Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

3.2.3 Development of Proto-Slavic sound combinations

3.2.3.1 Simplification and new clusters

As noted in 1.3.1.1 and 1.7.1, while clusters of ‘stop þ sonorant’ were normally

accepted in Proto-Slavic, as conforming to the Law of Rising Sonority, the treat-

ment of the clusters /tl/ and /dl/ represents one of the features distinguishing West

Slavic from the rest. The dental stop remained in West Slavic, but was eliminated

elsewhere:

(43) tl, dl

PSl plet-la ‘plait’ [PPA FemSg] ved-la ‘lead’ [PPA FemSg]

Rus plela

vela

Blg ple

la do-ve

Cz pletla vedla

Pol plotła wiodła

Some former transitional dialects are out of step with the modern group, e.g. N-Sln

(Carinthian) with /tl/, /dl/ (10.2.1), Central Slovak with /l/, at least inside roots

(10.4.4). And an odd early variant in NW-Russian (Pskov region) has /tl/ > /kl/

and /dl/ > gl/ – which is clearly not just simplification (10.3.3).

When the syllable was restructured, the principle of rising sonority ceased to

operate: there could now be closed final syllables and also internal closed

syllables (where the second might be less sonorous than the first [e.g. ‘sonorant þ

non-sonorant’ – *myx-‘moss’> mx-,‘stopþ fricative’ – *p{s- ‘write’ >ps-]).

‘ ‘Desirable’’ clusters were welcomed (e.g. ‘fricative þ sonorant’ – *syn- ‘sleep’ > sn-;

‘fricative þ stop’ – *syt- ‘hundred’ > st-). But resistance to ‘‘undesirable’’ clusters

continued to some extent in all areas, with a broad spectrum of preference. Polish at

one extreme accepted almost all, and B/C/S at the other rejected almost all. In

particular many areas resisted word-final clusters, sometimes of any sort (e.g. B/C/S

even now often converts such clusters in borrowed words: a

kcent > a

kcenat

‘accent’). All areas resisted final clusters of ‘consonant þ sonorant’ some of the

time (e.g.*ogn{

‘fire’ acquired a fill vowel everywhere, even Pol ogien

), but few did

this all of the time (e.g.* mysl{, ‘thought’, see above 3.2.1.1 (4) ).

Examples of new initial clusters structurally matching the old are:

(44a) fricative or stop þ sonorant: s({)rebr- ‘silver’ (k)yne˛g-‘prince’

s(y)n- ‘sleep’

fricative þ stop: zˇ ({)d-‘wait’ s({)de ‘here’ ( > zd- see below)

3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 149

The same could occur internally, where ‘sonorant þ stop’ or any geminate cluster

would mean a closed syllable, the others not:

(44b) sonorant þ stop or fricative: zem({)sk- ‘earth’ [Adj]

kon({)sk- ‘horse’ [Adj] prav({)d- ‘truth’

fricative þ sonorant: (po)s(y)l- ‘send’

stop þ sonorant: sed({)l- ‘saddle’ (new dl even

in East and South Slavic)

fricative þ fricative (inc. new geminate): rus({)sk- ‘Russian’ [Adj]

Examples of new initial clusters which do not structurally match the old:

(45) sonorant þ sonorant: m({)r- ‘die’ l( { )n- ‘flax’ (see above 3.2.1.1)

fricative þ fricative

(inc. new geminate): s(y)sa- ‘suck’ v(y)ved- ‘lead in’

stop þ stop: k(y)de ‘where’

Examples of final clusters:

(46) most

(y) ‘bridge’ mozg(y) ‘brain’

3.2.3.2 Assimilation, devoicing

No doubt as a direct result of the new syllabic structure, the consonantal elements

within and across syllable boundaries became closely connected, as reflected in

the various types of (regressive) assimilation. From then on they occur in all areas:

of voice, place of articulation and – to a lesser extent – manner of articulation.

In respect of voice, in almost every area – with two exceptions – obstruents in a

new cluster acquired the voice status of the final member of the group. New final

voiced obstruents became devoiced, except that the word boundary was usually

also perceived as simply a syllable boundary, so that a voiced obstruent in the

following word (within the same syntagma) would preserve the voice and indeed

cause the voicing of a preceding voiceless one. The sonorants, being inherently

voiced, do not normally participate in this assimilation, either actively (i.e. causing

voicing) or passively (i.e. being devoiced).

