second lexical morpheme can be added only in the process of compounding, for example Rus. bel-o-króv-ie (‘leukemia’, literally: ‘white-bloodedness’),15 where the suffixal derivative word **krov-ie does not exist outside of composition (the original word is króv’ ‘blood’). In some cases, a zero-suffix can be posited – as in BCMS jedn-òruk-Ø ‘one-handed’, where there is no base word **ruk (the compositional ruk is derived from rúka ‘hand, arm’). The zero-suffix has to be posited also in cases where the second compositional part exists independently but has a different meaning, for example BCMS gol-ò-guz ‘with a naked butt’, where -guz formally looks the same as the base word gȗ z ‘buttock’, but -guz is actually -guz-Ø (as if it had a suffix, like **-guz-an or **-guz-ast). Thus, many compounds are actually compound-derivatives, in which any derivational suffix may possibly appear.16 In this survey, we shall mostly disregard the auxiliary derivative suffixes in the analysis,17 while concentrating on the main compounding process. In Slavic, most compounds are nouns (like č el-o-vě kъ) and adjectives (like *bos-o-nògъ). Verbal compounds (like blag-o-sloviti ‘to bless’) are less frequent and less productive (as is generally the case in Indo-European languages). Here, we will primarily tackle nominal composition, which is the richest and most complex,18 and then adjectival, adverbial, and verbal compounds, all of which can be considered compounds in a narrow sense. However, there are also later pronominal compounds such as Cze./Pol. tamten ‘that’ (from Slavic tamo ‘thither’ and tъ ‘this’), marginal numeral compounds like jed-inъ/jed-ьnъ ‘one’ (synchronically non-transparent and the first constituent etymologically unclear), and frequent later numeral compounds for -teens, hundreds, etc. There is also grammatical composition: compound particles like e-to ‘here (is)’ and conjunctional compounds like i-li ‘or’.
15
16
17
18
The suffix -ie < *-ьje was very frequent in OCS compounds (and, through Church Slavic influence, in Russian as well). Sometimes, the original suffixless stem is preserved in compounds, but not in the base word, cf. BCMS sȕ n-o-vrā t ‘Narcissus (plant)’, Cze. slun-o-vrat ‘solstice’ (literally both: ‘sun-turn’), Rus. (arch.) soln-o-pëk ‘spot exposed to sunrays’ (modern solnc-e-pëk, literally: ‘sun-baked’), but only slъn-ьce ‘sun’ with the suffix -ьce in the base word (however, cf. also BCMS sȕ nc-o-krē t ‘sunflower’, literally ‘sun-mover’). Obviously, all compounds have the usual Slavic final grammatical morphemes: -ъ/ь > -Ø (o-stems), -ь > -Ø (i-stems), -a (ā -stems). Thus, a compound (like BCMS nȍ s-o-rō g ‘rhino’, literally: ‘nose-horn’) may have two zero morphemes – one suffixal, one inflectional (nos-o-rog-Ø-Ø, cf. e.g. Cze. datsg nos-o-rož-c-i ‘to the rhino’, where both the suffixal and the inflectional morpheme are ‘material’). Nominal derivation and/or composition is most often tackled in the literature, cf. Vaillant 1974, Pohl 1977, Jurišić 1992, Matasović 2014, etc.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
249
250
MATE KAPOVIĆ
12.2 Nominal Compounds Nominal compounds can be composed of (final suffixes are added in some compounds):19 • • • • • • • • • •
N + N (e.g. č el-o-vě kъ ‘man’, literally: ‘kin-child’) N + V (e.g. č ar-o-dě -i ‘sorcerer’,20 literally: ‘magic-doer’) V + N (e.g. theonym *Dadjь-bogъ, literally: ‘give!-god’) Adj + N (e.g. OCS dobr-o-rod-ьstvo ‘aristocracy’, literally: ‘good-kin’) Adv + N (e.g. BCMS domà-zet ‘man who married into wife’s family’, literally: ‘home-son in law’) Num + N (e.g. Rus. sto-lét-ie ‘century’ – literally: ‘hundred-years’; OCS č etvrъt-o-vlast-ьcь ‘tetrarch’, literally: ‘quarter-governor’) Pron + N (e.g. BCMS svoj-è-glav-ō st ‘stubbornness’, literally: ‘self-headedness’) Pron + V (e.g. OCS sebe-ljub-ьcь ‘self-lover’) V + Adj (e.g. ne-ję -sytь ‘pelican’, literally: ‘no’ + ‘take’ + ‘full’)21 Adj + V (e.g. velь-moža ‘potentate’,22 literally: ‘much-able’).
Old names in Slavic are often compounds, for example *Vold-ı̋ -slavъ (‘rule + fame’, Cze. Vladislav, BCMS Vlàdislav), Vlad-i-mirъ (with -mirъ or -mě rъ, cf. Ukr. Volod-ý-myr, BCMS Vlàdimı̄ r). Some of these were likely influenced by Germanic names (cf. Old High German Wald-e-mar; cf. also Gaulish Sego-maros [‘victory-great’] for the type). This personal name type is inherited from Proto-Indo-European, but more as a model than with exact cognates – for example, Greek Soph-ο-klē͂ s ‘Sophocles’ (‘wise-fame’, both Slavic -slavъ and Greek -klē͂ s are from PIE *kjlew- ‘fame’). One often finds a linking -o- in nominal (and other) compounds.23 This is surely the old thematic vowel -o- (cf. the already mentioned Greek Soph-ο-klē͂ s), which originally probably appeared with nominal and adjectival o-stems as the first constituent of a compound (e.g. in č elově kъ or *bosonògъ) and later spread to other compound types;24 compare the original bahuvrı̄ hi compound in Sln. Tr-ı̑ -glav (name of mountaintop in Slovenia, literally ‘three-headed’)25 with tri-26 (~ i-stem trije – tri ‘three’), but a secondary variant in BCMS 19
20
21 23
24
25 26
Suffixation does not depend on word type (of either constituents or the resulting compound) and is basically unpredictable, cf. for example dobr-o-rod-ьstvo (where the nominal constituent has a suffix) and ne-ję -sytъ (where the adjectival constituent does not). Cf. Lithuanian (now archaic) ger-a-dė´jas ‘bene-factor’ (‘good-doer’), with the second part etymologically corresponding to Slavic *-dě jь. 22 Perhaps synchronically non-transparent in Common Slavic. Vaillant (1974: 747) analyzes velь as an adverb. Preserved as -o- (in writing and/or pronunciation) in most modern Slavic languages, with the major exception being Belarusian, where it is written as -a- when unstressed (like any original non-stressed *o), cf. Bel. zl-о́ -dzej ‘thief’(literally: ‘evil-doer’) with -o- under accent but unaccented -a- in sam-а-strél ‘crossbow’ (literally: ‘selfshooter’). This tendency can be seen in Ancient Greek as well (Vaillant 1974: 750) and perhaps had started already in Proto-IndoEuropean. The same -o-, inherited from Proto-Indo-European, is still retained in Modern Greek, just like in Slavic. For the concept of a linking element in compounds, cf. Lieber & Štekauer 2011: 16. Originally a theonym, cf. Pol. Trz-y-głów. Itself younger, cf. OCS trь-gubъ ‘threefold’ with the original trь- < PIE *tri- (cf. Ancient Greek trí-pous ‘tri-pod’).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
Tr-ò-glav (name of a mountaintop in Bosnia and Herzegovina).27 This -ochanges to -e- after palataloids,28 as in voj-e-voda ‘army leader, duke’, OCS mǫ ž-e-ubii-ca ‘man-killer’, Bul. miš-е-lòv ‘buzzard’ (literally: ‘mousehunter’),29 though not necessarily so in younger words, for example Cro. zȅ mlj-o-pı̄ s ‘geography’ (but Sln. zemlj-e-pı̑ s), Pol. ocz-o-dół ‘eye-pit’. For a compound without -o-, see for example pladьne ‘noon’ < *pol-dьne (literally ‘half-day’), the already mentioned potь-bě ga, velь-moža, and BCMS Bòg-dan (personal name, ‘god-given’, also Pol. Bog-dan). This type also occurs in some younger compounds like Rus. žar-ptíca ‘phoenix’ (literally: ‘heat-bird’), Sln. dȏ ̣lg-č as ‘boredom’ (literally: ‘long-time’, ← German Lange-weile). In bratu-č ę dъ ‘nephew’, bogu-milъ ‘dear to god’ (also a personal name), zъluradъ ‘spiteful’ we find -u- from the datsg ending from the coalesced bratu č ę do (literally ‘to brother + child’), bogu milъ (‘to god + dear’), zъlu radъ (‘to evil + glad’).30 Compare also USo. knihi-wjazar ‘book-binder’ (← German Buchbinder) with knihi being gensg/accpl or Pol. oka-mgnienie ‘blink’ (← German Augen-blick, literally: ‘eye-blink’) with gensg oka (oka mgnienie ‘blink of an eye’), wniebo-wzię cie ‘Assumption’ (← w niebo wzią c ́ ‘to take into heaven’) with accsg w niebo. There are also coalesced compounds with the first constituent in nomsg, like Old Rus. Novъ-gorodъ (toponym, literally ‘new city’), Cro. Nòvigrā d (< nȍ vı̄ grȃ d ‘new city’), Stàrigrā d (< stȃ rı̄ grȃ d ‘old city’), Pol. Biały-stok (‘white slope’),31 Ukr. Velýk-den’ ‘Easter’ (literally: ‘great day’, also Bul. Velìk-den, etc. but Pol. Wielka-noc [vʲɛl|kanɔʦ] ‘Easter’, literally: ‘great night’),32 Pol. dobra-noc [dob|ranɔʦ] ‘good night’, dvandva-compounds bratъsestra ‘brother and sister’,33 and malъ-žena ‘husband and wife’,34 declined as masculine dual in CS (datdu bratъsestroma), CS az(ъ)buka ‘Cyrillic alphabet’ (azъ and buky being the names of the first two letters), etc. An interesting innovative type is seen in Rus. mat’-i-máč exa ‘foalfoot [plant]’ (literally: ‘mother-and-stepmother’). 27 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Cf. also Vaillant 1974: 751. Palataloids = ‘phonological palatals’ (comprising phonetic/articulatory palatals, postalveolars, and alveopalatals – with possible addition of palatalized consonants as well). The vowel -e- in Czech compound adjectives like svě tle-modrý ‘light blue’ is from the adverb svě tle ‘brightly’. BCMS -ein vȅ le-grā d ‘metropolis’ is from the adverb vèle ‘a lot’. Synchronically, Polish compounds with ‘2’ and ‘100’ as the first constituent most often have a connecting -u-, for example dw-u-głos ‘dialogue’ (literally: ‘two-voice’), st-u-lec-ie ‘century’ (literally: ‘hundred-years’), cf. Szymanek 2011: 737, 755. Originally, these are gendu dvoju > modern Pol. dwu, datsg sъtu > modern Pol. stu (both forms secondarily spread throughout the paradigm) – cf. Russian compounds like the adjective dvojú-rodnyj ‘first [cousin]’ (literally: ‘two-generational’). Cf. BCMS gensg Nòvi-grā da, with the first constituent uninflected, but Old Rus. Nova-goroda, Pol. gensg Białego-stoku with both parts inflected. But the accent is compositional in Polish ([bja|wɨstok]) and a linking -o- appears in the adjective biał-o-stocki (cf. Szymanek 2011: 756), which however does not mean much in Slavic (cf. BCMS noncompositional gòrnjı̄ grȃ d ‘upper town’ but the compound adjective gȍ rnj-o-gradskı̄ from it). Cf. gensg Wielka-nocy or Wielkiej-nocy, with the second variant preserving the declension of both constituents, that is, not fully compounded. Rus. otéc-mát’ father and mother’ is somewhat similar but can be regarded as not a real compound since both parts are declinable and both preserve their accent (gensg otcá-máteri) unlike OCS bratъ-sestra (cf. Bel. brat-sjastrá ‘a type of plant’). The word malъženъ (the first constituent synchronically non-transparent) is dissimilated from the older *manъ-ženъ (PIE *mon- ‘man’), cf. also a younger compound mǫ že-ženъ (Vaillant 1974: 774).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
251
252
MATE KAPOVIĆ
The verbal first constituent of a compound is often followed by a connecting -i-, for example BCMS pàl-i-kucá ‘arsonist’ (‘burn’ + ‘house’), Rus. vert-i-xvóstka ‘flirt, coquette’ (literally: ‘spin-tail’), Pol. mą c-i-woda,35 BCMS mùt-i-voda ‘troublemaker’ (literally: ‘stir-water’ – cf. also BCMS mùt-i-kaša in the same meaning, literally: ‘stir-porridge’). This compounding type occurs frequently in such pejorative and ironic nickname-type compounds in Slavic.36 The linking -i- appears also (perhaps secondarily if the type is originally borrowed/calqued) in names like Cro. Zvòn-i-mı̄ r (personal name, ‘ring-peace’), Pol. Kaz-i-mierz (personal name, ‘destroy-peace’), etc. The verbal stem with -i- is formally identical to the imperative form,37 see the imperative forms that do not have final -i as the athematic 2sg imperative form in *Dadjь-bogъ (OCS daždь! ‘give!’) or Mac. kljukaj-drv-ec ‘woodpecker’ (literally: ‘peck-wood’) and Bul. razvèj-prah ‘squanderer’ (literally: ‘blow-dust’). The usual accent on *-ı̋ - also corresponds to the imperative (cf. BCMS jèbi-vjetar ‘fuckwit’, literally: ‘fuck-wind’, and the imperative jèbi! ‘fuck!’). However, there are verbal-first compounds with stem only: OCS vě -glasъ < *vě d-golsъ ‘the one who knows’ (literally: ‘know-voice’; also ne-vě -glasъ ‘ignorant’), OCS ne-ję -vě rъ ‘incredulous’ (literally: ‘not-take-faith’, cf. vě rǫ ję ti ‘to have [lit. take] faith’), Cze. nezna-boh ‘pagan’ (literally: ‘not-know-god’, dialectal ne-znaj-boh with the imperative znaj!, cf. also BCMS ne-znà-bož-ac). The originally nominal -ocan occur with verbal stems as well, although rarely: OCS ljub-o-č ьstie ‘love of honor, ambition’ (← Greek phil-o-timía, cf. CS č ьst-o-ljub-ie, Rus. č esto-ljúb-ie ‘ambition’). The linking -i- appears also in BCMS Càr-i-grā d, Cze. Cař -i-hrad ‘Istanbul’ (literally: ‘emperor-city’), BCMS Bòž-i-dā r (personal name, literally: ‘god’s gift’), with the origin perhaps in the possessive suffix *-jь (*cьsa̋ r-jь-jь ‘emperor’s’, *bȍ ž-jь-jь ‘god’s’) – for example, Rus. Car’grád with zero-interfix. Literary compounds (often calques from Greek and, less frequently, Latin) begin with numerous, often religious examples in Old Church Slavonic (like bog-o-rod-ica ‘god-bearer’ ← Greek the-o-tókos, bog-o-ubi-icь ‘god-killer’, bogo-bor-ie ‘fight against god’, bog-o-dar-enie ‘gift of god’, blag-o-vě r-ie ‘piety’, blag-o-vě stiti ‘to proclaim the Gospel’, ljub-o-dě -i ‘adulterer’, etc.).38 For calques from Greek, see also OCS bog-o-č ьt-ьcь ← Greek the-o-sebē ́ s ‘devout’ (literally: ‘god-respecting’), bog-o-uč enъ ← Greek the-o-dídaktos ‘taught of god’, dobr-o-č ьstьnъ ‘pious’ ← Greek eu-sebē ́ s (literally: ‘well-respecting’), etc. There are also some older calques from Germanic: vin-o-gradъ ‘vineyard’ (this could also be a simple phonetic loanword)39 ← Gothic weina-gards and voj-e-voda ‘army leader’ ← Old High German heri-zogo (modern Herzog) (see also above for names in -mě rъ/mirъ).
35 36 37 38 39
-i- changes to -y- after ‘hard’ consonants, for example in Pol. mę cz-y-dusza ‘whiner’ (literally: ‘torture-soul’). Cf. more examples from various Slavic languages in Stankiewicz 1986: 235. In Slavic languages which preserve the old -i!, cf. Polish mą c-i-woda quoted above but the imperative mą c!́ ‘stir!’. According to Vaillant (1974: 737), most compounds in OCS are calques from Greek. However, this word is morphologically transparent as a compound even today in Slavic.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
New literary compounds, often calques (and often with connecting -o-), appear usually in the nineteenth century (sometimes earlier) and later in new Slavic standard languages and are sometimes borrowed by other Slavic languages: Pol. rzecz-pos|polita ‘commonwealth, republic’ (← Latin rē s-pū blica), Rus. sam-о-lёt ‘airplane’ (literally: ‘self-flier’, → Bul. sam-о-lèt, Pol. sam-o-lot), vert-о-lët ‘helicopter’ (literally: ‘spin-flier’), Cze. č as-o-pis ‘magazine’ (on the model of German Zeit-schrift, borrowed from Czech into BCMS č ȁ s-o-pı̄ s, USo. č as-o-pis), Cze. vod-o-pád ‘water-fall’, USo./LSo. wod-o-pad, Rus. vod-оpád, BCMS vȍ d-o-pā d (← German Wasser-fall, with possible intra-Slavic loans), Pol. gwiazd-o-zbiór ‘constellation’ (literally: ‘star-collection’), Cro. bȑ z-o-jā v ‘telegram’ (literally: ‘quick-inform’), BCMS nȅ b-o-dē r (← English sky-scraper, cf. a partial calque in Sln. neb-o-tı̑ č -nik, literally: ‘sky-toucher’), Ser. oblak-ò-der (← German Wolken-kratzer, → Mac. oblak-о-der), Ser. zȅ mljо-trē s ‘earth-quake’ (← German Erd-beben, → Mac. zemj-о-tres), Bul. dǎ žd-оbràn ‘rain-coat’ (literally: ‘rain-defender’), etc. While these mentioned compounds adhere to traditional composition processes, there are also new types of compounds that do not. There are agglutinative semi-compounds (written with hyphens), made of two constituents that still retain their own accents but do not both inflect (like Cro. blȍ k-sȃ t ‘block class’ – gensg blȍ k-sȃ ta), and there are quasi-compounds where the constituents both preserve the accent and their own inflection (like Rus. diván-krovát’ ‘sofabedʼ – gensg divána-krováti). Abbreviated (stump) compounds, especially popular in Soviet times and communist terminology (most abundantly in East Slavic and Bulgarian), also appear – Rus. kol-xóz ‘kolkhoz’ (< kollektívnoe xozjájstvo ‘collective farm’), kompro-mát (< komprometírajušč ij materiál ‘compromising material’), Cro. màs-pok (from mȁ sō vnı̄ pȍ krē t ‘mass movement’) ‘a nationalist movement in Croatia from 1969 to 1971’ (cf. also English SoCal < Southern California, id-pol < identity politics for the type), or Rus. personal name Vlad-lén (< Vladímir Lénin). Some such words, like agit-prop and Com-intern, were borrowed widely, also by English. There are even three- and four-constituent stump compounds, for example Rus. Kom-sо-mól (< Kommunistíč eskij sojúz molodëži ‘Communist Union of Youth’), Nar-kóm-tjaž-próm (< Naródnyj komissariát tjažëloj promýšlennosti ‘People’s Commissariat of Heavy Industry’). Sometimes, only the first constituent was shortened: Rus. kom-pártija < kommunistíč eskaja pártija ‘Communist party’.40 See also a younger stump compound of non-communist origins: Rus. tjaž-mét ← tjažëlyj metáll ‘heavy metal’ (music).41 40 41
Cf. Sussex & Cubberley 2006: 484–487. The stump compounds usually have a (C)VC constituent for every lexical morpheme (though not always, cf. the mentioned Rus. Kom-so-mól with a CV constituent in the middle) and are to be distinguished from abbreviations (like BCMS dr. for dȍ ktō r ‘doctor’) and acronyms (like Rus. SSSR ‘USSR’ for Sojúz Sovétskix Socialistíč eskix Respúblik ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’). The difference would be in that stump compounds are a ‘word phenomenon’ (complex words made of shortened lexical morphemes), while abbreviations and acronyms (which are not always easy to distinguish among themselves) are primarily ‘letter phenomena’ – they are made by the use of, often initial, letters and not morphemes/parts of words. However, some of them can secondarily be pronounced as words, for example the Croatian abbreviation HINA (Hr̀ vā tskā ı̏ zvještā jnā nȍ vı̄ nskā agéncija ‘Croatian Information News Agency’) is
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
253
254
MATE KAPOVIĆ
There are some well-known examples of new compound city-names with personal names as the first constituent, for example Rus. Sánkt-Peterbúrg (← Dutch/German) (1703–1914), then Petr-о-grád (literally: ‘Peter-city’) (1914–1924), then Lenin-grád (literally: ‘Lenin-city’) for present-day Saint Petersburg or BCMS Tı̏ to-grā d (‘Tito-city’) for present-day Podgorica. Two known compound state names are Bel. Bel-а-rúsь ‘Belarus’ (literally: ‘White Ruthenia’, with akanie for *-o-) and BCMS Jug-ò-slā vija ‘Yugoslavia’ (literally: ‘South Slavia’). In modern languages, there are also compounds with one constituent being a Latin/Greek internationalism, for example Rus. аmino-kislotа́ ‘amino acid’ (← German Amino-säure), including semi-compounds (with two accents) like Rus. ál’fa-č astíca ‘alpha particle’ (← German Alpha-teilchen). New compounds can be made from both non-Slavic constituents, for example Rus. evro-remónt ‘building renovation using (modern) European (Western) materials’. All in all, nominal compounds have been an important source of neologisms in Slavic literary languages since the earliest times,42 occurring there more frequently than in spoken language.
12.3 Adjectival Compounds Adjectival compounds can consist of (with the addition of final suffixes in some words): • Adj + Adj (OCS blag-o-lě p-ьnъ ‘pleasant’, literally: ‘mild-beautiful’; Cze. velko-lepý ‘magnificent’, literally: ‘great-beautiful’) • Adj + N (*gol-o-gőlvъ ‘bare-headed’; BCMS ljep-o-rjèč -iv ‘eloquent’, literally: ‘nice-worded’ – the karmadhā raya type) • Adj + V (OCS sam-o-rast-yi ‘wild-growing’, literally: ‘self-growing’) • N + Adj (OCS bog-o-mǫ drъ ‘divinely wise’ – a calque from Greek the-ó-sophos; BCMS slav-o-dòbitan ‘triumphant’) • Adv + Adj (Rus. malо-verojátnyj ‘hardly probable’, literally: ‘little-probable’) • Num + Adj (BCMS jedn-ò-glasan ‘unanimous’, literally: ‘one-voiced’) • Adv + V (Rus. živ-о-pís-nyj ‘picturesque’, literally: ‘lively-painted’) • Adv + Vptcp (Slk. znovu-zrodený ‘reborn’, literally: ‘again-born’) • Pron + N (CS naš-e-stranъ ‘from our region’, literally: ‘our-sided’; BCMS svoj-èglav ‘stubborn’, literally: ‘own-headed’)
42
pronounced as Hína and not as **hȃ -ı̑ -ȅ n-ȃ by the letter pronunciation (as most abbreviations would be, cf. [kȃ -pȇ -hȃ ] for KPH ‘Komunìstič kā pàrtija Hr̀vā tskē ‘Communist party of Croatia’). However, it is not always easy to distinguish acronyms from stump compounds – for example, Cro. Nȁ -ma for Národnı̄ mȁ gazı̄ n ‘National department-store’ is probably to be regarded as an acronym, though the difference (which is necessarily at least partly arbitrary) is subtle. The difference would be in that that isolated Nȁ -ma is strictly phonetic and out of context and without prior knowledge a native speaker has no way of guessing what that stands for, while an average native speaker would have at least a chance to interpret what a potential **Nar-mag (as a classic stump compound would look) means (especially in context of numerous existing stump compounds). It is interesting to compare compounds and multiword expressions in modern Slavic, for which see Ohnheiser 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
• N + N (kuk-o-nosъ ‘hook-nosed’; Mac. dzvez-о-lik ‘star-shaped’) • N + V (Pol. ocz-o-jeb-ny ‘bright, vivid’, literally: ‘eye-fucking’; BCMS rȁ t-o-bō r-an ‘combative’, literally: ‘war-fighting’) • N + Vptcp (OCS bog-o-uč enъ ‘taught by god’, literally: ‘god-taught’) • Num + N (Rus. pjati-lét-nij ‘five-year’)43 • V + N (BCMS vrt-ò-glav ‘dizzying’, Sln. vrt-o-glȁ v ‘dizzy’, literally: ‘spinheaded’) • V + V (BCMS jȅ b-o-zō v-an ‘sexy’, literally ‘fuck-calling’).
The linking -o- is often present, but not always, see BCMS zı̏ m-zelē n ‘evergreen’ (literally: ‘winter-green’). A simple coalescence (juxtaposition) is sometimes found as well, see Sln. boja-žē ljən ‘bellicose’ (< boja [gensg] željən ‘of fight + wanting’), Cze. chvály-hodný ‘praiseworthy’(< chvály [gensg] hodný ‘of praise + worthy’), ohni-vzdorný ‘fireproof’ (< ohni [datsg] vzdorný ‘to fire + resistant’). An interesting case is a Russian compound derived from a prepositional phrase s-uma-sšédšij ‘crazy’ < s umа́ [gensg] sšе́ dšij ‘gone out of one’s mind’. There is a marked prosodical tendency (though not universal)44 in compounds, mainly in nominal and adjectival/adverbial ones (but also in verbal), as well as in prefixal derivatives, to generalize a non-etymological old acute (* ̋ ) on originally long vowels and a short neoacute (*`) on short vowels in the first syllable of the second compositional stem45 –*naròdъ ‘people’ (accentual paradigm a) but *rȍ dъ ‘kin’ (a. p. c), *bosonògъ (a. p. a) but *noga̋ (a. p. c), *gol-o-bőrdъ ‘beardless’ (a. p. a) but *borda̋ ‘beard’ (a. p. c), *č ьl-o-vě ̋ kъ (a. p. a) but *vě̑ kъ ‘life span’ (a. p. c, cf. Lithuanian vaĩkas ‘child’ (a. p. a), *zьl-o-dűxъ ‘evil spirit’ (a. p. a) but *dȗ xъ ‘spirit’ (a. p. c), etc.46
12.4 Adverbial Compounds Many adverbs are made from adjectival neuter forms, thus also from compound adjectives (cf. e.g. Slovene adverb dolgoč ásno ‘boring’, identical to the neuter adjectival simple form, from the adjective dolg-o-č ás-ən [‘long’ + -o- + ‘time’ + -ly], a calque from German lang-weil-ig [‘long’ + ‘last’ + -ing]). Sometimes, a suffix is added, for example BCMS strmòglav-cē ‘headlong’ (from the adjective strm-ò-glav ‘precipitous’, literally: ‘steep-headed’), with a characteristic adverbial -cē suffix. While the base adjectives are surely compounds in such examples, the derived adverbs can be regarded as mere conversions (the adverb dolgoč ásno from the neuter adjective dolg-o-č ásno) 43 44 45
46
Note that this is not derived from the adjective létnij, which means ‘summer(like)’. Today most clearly retained in Russian. The tendency for compounds to espouse a specific stress pattern seems to be typologically common (cf. Lieber & Štekauer 2011: 6, 12), cf. English compound |black-board opposed to a non-compositional |black |board (cf. Lieber & Štekauer 2011: 8–12) or the prevalence of the double tone (accent 2) in compounds in Swedish (e.g. in huvud-stad ‘capital city’). Cf. now Kapović 2019: 108–112.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
255
256
MATE KAPOVIĆ
or suffixal derivatives (the adverb strmòglav-cē from the adjective strm-ò-glav), that is, the compounding process occurs in adjectives, not in adverbs. There are also some compound adverbs formed like nominal or adjectival compounds that are, however, not derived from adjectives, for example BCMS objè-ruč -kē ‘with both hands’ (no corresponding adjective exists and -kē is an adverbial suffix) – see also here Cze. obou-ruč ‘with both hands’ with a zerosuffix. Certain old adverb compounds are synchronically non-transparent like jedъ-va ‘hardly’ (jed- as in jed-inъ ‘one’ + -va ~ Lithuanian võs ‘hardly’). Newer adverbial compounds with pronominal constituents like Common Slavic dьnьsь ‘today’ (< ‘day + this’) were made by univerbation and this process also frequently occurred later in separate Slavic languages: Rus. segó-dnja ‘today’ (< gensg ‘this day’), sej-č ás ‘now’ (< ‘this moment’), Č akavian sȅ g-utra/seg-ȕ tra ‘this morning’ (< gensg), etc. Old verbal forms can be involved as well; see two younger BCMS adverbs: mòž-da ‘maybe’ (< mȍ ž(e) da ‘can that’), vàlj-da ‘probably’ (< vàljā da ‘it is good that’).