The phoneme /w-v/ behaves in a special fashion, since in Proto-Slavic it was a

sonorant without a voiceless partner. After the final devoicing began, /w-v/ tended to

become an obstruent partnered by [f] – which usually became a new phoneme /f/ – in

those areas where it was [v]. Elsewhere it remained a sonorant with no voiceless

partner. Its ambiguous status is reflected well in Russian, where it is devoiced to [f]

before voiceless obstruents (here behaving like an obstruent), but does not cause the

assimilative voicing of preceding voiceless obstruents (here behaving like a sonorant).

For modern examples of these features see below, 3.4.3.2.

150 3. Phonology

3.2.4 Development of the Proto-Slavic suprasegmental features

The late Proto-Slavic situation in regard to suprasegmental features was as follows

(and see 1.3.1.8):



stress was free and mobile;



quantity (length) was now phonemic on most vowels (from

diphthongs); in word-final position there occurred a short version of

the long vowels, but still with no choice available;



tone (rising  non-rising pitch) was phonemic on stressed initial

vowels (carried over after the monophthongization of diphthongs,

which alone had had such an opposition. This means that only the

vowels /i, u, e

,o˛ ,e˛/ showed phonemic tone, since /a/ and /y/ did not

derive from diphthongs). The rising pitch was the marked feature.

We now consider the main lines of development of each of these features.

3.2.4.1 Stress

Stress remained free and mobile in East Slavic and most of South Slavic, though in

most areas it underwent positional changes. Some of these were purely phono-

logical: e.g. in B/C/S (S

tokavian) the stress was retracted globally by one syllable.

But most related to morphology: e.g. regularization within the paradigm. This

meant a loss of mobility of stress, that is, opposition within parts of a paradigm, for

example between the singular and plural of nouns.

The B/C/S retraction meant a limitation on the freedom of stress, for example it

could not fall on the final syllable of any polysyllabic word. This change also gave

rise to a new rising pitch on the newly stressed syllable, which revitalized the feature

of pitch in this area.

In Slovenian stress shifts – this time in both directions, related to existing pitch

and quantity – produced either different quality or a new pitch, according to the

different dialects. This led to the present situation in which the standard has both a

tonal and non-tonal variant.

The exception in South Slavic is Macedonian, in which the stress is fixed in

relation to the word boundary, possibly through a stage similar to the B/C/S

retraction, which then became generalized on a non-final syllable. In the modern

standard the position of stress is on the antepenultimate, while in dialects the

position may be penultimate (south and south-west) or free (east) (10.2.3).

In West Slavic stress also became fixed, in this case on the initial syllable of all

words, no doubt through the same stage as B/C/S and Macedonian. Later, Polish

alone shifted the fixed stress to the penultimate syllable.

3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 151

Note that where the stress is fixed in relation to the beginning of the word, the

stress is also not mobile. But it remains mobile in those languages with the stress

fixed in relation to the end of the word, since endings within a paradigm may have

varying numbers of syllables. For Polish in particular this is an important feature,

and possibly one which was a motive force in the shift from initial to penult. It is less

important for Macedonian, since the nominal system is now substantially without

inflexion, so that mobile stress is really meaningful only for verbs. Ultimately this

sort of mobility is of limited importance, since the opposition between forms must

be signalled by segmental differences, not suprasegmental ones (cf. Russian, where

mobility of stress can be meaningful, e.g. ruki ‘hand’ may be [GenSg] or [NomPl]

depending on stress position (4.2.4)).

3.2.4.2 Quantity

Vowel length became phonemic (again) in West and part of South Slavic, but

ceased to be related to quality almost everywhere, including East Slavic. In the

areas with free stress, it tended to be a concomitant of the stressed syllable, and this

is the case in the ‘‘strong-stress’’ languages – Russian, Belarusian and Bulgarian,

and to a lesser extent in Ukrainian.

Quantity developed most strongly as a phonemic feature in West Slavic, at the

expense of free stress, and supported by extensive contraction, of which Czech was

the centre (see 3.2.1.6). It survived, however, only in Czech and Slovak, and was

lost (c. sixteenth century) in Polish and Sorbian. Slovak subsequently weakened the

range of quantity with the so-called ‘‘Rhythmic Law’’, whereby two consecutive

long syllables are avoided (diphthongs behave like long vowels: 3.5.2).