12.5 Verbal Compounds Verbal compounds are rare and late. Most are literary compounds (often calques) beginning with numerous, mostly religious, examples in Old Church Slavonic (like blag-o-dariti ‘to thank’), many of which were borrowed by other Slavic languages (like a calque of Late Latin bene-d ı̄ cō – OCS blago-sloviti ‘to bless’ → BCMS blag-o-slòviti, Rus. blag-о-slovít’). The second constituent of these compounds is most often a verb, while the first constituent varies: • N + V (e.g. Rus. ruk-о-vodít’ ‘to lead’ → BCMS ruk-o-vòditi, literally: ‘to handlead’; Sln. telo-váditi ‘to exercise’, literally: ‘to body-practice’) • Adv + V (e.g. OCS velь-mǫ drovati ‘to boast’, literally ‘to big-think’; Cze. spolupracovat ‘to cooperate’, literally: ‘to together-work’) • V + V (e.g. OCS ljub-o-plakati ‘to like to cry’) • Num + V (e.g. BCMS dv-ò-umiti se ‘to hesitate’, literally: ‘to two-mind’) • Pron + V (e.g. Cze. sebe-poškodit ‘to self-destruct’; BCMS sam-o-zadovòljiti se ‘to pleasure yourself’, literally: ‘to self-pleasure’).
In most cases the second constituent of the compound is an already existing word (dariti ‘to give’, voditi ‘to lead’, mǫ drovati ‘to think’, plakati ‘to cry’, etc.), but this is not always the case – for example, -sloviti occurs only in compounds (OCS slav-o-sloviti ‘to glorify’, bog-o-sloviti ‘to talk of god’, zъl-o-sloviti ‘to revile’) and there is no **úmiti in BCMS (-umiti is derived from ȗ m ‘mind’). Coalesced verbal compounds like Pol. zmartwych-wstac ́ ‘to rise from the dead’ (< z martwych wstac)́ are rare. Though rare, verbal compounds are not necessarily completely non-productive, for example a BCMS expressive slang word strm-o-pízditi se ‘to plunge oneself’ (literally: ‘to steep-cunt
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
oneself’)47 or an innovative BCMS verb sam-o-ùbiti se ‘to commit suicide’ (literally: ‘to self-kill’, on the model of sam-o-ùbōj-stvo ‘suicide’). A special case of younger imperative-derived quasi-compounds are (non-verbal) words like BCMS pèri-dèri ‘durable clothes’ (literally: ‘wash!-tear!’), stȁ ni-pȁ ni ‘tough situation’ (literally: ‘stop!-rest!’), ìdi ̮mi-dóđi ̮mi ‘come and go’ (literally: ‘go [for my sake]!-come to me!’), Mac. lapni-goltni ‘greedily’ (literally: ‘gobble!swallow!’), legni-stani ‘everyday monotony’ (literally: ‘lie down!-get up!’).
12.6 Pronominal Compounds Pronouns are often not included among lexical morphemes and are thus often excluded from treatment of compounding. However, we shall briefly mention pronominal compounds here. They are most often made from two pronominal constituents. The earliest such examples are nominative forms of č ь-to ‘what’ (< ‘what that’, cf. the archaic Č akavian č ȁ ‘what’ < *č ь), kъ-to ‘who’ (< ‘who that’)48 and adverbial forms like ko-gъda (also *kъ-gъda, *kъgъdy) ‘when’ (< ‘which time’). There are many later examples of composite pronouns, such as Cze./Pol. tam-ten ‘that’ (from Slavic tamo ‘thither’ + tъ ‘this’), Sln. t-ı̑ sti ‘that’ (< ‘that same one’), BCMS koje-kàkav ‘whatever kind’ (< ‘which’ + ‘what kind of’), štò-šta ‘many things’ (< ‘what’ + ‘what’, cf. Latin quid-quid ‘whatever’), gdjè-kad ‘sometimes’ (< ‘where’ + ‘when’), Rus. inо-gdа́ ‘sometimes’ (literally ‘other-times’), etc.
12.7 Numeral Compounds The only old numeral compound, but probably not transparent in Common Slavic, is jed-inъ/jed-ьnъ ‘one’ (*ed- is etymologically unclear) – in younger languages there are some new ones like BCMS dvá-na-ē st ‘twelve’, Rus. dve-nádcat’, Pol. dwa-na-sć ie; BCMS dvá-desē t ‘twenty’, Rus. dvá-dcat’, Pol. dwadziesć ia or BCMS dvjȅ -sta ‘two hundred’, Rus. dvé-sti, Pol. dwie-sć ie (cf. the original dъva na desę te ‘12’, dъva desę ti ‘20’, dъvě sъtě ‘200’). New numeral adverbs for ‘once, twice, etc.’ also occur: BCMS dvá-pū t ‘twice’ (also dvȃ púta), Sln. dvȃ krat, Rus. dvá-ždy, etc. See also BCMS ȍ ba-dvā ‘both’ (literally: ‘both-two’).
12.8 Other Compounds There are many complex prepositions (cf. BCMS iz-nad ‘above’ from iz ‘out of’ and nad ‘above’) that can be regarded as a type of compound (consisting often of two
47 48
A joking variation of strm-o-gláviti se ‘to plunge oneself’ with a replacement of gláva ‘head’ with pízda ‘cunt’. Cf. later Rus. č tó-tо ‘something’ or Croatian/Montenegrin štȍ tȏ ‘what’.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
257
258
MATE KAPOVIĆ
prepositions).49 Compound conjunctions usually consist of two conjunctions (Slk. ale-bo ‘or’ from ‘but’ and ‘because’; BCMS jèr-bo ‘because’, where jer is of pronominal origin, from je-že ‘which’), conjunctions and particles (i-li ‘or’ from ‘and’ + the interrogative particle; *a-li ‘but’ from ‘and/but’ + the interrogative particle; Cze. ne-bo ‘or’ from ‘not’ and ‘for’), two particles (BCMS nè-go ‘than’ from ‘not’ and the particle -go;50 Sln. ȁ m-pak ‘but’ – cf. Cze. ano ‘yes’ and BCMS pȁ k [adversative particle]), and preposition and pronoun (cf. OCS po-nježe ‘because’ from the preposition ‘upon’ and pronoun ježe ‘which’).51 There are also some compound conjunctions with three constituents (resulting from grammaticalization of prepositional phrases), for example Slk. pre-to-že ‘because’ (literally preposition + pronoun ‘for that’ and a particle že). Compositional particles also exist: BCMS ȅ -to ‘here it is’ (particle + pronoun to ‘that’), Cze. a-no ‘yes’ (conjunction ‘and/but’ + conjunction ‘but’). Interestingly enough, we can also speak of compound interjections: BCMS ȃ ‘ah’ and jȏ j ‘oof’ and a-jȏ j ‘oof’.
References For further reading, see Chapter 11 on derivation in this volume. The only general monograph on nominal composition in Slavic as a whole is Pohl 1977. Bauer, L. (2005). Compound. In K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Burlington, VT: Elsevier, pp. 719‒726. Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and Compounding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derksen, R. (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill. Havlová, E., ed. (1989). Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslově nského, Prague: Academia. Holzer, G. (2020). Untersuchungen zum Urslavischen, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Jurišic,́ B. (1992). Nacrt hrvatske slovnice. Tvorba imenica u povijesnom razvoju, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Kapovic,́ M. (2019). Shortening, lengthening, and reconstruction: Notes on historical Slavic accentology. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 45(1), 75–133. Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matasovic,́ R. (2014). Slavic Nominal Word-Formation. Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Ohnheiser, I. (2015). Compounds and multi-word expressions in Slavic. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer, eds., Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 757–779. Olsen, S. (2015). Composition. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer, eds., Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 364–386.
49 50
-dъ in po-dъ ‘under’, na-dъ ‘above’ etc. seem to be of verbal origin (cf. e.g. Derksen’s dictionary). 51 Cf. the particle že with a different ablaut. -že is originally a particle.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Lexical Composition
Pohl, H. D. (1977). Die Nominalkomposition im Alt- und Gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, indogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung, Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter Sprachwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Ralli, A. (2013). Compounding in Modern Greek, Dordrecht: Springer. Sławski, F., ed. (1974–2001). Słownik prasłowiań ski, 8 vols., Wrocław: Ossolineum. Stankiewicz, E. (1986). The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. V. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szymanek, B. (2011). IE, Slavonic: Polish. In Lieber & Štekauer, eds., pp. 733–757. Trubač ev O. N., ed. (1974–2014). Ètimologič eskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov, Моscow: Nauka. Vaillant, A. (1974). Grammaire comparée des langues Slaves. IV: La formation de noms, Paris: Éditions Klincksieck. Zimmer, S. (2016). Notes on the structure and meaning of some Slavic nominal compounds. Suvremena lingvistika, 42(8), 149–154.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
259
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.013 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Part 3
Syntax
Published online by Cambridge University Press
Published online by Cambridge University Press
13 Agreement Jana Willer-Gold
13.1 Agreement in Slavic Agreement is a syntactic operation whereby features of a nominal element (controller, goal) are copied onto another sentential element (target, probe) with which it stands in a syntactic relation. In Slavic languages, the full set of agreement features are in use: pronominal (person, number and gender), and structural (case);1 however, which features are copied is contingent on the features of the nominal element and the type of syntactic relation. Copied features are morphologically expressed, and hence can be read from the inflectional agreement morpheme. The nominal element in the subject position has pronominal features and is assigned nominative case. In subject–verb agreement, the finite verb agrees with the subject djevojč ica ‘girl’ in person and number, (1); and the past participle which is used to form past tenses, agrees with the subject in gender and number, (2). Internal to the subject nominal phrase, the adjective modifiers agree with the head noun djevojč ica in gender, number, and case, (3). A relative pronoun agreeing with the subject djevojč ica agrees with it in gender and number, (5), but not necessarily in case, (4). And, finally, a personal pronoun agrees with its antecedent djevojč ica in gender and number, (5).
1
(1) Cro.
Djevojč ica ide girl.N O M . F E M . S G go.3S G ‘Girl is going for a walk.’
(2) Cro.
Djevojč ica je girl.N O M . F E M . S G aux.3S G ‘Girl went for a walk.’
u šetnju. to walk
otišla go.F E M . S G
u šetnju. to walk
Note that Bulgarian and Macedonian declension is reduced to nominative and vocative case with remnants of dative and accusative for personal pronouns.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
264
JANA WILLER-GOLD
(3) Cro. Ta jedna that.N O M . F E M . S G one.N O M . F E M . S G djevojč ica girl.N O M . F E M . S G je otišla u šetnju. aux.3S G go.F E M .S G to walk ‘That one good girl went for a walk.’
dobra good.N O M . F E M . S G
(4) Cro. Djevojč ica koja je otišla u šetnju. girl.N O M . F E M . S G who.N O M . F E M . S G A U X . 3 S G go.F E M . S G to walk ‘Girl who went for a walk.’ (5) Cro.
Ona je ubrala she.N O M A U X . 3 S G pick.F E M . S G ‘She has picked flowers.’
cvijecé . flowers
In his seminal work on agreement in Slavic, Corbett (1979, 1983, 1991, 2006) demonstrates that Slavic languages present a prime example of canonical agreement (syntactic agreement) described as redundant rather than informative, syntactically simple and morphologically faithful. That is, the feature values on the agreeing element can be predicted from the feature values on the nominal element, from (1) to (5). In addition to these regular instances of formal agreement, Corbett highlights the conditions that favor alternative agreement based on meaning (semantic agreement) that are specific to a group of controllers intrinsic to Slavic languages. This chapter builds on Corbett’s observations on syntactic and semantic agreement with special focus on agreement features and their values, as well as their interaction relative to the structural and semantic properties of the nominal element when it is placed in subject position. The topics in this chapter naturally extend to pronominal elements in subject position, which can be lexically (null subject or subjectless) and phonologically omitted (prodropped), with only the former affecting agreement.2 Section 13.2 describes regular instances of formal agreement, while Section 13.3 extends the theoretical discussion to agreement alternatives. In conclusion, Section 13.4 highlights directions for further research in Slavic agreement.
13.2 Features in Canonical Agreement 13.2.1 Pronominal Features Gender, number, and person are main agreement features (pronominal features) as they denote the subject’s referent and as such their value is preserved irrespective of the structural position of the nominal element in the sentence (see also Section 13.3 on semantic agreement). In Slavic languages, pronominal features can agree independently or interact to form a unique set of values, 2
The reader is referred to Chapter 20 on null subjects.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
as exemplified by default (third person neuter singular) or resolved (third person masculine plural) agreement. 13.2.1.1 Gender Agreement In Slavic languages, gender is commonly assigned to a noun in accordance with a declension class, and by extension can be considered a lexical property of that noun (grammatical gender) (cf. Arsenijević 2021). This arbitrary but predictive nature of gender assignment combined with the morphological requirement to express an inflectional morpheme on the agreeing element allows nouns to undergo syntactic agreement in gender, irrespective of semantic or discourse constraints.3 Slavic languages morphologically mark syntactic agreement in three gender feature values – masculine, feminine, and neuter (in singular, and only South Slavic languages also in plural).4 Masculine and feminine animate nouns denote male and female referents, while neuter animate nouns denote sentients low on the animacy hierarchy. Inanimate nouns are arbitrarily assigned masculine, feminine, or neuter grammatical gender in line with the corresponding declension class. With no dedicated declension class, animacy and humanness per se are not inherent features of the Slavic gender system. However, their effects can be observed on the agreeing element, showing that these features have important consequences for gender agreement. Cases in point are Polish and Czech with designated inflectional morphology on the finite verb for human animate male subjects (Pol. virile), here exemplified by Polish in (6a) and (6b).5, 6
3
4
5 6
(6) a.
Pol.
b.
Pol.
Chłopcy złapali piłkę . boy.N O M . V I R . P L caught.V I R . P L ball ‘The boys caught the ball.’ Psy złapały dog.N O M . N V I R . P L caught.N O N V I R . P L ‘The dogs caught the ball.’
piłkę . ball
Experimental studies on gender agreement in Slavic have confirmed that the predictive nature of gender features combined with inflectional stability reduces the incidence of agreement errors in comparison to other morphologically less rich European languages (Sekerina 2012 for Russian; Akhutina et al. 1999 for Russian; Badecker & Kuminiak 2007 for Slovak). See Slioussar & Malko (2016) for an experimental study on agreement (attraction) effects in production and comprehension of the gender feature in Russian. See Swan (2015) for extensive discussion of the Polish gender system. In Slavic, adjectival and pronominal paradigms for masculine (singular) gender distinguish animacy in the accusative case. Here, exemplified by Croatian, agreement alternations with respect to animacy can be observed with pronominal, (i), in addition to the standardly observed adjectival, (ii), agreeing elements in the direct object position. Note that in (i) the agreement is with the masculine (singular) noun that is inanimate but the relative pronoun can also be interpreted as animate, which is reflected in agreement (alternation). (i)
Kompjuter
koji/kojega
sam
kupio.
computer.N O M . M A S C . S G
that.A C C . M A S C . I N A N /A N . S G .
AUX.1SG
buy.M A S C . S G
‘The computer that I have bought.’ (ii)
Vidim stari
grad.
see.1 S G old.A C C . M A S C . I N A N . S G
town.A C C . M A S C . S G
Vidim starog
psa.
see.1 S G old.A C C . M A S C . S G
dog.A C C . M A S C . S G
‘I see old town. I see old dog.’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
265
266
JANA WILLER-GOLD
Syntactic agreement in masculine, feminine, and neuter gender occurs primarily with the head noun in the respective gender, (1), and coordination of two nouns matching in gender, (7) (see also Section 13.3.3 on conjunct agreement). (7) Cro.
Uč itelj i ravnatelj teacher.N O M . M A S C . S G and headteacher.N O M . M A S C . S G su se sreli. AUX.3PL REFL meet.M A S C . P L ‘The teacher and the headteacher have met each other.’
However, only neuter gender (third person singular) can be morphologically expressed on the agreeing element when the lexical subject is missing, as with null subjects – impersonal verbs, (8), and infinitive and sentential subjects, (9); or, when the subject lacks the relevant structural agreement feature (nominative case), as with oblique subjects, (10), and quantified noun phrases (low and high numerals and uninflecting numeral quantifiers), (11). (8) Cze.
Pršelo. rained.N E U T . 3 S G ‘It rained.’ (Kuč erová 2018)
(9) Cze.
Že Petr nepř išel, nebylo dobré. that Peter N E G . came N E G . A U X . 3 S G . N E U T good.N E U T . S G ‘That Peter didn’t come wasn’t good.’ (Kuč erová 2018)
(10) Sln.
Petru je ugajalo, da je Metka prišla na zabavo. Peter.D A T A U X . 3 S G pleased.N E U T . S G that A U X Metka came to party ‘It pleased Peter that Metka came to the party.’ (Marušič et al. 2015)
(11) Pol.
Pię c ́ czarownic∅ przyjechało. five witch.G E N . N V I R . P L arrived.N E U T . S G ‘Five witches arrived.’ (Lyskawa 2020)
Similarly, only masculine gender on the agreeing element has semantic implications. Masculine gender extensively occurs with a wide range of subjects implicating its contribution to semantic agreement. In the latter case of agreement, the (animate human) masculine (plural) gender on the agreeing element is used to denote a person or a group of humans of unknown or mixed natural gender, (12), a person of (un)known gender in polite address (honorifics), (13); a male (human) individual denoted by a hybrid noun, (14); quantified noun phrases containing masculine noun (15); and, as a resolution strategy in (non)mixed-gender conjunct agreement to highlight the uniformity of a group reading rather than the conjunction of two sets, (16) and (17) (for details see Section 13.3 on agreement alternations).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
(12) Cro.
Oni cé docí They.N O M . M A S C will.3 P L come ‘They will come in the afternoon.’
(13) Cro.
Molim Vas, što biste Please.1 S G you.A C C what would.2P L ‘Please, what would you like to order?’
(14) Cro.
Gospoda su gentlemen.N O M . F E M . S G A U X . 3 P L ‘Gentlemen frantically ran away.’
(15) Cro.
Pet/mnogo dječ aka Five/many boy.G E N >M A S C . P L ‘Five/many boys have crashed.’
(16) Cro.
popodne. in afternoon
(Vi) you.N O M . P L
pobjegli run.M A S C . P L
glavom bez obzira. frantically
su
se
AUX.3PL
REFL
Majke i djeca mother.N O M . F E M . P L and child.N O M . N E U T . P L ‘Mothers and children went.’
naruč ili? order.M A S C . P L
sudarili. crash.M A S C . P L
su AUX.3PL
otišli go.M A S C . P L
(17) Cro. Olovke i ravnala su spremljeni. pencil.N O M . F E M . P L and ruler.N O M . N E U T . P L A U X . 3 P L put away.M A S C . P L ‘Pencils and rulers were put away.’
Finally, it is worth noting that feminine gender on the agreeing element plays no additional role in grammar (in comparison to neuter (3.S G ) and masculine (3.P L ), neither as a morphological repair strategy, in (8) to (11), nor as a contributor of an additional referent’s denotation, in (12) to (17), respectively. 13.2.1.2 Number Agreement In Slavic languages, number does not affect the denotation of a noun, and hence nouns can inflect for any number, with the exception of a small number of nouns for which number is an intrinsic feature (collectives, pluralia tantum).7 Slavic languages morphologically mark agreement in two number feature values – singular and plural. Remnants of morphological marking of dual are still preserved in Slovenian and Upper and Lower Sorbian with a complete dual paradigm in declension and conjugation supporting agreement with a bare nominal element. Paucal, the reanalyzed form of dual extended to low numerals two, three, and four, is present in Russian, Ukrainian, and BCS.8 In Polish, Czech, and Slovak, lower numerals are adjectival in their behavior, and hence agreement is in nominative plural. Singular agreement on the agreeing element denotes a single entity. Syntactic agreement in singular occurs with a singular head noun, (1), 7
8
See Lorimor et al. (2008) for a production study of number agreement in Russian showing that the morphologically expressed number feature is stable and weakly susceptible to errors. Paucal is commonly used as a cover term in reference to noun phrases with low numerals and corresponding morphological form on the agreeing element. The morphosyntactic status of paucal is still widely discussed in the theoretical literature (Corbett 1983, 2000, Browne 1993, Franks 1994, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Madariaga & Igartua 2017, among others), and more recently has been experimentally studied (Ristić et al. 2016 for Serbian).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
267
268
JANA WILLER-GOLD
a singular head noun modified by an adjectival numeral (one) or the adjectival quantifier (some, all ), (18). Quantified noun phrases headed by a nominal quantifier in (nominative) singular (majority, few, pair) agree in singular number and the corresponding gender feature, (19). However, as noted in Section 13.2.1.1, singular (third person neuter singular) agreement is obligatory when the subject is lacking either a lexical value or a relevant structural feature, (8)–(11). (18) Cro. (Jedan/neki) dječ ak je trč ao. one/some.N O M . M A S C . S G boy.N O M . M A S C . S G A U X . 3 S G run.M A S C . S G ‘One/some boy ran.’ (19) Cro.
Vecí na dječ aka majority.N O M . F E M . S G boy.G E N . M A S C . S G ‘Majority of the boys ran.’
je AUX.3SG
trč ala. run.M A S C . S G
Dual denotes exactly two animate or inanimate individual entities. Agreement in dual is with (bare) dual noun phrases, (20), dual noun phrases modified by the quantifier oba ‘both’, and coordination of two singular conjuncts, (21) (see Section 13.3.4 on conjunct agreement). (20) Sln. (Ta) (dva) otroka sta these.N O M . M A S C . D U two.N O M . M A S C . D U child.N O M . M A S C . D U A U X . 3 . D U se igrala. REFL play.M A S C . D U ‘These two children were playing.’ (Marušič et al. 2015) (21) Sln. Steklenica in vrč sta polomljena. bottle.N O M . F E M . S G and jug.N O M . M A S C . S G A U X . 3 . D U broken.M A S C . D U ‘The bottle and the jug were broken.’ (Marušič et al. 2015)
Paucal is used to refer to a small number of entities by a nominal element modified by a lower numeral – two, three and four, (22), or a quantifier, both, (23). Lower numeral two and quantifier both have retained two distinct forms in their inflectional paradigm morphologically differentiating in gender feature masculine and neuter (dva) from feminine (dvije), compare (22) and (23), respectively.9 (22) Cro. (Ova) these.M A S C / N E U T . P A
dva/tri/č etiri automobila/vozila two/three/four car.N O M . M A S C . P A /vehicle. NOM.NEUT.PA su se sudarila. AUX.3PL REFL crash.P A ‘These two/three/four cars/vehicles have crashed.’
9
Note that in Croatian, the paucal on neuter nouns is syncretic with the neuter plural (e.g. vozil-a.N O M . N E U T . P L vehicles), and the paucal on feminine nouns is syncretic with the feminine plural (e.g. koč ij-e.N O M . F E M . P L chariots), which is not the case for masculine nouns (e.g. muškarc-i.N O M . M A S C . P L men, automobile-i.N O M . M A S C . P L cars), (compare to Polish as described in footnote 10) (see footnote 8).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
(23) Cro.
(Ove) these.N O M . F E M . P A
dvije/tri/ č etiri two.N O M . F E M . P A /three/four
su
se
AUX.3PL
REFL
koč ije chariot.N O M . FEM.PA
sudarile. crash.F E M . P L
‘These two/three/four chariots have crashed.’
Plural agreement on the agreeing element is used to denote a plural entity or a collective. Plural agreement occurs with a plural head noun, (24), coordination of two nouns, (16) and (17), and (non)overt honorific, (13). In addition, plural agreement occurs with numeral quantifiers, (18), and low and high adjectival numerals in West Slavic languages, (25) (see Section 13.3.2 on quantified noun phrase agreement). (24) Cro.
(25) Pol.
Automobili car.N O M . M A S C . 3 P L ‘Cars have crashed.’
su
se
AUX.3PL
REFL
Trzy dziewczyny three.N O M . F E M . P L girls.N O M . F E M . P L ‘Three girls passed the exam.’
sudarili. crash.M A S C . P L
zdały pass.F E M . P L
egzamin.10 exam
13.2.1.3 Person Agreement Slavic languages morphologically mark agreement in three person feature values – first, second, and third. Person is an inherent feature of pronouns, hence agreement in all persons occurs with personal pronouns, (26). (26) Slk.
Č ítam. Č ítaš. Č íta. I read.1S G you read.2S G he read.3S G ‘I read. You read. He reads.’
Across Slavic languages, a second person (masculine) plural pronoun is used to politely address a single (male or female) addressee triggering second person marking and masculine plural form on the agreeing elements, (27).11 The agreeing elements which do not morphologically encode the gender feature can alternate in number value revealing the natural (number and) gender (male or female) of the subject’s referent, (28). Of particular interest is the example (28b) from (non-standard) Slovenian, a Slavic language in which the auxiliary is phonologically expressed in the past tense (the past tense is formed of the auxiliary and the past participle). The example highlights the mismatch in number 10
11
As noted by Stroiń ska (1992), Polish low numerals display additional complexity related to the gender of the noun. The non-virile gender nouns agree with the adjectival numeral two triggering non-virile masculine/neuter (e.g. dwa N O M . M A S C / N E U T . P L koła.N O M . N E U T . P L ‘two wheels’) and feminine (e.g. dwie.N O M . F E M . P L dziewczynki.N O M . F E M . P L ‘two girls’) plural on the agreeing element; while the virile masculine nouns follow the agreement pattern noted for higher numerals triggering agreement in (genitive) neuter plural (e.g. dwóch.G E N . P L studentów.G E N . P L ‘two students’) or (nominative) masculine plural (e.g. dwaj.N O M . V I R . P L studenci.N O M . V I R . P L ‘two students’) on the agreeing element. Note that this is to the exclusion of Polish, which has a more elaborate system of honorifics compared to other Slavic languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
269
270
JANA WILLER-GOLD
observed between the subject and the agreeing auxiliary – in plural, and the agreeing past participle – in singular. However, once a complete set of agreement features on the agreeing element is considered – second person plural and feminine singular, the contrast becomes one between syntactic and semantic (or discourse) agreement, respectively (see Section 13.3.1). These independent sets of feature values on the agreeing elements – the auxiliary and the past participle, independently contribute to the subject’s denotation – honorific and familiar female, respectively. (27) Bul.
Vie ste razbrali You.N O M . P L A U X . 2 P L understand.M A S C . P L ‘You have understood everything.’
(28) a. Bul. Vie ste You.N O M . P L A U X . 2 P L ‘You are inquisitive.’ b. Sln. Vi ste You.N O M . P L A U X . 2 P L ‘You have come.’
vsič ko. (Corbett 2006) everything
ljuboznatelen/ljuboznatelna. (Corbett 2006) inquisitive.M A S C / F E M . S G prišla. come.F E M . S G
13.2.2 Case Agreement Case is a structural feature with the value assigned relative to the position of the nominal element in the sentence, and, hence, is independent from pronominal features (Franks 1995, Corbett 2006). Lexical subjects with a full set of pronominal agreement features are assigned nominative case in subject position, as are the elements that stand in agreement relation with(in) the nominal element. Agreement in nominative case occurs between a head noun and its apposition, (29), a head noun and other adjectival (determiner, numeral and attributive adjectives) or nominal elements within the same noun phrase (name and surname, coordinated phrase), (29) and (16), and, between a nominal phrase and a secondary/primary non-verbal predicate, (30).12 (29) Cro. Marija Matic,́ spisateljica, je objavila Mary.N O M Matić.N O M writer.N O M . F E M . S G A U X . 3 S G publish.F E M . S G novu knjigu. new book ‘Mary Matić, the writer, has published a new book.’ (30) Rus.
Ivan p’janyj. Ivan drunk.N O M . M A S C . 3 S G ‘Ivan is drunk.’