In South Slavic quantity became phonemic in B/C/S and Slovenian, though

never independently of either stress or pitch. The retraction of stress in B/C/S

(above) made pitch a much more important feature, and it also restricted the

domain of length as it did that of stress, since no pretonic vowel may be long

(though there are relatively few pretonic vowels, given the rarity of non-initial

stress). However, the length of originally long stressed syllables was retained, so

that there could still be an opposition in post-tonic position. Slovenian is the one

language in which length has remained associated with quality to a small extent,

since its phoneme /

/ may not be long. For other vowels length is limited to stressed

position.

The remaining languages (East Slavic and Bulgarian/Macedonian) have aban-

doned length as a potential phonemic feature. There are some indications that

Ukrainian did develop it briefly in the Common East Slavic (Old Russian) period

through compensatory lengthening of vowels in a syllable before a lost jer. This is

the normal explanation for the development of /o/ and /e/ to /i/ in such positions

152 3. Phonology

(3.2.1.5). And some North Russian dialects may have done the same at least in the

context of a lost stressed jer, which had produced, already in Proto-Slavic, the

so-called ‘‘neo-acute’’ or new rising pitch, which resulted in diphthongs of the /u

o/,

e/ type (see 3.2.1.5 and 1.6.2).

3.2.4.3 Tone

The simple Proto-Slavic opposition of rising  non-rising became complicated with

the appearance of the neo-acute, since this seems to have differed from the old acute

(rising pitch), thus presenting a potential three-way system. It appears that this

situation was unacceptable everywhere and it was resolved in two basic ways:

a. merge the old and new acutes in opposition to the non-rising (circum-

flex), as adopted in: (i) Czech, Upper Sorbian and Slovenian, where

the opposition was converted to one of quantity: acute > long, circum-

flex > short; (ii) East Slavic, Bulgarian and Macedonian, where after

stage (i) the new quantity opposition was then lost and in some cases

reinterpreted as one of stress position (e.g. in Russian polnoglasie

forms);

b. merge the old acute and circumflex in opposition to the new acute,

adopted in: (i) Slovak, Polish, Lower Sorbian, likewise then convert-

ing the opposition to one of quantity: neo-acute > long, the rest >

short; (ii) B/C/S and Slovenian, where it became a new pitch

opposition: neo-acute > rising, the rest > falling. Subsequently, as

noted above, part of B/C/S underwent a retraction of stress which

produced a new tonal opposition: newly stressed syllables (i.e. former

pretonic) > rising, formerly stressed (i.e. initial syllables) > falling.

For the modern picture of phonemic suprasegmental features across the area

see 3.5. For information on dialectal differences, see Chapter 10.

3.3 Modern vowel systems

3.3.1 Phonemes

The Slavonic vowel systems contain from five to perhaps twenty-four phonemes,

depending on how they are analysed. All the languages have /i e a o u/, and may

include additional vowels like high-mid /e

/or/

/, nasal vowels /e˛ a˛ /, syllabic

liquids /r

/, a parallel system of unstressed vowels, and the suprasegmental

features of stress, pitch and length. A language may also have marginal phonemes,

which occur in foreign borrowings, and which have been only partially assimilated.

And there are some sounds whose phonemic status is a matter of disputation. The

3.3 Modern vowel systems 153

systems of vowel phonemes, seen from a standard ‘‘phonetic-phonological’’ view-

point and based on contrasts in minimal pairs, are shown in table 3.5 (with

marginal or disputed phonemes in brackets).

This inventory is close to the maximum number of phonemes, based on minimal

pairs, which can be postulated for each language. Many analyses aim for lower

figures by using distribution (e.g. treating i and y as one phoneme) or by abstracting

suprasegmental features (e.g. B/C/S has not 24, but 6 vowel phonemes, plus pho-

nemic length and phonemic pitch). The phonemic status of vowels is also affected by

the relation between vowel quality and suprasegmentals. Vowel quality is not

radically affected by pitch, but vowel quality and length show some important

correlations. Slovak /



o/-[

ø], for instance, occurs only in words of foreign origin

like no

ta, to

n and morfolo

gia. The native Slovak / ˆo/-[u

] is the proper long counter-

part of short /o/-[

] on historical, typological and morphophonological grounds:

(47a) Cz ku

Slk k

‘horse’

cf.

Table 3.5. Modern vowel systems

Language

Segmental vowel

phonemes

(ISO/Slav

transliteration) Suprasegmental features

PSl i { yee˛ e

aoo˛ y u Free, mobile pitch accent

ı¯ y e˛ e



a o˛ u Length

Blg i e a a

o u Free, mobile stress

Mac i e a o u r

Fixed (antepenultimate) stress

B/C/S i e a o u r

Free, mobile pitch accent

ı¯



ao u Length

Sln i e a

o u Free, mobile pitch or stress

ı¯



a o o



u (r

) Length

Bel i (y) e a o u Free, mobile stress

Ukr i y e a o u Free, mobile stress

Rus i (y) e a o u Free, mobile stress

Cz i e a o u r

Fixed (initial) stress

ı¯



ao u Length

ou (eu au) Diphthongs

Slk i e a

aour

Fixed (initial) stress

ı¯



ao u r

 l



Length

ia ie iu ˆo (eu au) Diphthongs

Sorb i y a o u Fixed (initial) stress

Diphthongs

Pol i (y) e e˛ aa˛ o u Fixed (penultimate) stress

154 3. Phonology

(47b) Cz du

m Slk dom ‘house’ Cz bol Slk b

ol’ ‘pain’

(47c) Slk hlava ‘head’ [GenPl] hla

voda ‘water’ [GenPl] v

ol ‘table’ [GenSg] stola

osem ‘eight’

osmy ‘eighth’

The vowel /o/ is consequently unpaired in respect of length, and is more marginal

in the system of Slovak vowels. Sorbian /e

/[¨ ie] and /o

/[¨uo] present a similar

problem. Like Slovak / ˆo/, they are pronounced as diphthongs (though falling).

Although Sorbian lacks phonemic length, the distribution of /e

/ and /o

/, and their

behavior in morphophonological alternations, show that they are diphthong

phonemes:

(48a) USorb c

ech ‘a Czech’ c

ski [Adj]

(48b) USorb ko

‘horse’ konja [GenSg]

Diphthongs, indeed, are phonemically problematic. All Slavic languages have

phonetic diphthongs, composed of two separate phonemes, like the common

sequence ‘vowel þ /j/’:

(49) Rus c

ita

j! ‘read!’ /c

itaj/ [t



h¨taj]

Such diphthongs must be clearly distinguished from diphthong phonemes, where a

combination of vocalic or semi-vocalic sounds forms a single phoneme, like Slovak

/ ˆo/, Sorbian /e

//o

/ or Czech /ou/:

(50) Cz sud ‘barrel’ soud ‘court’

The diphthong functions like a single phoneme in distribution, minimal pairs

and morphophonology. In Slovak, for instance, the diphthongs /ia ie iu/ partici-

pate in the Slovak Rhythmic Law (3.5.2), and alternate with short vowels in

paradigms:

(51a) Slk chlieb ‘bread’ [GenSg] chleba

(51b) Slk zˇaba ‘frog’ [GenPl] zˇiab

So these are diphthong phonemes. But Slovak /eu/ and /au/ only occur in words of

foreign origin, like pneumatika and autor, and do not alternate with short vowels,

and so are vowel phoneme sequences – as are also ie, ia, iu in foreign words (Pauliny

et al., 1968: 76).

Vowel phonemes are also affected by phonotactics. In particular, some vowels

cannot occur next to, or between, palatal sounds (3.4.3). There is also a close

relationship between vowel quality and stress. Some of the languages show two

3.3 Modern vowel systems 155

vowel systems: one larger system for stressed syllables; and another smaller system

for unstressed syllables, showing neutralization of some of the oppositions of the

full stressed system (3.5.1).

There are three vowel heights in all but Slovenian and Ukrainian, which have

four (also Sorbian, if its diphthongs are treated as simply high vowels); and

oppositions of [  Round] and [ Front], usually interdependent (table 3.6).