Agreement in case between the subject and the primary predicate can occur even in the absence of nominative case assignment. This is observed in Polish 12
The reader is referred to Chapter 18 on secondary predication.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
and Slovenian when the subjects are quantified noun phrases. In (31) and (32), the primary predicate agrees in genitive case with the genitive QNP subject. As the nominative case has not been assigned to the subject, the agreeing auxiliary and past participle morphologically express default (third person singular neuter agreement in pronominal features. Therefore, the examples (31) and (32) present a prime example of a pure syntactic agreement. (31) Pol. Tych pię ciu ludzi było rannych. (32) Sln. Tistih pet možje bilo ranjenih. those.G E N . P L five men.G E N . P L A U X . 3 S G be.N E U T . S G injured.G E N . P L ‘Those five men were injured.’ (Wayles Browne, p.c)
13.3 Special Cases of Agreement Alternations Agreement alternations indicate presence of agreement sensitive to semantic or discourse properties of the subject’s referent (e.g. natural gender/sex).13 Semantic (and discourse) agreement can be observed with a group of nominal phrases where there are multiple sources for a single feature that has to be expressed on the agreeing element (e.g. the mismatching values on each of the conjuncts in the coordinated noun phrase) or where multiple sources of a single feature mismatch in their values (e.g. the grammatical and natural gender in hybrid nouns or the grammatical and discourse gender in honorifics) (Corbett 1983, 1991, 2006, Steriopolo 2018).14 In addition to semantic (and discourse) properties of the nominal subject itself, several other factors play a role in promoting semantic (and discourse) agreement over syntactic agreement: locality (adjectives vs. pronouns), preverbal subjects, agentive subjects (animate, active verb), topics (specific, individuated, partitive vs. group reading), and low numerals (Corbett 1983, 1991, 2006, Pesetsky 1982, Pereltsvaig 2006, Mirković & Macdonald 2013).
13.3.1 Hybrid Nouns Hybrid nouns form a small group of animate nouns where the natural gender and/or number of the subject’s referent (e.g. male or collective) is inconsistent with the grammatical gender consistent with a declension class (e.g. feminine 13
14
Wechsler & Zlatić ’s (2003) analysis of agreement alternations in Serbian/Croatian presents the first detailed formalization of agreement features inherent to the agreement controller, that is, the head noun. CONCORD (case, number, gender) features are grounded in inflectional morphology, correlating in value with the declension class of the noun. INDEX (person, number, gender) features, on the other hand, originate in the semantics of the referent of the head noun, correlating with animacy and natural gender. Agreement in gender feature alternates between grammatical (syntactic), natural (semantic), and referential (discourse) gender (see Section 13.3.1 on agreement with hybrid nouns); number feature reflects alternations in numerical value (low vs. high numerals) or in group vs. individual reading (see Sections 13.3.1–13.3.3, and, in particular, Section 13.3.2 on agreement with quantified noun phrases); and, finally, person feature is primarily determined by the discourse (participants) and shows no alternations.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
271
272
JANA WILLER-GOLD
singular) (Corbett 1983, Alsina & Arsenijević 2012, Puškar 2018 for BCS; Steriopolo 2018 for Russian). These multiple sources of gender (and number) features are picked up in agreement and can be observed on the agreeing element giving rise to agreement alternations.15 Hybrid nouns are found in the majority of Slavic languages. Lexical hybrid nouns that have (fe)male referents but are assigned to a feminine or masculine declension class commonly show agreement in natural over grammatical gender (Cro. ubojica.F E M ‘male killer’, mušterija.F E M ‘male customer’, sluga.F E M ‘male servant’, tata.F E M ‘daddy’ etc.; Rus. djadja.F E M ‘uncle’; Cze. dě vč e.N E U T ‘young girl), (33a).16 Gender alternations in this subset of hybrid nouns occur in (masculine) singular and/or plural dependent on the prominence of the (fe)male referent that can vary for each hybrid noun, compare (33b) and (34). For the purposes of presentation, the gender transcribed on the hybrid noun corresponds to the grammatical gender. (33) a. Cro. Optuženi ubojica je accused.N O M . AUX.3SG killer.N O M . MASG.SG FEM.SG ‘Accused killer escaped from the police.’ b. Cro. Optuženi/Optužene ubojice su accused.N O M . killer.N O M . A U X . 3 P L MASG.SG/FEM.PL MASG.SG policiji. police ‘Accused killer escaped from the police.’ (34) Cro. Oholi/ohola budala je cruel.N O M . AUX.SG fool.N O M . MASG/FEM.SG FEM.SG ‘Cruel fool has asked for forgiveness.’
pobjegao policiji. escape.M A S C . S G police
pobjegli/pobjegle escape.M A S C / F E M . P L
zatražio/zatražila oprost. ask.M A S C / F E M . S G forgiveness
Interaction of gender and number features in subject–verb agreement alternations can be observed with a small group of collective hybrid nouns (Cro. gospoda ‘gentry’, vlastela ‘nobility’), (35).17 In addition to grammatical agreement tracking the morphologically marked value of the noun (feminine 15
16
17
See Alsina & Arsenijević (2012) for arguments in favor of semantic agreement correlating with oblique case and person feature; Steriopolo (2018) arguing for semantic agreement being motivated by a referential D head denoting individuals; and Puškar (2018) for a recent analysis of hybrid nouns recast in the multi-agreement theoretical framework. In Polish, certain derogative nouns although denoting male humans (łajdak. V I R ‘human wretch’) can show alternative – non-viral agreement in plural. As noted by Corbett (1991), this alternation is observed with adjectives and predicates, but not with personal pronouns which show semantic agreement. te łajdaki zepsuły mi radio do reszty! those.N V I R . P L wretch.V I R . P L damage.N V I R . P L my radio to rest Oni już ci kiedys ́ zepsuli telewizor. they.V I R already your some time damage.V I R . P L television ‘Those wretches have ruined my radio! They have already damaged your television.’ (Corbett 1991). Note that in East Slavic languages, these nouns (Rus. gospoda ‘gentry’, brat’ja ‘brothers’) have been reanalyzed as a group of male individuals, and, hence, agree accordingly in plural.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
singular), semantic agreement referring to its collective interpretation (plural) can alternate between agreement in neuter or masculine plural on the past participle denoting group vs. individual reading, respectively. (35) Cro. Gladna gospoda hungry.N O M . F E M . S G gentry.N O M . FEM.SG je blagovala / su blagovala A U X . 3 S G eat.F E M . S G / A U X . 3 P L eat. NEUT.PL ‘Hungry gentry was/were dining.’
/ su blagovali. / A U X . 3 P L eat.M A S C . P L
Correlation between agreement alternations and syntactic domain is highlighted by a group of hybrid nouns which allow for subject-external grammatical agreement, only if subject-internal agreement was with the grammatical gender, (36a) and (37a); and, semantic agreement otherwise (36b) and (37b) (Cro. vojvoda ‘duke’, gazda ‘landlord’, kolega ‘colleague’; bracá ‘brothers’, djeca ‘children’; Cze. dě vč e ‘girl’), (38), compare to locality conditions on number agreement with the hybrid noun couple (Cro. par, Rus. para). (36) a. Cro. Stare kolege su old.N O M . F E M . P L colleague.N O M . F E M . P L A U X . 3 P L posjetili/e. visit.M A S C / F E M . P L b. Cro. Stari kolege su old.N O M . M A S C . P L colleague.N O M . F E M . P L A U X . 3 P L posjetili/*posjetile. visit.M A S C / F E M . P L ‘Old colleague(s) visited me yesterday.’
me juč er me yesterday
me juč er me yesterday
(37) a. Cro. (Dobra) bracá su se igrala/igrali. good.N O M . brothers.N O M . A U X . 3 P L R E F L play.N E U T . P L / M A S C . P L FEM.SG FEM ‘Good brothers were playing.’ b. Cro. Oni/*a su bili/*a they.M A S C . / N E U T . P L A U X . 3 P L be.M A S C . P L / N E U T . P L jako tihi/*a. very quiet.M A S C . P L / N E U T . P L ‘They were being very quiet.’ (38) Cro.Ovaj par se je digao. this.N O M . M A S C . S G couple.N O M . M A S C . S G R E F L A U X . 3 S G get up.M A S C . S G Oni su otišli. they.M A S C . P L A U X . 3 P L leave.M A S C . P L ‘The couple got up. They left.’
Finally, instances of discourse agreement in referential (male or female) gender are observed with common-gender nouns (e.g. Rus. vrač .M A S C ‘(fe)male doctor’, pedagog.M A S C ‘(fe)male pedagogue’; plaksa ‘cry-baby’, vorjuga ‘thief’, sirota ‘orphan’), (39), and honorifics such as Majesty and Vi, (40a) and (40b) and (40c), respectively (cf. (28)). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
273
274
JANA WILLER-GOLD
(39) Rus. Naš./Naša vrač our.N O M . M A S C / F E M doctor.N O M . M A S C . S G ‘Our doctor has arrived.’
prišël/prišla. come.M A S C / F E M . S G
(40) a. Bul. Negovo Velič estvo e došǎ l. AUX.SG Majesty.N O M . come.M A S C . S G his.N O M . NEUT.SG NEUT.SG ‘His Majesty has come.’ (Corbett 2006) b. Rus. Vaše velič estvo byl/byla sliškom Your.N O M . majesty.N O M . be.M A S C / F E M . S G very NEUT.SG NEUT.SG zanjat/zanjata busy.M A S C / F E M . S G ‘Your Majesty was very busy.’ c. Cro. Vi ste profesor/profesorica. You.N O M . P L AUX.2PL professor.N O M . M A S C / F E M . P L ‘You are a professor.’
13.3.2 Quantified Noun Phrases Quantified noun phrases with their complex and varied agreement patterns across Slavic languages provide insight into the principal syntactic relation of subject–verb agreement, and hence, form a major topic of extensive theoretical discussions on agreement in Slavic. Here, the focus is on agreement in pronominal features with low, (41), and high, (42), numeral quantifiers when genitive case is assigned to the head noun, as languages vary whether they show alternative – semantic (masculine plural), agreement on the agreeing element (see Franks 1994 and Bošković 2006 for discussion), compare Croatian and Russian examples in (41) and (42) to Polish in (43).18 (41) Cro. Dva plava broda su se two blue.G E N . M A S C . P L G E N . M A S C . P A A U X . 3 P L R E F L sudarila/sudarili. colided.M A S C . P A /M A S C . P L ‘Two blue ships collided.’ (42) Rus. Pjat’ studentov/studentok prišli/prišlo segodnja na zanjatie. five student.G E N . M A S C / F E M . P L came.P L / N E U T . S G today to lesson ‘Five students came to class today.’ (Madariaga & Igartua 2017) (43) Pol. Pię c ́ czarownic przyjechało/*przyjechały. five witch.G E N . ( F E M ) N V I R . P L arrive.N E U T . S G / N V I R . P L ‘Five witches arrived.’ (Lyskawa 2020)
Furthermore, the contrast in agreement alternations across Slavic languages is observed with quantified noun phrases modified by a demonstrative (Franks 1994, Bošković 2006 for Russian and BCS, Pereltsvaig 2006 for Russian, Lyskawa 2020 18
For further discussion, the reader is referred to Chapter 16 on numerals and quantity expressions.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
for Polish). In Russian and Polish, the demonstrative is assigned nominative case when it precedes the numeral quantifier, (44a) and (45a), and genitive case when it intervenes between the numeral quantifier and the noun, (44b) and (45b). However, in Russian, while semantic agreement (P L ) is available throughout, syntactic agreement (N E U T . S G ) is blocked with the nominative-assigned demonstrative, compare (44a) and (45b). In Polish, irrespective of the case assignment only syntactic agreement (N E U T . P L ) is available on the past participle, (45). (44) a. Rus. Èti pjat’ devušek rabotali/*rabotalo tam. these.N O M . P L five girl.G E N . F E M . P L worked.P L / N E U T . S G there ‘These five girls worked there.’ (Bošković 2006) b. Rus. Pjat’ ètix devušek rabotali/rabotalo tam. five these.G E N girl.G E N . F E M . P L worked.P L / N E U T . S G there ‘Five of these girls worked there.’ (Bošković 2006) (45) a. Pol. Te pię c ́ czarownic przyjechało. These.N O M . N V I R five witch.N V I R . G E N . P L arrive.N E U T . S G ‘These five witches arrived.’ (Lyskawa 2020) b. Pol. Pię c ́ tych czarownic przyjechało. five these.G E N . N V I R witch.N V I R . G E N . P L arrive.N E U T . S G ‘Five of those witches arrived.’ (Lyskawa 2020)
The presence of these alternatives rests on the intuition that the predicate can form an agreement relation either with the (genitive-assigning) quantifier – in which case, case assignment is blocked, syntactic agreement fails, and default neuter singular surfaces on the past participle; or, the (nominativeassigned) noun – in which case, the nominative case is assigned in the structural subject position, and agreement obtains resulting in masculine plural form on the past participle. The precise articulation of these intuitions has led to proposals that distinguish two syntactic categories of the subject – quantifier phrase vs. noun phrase (Pesetsky 1982, Pereltsvaig 2006 for Small noun vs. DP analysis), posit the structural position in which (nominative) case is assigned (Franks 1994), and strengthen the correlation between agreement and nominative case (Bošković 2006); often invoking semantics in deriving masculine plural agreement (in BCS in particular).19
13.3.3 Agreement with Conjoined Structures In recent years, conjunct agreement has attracted a large amount of attention in theoretical and experimental work. Study of conjunct agreement in Slavic languages provides insight into the inner workings of agreement in pronominal features (gender, number and person) in the subject–verb relation. The multiple values of pronominal features increase the combinatorial potential in conjuncts to exemplify the majority of conjunct agreement strategies found 19
Driemel & Stojković (2019) have drawn a deeper parallel between two seemingly independent structures – QNPs (KPs) and coordination phrases, based on experimentally collected data on pre- and postverbal agreement alternation patterns in BCS.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
275
276
JANA WILLER-GOLD
in the world’s languages (see Citko 2004, 2018 for Polish, Willer-Gold et al. 2016, 2018 for BCS and Slovenian, Kuč erová 2018 for Czech). These strategies can be categorized in two main groups: agreement with the conjunction phrase (resolution and/or default agreement) and agreement with only one of the conjuncts (first/hierarchical or second/linear agreement). Single-conjunct agreement has been observed for gender, number, and person features. In subject–verb word order, single-conjunct agreement, here exemplified by gender agreement, is with the first (or hierarchically higher) conjunct, (46a), or the second (or linearly closer) conjunct, (46b). In verb–subject word order, single-conjunct agreement alternations do not occur as agreement is only observed with the first (hierarchically higher and linearly closer) conjunct, (46c). Co-occurrence of both instances of single-conjunct agreement are found in the so-called sandwiched agreement construction which features the two word orders; here exemplified by Polish person agreement where the complementizer and the verb agree in person with their respective closest conjunct (47).20 (46) a. Cro. Ravnala, olovke i ruler.N O M . N E U T . P L pencil.N O M . F E M . P L and su spremljena. AUX.3PL put away.N E U T . P L ‘Rulers, pencils and rubbers were put away.’ b. Cro. Olovke, gumice i pencil.N O M . F E M . P L rubber.N O M . F E M . P L and su spremljena. AUX.3PL put away.N E U T . P L ‘Pencils, rubbers and rulers were put away.’ c. Cro. Spremljena su put away.N E U T . P L A U X . 3 P L ravnala, olovke i ruler.N O M . N E U T . P L pencil.N O M . F E M . P L and ‘Rulers, pencils and rubbers were put away.’
gumice rubber.N O M . F E M . P L
ravnala ruler.N O M . N E U T . P L
gumice. rubber.N O M . F E M . P L
(47) Pol. Maria chce, ż ebym ja i mój są siad wyszedł. Maria wants that.C O N D . 1 . S G . I and my neighbour.V I R . S G left.V I R . S G ‘Maria wants me and my neighbour to leave.’ (Citko 2018)
As noted in Section 13.2.1.1, agreement in matching values on conjuncts triggers (plural) agreement in the corresponding gender on the agreeing element, here exemplified by neuter plural, (48). These instances of agreement in corresponding gender features alternate with semantic agreement morphologically marked by masculine plural on the agreeing element, (48), compare to (49).21
20 21
See Marušič et al. (2015) for examples of sandwiched agreement in number feature in Slovenian. See Praż mowska (2016) for interaction of gender and animacy features in gender resolution.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
(48) Cro. Nalivpera i ravnala su fountain.pen.N O M . N E U T . P L and ruler.N O M . N E U T . P L A U X . 3 P L spremljena/spremljeni. put away.N E U T / M A S C . P L ‘Fountain pens and rulers were put away.’
Noteworthy exceptions to the general gender resolution rule are found with two neuter singular conjuncts. In Croatian and Czech, for example, the past participle agrees in (non-animate) masculine (plural) irrespective of the available neuter plural morphemes, (49); compare to non-virile plural in Polish, (50). (49) a. Cro. Drvo i selo su tree.N O M . N E U T . S G and village.N O M . N E U T . S G A U X . 3 P L zagađeni/*zagađena. polluted.M A S C / N E U T . P L ‘The tree and the village are polluted.’ (Franks & Willer-Gold 2014) b. Cze. Kotě a ště ně jedly/*jedla kitten.N O M . and puppy.N O M . ate.M A S C . NEUT.SG NEUT.SG INAN.PL/NEUT.PL ze stejné misky. from same bowl ‘The kitten and the puppy ate from the same bowl.’ (Kuč erová 2018) (50) Pol. Wiadro i pudełko upadły na podłogę . bucket.N O M . N E U T . S G and box.N O M . N E U T . S G fall.N V I R . P L on floor ‘A bucket and a box fell on the floor.’ (Lyskawa 2020)
Default neuter singular agreement on the agreeing element is also observed in coordination of two quantified noun phrases despite clear semantic plurality of the conjunction phrase, (51) (see Marušič et al. 2015 for Slovenian). (51) Pol. Pię c ́ czarownic five witch.G E N . NVIR
i szesć ́ wróż ek and six fairy.G E N . NVIR
przyjechało/*przyjechały arrive.N E U T . S G / NVIR.PL
do miasta. to city ‘Five witches and six fairies arrived in the city.’ (Lyskawa 2020)
Mismatch in feature values on the conjuncts is resolved by the marked value of the feature – (human animate) masculine for gender, (52), and dual or plural for number feature, (53); and, the highest-ranked value of the two conjuncts for person feature, (54), being morphologically expressed on the agreeing element. (52) Cze. Kotě a pes jedli ze stejné misky. kitten.N O M . and dog.N O M . ate.M A S C . from same bowl NEUT.SG MASC.SG ANIM.PL ‘The kitten and the dog ate from the same bowl.’ (Kuč erová 2018)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
277
278
JANA WILLER-GOLD
(53) Sln. Pet skled in dve pokrovki sta ležali v koritu. five dish.G E N . F E M . P L and two cover.D U A U X . D U lay.F E M . D U in sink ‘Five dishes and two lids were lying in the sink.’ (Marušič & Nevins 2010) (54) Cro.
Petar i ja/ti/ona č itamo/č itate/č itaju Peter and I/you/she read.1 / 2 / 3 P L ‘Peter and I/you/she are reading a book.’
knjigu. book.
Conjunct agreement data from Slavic languages prompted the emergence of a variety of competing theoretical models, questioning the locus (syntactic or morphosyntactic, i.e. distributed) and mechanics of conjunct agreement and the presence of a gender value on the conjunction phrase, as well as seeking to provide a uniform account of multiple agreement strategies/grammars (Bošković 2009, Franks & Willer-Gold 2014, Marušič et al. 2015 for Sln., Murphy & Puškar 2018 for BCS, Citko 2004, 2018 for Polish, Kuč erová 2018 for Czech). In addition to syntactic analyses of conjunct agreement, the role morphophonology (syncretism) and semantics (animacy, agentive and collective interpretation) play in conjunct agreement have been pointed out to argue for its multi-facet nature (Arsenijević & Mitić 2016a, 2016b, 2019 for BCS).
13.4 Future Directions for Slavic Agreement Agreement is a linguistic phenomenon pertinent to Slavic languages. Their multivalued agreement features coupled with rich and omnipresent inflectional morphology on the agreeing element provide a fruitful ground for theoretical and experimental research into these complex agreement systems; whilst the variation within the Slavic language family allows for fine-tuning of specific hypotheses. As demonstrated in this chapter, the primary advantage of studying agreement in Slavic is for its canonical subject–verb agreement, which offers a direct insight into this core syntactic relation (syntactic agreement). Additional value rests on the well-documented agreement alternations, which suggest involvement of other language components in agreement (semantic and discourse agreement). Further interest is driven by a strictly local agreement, often devoid of alternations, operating inside the nominal phrase. Aiming to capture canonical agreement, alternations, and agreement inside the nominal phrase under a single theoretical framework has given rise to numerous theoretical and experimental puzzles but equally led to advancements and new discoveries. Three significant advances have contributed to the prominence of studying agreement in Slavic languages in the last 50 years. The first advancement is Corbett’s (1979) seminal work on agreement in Slavic, summarizing typological observations on agreement alternations in syntactic domains. The second significant contribution comes from the evolving work in the generative framework on quantified noun phrases, and more recently on hybrid nouns and conjunct agreement. The newest advancement is represented by a growing body of experimental data on agreement mismatches and conjunct agreement.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
Together theoretical innovations and experimentally collected data still challenge and push forward any theoretical and experimental work whose goal is to study agreement in general and agreement in Slavic in particular. Looking ahead, agreement phenomena well studied in Slavic linguistics, such as multiple source controllers or feature mismatches, indicate that agreement potentially requires activation of multiple modules across grammar to incorporate phenomena such as definiteness agreement and clitic doubling in Bulgarian and Macedonian or participant marking in Bulgarian and Lower Sorbian. Feature interaction in agreement alternations provides a window into conceptualization and grammaticalization of notions such as individuation or definiteness dissimilar to those in other Indo-European languages. Importantly, agreement accounts developed for Slavic languages have a potential to inform studies of agreement in typologically (un)related but morphologically rich language families (class system in Bantu languages or classifiers in Chinese), as well as to inform phenomena in nearby corners of the grammar such as ellipsis, the person case constraint, or auxiliary drop. With little empirical and experimental data from Ukrainian or Sorbian, agreement in Slavic is still wide open for further exploration with the following idea in mind: “it is especially exciting when a Slavic-specific linguistic phenomenon combined with an innovative experimental technique delivers a decisive argument in a long-debated issue” (Sekerina 2012: 108).
References Akhutina, T., Kurgansky, A., Polinsky, M., & Bates, E. (1999). Processing of grammatical gender in a three-gender system: Experimental evidence from Russian. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 695–713. Alsina, A. & Arsenijevic,́ B. (2012). The two faces of agreement. Language, 88(2), 388–390. Arsenijević, B. (2021). No gender in ‘gender agreement’: On declension classes and gender in Serbo-Croatian. Balcania et Slavia, 1(1), 11–46. Arsenijevic,́ B. & Mitic,́ I. (2016a). Effect of animacy and agentivity on the processing of agreement in Serbo-Croatian. In S. Halupka-Rešetar & S. Martínez-Ferreiro, eds., Studies in Languages and Mind, Selected Papers from Third Novi Sad Workshop on Psycholinguistics, Neurolinguistic and Clinical Linguistic Research, Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy, pp. 41–77. Arsenijevic,́ B. & Mitic,́ I. (2016b). On the (in)dependence of gender with respect to number in agreement with coordinated subjects: An experimental study. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24, 41–69. Badecker, W. & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65–85. Bailyn, J. F. & Nevins, A. (2008). Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins, eds., Inflectional Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–270.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
279
280
JANA WILLER-GOLD
Bošković, Ž. (2006). Case and agreement with genitive of quantification in Russian. In C. Boeckx, ed., Agreement Systems, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–121. Bošković, Ž. (2009). Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27(3), 455–496. Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In B. Comrie and G. G. Corbett, eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387. Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52. Citko, B. (2004). Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic,́ eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12. The Ottawa Meeting 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Slavic Publications, pp. 91–108. Citko, B. (2018). Complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 124. Corbett, G. G. (1979). The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics, 15, 203–224. Corbett, G. G. (1983). Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic, London: Croom Helm. Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Driemel, I. & Stojkovic,́ J. (2019). How to agree with a QNP. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 25. Franks, S. (1994). Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 570–649. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Franks, S. & Willer-Gold, J. (2014). Agreement strategies with conjoined subjects in Croatian. In S. Jaworski & J. Witkoś , eds., New Insights into Slavic Linguistics, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 91–115. Kuč erová, I. (2018). On the lack of φ-feature resolution in DP coordinations: Evidence from Czech. In D. Lenertová, R. Meyer, R. Šimík, & L. Szucsich, eds., Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016, Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 169–191. Lorimor, H., Bock, K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., & Beard, R. (2008). Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 769–799. Lyskawa, P. (2020). The structure of Polish numerically-quantified expressions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 31–37. Madariaga, N. & Igartua, I. (2017). Idiosyncratic (dis)agreement patterns: The structure and diachrony of Russian paucal subjects. Scando-Slavica, 63(2), 99–132. Marušič , F. & Nevins, A. (2010). Two types of neuter: Closest-conjunct agreement in the presence of ‘5&ups’. In W. Browne, A. Cooper, A. Fisher, E. Kesici, N. Predolac, & D. Zec, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18. The Second Cornell Meeting, 2009, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 301–317. Marušič , F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, B. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Agreement
Mirković, J. & Macdonald, M. C. (2013). When singular and plural are both grammatical: Semantic and morphophonological effects in agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 277–298. Mitić, I. & Arsenijević, B. (2019). Plural conjuncts and syncretism facilitate gender agreement in Serbo-Croatian: Experimental evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 942. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00942. Murphy, A. & Puškar, Z. (2018). Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion: Evidence from gender agreement in Serbo-Croatian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 36, 1207–1261. Pereltsvaig, A. (2006). Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(2), 433–500. Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and Categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Praż mowska, A. (2016). Full agreement with coordinate subjects in Polish: Gender resolution rules revisited. Roczniki Humanistyczne, 64(11), 71–86. Puškar, Z. (2018). Interactions of gender and number agreement: Evidence from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Syntax, 21(3), 257–318. Ristic,́ B., Molinaro, N., & Mancini, S. (2016). Agreement attraction in Serbian: Decomposing markedness. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 242–276. Sekerina, I. A. (2012). The effect of grammatical gender in Russian spoken-word recognition. In V. Makarova, ed., Russian Language Studies in North America. New Perspectives in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, New York, NY: Anthem Press, pp. 107–132. Sekerina, I. A. (2017). Slavic psycholinguistics in the 21st century. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25(2), 463–487. Slioussar, N. & Malko, A. (2016). Gender agreement attraction in Russian: Production and comprehension evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1651. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01651. Steriopolo, O. (2018). Morphosyntax of gender in Russian sex-differentiable nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 26(2), 307–336. Stroiń ska, M. (1992). Numerals and agreement in Polish. Canadian Slavonic Papers, Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, 34(4), 429–444. Swan, O. (2015). Polish gender, subgender, and quasi-gender. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 23(1), 83–122. Wechsler, S. & Zlatic,́ L. (2003). The Many Faces of Agreement. Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse Factors in Serbo-Croatian Agreement, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic,́ B., Batinic,́ M., Č ordalija, N., Kresic,́ M., Leko, N., Marušič , L., Milicé v, T., Milicé vic,́ N., Mitic,́ I., Nevins, A., Peti-Stantic,́ A., Stankovic,́ B., Šuligoj, T., & Tušek, J. (2016). Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 187–224. Willer-Gold, J., Arsenijevic,́ B., Batinic,́ M., Becker, M., Č ordalija, N., Kresic,́ M., Leko, N., Marušič , F. L., Milicé v, T., Milicé vic,́ N., Mitic,́ I., Peti-Stantic,́ A., Stankovic,́ B., Šuligoj, T., Tušek, J., & Nevins, A. (2018). When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS, 115(3), 495–500.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.014 Published online by Cambridge University Press
281
14 Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies Barbara Citko
14.1 Introduction This chapter discusses wh-constructions and wh-dependencies in Slavic languages, where the term wh-dependency refers to any movement (or movement-like) dependency that has the properties of wh-movement: it leaves a gap (or a resumptive pronoun) and is subject to locality constraints (Chomsky 1977). The ones I focus on are given in (1a–d). (1) a. Co Maria przeczytała? (Polish) what Maria read ‘What did Maria read?’ b. Przeczytam artykuł, który Maria napisała. read article which Maria wrote ‘I will read an/the article which Maria wrote.’ c. Czytam co(kolwiek) Maria napisała. read whatever Maria wrote ‘I read what(ever) Maria wrote.’ d. Co Maria pisze, (to) czytam. what Maria writes DEM read ‘Lit. What Maria writes, this I read.’
WH-QUESTION
HEADED RELATIVE
FREE RELATIVE
CORRELATIVE
Wh-dependencies do not necessarily have to involve wh-phrases. For example, even though Polish comparatives differ from Russian ones in that they do not involve wh-pronouns (but prepositions), both are analyzed as whdependencies. (2) a.
Anna jest wyż sza niż Piotr / od Piotra. (Polish) Anna is taller than Piotr / from Piotr. ‘Anna is taller than Piotr.’
I would like to thank Wayles Browne, Danko Šipka, and two reviewers for many very valuable suggestions. I alone am responsible for any remaining errors and omissions.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
b.
Anna vyše č em Ivan.1 Anna taller what.INSTR Ivan ‘Anna is taller than Ivan.’
(Russian) (Pancheva 2006)
14.2 Wh-Questions 14.2.1 Types of Wh-Questions Slavic languages are perhaps best known for two properties of their whquestions: multiple wh-fronting in multiple wh-questions and the availability of left branch extraction in singular wh-questions, illustrated in (3a–b) for Polish. These are the two properties I focus on here. (3) a. Kto co napisał? MULTIPLE WH-QUESTION who what wrote ‘Who wrote what?’ b. Jaką Maria napisała ksią ż kę ? LEFT BRANCH EXTRACTION what.kind Maria wrote book ‘What kind of book did Maria write?’
Given space considerations, I will not discuss somewhat less commonly studied wh-questions, such as wh-questions with coordinated wh-pronouns, illustrated in (4a) (Browne 1972, Citko & Grač anin-Yuksek 2013, Grač aninYuksek 2007, 2017, Tomaszewicz 2011, Gribanova 2009); across-the-board wh-questions, illustrated in (4b) (Dyła 1984, Franks 1995, Citko 2005, 2011, Citko & Grač anin-Yuksek 2021), or scope-marking constructions, illustrated in (4c) (Stepanov 2000).2 (4) a. Kto i
co napisał? COORDINATED WH-QUESTION who and what wrote Lit.’Who and what wrote?’ b. Co Maria napisała, a Jan przeczytał? ACROSS-THE-BOARD what Maria wrote and Jan read WH-QUESTION ‘What did Maria write and Jan read?’ c. Jak mysĺ isz? Co Maria napisała? SCOPE MARKING how think what Maria wrote ‘Lit. What do you think? What did Maria write?’ ‘What do you think Maria wrote?’
1
(2b) is not the only type of comparative in Russian (see, for example, Pancheva 2006 for an analysis of comparatives across Slavic languages, and Matushansky 2001 for Russian). (i)
Anna
vyše
Ivana.
Anna
taller
Ivan.G E N
‘Anna is taller than Ivan.’ (Pancheva 2006) 2
I am not discussing here differences between different types of comparatives. I also do not discuss how wh-movement might interact with other processes, such as sluicing (see Grebenyova 2006, Citko & Grač anin-Yuksek 2020 and the references therein). I also do not discuss here wh-questions and rhetorical questions.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
283
284
BARBARA CITKO
14.2.1.1 Multiple Wh-Questions Syntactic literature on Slavic multiple wh-questions goes back at least to Wachowicz’s (1974) work establishing the existence of overt multiple whfronting, and Rudin’s (1988) seminal work distinguishing two types of multiple wh-fronting languages, differing with respect to constituency, behavior with respect to superiority effects, island effects, and the availability of multiple whextraction from embedded clauses. Wachowicz (1974) established the existence of multiple wh-fronting, based on data of the following sort from Polish (and Russian), involving both matrix and embedded wh-questions.3 (5) a.
b.
Kto kogo budzi? (Polish) who whom wakes.up ‘Who wakes up whom?’ Powiedz mi kto gdzie mieszka. Tell me who where lives ‘Tell me who lives where.’ (Wachowicz 1974: 158)
Rudin’s two types of multiple wh-fronting languages differ with respect to whether the Specifier of CP is filled by one wh-phrase or multiple wh-phrases. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS), Polish, and Czech belong to the former group, that is, the group of languages in which only one of the fronted whphrases occupies the Spec, CP position. These are [−MFS] (−Multiply Filled SpecCP) languages in Rudin’s terms. Bulgarian belongs to the other group, [+MFS] (+ Multiply Filled SpecCP) languages.4 While some of Rudin’s diagnostics have since been modified and/or updated, Rudin’s fundamental insight that there are two types of multiple wh-fronting languages remains solid. In what follows, I will use mostly Polish or BCS as a representative example of the [−MFS] group of languages and Bulgarian as a representative example of the [+MFS] group of languages (see Veselovská 2021 for a comprehensive study of wh-questions in Czech). The differences Rudin identified are summarized in Table 14.1 (adapted from Rudin). First, Rudin showed that multiple extraction from embedded clauses is possible in Bulgarian but not in BCS.5 3
4
5
Wachowicz also noted that there are some environments in which wh-phrases (may) remain in situ, but does not consider them to be genuine information-seeking questions. Rudin also discusses Romanian as an example of [+MFS] languages. Bulgarian and Romanian are neighboring languages, which, as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, suggests that multiple wh-fronting could be an areal feature. However, since this volume is devoted to Slavic languages, I will not discuss Romanian here. As pointed out by Danko Šipka, example (6b) is accepted in the context given in (i). (i) A: [noise] [noise] da nam kupi! B: Ko šta želite da vam kupi?
This context suggests an echo interpretation, and echo questions may be subject to different (or fewer) restrictions. For example, Sobin (1990), focusing on English, notes that echo questions do not obey superiority as shown in (ii), and can be embedded under predicates that do not select interrogative complements, as shown by the contrast between (iii) and the echo question in (ivb), uttered as a response to the utterance in (iva). (ii) I wonder what who brought. (as a response to ‘I wonder what Mozart brought’) (Sobin 1990: 144) (iii) Mary believes that/*whether Bill dates Greta Garbo.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
Table 14.1 Differences between [+MFS] and [−MFS] languages
Multiple wh-extraction from an embedded clause Wh-island violations Clitics, parentheticals, particles, adverbs follow first wh-word Superioritya
[+MFS] Bulgarian
[−MFS] BCS, Polish, Czech
+ + − +
− − + −
a
Technically speaking, Rudin’s generalization is narrower; it concerns the difference with respect to whether the ordering of Nominative and Accusative wh-pronouns is free or fixed. (Adapted from Rudin 1988)
(6) a.
b.
Boris na kogo kakvo kaza č e šte dade? (Bulgarian) Boris to whom what said that will give ‘What did Boris say that (he) would give to whom?’ (Rudin 1988: 451) *Ko šta želite da vam kupi? (BCS)6 who what want COMP you buy ‘Who do you want to buy you what?’ (Rudin 1988: 453)
The next difference concerns the position of clitics, adverbs, and parentheticals, which also bears on the constituency of fronted wh-phrases.7 Bulgarian ti and e are clitics, and so is BCS je. In [+MFS] languages like Bulgarian, these elements follow all the wh-phrases, whereas in [−MFS] languages like BCS, they can follow the first wh-phrase, as shown by the contrast between (7a) and (7b).8 (7) a.
b.
Koj kakvo ti e who what you AUX ‘Who told you what?’ Ko je što kome who A U X what whom ‘Who gave what to whom?’
kazal? told
(Bulgarian)
dao? gave
(BCS) (Rudin 1988: 461)
And the final difference concerns the ordering restrictions on the fronted wh-phrases, or the lack thereof. In most general terms, in [+MFS] languages wh-movement is subject to superiority, whereas in [−MFS] languages, it is not. In simple cases involving two animate non-D-linked wh-pronouns, Bulgarian exhibits ordering restrictions, as shown by the contrast in (8a–b). (8) a.
Koj kogo who whom ‘Who sees whom?’
vižda? sees
(Bulgarian)
(iv) a. Mary believes that Bill Gates dates Greta Garbo. 6
7
8
b. Mary believes that Bill dates who? (Sobin 1990: 144) I will use Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (abbreviated as BCS) as the name for the language(s), even though the sources cited refer to Croatian, Serbian, or Serbo-Croatian. I do not discuss island violations in the two types of languages, as there seem to be many intervening factors (D-linking, relative clauses vs. questions). As Rudin also shows, details of clitic placement vary across [−MFS] languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
285
286
BARBARA CITKO
b.
(9) a. b.
*Kogo koj whom who ‘Who sees whom?’ Kto who Kogo whom
kogo whom kto who
vižda? sees
widzi? sees widzi? sees
(Rudin 1988: 473–474) (Polish)
The claim above that Bulgarian wh-movement is subject to superiority, and Polish, Czech, Russian, and BCS are not, is not without its exceptions. There are environments in Bulgarian that appear to tolerate superiority violations, and there also appear to be environments in [−MFS] languages where superiority effects emerge (Bošković 2002, Scott 2012, among others). According to Bošković (2002), superiority effects emerge in BCS in environments in which a CP layer is present or required in overt syntax, such as matrix questions with an overt complementizer, shown in (10a–b).9 (10) a.
b.
Ko li koga voli? who COMP whom loves ‘Who on earth loves whom?’ *Koga li ko voli? whom C O M P who loves
(BCS)
(Bošković 2002: 353–354)
Not all [−MFS] languages behave similarly in this respect. For example, Stepanov (1998) shows that Russian, unlike BCS, allows superiority violations in all environments. However, Scott (2012) shows that superiority emerges in embedded clauses, as well as in matrix clauses when there is some overt element in the HOP projection (the High Operator Phrase dominating CP that Scott proposes). Many other factors have been shown to play a role in determining superiority, such as animacy, D-linking, topicality, or the complexity of the fronted wh-phrases. As brought to my attention by one of the reviewers, given that Modern Russian uses both linear order and stress to mark information structure, both (12a) and (12b) are possible as long as the main phrasal stress is not on the second wh-pronoun. (11) a.
b.
(12) a.
9
Kto komu darit podarki? who whom gives presents ‘Who gives presents to whom?’ Komu kto darit podarki? whom who gives presents ‘Who gives presents to who(m)?’
(Russian)
Podarki kto komu darit? presents who whom gives ‘As for presents, who gives [them] to who?’
Bošković also discusses embedded wh-questions and long-distance wh-questions. The contrast in (10a–b) might not be as strong for all speakers as the notation implies; Danko Šipka points out that the difference might have to do with the degree of artificiality, with (10b) being more artificial but not impossible.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
b.
*Podarki komu kto darit? presents whom who gives ‘As for presents, who gives [them] to who?’ (Scott 2012: 1–2)
Furthermore, there are no ordering restrictions between non-initial whphrases (see Bošković 2002, Billings & Rudin 1996, among others). (13) a.
b.
Koj kogo kakvo e pital? who whom what is asked ‘Who asked whom what?’ Koj kakvo kogo e pital? who whom what is asked ‘Who asked whom what?’ (Bošković 2002: 366)
Billings & Rudin (1996) show that the picture that emerges is more nuanced than the superiority condition might predict, and establish the following ‘rules of thumb’, to use their terminology, that ‘govern’ the ordering of wh-phrases in Bulgarian: (14) a. b. c. d. e.
koj ‘who’ is always first; A wh-word must precede a wh-prepositional phrase containing the same wh-word (including D A T na kogo); All else being equal, a human wh-word precedes a non-human one; N O M / A C C kakvo ‘what’ tends to be second; Wh-adverbials tend to be late in the series of wh-phrases (Billings & Rudin 1996) NOM
Krapova & Cinque (2008) arrive at the ordering in (15), showing that in general wh-pronouns referring to humans precede wh-phrases referring to non-humans:10 (15) koj > kogo > na kogo > koga >kâde > kakvo/kolko N> kakvo/(na) kolko N > kak [+ human][− human] or underspecified (adapted from Krapova & Cinque 2008: Table 2)
And Jaeger (2003) shows that information structure also plays a role in that “wh-phrase ordering (including so-called Superiority effects) in Bulgarian whquestion [sic] is (partly) determined by topicality.” Richards (2001) updates Rudin’s typology, reconceptualizing [+MFS] languages as CP-absorption languages, and [−MFS] languages as IP-absorption languages. The differences he discussed are given in Table 14.2. Now that we have seen what distinguishes Bulgarian-type languages from BCS-type, we can turn to the accounts of these differences. In general terms, we can divide the accounts of multiple wh-fronting in Slavic languages into two groups, differing in what projections moved wh-phrases target. Both maintain Rudin’s basic insight that Bulgarian-type languages are different from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian type languages. On one view, close but not identical to Rudin’s original proposal, wh-phrases in Bulgarian target the CP layer, 10
They also show that inherently D-linked wh-pronouns precede non-D-linked ones.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
287
288
BARBARA CITKO
Table 14.2 Differences between IP-absorption and CP-absorption languages
Obeys wh-islands Has local A-scrambling Obeys superiority (locally) Shows local weak crossover effects Wh = QR (Quantifier Raising) Clausemate wh-words can move to specifiers of different CPs
IP-absorption languages
CP-absorption languages
Yes Yes No No Yes No
No No Yes Yes No Yes
(Richards 2001)
whereas wh-phrases in BCS target the IP/TP layer, as shown in (16a–b) schematically (Richards 2001, Bošković 2002).11 (16)
a. Bulgarian-type
b. BCS-type
CP
CP
wh1
C
CP wh2
wh1
CP wh3
TP
wh2
C′ C
TP TP wh3
TP wh1 … wh2 … wh3
TP
wh1 … wh2 … wh3
Rudin’s structure is slightly different in that in BCS-type languages, one of the wh-phrases is in [Spec, CP] position and the remaining ones are adjoined to TP, as shown in (17b), adapted and updated from Rudin (1988). And in Bulgarian, a single wh-phrase moves to [Spec, CP] and the remaining ones right-adjoin to it. (17) a. Bulgarian-type
b. BCS-type
CP wh1 wh1 wh1
CP wh1
C′ wh3 C
wh2
TP wh1 … wh2 … wh3
C′ TP
C wh2
TP wh3
TP wh1 … wh2 … wh3
(adapted and updated from Rudin 1988)
11
For Bošković , CP is present in overt syntax in BCS only when it is required to be, such as when the C head is overtly filled or when the CP is embedded. He also argues that wh-movement is triggered by features of the Goal (i.e. the whphrases themselves), rather than features of the Probe (i.e. the interrogative complementizer), and that movement driven by features of the Goal is not subject to superiority/Attract Closest.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
The structure in (17a) is similar to Grewendorf’s structure, given in (18), in that the wh-phrases ultimately target the CP layer. For him, however, lower wh-phrases undergo adjunction to higher ones before moving to [Spec, CP]. (18)
CP C′ C
TP wh1
wh1
T′
wh2 T
VP V
wh2 (adapted from Grewendorf 2001)
Another line of inquiry on the differences between BCS-type languages and Bulgarian-type languages relies on different projections being targeted by the fronted wh-phrases. To give a couple of representative examples, Sturgeon (2007) argues that non-initial wh-phrases in Czech target a lower position, the so-called mittelfield, and adjoin to vP. This is the same position that is targeted by A-scrambled constituents. Citko (1998) argues that there is an Operator Phrase (OpP) between TP/IP and CP. In BCS-type languages, all wh-phrases first move to the specifier of this OpP, which makes them equidistant from C (hence the lack of superiority effects). In Bulgarian-type languages, on the other hand, Op head raises to C, which Citko takes to mean that the whphrases move directly to [Spec, CP], and this movement by definition obeys superiority. Dukova-Zheleva (2010) proposes that in Bulgarian wh-phrases target two distinct projections: FocP and CP, with FocP located below CP.12 Whereas all wh-phrases first move to [Spec, FocP], only the animate ones can subsequently move to [Spec, CP] and only one (the highest one) can do so. This explains why animate wh-phrases precede inanimate ones. 14.2.1.2 Left Branch Extraction Another property of wh-questions in Slavic languages that has received a lot of attention in the literature is the fact that wh-questions allow violations of the so-called Left Branch Condition, a constraint that prohibits movement of the leftmost element within DP/NP. This was already noticed by Ross in his dissertation (Ross 1967). This constraint also features prominently in the debates concerning the universality of the DP Hypothesis (see, for example, Bošković 2005, Bošković 2009 vs. Pereltsvaig 2007). 12
While FocP and OpP serve a similar purpose in that they attract wh-phrases, in accounts that use FocP, the driving force behind this movement is linked to the focused nature of wh-phrases, whereas in accounts that use OpP, it is linked to their operator status.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
289
290
BARBARA CITKO
(19) a.
b.
c.
d.
Którą Jan przeczytał ksią ż kę ? which Jan read book ‘Which book did Jan read?’ Č ‘ju ty č itaeš' knigu? whose you read book ‘Whose book are you reading?’ Jakou č te Petr knihu? which reads Peter book ‘Which book is Peter reading?’ Kiro je Janez prebral knjigo?13 which is Jan read book ‘Which book has John read’? (Citko 2006: 226)
(Polish)
(Russian)
(Czech)
(Slovenian)
On some approaches (such as Corver 1990, Bošković 2005, Uriagereka 1988), the availability of left branch extraction has been correlated with lack of overt articles: only languages that lack overt articles can violate the Left Branch Condition. This is what accounts for the contrast between the grammatical examples from Polish, Russian, Czech, and Slovenian in (19a–d) and the ungrammatical ones from Bulgarian and Macedonian, the two Slavic languages that do have overt articles in (20a–b). *Kakva prodade Petko kola? (Bulgarian) what.kind sold Petko car ‘What kind of a car did Petko sell?’ b. *Č ija ja bendisuva Petko kola? (Macedonian) whose it like Petko car ‘Whose car does Petko like?’ (Bošković 2005: 3)
(20) a.
A simple way to implement this would be to say that a DP constitutes a relevant barrier/island, so if there is a DP layer, as in (21a), movement crosses an island, and if there is no DP, as in (21b), there is no island violation. However, this by itself would not be sufficient, as it would predict that Slavic article-less languages like Polish should allow all movements out of Noun Phrases, which is not the case. (21) a. b.
*[CP Whati [C’ did [IP John read [DP ti book]]]]? [CP Jaką i [C’ [IP Jan przeczytał [NP ti ksią ż kę ]]]]? what Jan read book ‘What book did Jan read?’
(English) (Polish)
Bošković (2005) proposes a more nuanced variant of this approach, namely the NP over AP vs. AP over NP parameter. Languages with articles have the structure in (22a), whereas languages without articles have the structure in (22b). In his analysis, the reason extraction of the left branch, such as AP in (22a), is impossible is that AP does not even form a constituent to the exclusion of NP. By contrast, extraction of AP is possible in Slavic article-less languages because AP is a constituent by itself. 13
As brought to my attention by Wayles Browne, kiro is only used in colloquial Slovenian.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
(22)
a. English-type laguages, AP over NP
b. Slavic-type laguages, NP over AP
DP D
NP AP
A
AP
NP
NP
The idea that the lack of overt articles means the lack of a DP projection is by no means uncontroversial (see Progovac 1998, Pereltsvaig 2007, among others). For example, Progovac (1998) argues, based on the contrast between (23a–b) and (24a–b), that pronouns raise to D. (23) a.
b.
(24) a.
b.
I samu Mariju to and alone Mary that ‘And that irritates even Mary.’ *I Mariju samu to and Mary alone that
nervira. irritates
(BCS)
nervira. irritates
I nju/mene samu to and her/me alone that ‘And that irritates even her/me.’ *I samu nju/mene to and alone her/me that
nervira. irritates nervira. irritates
(Progovac 1998)
Furthermore, the assumption that there is no DP layer does not (in itself) account for what looks like movement of non-constituents, illustrated with a Polish example in (25). (25) Z którymi rozmawiałas ́ studentami? with which you.talked students ‘Which students did you talk to?’
This suggests that a remnant movement approach, on which the DP moves out of the PP first and then the entire PP containing the trace of DP moves, might be on a better track (Borsley & Jaworska 1989, Franks & Progovac 1994). Such a derivation is schematized in (26a–c). (26) a. b. c.
Z którymi rozmawiałas ́ studentami? with which you.talked students You talked studentsi [PP to which ti] [PP to which ti]j you talked studentsi tj
(Polish)
However, as pointed out by Fanselow & Ć avar (2002), this is also problematic given that PPs are islands, which leads them to propose what they dub distributed (copy) deletion, schematized in (27a–b), on which LBE is a consequence of a Copy and Merge approach to movement, coupled with the assumption that copy deletion can take place in a discontinuous manner. (27) a. b.
[to which students] you talked [to which students]? [to which students] you talked [to which students]?
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
COPY DELETE
291
292
BARBARA CITKO
14.3 Headed Relative Clauses 14.3.1 Resumption in Headed Relatives Across Slavic languages, we find three common types of relative clauses, illustrated in (28) for Polish (Fisiak et al. 1978, Pesetsky 1998, Broihier 1995, Guz 2017, among many others); in (29) for BCS (Browne 1986, Grač aninYuksek 2013, Bošković 2009); in (30) for Bulgarian (Krapova 2010); and in (31) for Slovenian (Hladnik 2015).14 The a examples contain relative pronouns, the b examples a complementizer and what appears to be an (optional) resumptive pronoun. ten samochód, który Janek widział this car.M . S G which.M . S G Janek saw RELATIVE PRONOUN b. ten samochód, co (go) Janek widział this car C O M P (it) Janek saw COMP(+RESUMPTIVE PRONOUN) (b example from Hladnik 2015: 67)
(28) a.
(29) a.
b.
wczoraj yesterday wczoraj yesterday
č ovjek kojeg Jan vidi (BCS) man which Jan sees ‘a/the man whom Jan sees/is looking at’(Grač anin-Yuksek 2013: 27) Upoznao sam č ovjeka što (ga) Iva obožava. met AUX man that (him) Iva adores ‘I met the man that Iva adores.’ (Grač anin-Yuksek 2013: 29)
(30) a. Tova e č ovekă t, kogoto snimax vč era (Bulgarian) this is man.the whom photographed yesterday ‘This is the man whom I photographed yesterday.’ b. Tova e č ovekă t, deto (go) snimax vč era. this is man.the that him photographed yesterday ‘This is the man that I photographed yesterday.’ (Krapova 2010: 1240–1241) (31) a.
b.
To je č lovek, katerega išč ejo. (Slovenian) this is man which search ‘This is the man they are looking for.’ To je č lovek, ki ga išč ejo. this is man C him search ‘This is the man they are looking for.’ (Hladnik 2015: 37)
The presence of resumptive pronouns is not totally optional: they can be dropped only under specific circumstances (Bondaruk 1995, Broihier 1995, Pesetsky 1998, Guz 2017 on Polish, Hladnik 2015 on Slovenian and Polish, Grač anin-Yuksek 2013 on Croatian, Bošković 2009 on Serbo-Croatian, among others), with +/− animate or human distinction, case (inherent vs. structural) being implicated. Grač anin-Yuksek (2013) provides a more unified approach and proposes that the omission of the resumptive pronoun is governed by the 14
Browne (1986) also discusses historical change in the syntax of BCS relative clauses.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
Morphological Case Matching condition given in (32). Hladnik (2015) shows that the same condition is responsible for the distribution of resumptive pronouns in Slovenian and Polish. (32) Morphological Case Matching (Grač anin-Yuksek 2013: 30)15 In a što-RC, an RP may be omitted if the head of the RC bears the same morphological case that it would bear if it were case-marked by the element that case-marks the RP.
This explains why the resumptive pronoun cannot be omitted in (33a) but it can in (33b); in (33a) the resumptive pronoun is accusative but the relative clause head is nominative, whereas in (33b), both are accusative. (33) a. Č ovjek što sam *(ga) vidio voli Ivu. (BCS) man.N O M that A U X . 1 S G (him.A C C ) seen loves Iva.A C C ‘The man that I saw loves Iva.’ b. Upoznao sam č ovjeka što (ga) Iva obožava. met.1S G A U X .1S G man.A C C that (him.A C C ) Iva.N O M adore ‘I met the man that Iva adores.’ (adapted from Grač anin-Yuksek 2013: 29)
Hladnik (2015) argues that the same condition is responsible for the distribution of resumptive pronouns in Slovenian and Polish, which captures the contrast in (34a–b) in Polish: the noun samochód ‘car’ is syncretic between the nominative and accusative, whereas the noun mę ż czyzna ‘man’ is not. (34) a.
b.
ten samochód, co (go) Janek widział wczoraj this car.N O M C him.A C C John saw yesterday ‘the car that John saw yesterday’ ten mę ż czyzna, co *(go) Janek widział wczoraj this man.N O M C him.A C C John saw yesterday ‘the man that John saw yesterday.’ (Hladnik 2015: 67)
(Polish)
However, this cannot be the complete generalization, as shown by Guz (2017), whose examples come from SPOKES, a corpus of conversational spoken Polish (see Pę zik 2015). They do not obey the morphological case generalization but nevertheless allow missing resumptive pronouns; the relative clause head is locative in (35a) and instrumental in (35b) but the gap (corresponding to the missing resumptive pronoun) is accusative. (35) a. w tym kiosku co twoi rodzice mają (SPOKES) in this kiosk.L O C C your parents have ‘in that kiosk that your parents have’ b. zajmuje się tymi mieszkaniami co gmina wynajmuje deals R E F L these apartments.I N S T R C council rents out ‘(s)he deals with those apartments that the council rents out’ (Guz 2017: 104)
Since the goal of this contribution is to present an overview of whconstructions rather than provide an account of the distribution of resumptive pronouns, I will not hypothesize on which of the existing accounts is the right one, or suggest an alternative. 15
Resumptives marked with inherent case cannot be omitted even in syncretic contexts.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
293
294
BARBARA CITKO
A related question is what factors, if any, determine the choice between relative clauses with a complementizer and relative clauses with a relative pronoun. Guz (2017) discusses the factors that determine the choice between co (complementizer) and który (relative pronoun) relatives in Polish, and argues that they differ in terms of specificity and definiteness. Co-relatives tend to “encode definiteness of their referents.”16 Browne (1986) discusses how the choice of the head determines the choice of relativization strategy in BCS.17
14.3.2 Structure of Headed Relatives Yet another question that has received a lot of attention in the literature (both on Slavic languages and general linguistics literature) concerns the structures of the three types of relatives. The three most common structures that have been proposed/developed over the years for headed relatives are the Head Promotion analysis, the External Head analysis, and the Matching analysis (Vergnaud 1974, Kayne 1994, Bhatt 2002, Bianchi 1999, 2000, Hladnik 2015, De Vries 2002, Hulsey & Sauerland 2006, Citko 2001, among many others), illustrated in (36a–c). (36)
NP
a.
HEAD PROMOTION CP
BOOK DP BOOK
C’ D’
WHICH
TP
C
BOOK MARIA READ WHICH BOOK
NP
b. BOOK
EXTERNAL HEAD CP C’
WHICH
TP
C
MARIA READ WHICH
c.
NP BOOK
MATCHING CP C’
WHICH BOOK C
TP
MARIA READ WHICH BOOK
16 17
(adapted from Bhatt 2002)
He also discusses the conditions that allow resumptives to be dropped. The main focus of Browne (1986) is on which heads get który ‘which’ as a relative pronoun, and which ones get the wh-pronoun co ‘what’ or kto ‘who’. Thank you to Wayles Browne for pointing this out.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
The three structures differ with respect to the predictions they make with respect to the so-called reconstruction effects, that is, the ability to interpret the head of the relative clause in the relative-clause-internal position. The Head Promotion structure differs from both the External Head and the Matching structure in that the head of the relative clause moves/‘gets promoted’ from inside the relative CP. Both the Matching and the External Head analysis contain a CP external head (merged in (not moved to) this position), in addition to the head-internal one (on the Matching analysis) or the relative pronoun/empty operator (on the External Head analysis). The Head Promotion analysis thus predicts the presence of reconstruction. The standard diagnostics for the presence (or absence) of reconstruction effects involve variable binding, anaphor interpretation, idiom interpretation and binding. The views in the literature differ on which structure each of the three types of relative clauses involves in Slavic languages. Even though I will not be able to present a complete overview of the relevant literature, let me present some representative ones and a selection of relevant data. A fair amount of work concerns the differences between relative clauses with complementizers and relative clauses with relative pronouns (co vs. któryrelatives in Polish). Szczegielniak (2004) argues that in Polish co-relatives allow reconstruction, whereas który-relatives do not. This is similar to Krapova’s (2010) findings regarding Bulgarian relatives. However, the results of some of his diagnostics are not as clear-cut as one might desire. For example, he gives the contrast in (37a–b), involving the Polish idiom rzucac ́ słowa na wiatr ‘make empty promises’ (lit. ‘throw words on the wind’) to show that only co-relatives allow reconstruction. (37) a.
b.
słów co on nie rzucał na wiatr words that he not throw on wind ‘empty promises that he did not make’ ??słów, których on nie rzucał na wiatr words which he not throw on wind ‘empty promises that he did not make’ (Szczegielniak 2004: 24)
However, a Google search reveals examples of idiomatic interpretation with the relative pronoun który ‘which’. (38) a.
b.
c.