The status of vocalic /r

/ is not beyond doubt in Slovenian and Macedonian,

where it is regularly pronounced [

r]. The phonemic analysis could take either

Table 3.6. Stressed vowel inventories

1. Russian, Belarusian, Polish and Sorbian (all in one analysis)

B/C/S, Macedonian, Czech

– Round þ Round

High i u

Mid e o

Low a

þ Front – Front

2. Russian and Belarusian in a second analysis

– Round þ Round

High i y u

Mid e o

Low a

þ Front – Front

3. Ukrainian (and Polish in a second analysis)

– Round þ Round

High i u

High Mid y

Low Mid e o

Low a

þ Front – Front

4. Slovak

– Round þ Round

High i u

Mid e o

Low a

þ Front – Front

156 3. Phonology

alternative: admit /r

/ as a phoneme and omit /

/ (supported by the orthography), or

admit /

/ as a phoneme and omit /r

/ as a vowel phoneme. In Slovenian the presence

of /

/ in other contexts makes the latter option preferable, as in Bulgarian, which

also has /

/, and where the orthography additionally makes this the only reasonable

solution. /r/ remains as a consonant phoneme in both. The absence of /

/elsewhere

in Macedonian makes the vocalic /r

/ solution preferable for it. Czech, Slovak and

B/C/S have an indisputable vocalic /r

/ phoneme. Phonetic evidence supporting these

solutions may be found in the relative length and energy of the [

]–[r] elements across

these languages (Cubberley, 1987).

3.3.2 Phonetics

Generally speaking, the Slavic vowels are closer to cardinal vowels than their

English counterparts: the Slavic high back rounded vowel /u/ is higher, backer

Table 3.6. (cont.)

5. Bulgarian

– Round þ Round

High i u

Mid e

Low a

þ Front – Front

6. Slovenian

– Round þ Round

High i u

High Mid e

( [e] ) o

( [o] )

Low Mid e

Low a

þ Front – Front

7. Sorbian in a second analysis

– Round þ Round

High i u

High Mid e

( [ie] ) o

( [uo] )

Low Mid e o

Low a

þ Front – Front

3.3 Modern vowel systems 157

and rounder than the English /u/, and so on. Differences in pronunciation

between the Slavic languages are related to the number and distribution of

phonemes, and to the range of allophones, particularly in conjunction with factors

like stress.

3.3.2.1 Stressed vowels

We begin with stressed vowels in positions where they are not affected by surround-

ing phonemes. The vowels /i a u/ are similarly pronounced in all the languages, as is

/ in Slovenian and Bulgarian. Other vowel phonemes, however, do show some

important differences:

/y/ Russian and Belarusian have a high central unrounded vowel [



i],

which contrasts with a vowel more like English [

I] in Ukrainian, Polish

and Sorbian.

/e/ Most commonly [f], but raised to [e] before palatalized sounds in

East Slavic, Polish and Sorbian, the languages which keep large series

of hard/soft consonants: Pol cien

[t



] ‘shadow’ vs len [lfn] ‘linen,

flax’. When long and stressed /e/ also tends to [eø] in Czech and B/C/S:

Cz le

to ‘summer’ [eø] vs len ‘flax’ [f], also unstressed: dobre

ho [eø];

B/C/S de

te ‘child’, le

p, le

pa ‘beautiful’ [NomSgMasc/Fem] both [eø]

vs ı%d



em ‘I go’ [fø].

/o/ is strongly lip-rounded in Russian, and may even be pronounced

] (3.2.1.7).

3.3.2.2 Diphthongs

As noted above, Slavic contains numerous phonetic diphthongs of the form

‘vowel þ /j/’ and ‘vowel þ /w/’, which are not diphthong phonemes. Czech and

Slovak have some genuine ‘vowel þ glide/semivowel’ diphthong phonemes (see

above). Other diphthong phonemes are:

(52a) [¨ie]: Sorbian /e

/: Sorb pe

ˇkny

[¨piekn

I] ‘obedient’

(52b) [u

]: Slovak / ˆo/: Slk k

[ku

ł] ‘horse’

(52c) [¨uo]: Sorbian /o

/: Sorb ko

[¨kuon

] ‘horse’

The Sorbian diphthongs tend to be reduced to simple high mid [e] and [o] at

conversational speed, but the diphthongal pronunciation is the literary norm.

3.3.2.3 Nasal vowel phonemes

Polish /e˛ a˛ / preserve their nasal vowel quality only before fricatives, where they are

usually pronounced as rounding diphthongs [f



]. They retain this nasal

158 3. Phonology