Ż ałosne są tylko puste słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr!!! pitiful are only empty words which throw on wind ‘Empty promises you make are pitiful.’ Znów słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr again words which throw on wind ‘Again empty promises you make.’ Słowa i znów słowa, które rzucasz na wiatr words and again words which throw on wind ‘Empty promises and again empty promises you make’ (Google search)
Citko (2020) argued that który-relatives in general allow reconstruction. Since the focus of this contribution is not on reconstruction (or the detailed
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
295
296
BARBARA CITKO
analysis of relative clauses), I will not reproduce them here. Hladnik (2015), who focuses on Slovenian, Polish, and BCS, concludes that all three types of relatives involve movement but only co-relatives involve head promotion. Giltner (2018), focusing on Russian, concludes that the behavior of č to vs. kotoryj relatives in Russian is not consistent with the idea that č to relatives are derived by promotion while kotoryj relatives are derived by matching. Grač anin-Yuksek (2013) shows that in Croatian, some što-relatives are derived by movement and others not. She further shows that even što-relatives with no resumption involve a matching (rather than a head promotion) derivation, and that relative clauses with resumptive pronouns do not involve movement. Since there does not seem to be a general consensus in the literature on the structures of the three types of relative clauses, I leave this issue somewhat open here and turn to free relatives and correlatives.
14.3.3 Free Relatives and Correlatives This section focuses on two types of relativization strategies that are quite productive in – and by no means unique to – Slavic languages. The two are free relatives and correlatives, exemplified in (39) and (40), respectively. (39) a.
b.
c.
d.
(40) a.
b.
Pojedel sem, kar je Maja skuhala. (Slovenian) ate AUX what AUX Maja cooked ‘I ate what Maja cooked.’ (Šimík 2018: 3) Czytam co(kolwiek) Maria napisała. (Polish) read what(ever) Maria wrote ‘I read what(ever) Maria wrote.’ Vč era (v 8) David sledoval, co(koliv) Yesterday (at 8) David watched what(ever) dávali na HBO. (Czech) gave on HBO ‘Yesterday, David watched whatever they were showing on HBO.’ (Šimík 2016: 111) Proč etoh kakvoto napisa. (Bulgarian) read what wrote ‘I read what you wrote.’ (Dimova 2014: 1) Kakuju mašinu xoč eš’, takuju on tebe which car want such he you i podarit. (Russian) EMPH will.grant ‘He will give you any car that you ask of him for a present.’ (Lit. Whatever car you ask of him, he will give you that car for a present’) (Mitrenina 2010: 1) Co chcesz, to dostaniesz. (Polish) what want, DEM get ‘You will get what you want.’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
c.
Kojto se uč i, toj šte who REFL studies he will ‘He who studies will succeed.’ (Rudin 2013: 165)
spoluč i.18 succeed
(Bulgarian)
Free relatives are the kinds of relatives that ‘appear’ to be missing a head, and contain only a wh-pronoun. Whether the head is in fact missing or not depends on the structure assigned to free relatives. The two prominent ones are the so-called Comp Account (Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981) and the Head Account (Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978), illustrated in (41a) and (41b), respectively. The difference between them concerns the position of the wh-pronoun; on the Comp Account it occupies [Spec, CP], whereas on the Head Account, it occupies the head position (i.e. the same position the head occupies in headed relatives.)19 (41) a. b.
[DP Ø [CP WHi [TP . . . ti . . .]]] [DP WHi [CP [TP . . . ti . . .]]]
COMP ACCOUNT HEAD ACCOUNT
The choice between the two accounts is not trivial, and both have been argued to be correct for Slavic free relatives. The Comp Account is very well equipped to handle the similarities between free relatives and wh-questions, whereas the Head Account captures well the so-called matching effects (i.e. the requirement that the category and case of the wh-pronoun matches the category and case requirements imposed on it in both the relative and the matrix clause). For example, (42a) does not satisfy the matching requirement. The matrix verb interesowac ́ się ‘to be interested in’ requires instrumental case, whereas the embedded verb studiowac ́ ‘to study’ requires accusative case; thus neither the accusative nor the instrumental wh-pronoun can simultaneously satisfy the case requirements of both verbs.20 (42) a.
b.
18 19
20
*Interesuję się czym/co interested.inI N S T R R E F L what.I N S T R /what.A C C Maria studiuje. (Polish) Maria studiesA C C ‘I am interested in what Maria studies.’ Czytam co Maria pisze. readA C C what.A C C Maria writesA C C ‘I read what Maria writes.’
Rudin calls these free relatives. In Bresnan & Grimshaw’s (1978) account, the wh-pronoun was merged directly in the head position and the relativeclause-internal position was occupied by a pro. The matching requirement and the exceptions to it that are possible with syncretic forms has been studied quite extensively in across-the-board wh-questions, such as the one in (i) (Dyła 1984, Borsley 1983, Franks 1995, Citko 2005, 2011, among others). This example involves the verb lubic ́ ‘like’, which requires accusative case, and the verb nienawidzic,́ which requires genitive case. The reason (i) is grammatical is that the animate pronoun kogo ‘who’ is syncretic between these two cases. (i)
Kogo
Maria
lubi
a
Jan
nienawidzi?
who.A C C / G E N
Maria
likesA C C
and
Jan
hatesG E N
‘Who does Maria like and Jan hate?’
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
297
298
BARBARA CITKO
Another question in the literature on free relatives concerns the syntactic distribution and/or semantic contribution of the particle ever (i.e. -kolwiek in Polish and its equivalents in other Slavic languages), in particular the issue of the differences between free relatives containing ever and the ones without it (see Šimík 2016 for a discussion of this question in Czech, and Citko 2010 in Polish). Šimík follows Jacobson (1995), who analyzes free relatives as ‘definite descriptions, denoting the maximal (plural) entity that satisfies the description provided by the free relative’. In simple terms, this means that the the interpretation of the free relative in (42b) is I read all the things Maria writes. Citko (2010) focuses on contexts in which kolwiek ‘ever’ is obligatory, involving complex free relatives, which she attributes to the requirement of the Q head dominating the DP to be filled. Another question in the research on free relatives concerns the existence of multiple free relatives. The answers to this question also differ; I turn to it after I discuss correlatives. A correlative clause is a type of relative in which the relative CP is adjoined to the main clause, and the main clause (optionally) contains a demonstrative (often called a correlative) pronoun, as shown in (43a). We saw examples of correlative clauses in (40). They have been studied quite a bit in the literature on Slavic languages (see Izvorski 1996, Rudin 2013, Citko 2009, Mitrenina 2010, among others). Slavic languages also allow multiple correlatives, in which the left-peripheral CP contains multiple wh-pronouns and the matrix clause contains multiple demonstrative pronouns, as shown schematically in (43b). (43) a. b.
[CP WH . . .] [CP/TP (DEM) . . .]] [CP WH WH . . .] [CP/TP (DEM) (DEM) . . .]]
Demonstrative/correlative pronouns appear to be optional; however, Izvorski (1996) shows that their presence has a semantic effect and contributes exhaustiveness to the interpretation of the main clause. Her Russian example in (44) provides an illustration; it asserts that I will kiss the people I love and presupposes that I will not kiss the people I do not love (Izvorski 1996: 138). (44) Kogo ljublju, togo whom love that.one ‘I’ll kiss who I love.’ (Izvorski 1996: 138)
poceluju. will.kiss
(Russian)
Representative examples of multiple correlatives are given in (45). (45) a. Kto co chce, ten to dostanie. (Polish) who what wants DEMNOM DEMACC gets ‘Everyone will get what they want.’ b. Komu kakaja premudrost dalas’, (Russian) who what wisdom given tot toj i priderživajsja. DEMNOM DEMGEN EMPH hold.on ‘Let one hold on to whatever wisdom one has been given.’ (Lit.: ‘To whomever whatever wisdom has been given, let such a one hold onto it.’) (Mitrenina 2010: 2)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
c. Kojto kă deto e sviknal, tam si živee. (Bulgarian) who where is used.to there R E F L lives ‘Everyone lives (well) where he is accustomed to (being).’ (Rudin 2013: 178)
Correlatives are similar to wh-questions; both questions and correlatives allow multiple wh-pronouns, both require them to move to a clauseinitial position, and both obey (or disobey) superiority depending on the language (see Citko 2009 for more discussion). It is thus pretty much uncontroversial that multiple correlatives exist; the question that is a bit more disputed in the literature is whether multiple free relatives exist. Citko & Grač anin-Yuksek (2016) argue that they do not, based on semantic considerations (i.e. a type mismatch when the head ‘tries’ to combine with the relative CP containing two wh/relative pronouns) and the observation that the examples in (46a–b) are ungrammatical unless the two whpronouns are coordinated. (46) a. b.
Jan je co(kolwiek) *(i) kiedy(kolwiek) Piotr gotuje. Jan eats what(ever) and when(ever) Piotr cooks Jan jede što(god) *(i) kad(god) Ivan kuha. Jan eats whatever and whenever Ivan cooks
(Polish) (BCS)
Dimova (2014) and Rudin (2007), based on examples of the kind given in (47a–b), reach a different conclusion, namely that multiple free relatives are possible, and they cannot be reanalyzed as correlatives. (47) a.
b.
Vzemajte koj kakvoto može. take who what can ‘Everyone take whatever you can.’ (Rudin 2007: 290) Celuvajte koj(to) kogoto obič a. (Bulgarian) kiss who who loves ‘Let everyone kiss whoever they love.’ (Dimova 2014: 7)
I think the answer depends on what we mean by multiple free relative. If we mean a relative clause that contains multiple wh or relative pronouns (irrespective of how they are interpreted), certainly the examples in (47a–b) look like multiple free relatives. However, if we take multiple free relatives to be relatives in which all wh or relative pronouns are interpreted the same way they are in ‘singular’ free relatives, (47a–b) are less likely to be multiple free relatives, since only one wh-pronoun has the desired interpretation. Citko & Grač anin-Yuksek (2016) thus take them to be a kind of correlative.
14.4 Conclusion To sum up briefly, this chapter presented an overview of the core properties of two core types of wh-dependencies in Slavic languages: wh-questions and relative clauses. It focused on the properties of these dependencies that Slavic languages are famous for, such as multiple wh-fronting or left branch extraction.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
299
300
BARBARA CITKO
It started with Rudin’s (1988) seminal work establishing two types of multiple wh-fronting languages (+/− Multiply Filled Specifier languages in her terms), which differ with respect to constituency, behavior with respect to superiority effects, island effects and the availability of multiple wh-extraction from embedded clauses. This chapter reviewed the arguments in favor of this distinction as well as the updates and/or modifications that have been made to it over the years. Another property of Slavic wh-questions reviewed in this chapter, which has also received a lot of attention in the literature, is left branch extraction and the correlation between the lack of overt articles and the availability of left branch extraction. The second part of this chapter discussed relative clauses, including what might be dubbed non-canonical relative clauses, such as free relatives and correlatives. It started with an overview of the types of headed relatives, conditions on resumption in relative clauses and the dominant approaches to the structure of headed relatives. It then proceeded to free relatives and correlatives, focusing on the two structures proposed for free relatives and the issue of the availability of multiple free relatives.
References Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 43–90. Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bianchi, V. (2000). The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 123–140. Billings, L. & Rudin, C. (1996). Optimality and superiority: A new approach to overt multiple wh-ordering. In J. Toman, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 3. The College Park Meeting, 1995, Ann Arbor, MI. Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 35–60. Bondaruk, A. (1995). Resumptive pronouns in English and Polish. In E. Gussmann, ed., Licensing in Syntax and Phonology, Lublin: Folium, pp. 27–55. Borsley, R. D. (1983). A note on the Generalized Left Branch Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 169–174. Borsley, R. D. & Jaworska, E. (1989). On Polish PPs. Linguistics, 27, 245–256. Boškovic,́ Ž. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351–383. Boškovic,́ Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1–45. Boškovic,́ Ž. (2009). More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica, 63, 187–203. Boškovic,́ Ž. (2009). On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns, In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, D. Lenertová, & P. Biskup, eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure. Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 79–93. Broihier, K. (1995). Optimality-Theoretic Rankings with Tied Constraints. Slavic Relatives, Resumptive Pronouns, and Learnability. PhD dissertation, MIT. Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J. (1978). The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 331–391.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
Browne, W. (1972). Conjoined question words and the limitation of English surface structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 223–226. Browne, W. (1986). Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian in Comparison with English. PhD thesis, University of Zagreb. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, New York, NY: Academic Press. Citko, B. (1998). On multiple wh movement in Slavic. In Ž. Boškovic,́ S. Franks, & W. Snyder, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6. The Connecticut Meeting, 1997, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 97–114. Citko, B. (2001). Deletion under identity in relative clauses. In M. Kim & U. Strauss, eds., Proceedings of the 31st North East Linguistics Society, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 131–146. Citko, B. (2005). On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 475–497. Citko, B. (2006). The interaction between across-the-board wh-movement and Left Branch Extraction. Syntax, 9, 225–247. Citko, B. (2009). What don’t free relatives, correlatives, and wh-questions have in common? In A. Lipták, ed., Correlatives Crosslinguistically, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 49–79. Citko, B. (2010). On the distribution of -kolwiek ‘ever’ in Polish free relative clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 18, 221–258. Citko, B. (2011). Symmetry in syntax: Merge, Move and Labels, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Citko, B. & Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2013). Towards a new typology of coordinated whquestions. Journal of Linguistics, 49, 1–32. Citko, B. & Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2016). Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 393–427. Citko, B. & Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2020). Conjunction saves multiple sluicing: How *(and) why?, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1): 92. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.5334/gjgl.1112. Citko, B. & Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2021). Merge: Binarity in (Multidominant) Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Corver, N. (1990). The Syntax of Left Branch Extraction. PhD thesis, Tilburg University. Dimova, E. (2014). A new look at multiple free relatives: Evidence from Bulgarian. Paper presented at SLS 9, University of Washington, Seattle. Dukova-Zheleva, G. (2010). Questions and Focus in Bulgarian. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa. Dyła, S. (1984). Across-the-board dependencies and case in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 701–705. Fanselow, G. & Ć avar, D. (2002). Distributed deletion. In A. Alexiadou, ed., Theoretical Approaches to Universals, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 65–107. Fisiak, J., Lipinska-Grzegorek, M., & Zabrocki, T. (1978). An Introductory EnglishPolish Contrastive Grammar, Warsaw: Pań stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
301
302
BARBARA CITKO
Franks, S & Progovac, L. (1994). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics. Indiana Linguistic Studies, 7, 69–78. Giltner, D. (2018). Head-Raising and Head-Matching in Russian Relative Clauses: Diagnostic Study. Honors thesis, University of Washington Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2007). About Sharing, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2013). The syntax of relative clauses in Croatian. Linguistic Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0002. Grač anin-Yuksek, M. (2017). Conjoined wh-questions. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell, pp. 1127–1161. Gribanova, V. (2009). Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogative interpretations. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 133–154. Grebenyova, L. (2006). Sluicing puzzles in Russian. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, M. TassevaKurktchieva, & H. Filip, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14. The Princeton Meeting, 2005, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 157–171. Grewendorf, G. (2001). Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 87–122. Groos, A. & van Riemsdijk, H. (1981). Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In L. Brandi, A. Belletti, & L. Rizzi, eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Guz, W. (2017). Resumptive pronouns in Polish co relative clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25, 95–130. Hladnik, M. (2015). Mind the Gap. Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Izvorski, R. (1996). The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. In K. Kusumo, ed., Proceedings of NELS 26, pp. 133–147. Jacobson, P. (1995). On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In E. Bach et al., eds., Quantification in Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 451–486. Jaeger, T. F. (2003). Topicality and superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic,́ eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 12. The Ottawa Meeting, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 207–228. Hulsey, S. & Sauerland, U. (2006). Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 111–137. Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Krapova, I. (2010). Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lingua, 120, 1240–1272. Krapova, I., & Cinque, G. (2008). On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple whfronting. In T. Zybatow et al., eds., Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference (FDSL5), Leipzig 2003, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 318–336. Matushansky, O. (2001). More of a good thing: Russian synthetic and analytic comparatives. In J. Toman, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 10. The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 2001, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 143–161. Mitrenina, O. (2010). Correlatives: Evidence from Russian. In G. Zybatow et al., eds., Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Frankfurt am Main, 2010, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 135–151. Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, & H. Filip, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14. The Princeton Meeting, 2005, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 236–257.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies
Pereltsvaig, A. (2007). The universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica, 61, 59–94. Pesetsky, D. (1998). Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Is the best good enough? In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, & D. Pesetsky, eds., Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 337–384. Pę zik, P. (2015). Spokes: A search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In J. Odijk, ed., Selected Papers from the CLARIN 2014 Conference, October 24–25, 2014, Soesterberg, The Netherlands [Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, 116], Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 99–109. Progovac, L. (1998). Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 165–179. Richards, N. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures, Oxford & New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501. Rudin, C. (2007). Multiple wh-relatives in Slavic. In R. Compton, M. Goledzinowska, & U. Savchenko, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15. The Toronto Meeting, 2006, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 282–307. Rudin, C. (2013). Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and Wh Constructions, 2nd revised ed., Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Scott, T. (2012). Whoever Doesn’t Hop Must Be Superior: The Russian Left-Periphery and the Emergence of Superiority. PhD thesis, Stony Brook University. Šimík, R. (2016). On the semantics of Czech free relatives. In M. Zikova & P. Caha, eds., Linguistica Brunensia 64/1: Festschrift for Petr Karlik, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 109–129. Šimík, R. (2018). Ever free relatives crosslinguistically. In U. Sauerland & S. Solt, eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, Vol. 2, ZASPiL 61, ZAS, Berlin, pp. 375–392. Sobin, N. (1990). On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua, 81, 141–167. Stepanov, A. (1998). On wh-fronting in Russian. In P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto, eds., NELS 28, Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 453–467. Stepanov, A. (2000). WH-scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica, 54, 1–40. Sturgeon, Anne. (2007). Another look at multiple wh-questions in Czech. In R. Compton, M. Goledzinowska, & U. Savchenko, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15. The Toronto Meeting, 2006, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 402–416. Szczegielniak, A. (2004). Relativization That You Did. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Tomaszewicz, B. (2011). Against spurious coordination in multiple wh questions. In M. B. Washburn et al., eds., Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 186–195. Uriagereka, J. (1988). On Government. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French Relative Clauses. PhD thesis, MIT. Veselovská, L. (2021). Wh-Questions: A Case Study in Czech. Olomouc Modern Language Monographs, Volume 11, Olomouc: Palacky University Olomouc. Vries, M. De. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Wachowicz, K. A. (1974). Against the universality of a single wh-question movement. Foundations of Language, 11, 155–166.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.015 Published online by Cambridge University Press
303
15 Coordination and Subordination in Slavic Languages Milan Mihaljević
15.1 Introduction C O O R D I N A T I O N and S U B O R D I N A T I O N are traditional terms for two most important ways of combining expressions into larger syntactic units. Although the terms have a long history, they are somewhat fuzzy. They have different meanings in different theoretical approaches (Fabricius-Hansen & Ramm 2008: 1). Moreover, their meanings are not entirely symmetrical. “While coordination is applied to the combination of both phrases and clauses, subordination is generally restricted to clauses” (Haspelmath 2007: 46). The same is true for the alternative terms P A R A T A X I S and H Y P O T A X I S , which are sometimes used instead of them. It is not easy to distinguish clearly between coordination and subordination, because the border between them is not sharp. The demarcation criterion most often mentioned in literature is S Y M M E T R Y : A S Y M M E T R Y (Carston & Blakemore 2005, Haspelmath 2004, 2007: 5). In a coordinate structure, units are structurally symmetrical in some sense, whereas those in a subordinate structure are not; one is the head and the other is dependent on it. However, symmetry is often interpreted differently. The strictest requirement is that coordinated constituents must, in addition to the same semantic type, also belong to the same syntactic category. Such a requirement, if we do not treat every coordination as a reduced form of sentence coordination, is too strong, because in Slavic, as in most other languages, there are coordinated structures the elements of which belong to different categories. Such an example is the Cro. sentence (1) in which the adjective and the prepositional phrase are coordinated.
I would like to thank Małgorzata Ćavar (Pol.), Margaret Dimitrova (Bul.), Sofija Gadžijeva (Rus.), Petra Stankovska (Cze.), Mladen Uhlik (Sln. and Rus.), and Josip Užarević (Rus.) for their assistance with examples. I also thank Wayles Browne and Danko Šipka for many helpful remarks and comments.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
(1) Lovro je Lovro is
[&[A siromašan] poor
i and
[PP u dugovima]] in debts
A slightly weaker requirement is that each coordinand must belong to a category and semantic type that is appropriate for the environment in which the whole structure occurs, that is, that each can be a host (Cormack & Smith 2005: 401). Haspelmath (2007: 47) cites four characteristics of subordinate clauses across languages: (1) only subordinate clauses can be in internal position, (2) only they allow extraction of wh-pronouns, (3) only they can be focused, and (4) only they allow backwards anaphora. However, even these criteria are not without exceptions. The problem for precise demarcation of coordination and subordination is the existence of structures that are semantically subordinated but formally (syntactically) coordinated (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997, Palašić 2018), and structures that are semantically coordinated, but not syntactically (Büring & Hartmann 2015). Therefore, it is an open question whether coordination and subordination should be defined in formal (syntactic) or semantic terms. Since the boundary between coordination and subordination is not sharp, we will focus here on the prototype members of both groups.
15.2 Coordination As we have seen, the term coordination is used for syntactic constructions in which two or more units are connected into a larger unit, and still have the same semantic relations with neighboring units and, in prototypical cases, equal structural rank. Coordination is a universal phenomenon. All languages have coordinated constructions, but many do not have grammatical markers of coordination, so that coordination is expressed by a simple juxtaposition of units and intonation (Mithun 1988: 331–332). Such constructions are traditionally called A S Y N D E T I C .1 In Slavic languages coordination and subordination differ formally, at least at the sentence level (Gladrow & Kosta 1999: 404, Kordić 2008: 189). They use different sets of connectives: coordinators and subordinators. Three basic types of coordination are C O N J U N C T I V E (C O N J U N C T I O N ), D I S J U N C T I V E (D I S J U N C T I O N ), and A D V E R S A T I V E . Apart from them, C A U S A L , E X P L I C A T I V E , and C O N C L U S I V E coordination are also mentioned in the literature. However, it should be noted that causal, explicative, and conclusive sentences can be both coordinate and subordinate. In Slavic studies, G R A D A T I O N sentences are often also singled out as a special type, which some researchers consider to be a type of adversative sentences (Silić & Pranjković 2005: 326), others of conjunctive sentences, while still others include them in both types (Hudeč ek & Vukojević 2006). Coordinated units are often called 1
A S Y N D E T I C C O O R D I N A T I O N is a coordination without coordinator (coordinating conjunction). The name is derived from the Greek ἀσύνδετον, which means ‘unconnected’.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
305
306
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
CONJUNCTS,
and coordinating particles that connect them C O N J U N C T I O N S . Some linguists use these terms only for units in conjunctive coordination, while they call coordinated units generally (in all types of coordination) C O O R D I N A N D S , and coordinating particles C O O R D I N A T O R S (Haspelmath 2007) or C O N N E C T I V E S (Stassen 2000: 10). Overtly marked coordination differs in different languages according to the number of coordinate particles, and according to their position in relation to coordinands. Constructions with two coordinands can have one or two coordinators, that is, they can be M O N O S Y N D E T I C or B I S Y N D E T I C (Haspelmath 2007: 6).2 In monosyndetic constructions the coordinator can be in initial, medial, or final position. It seems that by far the most usual option in the world’s languages is the use of a medial coordinator (Stassen 2000: 10). But even then, there are two possibilities. The coordinator can be structurally more closely connected (can have greater structural cohesion) with the first or with the second coordinand, that is, it can be either postposed or preposed. According to this classification, coordinate constructions in Slavic languages, as in the majority of European languages, are monosyndetic with preposed coordinator in the medial position (i.e. they belong to type [A [co B]] according to Haspelmath’s classification).3 This is confirmed by the following facts: (1) when there is an intonation break between the coordinands, the coordinator is always after the break, (2) when the first conjunct is fronted, the coordinator stays with the second conjunct, and (3) when the second conjunct is extraposed, the coordinator obligatorily goes with it.
15.2.1 Conjunctive Coordination Conjunctive coordinators denote addition. They indicate that the second coordinand contains an additional fact which is related to the first coordinand. They can coordinate words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. The most common conjunctive coordinator in Slavic languages is the conjunction i. Here are a few examples from Slavic languages in which this conjunction connects conjuncts of different categories: (2) a. Pol. Jan i Marek przyszli. Jan and Marek came. b. Bul. Rabotixa družno i Bă rzo. worked together and fast ‘They worked together and fast.’ c. Bos. Grendžar glumi i pucaju bajramske prangije. Granger acts and shoot holiday cannons. ‘A film starring Stewart Granger is being shown, and cannon fire is celebrating the holiday.’ [from a travelogue by the famous artist Zuko Džumhur]
2 3
Constructions with more than two coordinands and more than two coordinating particles are called P O L Y S Y N D E T I C . Where A and B stand for coordinands, and co for coordinator.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
In Cze., Slk. and Sor., the basic conjunctive coordinator is a, (3) Cze.
Alena př išla domů a uvař ila Alena cameF.SG home and cooked ‘Alena came home and made herself coffee.’
si S E L F .SG
kávu. coffee
and in Sln. in. (4) Ena banana in eno jajce sta one banana and one egg A U X 3DU ‘A banana and an egg fell on the ground.’
padla fellM.DU
na on
tla. ground
Most Slavic languages have, in addition to i, other conjunctive coordinators, which are often restricted semantically or more characteristic either of written or of spoken language. Thus, for example, the conjunction pa, which appears in all South Slavic languages, has the meaning of temporal succession or result. (5) a.
Bul.
b.
Cro.
I plesnat s ră ce pa se pregă rnat. and clapPRES.3PL with hands and SELF hugPRES.3PL ‘And they clapped their hands and (then) hugged.’ Vrlo je hladno, pa smo se dobro obukli. very is cold and A U X 1PL SELF well dressed ‘It’s very cold, so we dressed well.’
The Rus. and Mac. coordinator da, as well as the Bul. coordinators ta and pa, are characteristic for spoken (colloquial) language (Švedova 1980: 625, Koneski 1976: 536, Andrejč in et al. 1957: 344, Pašov 2005: 408), while Cro. te and Sln. ter appear more often in written language. Strategies for subject–predicate agreement in Slavic languages, when the subject consists of conjoined noun phrases, have recently attracted considerable attention from linguists.4 Three agreement strategies are possible: (i) agreement with the entire coordination (agreement with the maximal projection), (ii) agreement with the closest conjunct, and (iii) agreement with the first conjunct. The form of the agreement expressed on the verb can also vary depending on genders and numbers of the conjoined noun phrases as well as on their position in relation to the verb, that is, on whether they precede or follow the verb. Agreement with the whole coordination is always an option. Therefore, it is usually termed default agreement (Č ordalija et al. 2020: 26).5
15.2.2 Disjunctive Coordination Disjunctive coordinators separate mutually exclusive contents expressed in the coordinands. In Rus. and in most South Slavic languages, the most common disjunctive coordinator is ili: 4
5
Cf. Marušič et al. 2007, Marušič & Nevins 2010, Franks & Willer-Gold 2014, Marušič et al. 2015, Willer-Gold et al. 2016, Č ordalija et al. 2020, etc. For more about agreement in coordinated structures in Slavic languages see Chapter 13 of this volume.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
307
308
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
(6) a. Rus. V ètu tetrad' ja nakleival ili podkladyval in this notebook I pasted or enclosed moju ežednevnuju ‘produkciju’ my daily ‘production’. ‘In this notebook, I pasted or enclosed my daily production.’ b. Bul. Toj šte mi telegrafira ili šte mi he will me telegraph or will me se obadi po telefona. SELF call by phone ‘He will telegraph me or call me on the phone.’ c. Cro. Danas crtamo ili pjevamo. today drawPRES.1PL or singPRES.1PL ‘Today we draw or sing.’
In Pol. the basic disjunctive coordinator is albo, in Ukr. abo, in Bel. al’bo, in Cze. nebo, in Slk. alebo, and in Sln. ali. Here are a few examples: (7) a. Pol. Brat przyjdzie po nas albo zaczeka w domu. brother comePRES.3SG for us or waitPRES.3SG in home ‘The brother will come for us or wait for us at home.’ b. Cze. Zaplatíte nebo mám na vás zavolat policii? pay2PL or have1SG on you call police ‘Will you pay or should I call the police?’ c. Sln. Možen odgovor je samo da ali ne. possible answer is only yes or no ‘The only possible answer is yes or no.’
The most important semantic distinction in disjunctions is between the standard and the interrogative disjunction. Many languages have different coordinators for these two categories. In Slavic languages, the same coordinator usually has both functions.6 It is interesting, however, that when two (or more) clauses are disjunctively connected in a yes–no question, in most Slavic languages only the first can be formulated as a question:7 vratili u Rijeku ili returned in Rijeka or ostaju u Zagrebu? stay in Zagreb *Jesu li se vratili u Rijeku ili AUX Q SELF returned in Rijeka or ostaju li u Zagrebu? stay Q in Zagreb ‘Have they gone back to Rijeka or are they staying in Zagreb?’
6
7
(8) a. Cro. Jesu
li
se
AUX
Q
SELF
Although some have a special coordinator for the interrogative disjunction. For example, Pol. has an interrogative coordinator czy. For Cro. cf. Browne 2009: 30–31. It should be mentioned that the enclitic li, regardless of its meaning, is normally not duplicated in Slavic languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
b. Rus. Vernulis' li vy v Moskvu ili ostalis' returned Q you in Moscow or stayed v Pitere? in St. Petersburg *Vernulis' li vy v Moskvu ili ostalis' li returned Q you in Moscow or stayed Q v Pitere? in St. Petersburg ‘Did you return to Moscow or did you stay in St. Petersburg?’ c. Sln. A so se vrnili v Ljubljano ali bodo Q AUX SELF returned in Ljubljana or will ostali v Mariboru? stay in Maribor *A so se vrnili v Ljubljano ali a bodo Q AUX SELF returned in Ljubljana or Q will ostali v Mariboru? stay in Maribor ‘Did they return to Ljubljana or will they stay in Maribor?’ d. Bul. Vă rnali li sa se v Sofija ili returned Q AUX SELF in Sofia or sa ostanali v Plovdiv? are stayed in Plovdiv? *Vă rnali li sa se v Sofija ili returned Q AUX SELF in Sofia or sa ostanali li v Plovdiv? are stayed Q in Plovdiv ‘Did they return to Sofia or did they stay in Plovdiv?’
In this respect, Slavic languages differ from English, in which all clauses must be formulated as questions (Browne 2009: 31). In contrast, when interrogative clauses are conjunctively connected, then all coordinands have an interrogative form, as in English. The coordinators used in the standard disjunction can in Slavic languages also be used in the so-called M E T A L I N G U I S T I C D I S J U N C T I O N ,8 as shown by the following Cro. example: (9) To su moji Vinkovci, ili grad na Bosutu. these are my Vinkovci or town on Bosut ‘This is my Vinkovci, or the town on the River Bosut.’
Here, too, some languages have a special coordinator. So for example, ili in (9) can be replaced by iliti, which is obsolete today, while Pol. czyli is in regular neutral use.
8
M E T A L I N G U I S T I C D I S J U N C T I O N is a kind of disjunction “where the alternative is merely between two names for the same thing” (Haspelmath 2007: 27).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
309
310
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
(10) Gniezno, czyli pierwsza stolica Polski. Gniezno or first capital PolandGEN.SG. ‘Gniezno, or the first capital of Poland.’
15.2.3 Asyndetic and Polysyndetic Coordination Although, as in most other European languages, monosyndetism of the type [A [co B]] is the norm in Slavic languages, asyndetism also appears, especially in conjunctive coordination.9 Asyndetism is (as in other European languages) most common with modifiers such as adverbs and adjectives (and their phrases) and with sentences. Asyndetic coordination of noun phrases is rare, especially in structures with only two coordinands. It can appear in N A T U R A L C O O R D I N A T I O N , where two units are semantically closely connected and form a single conceptual unit (Mithun 1988: 332, Stassen 2000: 8, Wälchli 2009: 1, 5). Natural coordination is in opposition to A C C I D E N T A L C O O R D I N A T I O N .10 Typical examples of natural coordination are pairs such as ‘mother and father’, ‘husband and wife’, ‘brother and sister’, ‘bow and arrow’, ‘needle and thread’, and the like.11 Since the marginalization of asyndetism is a general trend connected with the increase in literacy (Stassen 2000: 10), it is not surprising that natural coordination of nouns occurs more often in the archaic language of folk songs than in modern literary language. Thus, the asyndetic coordination of nouns is confirmed in a fragment of a Cro. folk song in the Kajkavian dialect from Međimurje Klinč ek stoji pod oblokom (A Carnation Stands beneath the Window, where the carnation symbolizes a young boy/lover): (11) Ja bi tebi otvorila, samo da se ne I beCOND youDAT.SG open only that S E L F not bi oca matere ja bojala. beCOND fatherGEN motherGEN I fear. ‘I would open it to you, only if I wasn’t afraid of my father and mother.’ Kaj su tebi otec, mati? What are youDAT.SG father mother ‘What are your father and mother to you?’
The distinction between natural and accidental coordination may play a role in the scope of units applicable to both conjuncts. Thus, for example, in Bul. the subjunctive particle da is not repeated in natural coordination of verbs, as the following examples show:
9
The predominance of syndetism over asyndetism is usually associated with a long written tradition (Mithun 1988: 353– 357, Stassen 2000: 10, Haspelmath 2007: 7). This is supported by the fact that the asyndetic connection of syntactic units is more common in the colloquial than in the written language (Švedova 1980: 634). Therefore, it is assumed that asyndetic coordination is older than syndetic (Andrejč in et al. 1957: 345, Kordić 2008: 190). 10 Accidental coordination is a “coordination of items which are not expected to co-occur, and which do not have a close semantic relationship” (Wälchli 2009: 5). 11 Since it usually consists of only two conjuncts, it is sometimes called a B I N O M I N A L C O N J U N C T I O N . According to Haspelmath (2007: 23), the name was first used by Y. Malkiel in 1959.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
(12) a.
b.
Na trigodišna vă zrast Ivan več e možeše da č ete on three-yearADJ.F. age Ivan already could to readPRES.3SG i piše. and writePRES.3SG ‘Ivan could already read and write when he was three years old.’ . . . Ivan več e možeše da č ete i da pluva. Ivan already could to readPRES.3SG. and to swimPRES.3SG ‘Ivan could already read and swim when he was three years old.’
The reason for this difference is the fact that č ete i piše forms natural coordination, while č ete i pluva does not. In some languages, even the asyndetic coordination of certain ‘natural pairs’ of verbs survives to this day, for example in Russian: (13) a. Na Zemle č itat'-pisat' ne umeet každyj desjatyj vzroslyj č elovek. on Earth read-write not know every tenth grown up man ‘Every tenth adult on Earth cannot read or write.’ b. Muzykanty najarivali tak, č to gosti est'-pit' ne uspevali. musicians played so, that guests eat-drink not managed ‘The musicians played in such a way that the guests did not have time to eat or drink.’
Most of the world’s languages, including Slavic, do not limit the number of coordinands in conjunctive and disjunctive coordination, that is, in addition to binary coordination with two members, they also allow multiple (n-ary) coordination. As in many other languages, in this case all coordinators except the last one can be omitted. (14) a. Pol. Małgorzata, Anna, Magda i moja siostra weszły do pubu. ‘Małgorzata, Anna, Magda and my sister entered the pub.’ b. Cro. Radnim danom sam na poslu, kod kucé , na putu ili u gradu. working dayINSTR am on work at home on trip or in city ‘On weekdays I am at work, at home, on the road or in the city.’
If the first, second, or any subsequent coordinator is lexicalized, all coordinators following it must also be realized. Keeping the coordinators in front of all coordinands has an emphatic value and is appropriate only when emphasizing (Haspelmath 2007: 12).
15.2.4 Adversative Coordination Adversative coordination expresses a contrast or a comparison.12 It is usually binary (consisting of two coordinands).13 Some Slavic languages have a special, S U B S T I T U T I V E A D V E R S A T I V E C O O R D I N A T O R , such as the German sondern, to 12 13
Therefore, it is sometimes known as C O N T R A S T I N G C O O R D I N A T I O N . Here is an incomplete list of adversative coordinators in several Slavic languages: Bul.: a, no, ala, ama, ami, obač e; Cze.: ale, avšak, však, leč ; Cro.: a, ali, nego, vec;́ Mac.: a, no, tuku, ama, ami, pak; Pol.: a, ale, lecz, zas;́ Rus.: a, no, da; Slk.: ale, no, a, lež, však, avšak; Sln.: pa, a, vendar, toda.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
311
312
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
express the contrast between a negative and a positive coordinand.14 Such are, for example, Cro. coordinators nego and vec:́ (15) a. Nisam popio rakiju nego/*ali/*a pivo. A U X .not drunk rakijaACC but beerACC ‘I didn’t drink rakija but beer.’ b. Nismo išli u kazalište, vec/́ *ali/*a u kino. A U X .not1PL gone in theater but in cinema ‘We didn’t go to the theater, but to the cinema.’
In Slavic languages, there is also an opposition between C O N C E S S I V E and 15 for example in Rus. between no (concessive) and a (oppositive), in Pol. between ale and a, and in Cro. between ali and a, as shown by the examples:
OPPOSITIVE ADVERSATIVE COORDINATORS,
(16) a. Cro. Ivan pije pivo, a/?ali Sonja vino. b. Rus. Ivan p’et pivo, a/?no Sonja vino. Ivan drinks beer, but Sonja wine ‘Ivan drinks beer and Sonja drinks wine.’
Sentences with ali and no are not completely ungrammatical, but they are unusual and require a very specific context for interpretation. Adversative coordinators, as well as conjunctive and disjunctive, usually appear in the canonical coordinator position (i.e. in front of the second coordinand). Those that appear within the second coordinand,16 such as Pol. zas ́ or Rus. že, are fewer in number: (17) a. Pol. Ojciec był drobny jak dziecko, syn zas ́ ogromny. father was small as child son while huge ‘The father was as small as a child, while the son was huge.’ b. Rus. Ubeždenija vnušajutsja teoriej, povedenie beliefs are.inspired theoryINSTR. behavior že formiruetsja primerom. but is.shaped exampleINSTR. ‘Beliefs are inspired by theory, behavior is shaped by example.’
When in some Slavic languages two relative sentences are coordinated, conjunctively disjunctively or adversatively, only the first has to be formulated as a relative clause (Browne 2009: 37), that is, contain a relativizer, while the second doesn’t need to have a relative pronoun, as the following examples show: (18) a. Cro.
14 15
16
zemlja country ali je but her
o kojoj znamo about which know1PL smatramo važnom consider important
vrlo very
malo, little
In English, this role is also performed by the coordinator but. Oppositive coordinators are used when there is a contrast between coordinands, but not conflicting expectations (Haspelmath 2007: 28). Büring & Hartmann (2015: 2) call such coordinators B U R I E D C O O R D I N A T O R S .
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
strana za kojato mnogo malko znaem, no country for which very little know but ja smjatame za važna her consider for important c. Sln.17 dežela, o kateri vemo zelo malo, a country about which know very little but jo imamo za pomembno her have for important d. Rus. strana o kotoroj my znaem oč en' malo, no country about which we know very little but sč itaem oč en’ važnoj consider very important ‘a country about which we know very little, but which we consider important’ b. Bul.
In this respect, these languages differ from English, in which both coordinands must have the form of a relative sentence.
15.2.5 Correlative (Initial) Coordination Like many other languages, Slavic languages distinguish ordinary (normal) from C O R R E L A T I V E or I N I T I A L C O O R D I N A T I O N . Since such coordination usually has an emphatic or contrastive role (Stassen 2000: 15) it is often called 18 EMPHATIC COORDINATION. As in other European languages, correlative coordination according to Haspelmath’s classification is bisyndetic, as opposed to ordinary coordination which is monosyndetic. This means that it has the structure co-A co-B (i.e. that it also has a coordinator in front of the first coordinand). Dependency between coordinators in correlative coordination is absolute (Johannessen 2005: 420). They cannot appear without each other. Unlike English (both . . . and, either . . . or) and German (sowohl .. als auch, entweder . . . oder), in Slavic languages both coordinators usually have the same form, most often the one used in normal monosyndetic coordination, for example Rus.: i . . . i, ili . . . ili, libo . . . libo, to . . . to ; Pol.: i . . . i, albo . . . albo, to . . . to, bą dź to . . . bą dź to ; Cro.: i . . . i, ili . . . ili, bilo . . . bilo, Bul.: i . . . i, ili . . . ili, bilo . . . bilo, tu . . . tu, etc. Slavic languages also have special correlative coordinators for negative contexts, which are used only within the scope of negation, for example Rus.: ni . . . ni, Pol.: ani . . . ani, ni . . . ni, Cro.: ni . . . ni, niti . . . niti, Bul.: ni . . . ni, nito . . . nito, Mac.: ni . . . ni, niti . . . niti, nitu . . . nitu, etc. Such structures can be interpreted either as a conjunction or as a disjunction. This is why some linguists describe them as conjunctive and others as disjunctive coordinators.19 Slavic initial i, ili, and ni differ in several 17
18
19
It is interesting to note that in Sln. the coordinator a can be followed by an enclitic (jo). This is not possible in Cro. and Rus. Cf. Haspelmath (2007: 15): “The semantic difference is that in emphatic coordination it is emphasized that each coordinand belongs to the coordination, and each of them is considered separately.” Thus, for example, Švedova (1980: 618–619) describes Rus. ni . . . ni in the chapter on conjunctive coordinators. The same is done by Silić & Pranjković (2005: 324–325) with the Cro. correlative coordinators ni . . . ni and niti . . . niti, as
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
313
314
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
respects from English both, either, and neither. English correlatives scope over both coordinands and have the second coordinator in their scope. Slavic i, ili, and ni scope only over the first coordinand and do not have the second coordinator in their scope (Mihaljević 2018: 206–207). English both, either, and neither can be displaced from the coordination phrase (Johannessen 2005: 420), which is not the case with Slavic i, ili and ni. Moreover, Slavic i can cooccur with the quantifier which is semantically equivalent to English both, as shown by the Cro. example (19). (19) Obojica, i Krešimir i Borna imaju dugu kosu. both and Krešimir and Borna have long hair ‘Both Krešimir and Borna have long hair.’
Obojica, like English both, can be displaced from the coordination, as shown by (20). (20) I and
Krešimir Krešimir
i and
Borna Borna
imaju have
obojica both
dugu long
kosu. hair
Like English and, or, and but, Slavic i, a, ali, and ili can be sentence-, chapter-, or even text-initial. In this function they are traditionally called D I S C O U R S E P A R T I C L E S . In such cases they can have the role of discourse connectives and can be used polysyndetically, that is, they can occur at the beginning of two or more consecutive text chunks. They can also have the function of focus (elative) particles or sometimes even the function of affective (interjectional) particles. So, for example, Slavic i, unlike English and, can introduce sentence constituents of any kind, having in this function the meaning ‘even, also’: (21) a.
Rus.
b.
Cro.
Rakovyj korpus nosil i nomer trinadcat'. cancer ward bore and number thirteen ‘On top of everything, the cancer wing was Number 13.’ Došli su i svi unuci. came AUX and all grandchildren ‘All the grandchildren came too.’
Disjunctive coordinators can in some languages function as interrogative particles. For example, Sln. ali can introduce either direct or indirect questions: (22) a.
b.
Ali ga poznaš? or him knowPRES.2SG ‘Do you know him?’ Vprašam še enkrat, ali res mislite askPRES.1SG yet once or really meanPRES.2PL ‘I ask again/once more if you really mean to just leave.’
kar just
oditi. leave
well as Klemensiewicz (1953: 45) with the Pol. ani . . . ani, ni . . . ni and Ribarova & Ribarova (2015: 413) and Stankovska 2013: 75) with the Cze. ani . . . ani. In contrast, Pašov (2005: 409) places the Bul. nito . . . nito among the disjunctive coordinators. Koneski (1976: 537) does the same with the Mac. coordinators ni . . . ni, niti . . . niti, nitu . . . nitu.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
Moreover, Slavic languages belong to the small group of languages in which “the emphatic negative coordinators are also used as scalar focus particles of the type ‘not even’ or ‘neither’” (Haspelmath 2007: 17). For example: (23) a.
Pol.
b.
Bul.
Karliczek ani słówka mi Karliczek not.even word meDAT ‘Karliczek didn’t even say a word to me.’ Toj ne kaza ni duma. He not said not.even word ‘He didn’t (even) say a word.’
nie not
powiedział. said
15.2.6 Non-constituent Coordination Slavic languages, like many others, have non-constituent coordination, that is, they allow an ellipsis in coordination. In Slavic, as in other European languages, the forward ellipsis (A N A L I P S I S ) of the verb in the second coordinand is possible: (24) a. Cze. Otec č te noviny a matka knihu. father reads newspaper and mother book ‘Father reads a newspaper and mother reads a book.’ b. Cro. Mislav je ulovio zeca, a Borna fazana. Mislav A U X caught rabbit but Borna pheasant ‘Mislav caught a rabbit, and Borna a pheasant.’ c. Rus. Ja živu v Moskve, a on v Londone. I live in Moscow but he in London ‘I live in Moscow, and he lives in London.’
This type of ellipsis is called G A P P I N G . Initial analipsis is also possible: (25) a. Cro. Ovu kucú kupio je moj djed, a this houseACC bought AUX my grandfather but prodala moja sestra. sold my sister b. Rus. Ètot dom kupil moj ded, a this houseACC bought my grandfather but prodala moja sestra. sold my sister c. Sln. To hišo je kupil moj dedek, this houseACC A U X bought my grandfather prodala pa je moja sestra. sold but A U X my sister ‘This house was bought by my grandfather, and sold by my sister.’
Backward ellipsis (C A T A L I P S I S ) seems to be, as in other languages (Haspelmath 2007: 40), restricted to the ellipsis of a constituent on the right edge of the first coordinand:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
315
316
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
(26) Cro.
Duje voli, a Domina mrzi Rolling Stonese. Duje loves but Domina hates Rolling Stones ‘Duje loves, and Domina hates the Rolling Stones.’
15.2.7 Comitative Coordination Eastern Slavic and Western Slavic languages, as well as Sln., have a special type of comitative–conjunctive constructions in which the conjunctive coordinator has the same form as the accompaniment marker (i.e. the preposition s ‘with’). Such constructions are always binary.20 They encode two participants “who fulfill the same semantic role and are involved in the same event” (Uhlik & Žele 2019: 116). In such constructions the coordinator retains the government features of the preposition, which means that the second coordinand must be in the instrumental case, but the constructions show agreement with both coordinands, that is, the predicate has to be in the plural (in Sln. in dual), and not in the singular, as in the proper comitative construction.21 The difference between comitative–conjunctive and proper comitative constructions is shown in the following Rus. examples: Petja s Mašej tancevali Petja with MašaINSTR dancedPL ‘Petja and Maša danced at a party.’ b. proper comitative Petja tanceval s Mašej Petja dancedM.SG with MašaINSTR ‘Petja danced with Maša at a party.’
(27) a. coordination
na več erinke. at party na at
več erinke. party
It should be noted that examples (27a) and (27b) also differ in word order, that is, in C O M I T A T I V E C O O R D I N A T I O N the coordinands have to be adjacent. Although they have some clear features of coordination, in the Slavic languages the comitative coordinate constructions also show some traces of their comitative origin. First, they are limited to animate coordinands, and the two coordinands (typically) participate together in the event (Haspelmath 2007: 32). Diachronically, the coordinator s is a preposition that has acquired the additional meaning of a coordinator. Second, the position of coordinands is not equal. Coordination is not symmetrical and the order of coordinands cannot be changed, as is often the case in coordination with the coordinator i. Third, in Pol., in contrast to i-coordination, which in the second coordinand requires non-reflexive possessive pronouns, in such constructions there must be a reflexive possessive:
20
21
This is not an universal characteristic of the comitative coordination, since there are languages with more than two coordinands in comitative coordination (Haspelmath 2007: 32). According to Arxipov (2008: 22), a P R O P E R C O M I T A T I V E C O N S T R U C T I O N (Rus. sobstvenno komitativnaja konstrukcija) is a construction in which a plural participant in some situation is encoded by two phrases with different structural rank.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
(28) a. Ania i jej nauczycielka były na wycieczce. Ania and her teacher were on excursion b. Ania ze swoją nauczycielką były na wycieczce Ania with her.REFL teacher were on excursion ‘Ania and her teacher were on an excursion.’
A special type of comitative–conjunctive constructions are the so-called I N C L U S O R Y C O N S T R U C T I O N S in which the members of the set denoted by the second coordinand are already included in the set denoted by the first coordinand (Haspelmath 2007: 33): (29) a. Rus. My s nim byli v teatre. we with him were in theater ‘I and he were at the theater.’ b. Sln. Midva s Špelo sva šla we.NOM.M.DU with Špela.INSTR.SG A U X 1DU.PRS go.PTC.PR.M.DU v kino. in cinema ‘I and Špela went to the cinema.’
In that case the central participant (landmark),22 which imposes the agreement, always has to be a pronoun. Inclusory coordination is impossible when the accompanier outranks the landmark on the person hierarchy (1 < 2 < 3) (Haspelmath 2007: 34). Sln. first person dual pronoun can be inclusory only in relation to the second or the third person accompanier, while the second and the third person dual can be inclusory only in relation to the third person accompanier (Uhlik & Žele 2019: 118). Therefore, comitative structures such as Vidva z menoj and Onadva s teboj cannot be interpreted as ‘you and me’ and ‘he and you’, but only as ‘two of you and me’ and ‘two of them and you’. It is not a surprise that inclusory constructions are by far the most frequent with the first person pronoun. Comitatively conjoined noun phrases most often play the role of Agent (the nominative subject) or of Experiencer, as shown by the Sln. example: (30) Naju z Andrejem we.ACC.DU with Andrej.INSTR.SG ‘Andrej and me are afraid’
je strah. is fear.NOM.SG
Unlike Rus. and Pol., Sln. does not have non-inclusory comitative coordinations: in Slovene the landmark must always be a dual pronoun (Uhlik & Žele 2019: 127–129). Two proper or common names can be conjoined only with a non-comitative coordinator, as shown by (31). (31) a. b.
22
*Janez s Špelo gresta JanezNOM.SG with ŠpelaINSTR.SG goPRS.3DU Janez in Špela gresta JanezNOM.SG and ŠpelaNOM.SG goPRS.3DU ‘Janez and Špela are going to the cinema’
v in v in
kino. cinema kino. cinema
Uhlik & Žele (2019: 127) use the term C E N T R A L P A R T I C I P A N T . Arxipov (2005: 78) uses the term L A N D M A R K (Rus. orientir). The second participant is called A C C O M P A N I E R (Rus. sputnik).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
317
318
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
15.3 Subordination Subordination is the process of linking two clauses in a sentence so that they form a construction in which one sentence is the head and the other is dependent on it. The head clause is usually called the M A I N C L A U S E , and the dependent clause is called the S U B O R D I N A T E C L A U S E . A subordinate clause is typically embedded into the main clause. It either substitutes for or determines/modifies a certain constituent of the main clause, or the main clause as a whole. A subordinate clause that modifies the whole main clause is less firmly bound with it. It is often assumed that subordination is a younger phenomenon than coordination, and that diachronic development proceeds from more coordinate-like to more subordinate-like constructions.23 Beside embedding, syntactic features that are often across the world’s languages associated with subordination are (1) an explicit subordinator, (2) a special word order in subordinate clauses, which is different from the order in main clauses, and (3) a constraint on the distribution of tense, aspect, or mood in subordinate clauses. In Slavic, there is no significant difference in word order between the main and the subordinate clauses. Slavic languages do not have complex rules for using tenses and moods in subordinate clauses, like for example Latin or Ancient Greek. There are some rules and restrictions for the use of the conditional,24 and of the so-called analytic subjunctive (in South Slavic), but they cannot be regarded as a general strategy for establishing subordinate connections.25 The main means of establishing subordinate connections in Slavic languages is subordinating conjunctions. Subordinating conjunctions typically take the position at the beginning of the clause they introduce. In the linear structure of the main clause, subordinate clauses can be moved freely, together with the conjunctions. Different word order has a different semantic or pragmatic function. Subordination can also be expressed by non-finite verbal forms, such as infinitives, verbal adjectives and adverbs, and nominalizations, as in other European languages. In most theoretical approaches subordinate clauses are divided into three types: C O M P L E M E N T , R E L A T I V E and A D V E R B I A L C L A U S E S (Cristofaro 2014: 73). In what follows, we will describe the characteristics of all three types in Slavic languages.
23
24
25
It is also assumed that coordination is younger than simple juxtaposition of clauses, that is, that the earliest languages had only juxtaposition, then developed markers of coordination, and only (much) later the marking of subordination of clauses (Hurford 2014). About the situation in the Indo-European proto-language see Viti 2013. For the use of the Rus. conditional see Dobrušina 2016. The conditional is used for description of irreal situations. It can also be used to describe rare or remotely conceivable situations. Negation and interrogativity can also have some influence on the use of the conditional (Dobrušina 2016: 294). Cf. Wiemer (2021: 66): “In South Slavic, there are no specific sets of verb forms used exclusively in dependent (complement or adverbial) clauses, but da-clauses considered to represent an ‘analytical subjunctive’ allow only for a reduced array of TAM-forms in comparison to main declarative clauses.”
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
15.3.1 Complement Clauses Complement clauses “function as a core argument of another predicate (the matrix or main predicate); they are restricted to a limited set of matrix predicates; and they describe semantic concepts such as propositions, facts, activities, states, events or situations (they cannot simply refer to a place or time)” (Lohninger & Wurmbrand 2020). Slavic finite complement clauses are introduced by complementizers or by interrogative pronouns and adverbs. A large number of Slavic languages mark a realis/irrealis distinction by using a different complementizer. In Rus. the complementizer č toby introduces clauses which describe a situation which is not real. For example, the sentence in (32) does not presuppose the existence of the situation described in the subordinated clause, that is, he either did or did not sing. In real situations the complementizer č to is used.26 (32) Ja nikogda ne slyšal, č toby I never not heard that ‘I have never heard him sing.’
on pel. he sung
The third complementizer budto has a presumptive meaning. It is used when the speaker does not accept the communicated contents as his own and when he doubts its reliability/truthfulness (Švedova 1980: 475). In Bul. clauses introduced by the complementizer č e describe real situations, while those introduced by da express desired, possible, or suggested situations: (33) a.
b.
Kră č marjat otgovori surovo, č e njama mjasto. inn-keeper answered sternly that is-no place ‘The inn-keeper answered sternly that there is no room.’ Toj iska da te predpazim. he asks that youACC protectPRES.1PL ‘He wants us to protect you.’
The same distinction exists in West Slavic languages between the complementizers že (Pol. ż e) and aby, as shown by the Slk. example (34). (34) a.
b.
Oznámili sme že prídeme. announced1PL A U X 1PL that comePRES.1PL ‘We have announced that we will come.’ Oznámili sme aby nás č akali. announced1PL A U X 1PL that usACC waited ‘We announced that we want them to wait for us.’
In Cro., Ser., Bos., and Mon., both functions can be performed by the complementizer da. In these languages complements of verbs expressing an emotional reaction, which are introduced by the complementizer što, describe a real (factual) situation (Browne 1986: 62–74). Complement clauses introduced by the 26
According to Švedova (1980: 473) the conjunction č to is the most common, stylistically neutral, and semantically nonspecialized conjunction.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
319
320
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
complementizer kako with imperfective verbs can denote a dynamic situation which is in progress (Katič ić 1991: 331, Petrović 2004). In such cases kako cannot be replaced by the neutral complementizer da:27 (35) Gledam kako/*da watchPRES.1SG as that ‘I watch the snow fall.’
pada fallPRES.3SG
snijeg. snow
Complements to nominal predicates can use the same subordinator as complements to verbal predicates, as shown by the Rus. example (36). (36) Èto takaja radost' č to vy u nas noč uete. this such joy that you at us spend.night ‘It is such a joy that you are spending the night with us.’
Moreover, the most typical complementizers, usually reinforced by other words (adverbs, particles, etc.) can also introduce different types of adverbial clauses. Although there is a tendency for complement clauses to occur at the end of the sentence, they can also be preposed to or inserted into the main clause. The main clause can, at least with some verb types, such as for example verbs of speaking, be parenthetically embedded into the subordinate clause, as shown by the following example from Croatian. (37) Da je dovezao, kažu ljudi, tri šlepera that A U X brought say people three trucks ‘People say that he brought three trucks of aid.’
pomocí . aidGEN.SG
Parenthetical placement is quite liberal. Usually, it does not break a phrase, but it is inserted either in front of or after the maximal projection. In such cases, the complementizer is usually dropped. It is present only if emphasized, which means that example (38) is much more common/usual than example (37).28 (38) Dovezao je, kažu ljudi, tri šlepera brought A U X say people three trucks ‘He brought, people say, three trucks of aid.’
pomocí . aidGEN.SG
As in other European languages, subordinate clauses can co-occur with correlative pronouns, which take their grammatical function as well as morphological case corresponding to that function and which are co-referent with the subordinate clause as a whole. In this function only neuter forms of demonstrative pronouns can occur. Subordinate clauses can be extraposed and occur at the end of the sentence, as in example (36), but, unlike in German or English for example, they can also occur immediately after the pronoun.29 27 28 29
To a large extent this also holds for Rus. and Bul. kak and Ukr., Bel., Pol., and Cze. jak. For more about the verbs of speaking parentheticals in Cro. see Mihaljević 2013. It is interesting that in such cases in Rus. the pronominal form èto must be replaced by to. Èto is the unmarked demonstrative in modern Russian, but to was the unmarked demonstrative in older Slavic.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
(39) To, č to vy u nas noč uete, takaja radost’ / Takaja radost’ to, č to vy u nas noč uete.
The phenomenon of complementizer doubling (R E C O M P L E M E N T A T I O N ) has attracted considerable attention in recent generative theories, especially in the so-called cartographic approach, and has been studied in different languages.30 In Slavic languages it has been observed in Sln. (Plesnič ar 2015, 2020) and Old Cro. (Mihaljević 2019).31 In both languages, it is optional and restricted to clauses introduced by the complementizer da:32 (40) a. Sln. Rekel je da svojo mamo da ima vsak rad. said A U X that one’s mother that has everyone like ‘He said that everyone likes their own mother.’ b. Cro. M(o)l(im) te da ego udržanie n(a)mь beseechPRES.1PL thee that his intercession us da prospêetь v’ sp(a)senie. that profit in salvation ‘we beseech thee, that by his intercession these gifts may profit us unto salvation.’
The complementizer doubling is possible only if one or more left-dislocated constituents intervene between the two copies. The first instance of the complementizer is always at the beginning of the clause. Therefore, it is generally assumed that it is in the position of the Force head. Since no leftdislocated constituent can follow the lowest copy of da, both Plesnič ar (2020) and Mihaljević (2019) conclude that the lowest da heads the Finiteness projection (FinP). This conclusion is for Old Cro. substantiated by the fact that the complementizer doubling is possible only in irreal contexts, and, therefore, the subordinate verb can only be in present tense, conditional, or imperative (Mihaljević 2019: 607–609). In Old Cro. da can sometimes be even tripled. Mihaljević (2019) assumes that the intermediate copy of da in the triple-da constructions is the head of the Topic projection (TopP). Complement clauses in Slavic languages can also be reduced.33 The reduced clause can have the form of an infinitive or a nominalization. The licensing of reduced complements depends on the semantic class of the complement-taking predicate. Not all verb types allow reduced complements equally freely. When we are speaking about the licensing of infinitive clauses, an important factor may also be whether the subject of the subordinate clause is identical to an argument of the main clause or not. For example, 30
31
32
33
It was observed in Romance languages – Italian (Paoli 2004, Ledgeway 2005, 2006, Munaro 2016, etc.), Spanish (Delmonte & Fernández-Soriano 2009, González i Planas 2014, Villa-García 2015, etc.), French (Dagnac 2012), and Catalan (González i Planas 2014) – as well as in English (McCloskey 2006, Radford 2013, 2018: 122–134) and Flemish (Hoekstra 1993). One example of complementizer doubling is also recorded in OCS. Codex Suprasliensis from the eleventh century, which is of East-Bul. origin (Mihaljević 2019: 602, fn. 2). In Sln. it is marginally also possible in complement clauses introduced by the complementizer č e ‘if’ (Plesnič ar 2020: 239). The doubling of č e is somewhat degraded and less acceptable than the doubling of da (Plesnič ar 2020: 247). The clause is reduced when it does not have a finite predicate, that is, when it has neither an indicative nor a subjunctive form of the predicate (Lohninger & Wurmbrand 2020: 15).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
321
322
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
Cro. verbs expressing desire, purpose, doubt, or effort(s) license infinitive complements only when their subject is identical to the main clause subject.34 If the subject is different from the main subject, a da-clause must be used: (41) a. Hrvojka je željela završiti školu. Hrvojka AUX wanted finish school ‘Hrvojka wanted to finish school.’ b. Hrvojka je željela da njezin sin završi školu. Hrvojka A U X wanted that her son finishPRES.3SG finishPRES.3SG ‘Hrvojka wanted her son to finish school.’
Some verb classes also allow infinitives when their subject is identical to the main clause direct or indirect object, as for example uč iti ‘teach’ and dopustiti ‘allow, let’, respectively: (42) a. Uč ila je dječ ake plesati tango. teach A U X boysACC dance tango ‘She taught the boys to dance the tango’ b. Otac mu je dopustio poljubiti novu macé hu. Father himDAT A U X allowed kiss new stepmother ‘His father let him kiss his new stepmother.’
It is not only the main verb that determines the form of the complement clause, but the complement clause can also influence the meaning of the main verb. In Cro., verbs of speaking can have infinitive complements only if they express will/intention. Therefore, the sentence (43) cannot be interpreted as indirect speech, but only as a promise. (43) Rekao je docí . said AUX come ‘He promised to come.’
However, Slavic languages differ in the number of verbs which allow infinitive complements. For example, the Cze. sentence in which the infinitive clause is a complement to the finite form of the verb být ‘to be’: (44) Byli jsme lyžovat. been A U X 1PL ski ‘We were skiing.’
is not acceptable in Sln., where the verb biti ‘to be’ has to be replaced by iti ‘to go’:35 (45) a. b.
34 35
*Bili smo smuč at. Šli smo smuč at. gone A U X 1PL ski ‘We went skiing.’
For more about the use of infinitive clauses in Cro. see Katič ić (1991: 465–477). For more about the infinitive complements in Cze. and Sln., see in Stankovska 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
The Bul. and Mac. languages have lost the infinitive. Instead they use da-clauses with the verb in present tense even when the subject of the complement clause is identical with the main subject. The replacement of the infinitive by the present da-clause is usually also possible in Ser.
15.3.2 Relative Clauses A relative clause is a subordinate clause which delimits the reference of a noun or a noun phrase or adds information about a noun or a noun phrase whose reference is already established. The noun (phrase) the reference of which is being delimited is usually called the A N T E C E D E N T of the relative clause or the 36 H E A D N O U N ( P H R A S E ) . The most common type of relative clauses in Slavic are externally headed, embedded, postnominal relatives;37 this means that the head nominal is outside the relative clause, the relative clause constitutes a noun phrase with it, and (immediately) follows the head nominal. When the antecedent is a topic, the relative clause is interposed into the main clause (immediately after the antecedent). When the antecedent is a rheme, it is usually, together with the relative clause, postponed to the end of the sentence (Švedova 1980: 515). Slavic languages have special relative pronouns which introduce postnominal relative clauses.38 It is confirmed that they are pronouns, and not complementizers, by the fact that they are case-marked for the function which the relativized noun phrase has in the subordinate clause: (46) a. Rus. On vošel v komnatu, kotoraja byla soveršenno He entered in roomACC whichNOM was perfectly ‘He entered the room, which was completely dark.’ b. Cze. Vidě li jsme film, o kterém jsem seen A U X PRES.1PL filmACC about whichLOC A U X ř íkal. talked ‘We have seen the film, which I have talked to you about.’
temna. dark ti youDAT
Relative pronouns usually occur at the beginning of the relative clause. Exceptions to this rule are very rare.39 The relative pronoun cannot be dropped, as for example in English (Andrews 2007: 222): (47) The representative [I met ø] was polite.
As we have seen, it can be dropped only in the second clause when two relative clauses are coordinated, but it is then compensated by the resumptive personal pronoun. In Slavic languages, all grammatical functions listed on the Accessibility Hierarchy proposed by Keenan and Comrie (1977) can be
36 37 38 39
Andrews (2007) uses the term ‘domain nominal’. For more about the typology of relative clauses, see in Andrews (2007) and Cinque (2020, especially p. 4). For example Rus. kotoryj, Cze. který, Sln. kateri, Cro. koji, Mac. koj, kojšto, etc. More about the two possible exceptions in Rus., see in Švedova (1980: 514–515).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
323
324
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
relativized.40 E X T E R N A L L Y H E A D E D R E L A T I V E C L A U S E S are syntactic islands, which means that no constituent can be moved out of them. Some Slavic languages have also an indeclinable (absolutive) relativizer, which can be identical in form with the interrogative pronoun meaning ‘what’ (č to/što/co) or can differ from it (Sln. ki ). (48) a. Rus. Gde teper' èti ljudi, č to pisali ix? where now these people that wrote them ‘Where are now these people that wrote them?’ b. Cro. Pitanja što su ih postavili nisu questions that A U X 3.PL them posed are-not naroč ito važna. especially important ‘The questions they have posed are not especially important.’ c. Cze. Na mě č eká holka, co jsem ji mě l for me waits girl that A U X 1.SG her had nadevše rád. above-all gladly ‘The girl, who I loved more than anything, is waiting for me.’
That it is not a pronoun but a subordinating conjunction (complementizer) is also confirmed by the fact that in Cro., Cze., and Sln., when it is used, a personal pronoun occurs which resumes the grammatical function of the relativized noun phrase which is not the subject (Browne 1986, Kordić 1995).41 The explanation of the presence vs. absence of the resumptive pronoun is relatively complex.42 Sometimes externally headed relative clauses appear outside of the matrix noun phrase (i.e. they don’t form a noun phrase together with the antecedent). Such relative clauses are called adjoined or extraposed. As in other languages, such clauses appear at the end or at the beginning of a sentence (Andrews 2007: 214). Extraposition of relative clauses to the end of the sentence, which is frequent in English, is not widespread in contemporary Slavic. In Cro., for example, it appears more freely with the pronominal relativizer što, when its antecedent is a neuter non-noun, such as a demonstrative or an indefinite pronoun or a quantifier (Browne 1986: 99):
40 41
42
For this Hierarchy, cf. also Andrews 2007: 226. Slavic relative clauses can also be introduced by the declinable interrogative pronoun č to/što/co which resumes the syntactic function of the head nominal in the relative clause and therefore is case-marked for this function. Also, some languages have an indeclinable relativizer which is not identical to ‘what’ (e.g. Bul. deto). It was traditionally believed that the reason for its insertion was the need for expressing agreement categories and grammatical relations or that the presence vs. absence of it depends exclusively on the animacy of the relativized noun. However, Mirjam Fried (2010: 16) argues that the distribution (also) depends “on the semantic compatibility between the relativized noun and the proposition expressed by the RC, reflecting a functional distinction between a determinative and non-determinative (explicative) interpretation of the RC; the former is unambiguously signaled by the bare relativizer co, the latter is available with the analytic co + resumptive pronounACC pattern as one of the interpretive options.” See also Fried & Lipská 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination (49) Sve je dobro što se all is well what R E F L ‘All’s well that ends well.’
dobro well
svrši. ends
Extraposed relative clauses were more usual and more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages. In medieval Slavic, as in various other older IndoEuropean languages, left-adjoined relative clauses were also well attested (Andrews 2007: 217). As in other languages, extraposed (adjoined) relative clauses “always appear to be full, never reduced” (Andrews 2007: 217). Slavic languages also allow so-called F R E E R E L A T I V E S which lack a head nominal (antecedent): (50) a.
Bul.
b.
Rus.
Kojto ima uši, neka č ue. who has ears let hears ‘He who has ears, let him hear.’ Č to oni govorili dal’še, ja what they said next I ‘What they said next, I did not hear.’
ne not
slyšal. heard
Free relatives are most often introduced by the interrogative pronouns corresponding to ‘who’ (kto, kdo, tko, etc.) for animate, and ‘what’ (č to, što, co, č o, etc.) for inanimate referents.43 Less often, they are introduced by relative pronouns corresponding to ‘which’ (kotoryj, který, kateri, koji, etc.), which mostly introduce externally headed postnominal relative clauses. The indeclinable relativizer (complementizer) č to/što never introduces free relative clauses (Kordić 1995: 214). Referents of these relativizers are typically indefinite. The reference of such relative clauses is somewhat vague and loosely linked to the context (Kordić 1995: 308). Because of that, they often occur in proverbs. Free relatives are usually extraposed (adjoined), either preposed or postposed. As with other types of subordinate clauses, altering the order of main and subordinate clauses depends on semantic relations between the events that they describe, that is, it depends on whether a relative clause is topicalized and focused. Unlike English, Slavic languages cannot use prepositions before free relatives (Browne 1986: 109). They must always have an antecedent between the preposition and the relative clause: (51) a. b.
English Cro.
We came with what we had bought. Došli smo s *(onim) came A U X 1PL with thatINSTR.SG
što what
smo A U X 1PL
kupili. bought
Free relatives are semantically similar to C O R R E L A T I V E structures with pronouns and demonstratives in the position of the antecedent. Such antecedents are different from the nouns and noun phrases, since they have no lexical meaning. They get their meaning from relative clauses. Therefore, they are often called formal antecedents. Syntactically, such clauses are externally 43
Adverbial relative clauses are usually introduced by interrogative pronominal adverbs meaning ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘how’, etc.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
325
326
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
headed relatives with attributive function, but semantically they are, like free relatives, substantival in nature. Such relative clauses do not have to be adjacent to their antecedents. They can also be extraposed to the end or preposed to the beginning of the sentence. It is interesting that, when the relative clause follows an antecedent which is a demonstrative pronoun, the antecedent has to be a pronoun indicating distant reference: (52) a.
Cro.
b.
Rus.
Onaj dobro prođe, tko rano urani. that well fares who early rises-early ‘He does well, who gets up early.’ To, č to proizošlo pozže, ostalos' neizvestnym. that what happened later remained unknown ‘It remained unknown, what happened later.’
On the other hand, when a relative clause precedes an antecedent expressed as a demonstrative, the latter has to be a pronoun indicating medial reference (in the Cro. three-way system: distal on-, medial t-, proximal ov-) or medial/ proximal reference (in the Rus. two-way system: distal t- vs. medial, proximal, and unmarked èt-). (53) a. Cro. Tko rano urani, taj dobro prođe. who early rises-early this well fares ‘Who gets up early, does well.’ b. Rus. Č to proizošlo pozže, èto ostalos’ neizvestnym. what happened later this remained unknown ‘What happened later, remained unknown.’
So-called I N T E R N A L L Y H E A D E D R E L A T I V E C L A U S E S , which have the head noun within the relative clause itself, superficially resemble free relatives, since they have no antecedent in the main clause. Such relative clauses are not frequent in modern languages. Here is one example from Cro.: (54) Koji trgovci imaju dobru robu dobro i which traders have good merchandise well also ‘Traders who have good merchandise earn a good profit.’
posluju. do-business
Such sentences do not belong to the modern standard language. They are stylistically marked and judged by speakers as archaic. They were more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages. Probably even less common in modern languages are the so-called D O U B L E H E A D E D R E L A T I V E C L A U S E S , in which the external head is matched by an identical or co-referent phrase preceded by the relative modifier within the relative clause. Cinque (2020: 95, fn. 125) cites one example from Ser.:44 (55) roman o ratu, koje delo prevodim novel about war which work translatePRES.1SG ‘a novel about war, which work I am translating’ 44
Cinque has taken the example from E. Keenan’s paper from 1985. He considers such examples to be non-integrated non-restrictive relative clauses.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
Such examples are judged by speakers as stylistically marked and archaic. They were more frequent in older stages of Slavic languages. Externally headed relative clauses can also be ‘reduced’. R E D U C E D R E L A T I V E C L A U S E S are less like full clauses. They have reduced tense-mood marking, and stronger restrictions on the function of a relativized noun phrase (Andrews 2007: 211). As in many other languages, a relativized noun phrase in Slavic must be the subject, and the predicate has features of adjectival/participial morphology. If the verb in a subordinate (relative) clause has a passive form, such a relative clause can in all Slavic languages be replaced by the construction with the passive verbal adjective (passive past participle), as shown by the following Cze. and Cro. examples: (56) a. Cze. Na pohlednici je budova divadla postaveného př ed 100 lety. b. Cro. Na razglednici je zgrada kazališta izgrađenog on postcard is building theaterGEN.SG built prije 100 godina. before 100 years ‘On the picture postcard is a theater (building) built 100 years ago.’
If the subordinate verb is in an active form, the relative clause can in some Slavic languages be replaced by the construction with an active verbal adjective (active participle), for example in the Cze. literary language.45 (57) a. Cze. Jeli jsme autem jedoucím maximálně drove A U X PRES.1PL carINSTR drivingINSTR maximally 80 km za hodinu. 80 km per hour b. Cro. *?Putovali smo autom vozecí m maksimalno traveled A U X PRES.1PL carINSTR drivingINSTR maximally 80 km na sat. 80 km per hour ‘We traveled in a car going maximally 80 km per hour.’
As shown by the example (57b), this is not possible in Cro., where active participles have lost declension, and can appear only in the adverbial form.46 However, in earlier periods in all Slavic languages, participles could also be congruent with the head noun.47
15.3.3 Adverbial Clauses Dependent clauses that function as an adverbial (i.e. that provide information on the circumstances of events described in the main clauses) are called adverbial clauses. In other words, they provide background information for 45 46 47
Imperfective verbs are replaced by the active present participle, and perfective verbs by the active past participle. Which means that they can occur only in adverbial relative clauses. For more about the syntax of active participles in OCS., the oldest Slavic literary language, see Več erka 1961 and 1996: 176–214.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
327
328
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
the (foreground) information given in the main clause. Adverbial clauses modify verb phrases or entire clauses. They are typically adjuncts, and in some sense ‘less subordinate’ then the complement and relative clauses (Thompson et al. 2007: 238), which are embedded into the main clause as arguments of the matrix predicate or into the noun phrase as a modifier of the head noun. We can say that they “are subordinate clauses in the sense that they depend for their occurrence on another, the main, clause” (Kortmann 2001: 1). Just like adverbs, they are traditionally divided into groups according to the semantic roles they play. Adverbial clauses in Slavic languages, as in most other languages, can formally be divided into two larger groups: (1) those that can be substituted by a single word and (2) those that cannot be substituted by a single word (Thompson et al. 2007: 243). In the first group are T I M E , P L A C E , and M A N N E R C L A U S E S . In addition to the fact that they can be substituted by a single word (time, place, or manner adverbs), they usually have the form of relative clauses. Therefore, they are sometimes called R E L A T I V E A D V E R B I A L C L A U S E S . They are most often introduced by relative (pronominal) adverbs meaning ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘as’:48 (58) a. Mac. Koga vlezam v uč ilnica zaboravam na sè. when enterPRES.1SG in classroom forgetPRES.1SG on everything ‘When I enter the classroom, I forget everything.’ b. Cze. Koupal se, jak ho př íroda stvoř ila. bathedM.SG S E L F as heACC nature createdF.SG ‘He bathed as nature created him.’ c. Rus. Priexali v les, gde stoit dub. arrived in forest where stands oak ‘We arrived in the forest, where there is an oak tree.’
They can be paraphrased with a relative clause with a generic, desemanticized noun, meaning ‘time/moment’, ‘place’ or ‘way/manner’, as in the following Slk. example: (59) Č akal na moment, kedy sa naň ho pozrie. waitedM.SG on moment when S E L F at-him looks ‘He waited for the moment when he would look at him.’
or with a correlative clause with a time, place or way/manner adverb meaning ‘then’, ‘there’, ‘so, in the way’ as an antecedent:49 (60) a. Cro. Idem tamo gdje je sve po mom. goPRES.1SG there where is everything according mineLOC. ‘I am going there, where everything is my way.’ b. Pol. Zachariasz kochal Stefana tak, jak kocha się Człowieka. Zacharias loved Stefan so as loves S E L F man ‘Zacharias loved Stefan so, as one loves a man.’ 48 49
Cf. Minova-Gjurkova (2011: 269) for Mac., Stankovska (2013: 70) for Cze., and Švedova (1980: 527) for Rus. examples. The Cro. example is from a popular song performed by the band Jinx, and the Pol. example is from Klemensiewicz (1953: 49).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
The second group consists of: P U R P O S E , R E S U L T , R E A S O N , C O N D I T I O N A L , and P A R T I C I P I A L ( A B S O L U T E ) C L A U S E S . They cannot be replaced by a single word, because languages, in general, do not have monomorphemic adverbs expressing these concepts (Thompson et al. 2007: 243). In distinction from clauses of the first group, in which events described in the main and the subordinate clause have something in common (time, place, or manner), these clauses express two events that do not have anything in common, but one of which modifies the other. As in other European languages, many subordinators in Slavic languages are polysemous. So, for example, South Slavic subordinator da can introduce complement, purpose, result, and conditional clauses. The situation is similar with West Slavic že (Pol. ż e) and aby, as well as East Slavic (Rus.) č to and č toby. Which reading they receive depends on a complex interaction between them and the meaning of the main verb, the form of the subordinate verb, and the intonation structure. Sometimes one can determine the type of the clause only from the context. For example, the Cro. sentence
CONCESSIVE,
(61) Kristijan Kristijan
piše writes
da that
bi A U X COND.3SG
kupio buy
kucú . houseACC
has two interpretations. It can be interpreted either as a complement clause ‘Kristijan writes that he would (like to) buy a house’, or as a purpose clause ‘Kristijan writes [in order to buy a house/so that he can buy a house]’. The correct interpretation can be inferred only from the context. Connectives in adverbial clauses are often complex. They can be composed of complementizers, prepositions, adverbs, particles, prepositional phrases, etc. The relation between those elements also determines the interpretation of the sentence. So, for example, in Sln. reason sentences can be introduced by the complex connective zaradi tega ker, (62) Prodam lego figurice zaradi tega sellPRES.1SG lego figurines because-of thatGEN.SG ker sem jih prerasel. because A U X them outgrown ‘I will sell my lego figurines because I have outgrown them.’
in Mac. concessive sentences can be introduced by the combination duri i da, (63) Duri i da ne te pozdravi, nemoj da se lutiš. even and that not youACC salute don’t that S E L F angerPRES.2SG ‘Even if he doesn’t salute you, don’t be angry.’
etc. As in many other languages, ‘when’ clauses can have the function of conditionals. They most often occur in unreal conditionals, in combination with the conditional (subjunctive) mood,50 but sometimes they can also be found in real conditionals, for example in Slk.: 50
According to Švedova (1980: 563), such use of kogda ‘when’ clauses in Rus. is marked as archaic and bookish (ustar. i knižn.).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
329
330
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
(64) Ked’ bude pršat’, skoč íme When will rain jumpPRES.1PL ‘If it rains, we will drop in for coffee.’
na kávu. on coffee
Slavic languages do not have a special subordinator for a negative condition, like English unless. They express negative conditions by the combination of ‘if’ and negation.51 Adverbial clauses can also have a reduced, non-finite form. For example, purpose clauses can sometimes be replaced by infinitive structures. The distribution of infinitives and ‘that’-clauses depends on the meaning of the main verb as well as on the relation between the subordinate and the main subject. Although infinitive constructions are more common when the subject of the main and subordinate clause is the same, they are also possible when the subject of the infinitive is different from the main clause subject, as shown by the Cro. example in which the subject of the infinitive is identical with the main clause object: (65) Roditelji su ga poslali kupiti kruh. Parents A U X him sent buy bread ‘The parents have sent him to buy bread.’
In OCS., the oldest Slavic literary language, they could also occur with a complementizer:52 (66) sъvě tъ sъtvorišę vsi ar’hierei i star’ci ljudьsci counsel made all chief-priests and elders people’s na i(su)sa ě ko ubiti i. on Jesus that kill him ‘all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death’ (Mt 27,1)
In some Slavic languages, other types of adverbial clauses can also be replaced by infinitives. For example, Rus. conditional clauses introduced by the subordinator esli can sometimes have the form of an infinitive structure:53 (67) Esli vstat' poran'še, možno uspet'. if get up early possible succeed ‘If you get up early, it is possible to make it (in time).’
Infinitive adverbial clauses are in modern languages more restricted than in older stages. In older periods, Slavic languages had a special dative with infinitive construction, (68) isplъnišę sę dьnьe roditi ei accomplished S E L F days deliver herDAT ‘the days were completed for her to give birth’ (Luke 2,6) 51 52
53
East Slavic esli ne, West Slavic jestli ne, Sln. and Cro. Kajkavian č e ne, and other South Slavic ako ne. Examples with the complementizer jako(že) are relatively well attested, but there are also a few cases with the complementizer da. Cf. Več erka 2002: 333–334. This is not possible in contemporary South Slavic languages.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
which could have not only purpose and result meaning, but sometimes also a temporal meaning,54 as in the Croatian Church Slavonic (CCS) example: (69) idêhu i ne obraĉahu se egda hoditi imь went3PL and not turned3PL S E L F when go theyDAT ‘they went; and they turned not when they went’ (Ez 1,12)
In contemporary Slavic languages, the background information can also be expressed by participial constructions with the indeclinable form of the participle (verbal adverb) as a predicate. Here again, imperfective verbs are replaced by the active present participle,55 and perfective verbs by the active past participle:56 (70) a. Pol. Podróż ują c po sw poznałem wielu ́ iecie traveling around world met1SG many ciekawych ludzi. interesting people ‘While traveling around the world, I met many interesting people.’ b. Rus. Vernuvšis' domoj, on obnaružil svoju ženu returning home he found P O S S . R E F L wife v posteli s sosedom. in bed with neighbor ‘Having returned home, he found his wife in bed with a neighbor.’
In earlier periods, Slavic languages also had different absolute constructions.57 The most typical was the D A T I V E A B S O L U T E , a construction in which both the subject and the participle were in the dative case, as shown in the following OCS example: (71) i vъlě zъšema ima vъ korabь, prě sta vě trъ. and enteringDAT.DU theyDAT.DU in boat stopped wind ‘And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down.’ (Mt 14,32).
The dative absolute most often had a temporal meaning, but it could also have other types of adverbial meaning: causal, concessive, conditional, and consecutive (result) meaning (Več erka 1996: 187). The order of the main and the adverbial clause depends more on the semantic relations between them, rather than on their syntactic structure. However, sentence-initial and sentence-final adverbial clauses have different discourse functions. Preposed adverbial clauses have usually a scene-setting function. They connect the sentence with a preceding discourse, and prepare the background for the event expressed in the main clause. On the other hand,
54 55 56
57
The construction could also have the role of the complement of verbs of speaking and thinking. They usually express a dependent action which is simultaneous with the main one. Active present participles usually express a dependent action which is simultaneous with the main one, and active past participles a dependent action which precedes the main one. An A B S O L U T E C O N S T R U C T I O N is a non-finite (participial) clause which is not attached to any single element in the sentence.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
331
332
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
the function of the postposed adverbial clauses is more local. Their scope is restricted to the preceding main clause (Kortmann 2001, Cristofaro 2014: 82, 85).
References Andrejč in, L., Ivanov, M., & Popov, K. (1957). Să vremeni bă lgarski ezik, č ast II, Sofija: Dă ržavno izdatelstvo ‘Narodna prosveta’. Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Second edition, Volume II: Complex Constructions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–236. Arxipov, A. V. (2005). K tipologii komitativnyx konstrukcij. Č ast’ I. opredelenie i formal’naja tipologija. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 76–100. Arxipov, A. V. (2008). K tipologii komitativnyx konstrukcij. Č ast’ II. polisemija komitativnyx konstrukcij. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 22–50. Browne, W. (1986). Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian in Comparison with English (New Studies, 4), Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb. Browne, W. (2009). On conjoined questions and conjoined relative clauses in English and Serbo-Croatian. In S. Franks, V. Chidambaram, & B. Joseph, eds., A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in honor of E. Wayles Browne, Bloomington, IN: Slavica, pp. 25–42. Büring, D. & Hartmann, K. (2015). Semantic coordination without syntactic coordinators. In I. Toivonen, P. Csúri, & E. van der Zee, eds., Structures in the Mind. Essays on Language, Music, and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 41–61. Carston, R. & Blakemore, D. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115, 353–358. Cinque, G. (2020). The Syntax of Relative Clauses: A Unified Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (2005). What is coordination? Lingua, 115, 395–418. Cristofaro, S. (2014). Is there really a syntactic category of subordination? In I. Herlin, J. Kalliokoski, & L. Visapää, eds., Contexts of Subordination – Cognitive, Typological and Discourse Perspectives, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–91. Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 195–217. Č ordalija, N., Jovović, I., & Leko, N. (2020). Postverbal conjoined subjects and closest conjunct agreement in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: An experimental study. Suvremena lingvistika, 89, 25–47. Dagnac, A. (2012). How do you double your C? Evidence from an Oïl dialect. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 9, 77–94. Delmonte, V. & Fernández-Soriano, O. (2009). Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21, 23–49. Dobrušina, N. R. (2016). Soslagatel’noe naklonenie v russkom jazyke: opyt issledovanija grammatič eskoj semantiki, Prague: Animedia Company. Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Ramm, W. (2008). Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm, eds.,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series 98), Amsterdam: Benjamins 2008, pp. 1–30. Franks, S. (2017). Slavic generative syntax. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25(2), 199–239. Franks, S. & Willer-Gold, J. (2014). Agreement strategies with conjoined subjects in Cro. In S. Jaworski & J. Witkoś , eds., New Insights into Slavic Linguistics, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 91–113. Fried, M. (2010). Accusative resumptive pronoun in the Czech relative clauses with absolutive relativizer co. Korpus – gramatika – axiologie, 1, 16–29. Fried, M. & Lipská, K. (2020). Dvě relativizač ní strategie v č eštině : konstrukč ně gramatický př ístup. Naše ř eč 103(1–2), 37–54. Gladrow, W. & Kosta, P. (1999). Syntax und Syntaxkonzeptionen. In H. Jachnow, ed., Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 386–424. Gołą b, Z. & Friedman, V. A. (1972). The relative clause in Slavic. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi, & G. C. Phares, eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 30–46. González i Planas, F. (2014). On quotative recomplementation: Between pragmatics and morphosyntax. Lingua, 146, 39–74. Haspelmath, M. (2004). Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath, ed., Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–39. Haspelmath, M. (2007). Coordination. In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Second Edition, Volume II: Complex Constructions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–51. Hoekstra, E. (1993). Dialectal variation inside CP as parametric variation. In W. Abraham & J. Bayer, eds., Dialektsyntax (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 5), Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag, pp. 161–179. Hudeč ek, L. & Vukojevic,́ L. (2006). Ne samo . . . nego/već (i) ustrojstva. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 32, 127–158. Hurford, J. R. (2014). The Origins of Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jahic,́ D., Halilovic,́ S., & Palic,́ I. (2000). Gramatika bosanskoga jezika, Zenica: Dom štampe. Johannessen, J. B. (2005). The syntax of correlative adverbs. Lingua, 115, 419–443. Jordanoska, I. (2017). Coordination, Conditionals and Questions: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation. MA Thesis, University of Leiden. Katič ic,́ R. (1991). Sintaksa hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Zagreb: HAZU – Globus. Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99. Klemensiewicz, Z. (1953). Zarys składni polskiej, Warsaw: Pań stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Koneski, B. (1976). Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik, Skopje: Kultura. Kordić, S. (1995). Relativna reč enica, Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvo – Matica hrvatska. Kordić, S. (2008). Koordinacija i subordinacija u složenim reč enicama slavenskih jezika. Južnoslovenski filolog, 64, 189–197.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
333
334
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
Kortmann, B. (2001). Adverbial clauses. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes, eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol 1, Amsterdam: Pergamon, pp. 162–167. Krvina, D. & Žele, A. (2018). Vezniki: poskus opredelitve njihove vloge v slovenskih zloženih povedih. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 24, 1–25. Ledgeway, A. (2005). Moving through the left periphery: The dual complementiser system in the dialects of Southern Italy. Transactions of the Philological Society, 103(3), 339–396. Ledgeway, A. (2006). The dual complementizer system in Southern Italy: Spirito Greco, materia Romanza? In A. L. Lepschy & A. Tosi, eds., Rethinking Languages in Contact: the Case of Italian, London: Modern Humanities Research Association and Routledge, pp. 112–126. Lohninger, M. & Wurmbrand, S. (2020). Typology of complement clauses. In A. Benz, W. Frey, M. Krifka, T. McFadden, & M. Ż ygis, eds., Handbook of Clausal Embedding, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marušič , F., Nevins, A., & Saksida, A. (2007). Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. FASL, 15, 210–227. Marušič , F. & Nevins, A. (2010). Two types of neuter: Closest-conjunct agreement in the presence of ‘5&ups’. FASL, 18, 301–317. Marušič , F., Nevins, A., & Badecker, B. (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Sln. Syntax, 18(1), 39–77. Mascarenhas, S. (2014). Complementizer doubling in European Portuguese. Rivista di grammatica generativa, 36, 105–116. McCloskey, J. (2006). Questions and questioning in a local English. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger, & P. H. Portner, eds., Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 87–126. Mihaljevic,́ M. (2013). Parenteza s glagolima govorenja u hrvatskom jeziku. Rasprave: Č asopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 39(2), 527–544. Mihaljevic,́ M. (2018). The structure of coordination: Evidence from Croatian Church Slavonic. FASL, 25, 200–213. Mihaljevic,́ M. (2019). Udvajanje dopunjač a u hrvatskome crkvenoslavenskom jeziku. Rasprave: Č asopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 45(2), 571–600. Mihaljevic,́ M., Šimic,́ A., & Vela, J. (2021). Iz sintakse Drugoga beramskog brevijara. In M. Mihaljević & A. Radoševic,́ eds., Studije o Drugome beramskom brevijaru, Zagreb: Staroslavenski institut, pp. 325–350. Minova-Gjurkova, L. (2011). Sintaksa na makedonskiot standarden jazik, treto dopolneto izdanie, Skopje: 2-ri Avgust S. Mithun, M. (1988). The grammaticization of coordination. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson, eds., Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 331–359. Munaro, N. (2016). A diachronic approach to complementizer doubling in Italo-Romance and the notion of downward reanalysis. Rivista di grammatica generativa, 38, 215–228. Paoli, S. (2004). The ‘double CHE constructions’: A comparative perspective. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 107, 193–209. Pašov, P. (2005). Bă lgarska gramatika, Sofia: Izdatelska kă šta “Hermes”.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Coordination and Subordination
Palašic,́ N. (2018). O granicama (i dodirima) koordinacije i subordinacije. In I. Palić, ed., Sarajevski filološki susreti 4. Zbornik radova (knjiga 1), Sarajevo: Bosansko filološko društvo, pp. 11–23. Petrović, V. (2004). Upotreba veznika kako i da u komplementnoj klauzi srpskog jezika. Slavia Meridionalis, 4, 35–44. Plesnič ar, V. (2015). Podvajanje veznikov okoli podrednih stavkov v slovenšč ini. In F. Marušič , P. Mišmaš, & R. Žaucer, eds., Škrabč evi dnevi 9: Zbornik prispevkov s simpozija 2015, Nova Gorica: Založba Univerze v Novi Gorici, pp. 113–126. Plesnič ar, V. (2020). Complementizer doubling in Sln. subordinate clauses. In F. Marušič , P. Mišmaš, & R. Žaucer, eds., Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2017, Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 233–255. Radford, A. (2013). The complementiser system in spoken English: Evidence from broadcast media. In V. Camacho-Taboada, Á. L. Jiménez-Fernández, J. Martín-González, & M. Reyes-Tejedor, eds., Information Structure and Agreement, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–54. Radford, A. (2018). Colloquial English: Structure and Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ribarova, Z. & Ribarova, S. (2015). Č eška gramatika s vježbama, Zagreb: Porfirogenet d.o.o. Sesar, D. (2018). Pregled slovač ke sintakse, Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet Sveuč ilišta u Zagrebu FF press. Silic,́ J. & Pranjkovic,́ I. (2005). Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka uč ilišta, Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Stankovska, P. (2013). Č eška skladnja, Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta. Stankovska, P. (2018). Infinitiv jako pravovalenč ní doplně ní sloves v č eštině a ve slovinštině . Prace filologiczne, 72, 345–355. Stassen, L. (2000). AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology, 4, 1–54. Švedova, N. J., ed. (1980). Russkaja grammatika. Tom II: Sintaksis, Moscow: Nauka. Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. E., & Hwang, S. J. (2007). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Second edition, Volume II: Complex Constructions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237–300. Uhlik, M. & Žele, A. (2019). Sln. comitative constructions with dual personal pronouns. Rhema, 3, 115–132. Več erka, R. (1961). Syntax aktivních participií v staroslově nštině , Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Več erka, R. (1996). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax III. Die Satztypen: der einfache Satz, Freiburg im Breisgau: Weiher. Več erka, R. (2002). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax IV. Die Satztypen: der zusammengesetzte Satz, Freiburg im Breisgau: Weiher. Villa-García, J. (2015). The Syntax of Multiple-que Sentences in Spanish. Along the Left Periphery, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Viti, C. (2013). Forms and functions of subordination in Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics, 126, 89–117. Wälchli, B. (2009). Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
335
336
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ
Wiemer, B. (2021). A general template of clausal complementation and its application to South Slavic: Theoretical premises, typological background, empirical issues. In B. Wiemer & B. Sonnenhauser, eds., Clausal Complementation in South Slavic, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–159. Willer-Gold, J. et al. (2016). Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 187–224.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.016 Published online by Cambridge University Press
16 Numerals and Quantity Expressions Steven Franks
16.1 Introduction The topic of Slavic numerals and quantity expressions – which are lumped together here as Quantifiers (Q), so that phrases containing them are QPs – is an old but perennial one. In this survey the Russian phenomena are first examined, and then compared to other Slavic languages. The literature on Slavic numerals is overwhelming. Scholars continue to draw on Suprun’s classic 1959 book, whose observations inspired much subsequent seminal work, including Pesetsky’s influential 1982 dissertation and Corbett’s 1978 discovery of the ‘numeral squish’ in Slavic (and beyond). Babby (1987) further helped to bring the problem of Russian QPs to the attention of general linguists; Babby’s and Pesetsky’s ideas are revisited from the perspective of other Slavic languages in Franks (1994, 1995, 2002, 2018). The quirks of Slavic numerals also serve as much of the empirical basis for Ionin & Matushansky (2018). Historically,1 the numbers ‘one’ through ‘four’ were syntactically adjectival (albeit not in terms of their morphology) and agreed with the modified noun, whereas ‘five’ and above were formally nouns and hence took adnominal genitives.2 The situation in the modern Slavic languages evolved by virtue of the breakdown of this system. The result is that the morphological form of a numeral can either depend on the noun it quantifies (agreement) or the numeral can itself impose some form on that noun (government). Modifiers of that noun were then assimilated to a variety of patterns. In Slavic QPs we thus encounter a morass of morphological complexity, exacerbated by a puzzling variation across the different languages. 1 2
For numerals in Old Church Slavonic, see Huntley (1993: §§3.15 and 4.10). This is a simplification; as Corbett (1978) discusses, there never really was (or could be) a straightforward bipolar opposition between adjectival and nominal numerals. These are instead endpoints of a continuum (or ‘squish'), with lower numbers more prone to bearing adjectival properties and higher ones more likely to be instantiated as nouns. See also Ionin & Matushansky (2018: §6.1).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
338
STEVEN FRANKS
16.2 Russian (East Slavic) Russian is examined in more depth, as this language is taken as a point of departure for the rest of the chapter.
16.2.1 Two Core Contrasts The Russian facts are as follows: numerals above odin ‘one’ (except for compound numerals ending in forms of odin) assign some form of genitive to the nominal material following them; pjat' ‘five’ and above assign the genitive plural;3 and the ‘paucal’ numerals oba/obe ‘bothM - N / F ’, dva/dve ‘twoM - N / F ’, tri ‘three’, and č etyre ‘four’ (as well as compound numerals ending in dva/dve, tri, and č etyre) assign a form which is generally (but not always) identical to the genitive singular. Some representative examples are given in (1): (1)
a.
b.
c.
Vanja s''el (dvadcat') odnu kartošku. Vanja ate twenty oneA C C potatoA C C . S G ‘Vanja ate (twenty) one potato(es).’ Vanja s''el (dvadcat') tri kartoški. Vanja ate twenty three potatoG E N . S G ‘Vanja ate (twenty) three potatoes.’ Vanja s''el (dvadcat') pjat' kartošek. Vanja ate twenty five potatoesG E N . P L ‘Vanja ate (twenty) five potatoes.’
The verb s''est’ ‘to eat’ assigns accusative to its direct object, which is realized both on odnu ‘one’ and kartošku ‘potato’ in (1a), but in (1b), (1c) is blocked from reaching the noun by the genitive-assigning numerals tri ‘three’ and pjat' ‘five’.4 Following Babby (1987), this pattern can be called ‘heterogeneous’, since two distinct cases are realized within a single nominal domain. Strikingly, the heterogeneous pattern is not exhibited in oblique positions. Instead, the appropriate case permeates throughout the numeral phrase: (2)
a.
b.
c.
3 4
Vanja vladeet odnim inostrannym jazykom. Vanja possesses oneI N S T foreignI N S T . S G languageI N S T . S G ‘Vanja speaks one foreign language.’ Vanja vladeet tremja inostrannymi jazykami. Vanja possesses threeI N S T foreignI N S T . P L languagesI N S T . P L ‘Vanja speaks three foreign languages.’ Vanja vladeet pjat'ju inostrannymi jazykami. Vanja possesses fiveI N S T foreignI N S T . P L languagesI N S T . P L ‘Vanja speaks five foreign languages.’
In keeping with Corbett’s squish, million behaves like a noun, while tysjač a ‘thousand’ has both N and Q variants. These are left unmarked for case, since they have been variously analyzed as accusative or caseless.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Numerals and Quantity Expressions
The verb vladet' ‘to possess’ governs the instrumental. Crucially, this lexically specified case requirement cannot be overridden by the genitive assigned by the numerals in (2b), (2c). Again adopting Babby’s terminology, this pattern can be called ‘homogeneous’, since the same case is realized throughout the nominal domain. The contrast between (1) and (2) presents a fundamental puzzle for any analysis of case assignment in quantified phrases in Slavic. A second puzzle concerns agreement with a QP when it is the subject. The two possibilities are that the verb can be plural or neuter: (3)
Pjat' five
mašin carsG E N
pod''exali/pod''exalo drove-upP L / drove-upN
k to
vokzalu. station
Individuation and referentiality tend to impose plural agreement (five distinct car-arrival events), whereas neuter is usually favored when the subject has a group (one event) or existential interpretation.5 Thus only plural is available in certain contexts which call for specific reference: (4)
Pjat' five
ženšč in womenG E N
smotreli/*smotrelo lookedP L / lookedN
na at
sebja self
v in
zerkalo. mirror
Plural is similarly expected in contexts which call for individuation: (5)
Pjat' five
ženšč in womenG E N
rasstalis'/*rasstalos' dispersedP L / dispersedN
na on
mostu. bridge
And, as will be important when compared with Polish, the plural is also required if the numeral is preceded by a plural modifier: (6)
Èti/Vse theseN O M /allN O M
pjat' five
butylok bottlesG E N
stojali/*stojalo stoodP L / stoodN
na on
stole. table
On the other hand, only neuter is available in the ‘approximative inversion’ construction in which the numeral precedes the noun: (7)
V ètom restorane obedalo/*obedali č elovek desjat'.6 in this restaurant dinedN /dinedP L peopleG E N ten ‘There were approximately ten people dining in this restaurant.’
As expected, any attempt to impose conflicting requirements leads to ineffability: (8)
5
6
*Ženšč in womenG E N
pjat' five
smotreli/smotrelo lookedP L / lookedN
na at
sebja self
v in
zerkalo. mirror
These differences were highlighted by Pesetsky (1982) and are explored in Franks (1994, 1995); for additional discussion of the contrast see Pereltsvaig (2006). Note that, in keeping with the claim in Section 16.2.2 that approximative inversion requires a bare QP, the regular genitive plural ljudej is impossible here. See (22) in Section 16.2.4.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
339
340
STEVEN FRANKS
The impossibility of resolving (8) implies that the inversion which gives rise to an approximative interpretation in (7) is incompatible with the referentiality imposed by the reflexive in (4).
16.2.2 Two Structures A traditional way of understanding the alternatives in Section 16.2.1 is that these reflect structural differences. Going back to Pesetsky (1982) is the idea that plural agreement in (3) implies that the N(oun) is the head, whereas the neuter option reflects non-agreement (default) and implies that the Q is: (9)
[NP Q NG E N ]
b.
[QP Q NG E N ]
If, furthermore, QPs are caseless, then the homogeneous pattern in (2) must require the NP option, whereas the impossibility of agreement in (7) means approximative inversion requires the QP one. Additional consequences are that the reflexive in (4) needs a (referential) NP subject, as does the individuating predicate in (5). This account is updated in Franks (1994, 1995) to reflect newer phrasestructure models, in particular, the assumptions of X-bar syntax that every head projects a phrase and the proposal that nominal expressions can be maximally D(eterminer)Ps: (10)
[DP D [QP Q [NPG E N ]]]
b.
[QP Q [NPG E N ]]
In both structures the numeral in QP assigns genitive case to its complement NP, and QP can (but need not) be itself contained within a DP. This fundamental contrast raises further questions put aside here, such as the category of the numeral and whether or not it is the head of QP.7
16.2.3 Paucals and Modifiers Across Slavic, the greatest complexity is seen in the behavior of the lower numerals, which were syntactically adjectival, because the nouns they modified could be singular (‘one’), dual (‘two’, ‘both’), or plural (‘three’, ‘four’). With the paucals (‘two’ through ‘four’), in particular, the confusion arises from reconciling the form of the noun and its modifiers with the possible reanalysis of the numeral as a governer, complicated by concomitant changes, such as loss of the dual or collapse of the case system, as well as syncretism (i.e. formal identity between different cases/numbers, as in BCMS žene ‘women’ N O M . P L = A C C . P L ) and the pressure to assimilate to the ‘five’-and-above pattern. In Russian in the oblique cases, as seen in (2b), they decline and the entire phrase bears the appropriate (homogeneous) form, just like ‘five’ and 7
For example, agreeing/declining numerals could be adjectives and QP could have a null head with the numeral as its specifier ([QP numeral [Q ø]]). See Neidle (1982/1988) for the categorial status of numerals, and Bailyn (2012: §5.3), as well as Franks (1995: §5.2.1.3), for arguments that [Q ø] assigns genitive and the proposal that only declining numerals are heads.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Numerals and Quantity Expressions
above. The complexities arise in nominative and accusative contexts, since modifiers after paucals are canonically genitive plural (as they are after ‘five’ and above) but under certain circumstances nominative-accusative plural is preferred: (11)
a. b.
?tri three tri three
vkusnyx tastyG E N . P L vkusnye tastyN O M - A C C . P L
kartoški potatoesG E N . S G kartoški potatoesN O M - A C C . P L
The ambiguity of the form kartoški facilitates the possibility of vkusnye in (11b), which as a subject would be unequivocally nominative hence induce an agreeing plural predicate (i.e. the NP/DP structure). When (as with masculines) the noun’s genitive singular does not coincide with its nominative plural, the adjective is usually the expected genitive plural,8 although when the difference is solely a matter of stress both forms are acceptable: (12)
a. tri three b. tri three
glupyx/*glupye stupidG E N . P L /stupidN O M - A C C . P L krasivyx/krasivye beautifulG E N . P L /beautifulN O M - A C C . P L
brata brotherG E N . S G sestrý/*sëstry sistersG E N . S G /sistersN O M - A C C . P L
Glossing the form of the noun after paucal numbers is already a matter of analysis, as it is unclear whether this is a special type of (genitive) case or (plural) number, hence the uncertainty about how adjectives should agree. The role of syncretism is moreover diminished by the impossibility of using the nominative-accusative plural adjective with a-declension nouns referring to men (e.g. dva dobryx/*dobrye mužč iny ‘two goodG E N . P L / N O M . P L menG E N . S G - N O M . P L ’),9 as well as with neuters, despite the fact that -a serves as both the genitive singular and nominative-accusative ending. It thus seems like the choice of adjectival form primarily depends on gender. The paucal construction also reveals an interesting fact about the interaction between animacy and approximative inversion, where the latter is argued to be a property of bare (i.e. maximal) QPs. Paucal phrases normally reflect animacy by appearing in the genitive in accusative contexts but, for some speakers, need not. Thus either homogeneous č etyrëx soldat ‘fourG E N soldiersG E N . P L ’ or heterogeneous č etyre soldata ‘four soldiersG E N . S G ’ are possible in (13): (13)
8
9
Ja I
videl saw
[DP
č etyrëx fourG E N
soldat] soldiersG E N . P L
/
%[QP
č etyre four
soldata]. soldiersG E N . S G
This is a change in progress; the nominative-accusative in (12a) was viable in nineteenth-century Russian, while the genitive in (11a) is losing ground. For details on paucals, see Ionin and Matushansky (2018: §6.3) and references therein. Note that the numeral must be masculine dva. Also common with masculines in Slavic are collective numerals (e.g. dvoe mužč in ‘two menG E N . P L ’), but space limitations prevent their inclusion in this survey.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
341
342
STEVEN FRANKS
These variants correlate with whether the expression is a DP or QP, as confirmed by the fact that only the referential DP variant č etyrëx soldat can antecede a relative clause: (14)
. . . [DP kotorye whoN O M . P L
č etyrëx soldat] / *[QP č etyre soldata], fourG E N soldiersG E N . P L four soldiersG E N . S G šli domoj. were-going home
Now consider (15), where approximative inversion is incompatible with the DP version: (15)
Ja videl [QP soldata I saw soldiersG E N . S G ‘I saw about four soldiers.’
č etyre]/*[DP four
soldat soldiersG E N . P L
č etyrëx]. fourG E N
It should finally be noted that some nouns occur after paucals in a form that is distinct from the genitive singular. The correlation of form with gender is corroborated by the fact that female surnames in -ov or -in, which belong to the pronominal declension in that they are adjectival but decline like nouns in the nominative-accusative, occur only in that form after paucals, and modifiers must also agree: (16)
dve twoF
umnye/*umnyx smartN O M . P L /smartG E N . P L
Puškiny/*Puškinoj (female) PushkinsN O M . P L /PushkinsG E N . S G
There are also five words, all monosyllabic masculines, which employ special end-stressed forms after paucal numerals (the regular genitive is stemstressed). These are č asá ‘hour’, šagá ‘step’, šará ‘ball’, rjadá ‘row’, and sledá ‘track, trace’, but usage varies (č asá is the most robust) and end-stress is suppressed when the noun is not linearly adjacent to the numeral,10 as in the following set from Mel'č uk (1985: 432–434): (17)
a. b. c.
dva two dva two [dva two
šagá/*šága stepP A U C /stepG E N . S G [širokix *šagá/šága] broad G E N . P L stepP A U C /stepG E N . S G s polovinoj] *šagá/šága with half stepP A U C /stepG E N . S G
It is worth pointing out that these words are all end-stressed in the plural, suggesting that although the desinence is that of the (genitive) singular, the stress in the paucal is coopted from the plural. Space constraints preclude examination of the numeral systems of the other East Slavic languages, although relevant properties are generally intermediate between those of Russian and West Slavic Polish, in which as noted in Section 16.3.3, paucal numerals never impose a special ‘adpaucal’ form. 10
Ionin & Matushansky (2018: 185), however, offer č etyre dolgix/*dolgie č asá/č ása ‘four longG E N . P L /longN O M . P L hourP A U C /hourG E N . S G ’, with non-adjacent paucal č asá.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Numerals and Quantity Expressions
This is, however, not true of Ukrainian and Belarusian. As Ionin & Matushansky (2018: 183) citing Mel'č uk (1985: 436) observe, in Ukrainian many masculine nouns appear in a unique form – the nominative-accusative plural ending combined with the genitive singular stress: (18)
a. b.
dva two tri three
(č ornyx) blackG E N . P L vórohi enemiesP A U C
týny fencesP A U C
The forms týny and vórohi are distinct, in that they are segmentally like the nominative plural (tyný, vorohí ) but have stem-stress (genitive singulars are týnu, vóroha). Also, for some nouns with stem changes the adpaucal form is the regular genitive singular rather than the expected plural: (19)
a. b. c.
dva twoM dviF two dvaN two
hromadjanyna/*hromadjany citizenG E N . S G /citizensN O M . P L divč yny/*divč ata girlG E N . S G /girlsN O M . P L imeni/*imena nameG E N . S G /namesN O M . P L
Akiner (1983) observes that Belarusian neuter nouns exhibit a similar mix: (20)
a. b.
dva/try/č atyry two/three/four dva/try/č atyry two/three/four
siałý villagesP A U C pism ́ ý lettersP A U C
The forms siałý and pism ́ ý are distinct, in that they have the nominative plural ending (sióły, písm y) but the end-stress of the singular (genitive singulars are ́ 11 siałá, pism ́ á). Comparing these facts to Russian, one might conclude that adpaucal forms combine properties of both singular (desinence for Russian, prosody for Ukrainian and Belarusian) and plural (prosody for Russian, desinence for Ukrainian and Belarusian). Note lastly that these two languages also share with Russian the approximative inversion construction,12 although in Ukrainian (but not Belarusian), inverting the noun with the numeral causes it to appear in the genitive plural even with paucals. The following minimal pair is from Franks (1995: 173), where (21b) means ‘approximately two dollars’: (21)
a. b.
11
12
dva two dolariv dollarsG E N . P L
dolary dollarsN O M . P L dva two
The complexities actually extend beyond the neuter. While masculine and feminine nouns after paucals also take the nominative plural desinence, Mayo (1993: 935) gives feminine try vjadrý ‘three bucketsP A U C ’, again with the end-stress of the singular (rendering it, coincidentally, identical to the genitive singular). As Mel'č uk (1985: 156) notes, only the East Slavic languages have this approximative construction, a fact Franks (1995: 174) attributes to only these languages tolerating bare QPs.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
343
344
STEVEN FRANKS
16.2.4 Special Adnumerative Forms As in many languages, some Russian nouns have special forms that occur after quantity expressions, such as let ‘years’.13 There is also the suppletive form č elovek ‘people’, which looks idiosyncratic but actually has a zero-ending making it similar to kilogramm (which similarly can only occur in QPs, albeit alongside regular kilogrammov), as well as to the few other masculines which have a genitive plural identical to their nominative singular, for example soldat as in (13)–(15). (22)
a. b.
(èti) theseN O M . P L opisanie description
sem' seven (ètix) theseG E N . P L
č elovek/*ljudej peopleC F /peopleG E N . P L (semi) *č elovek/ljudej sevenG E N peopleC F /peopleG E N . P L
Note that the impossibility of adnumerative č elovek in (22b) even after semi shows that its genitive form here depends not on the numeral but rather is a function of the entire DP’s adnominal status. Ukrainian and Belarusian lack most special genitive plurals, with expected p''at' rokiv, pjac' hadoŭ ‘five years’ and p''at' kilohramiv, pjac' kilahramaŭ ‘five kilos’, respectively, but do have p''at' č olovik, pjac' č alavek ‘five people’ (alongside less colloquial p''at' ljudej, pjac' ljudzej); regular p''at' č olovikiv, pjac' č alavekaŭ exist but mean ‘five men’.
16.2.5 Other Quantity Expressions Diverse elements could be classified as non-numeric quantity expressions. Put aside here are (agreeing) logical Qs of the každyj ‘each’, ves'/vsë ‘all, every’ type, as well as such numeric exotica as ‘zero’, fractions, collectives, and compound numerals, which are nicely catalogued for Russian (and, to a far lesser extent, Polish) by Ionin & Matushansky (2018). The concentration is instead on those expressions which evoke the genitive as numerals do. Most obvious are Qs like mnogo ‘many’ and neskol'ko ‘several’: (23)
a. b.
mnogo many neskol'ko several
butylok bottlesG E N . P L butylok bottlesG E N . P L
Mnogo (likewise nemnogo ‘(a) few’) has an adjectival variant (mnogie butylki ‘manyN O M . P L bottlesN O M . P L ’), whereas neskol'ko (likewise skol'ko ‘how many’) does not (*neskol'kie). These items also differ with respect to their ability to take regular genitive plural complements: (24)
13
a.
mnogo many
č elovek/ljudej peopleC F /peopleG E N . P L
These will be glossed as ‘count’ forms (CF), as will be the special adnumerative forms in Bulgarian discussed in Section 16.5; for general discussion of count forms in both languages, see Ionin & Matushansky (2018: §6.6).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108973021.017 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Numerals and Quantity Expressions
b.
neskol'ko several
č elovek/*ljudej peopleC F /peopleG E N . P L
The more precise cardinality of ‘several’ apparently makes it more like a true number. This curious lexical contrast will also be demonstrated for Bulgarian