Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Table 4.1. Alternations in the inflexion of nouns

Case Conditions Alternation Examples

NomSg Zero ending Fleeting vowel B/C/S ve``t ar ‘wind’  ve``tra [GenSg]

Masc Rus son ‘sleep’  sna [GenSg]

Vowel quality Slk sto

l ‘table’  stola [GenSg]

Pol ro

g ‘horn’  rogu [GenSg]

Vowel length Slk da

zˇd’ ‘rain’  dazˇd’a [GenSg]

DatSgFem -e Mutation Sorb sotra ‘sister’  sotr

Bel raka

‘river’  race

LocSgFem -i/-e Mutation Bel straxa

‘roof’  strase

Ukr fa

bryka ‘factory’  fa

bry

VocSgMasc -e Mutation Slk chlapec ‘lad’  chlapc

Pol profesor ‘professor’  profesorze

NomPl Sec. gender Mutation Blg vojnı

k ‘soldier’  vojnı

-i Pol Czech ‘Czech’  Czesi

GenPl Zero ending Fleeting vowel Cz prac

ka ‘washerwoman’  prac

Nom/AccDu Sorb only Mutation/

palatalization

Sorb wo

ko ‘eye’  wo

ryba ‘fish’  rybje

woda ‘water’  wodz

Table 4.2. Alternations in the inflexion of adjectives

Case Conditions Alternation Examples

NomSg Zero ending Fleeting vowel B/C/S do`` bar ‘good’ (Rus dobr)

Masc cf. B/C/S Rus dobra [FemSg]

C  ø Mac mes t en ‘local’  mesna

[FemSg]

NomPl Sec. gender Mutation Cz c

esky

‘Czech’  c

tı

Cz dobry

‘good’  dobr

Vowel quality Pol wesoły ‘happy’  weseli

[MascPersNomPl]  wesołe

[Other NomPl]

4.5 Morphological typology of alternations 209

Table 4.3. Alternations in the inflexion of verbs

Form Conditions Alternation Examples

Inf/Past Asyllabic Fleeting vowel Rus tere

‘to rub’ 

vs Non-past Root or pleophony tru 1Sg  te¨ r Past Masc

V/nasal C Slk zˇ at

‘to reap’  zˇ nem 1Sg

Finite Asyllabic Fleeting vowel Slk brat

‘to take’  berem 1Sg

vs Inf root

1Sg Non-past Stress Bel hnac

‘to chase’ 

vs rest hanju

1Sg  ho

nis

2Sg

1Sg Non-past Root in Lab l-epenthesis Rus ljubı

‘I love’ 

vs rest and Inf (not

WSl, Blg, Mac)

ljublju

1Sg  lju

bis

2Sg

Infinitive Vowel length Slk kla

‘to put’  kladiem 1Sg

vs Non-past Cz pı

t ‘to drink’  piji 1Sg 

vs Past pil Past Masc

Inf vs Non-past Vowel tone B/C/S mo

liti ‘to ask’  mo`` l



im 1Sg

Infinitive Vowel tone B/C/S kle

ti ‘to curse’ 

vs Non-past ku



em 1Sg 

vs Past Masc/Fem kl e``o  kle

la Past

vs Part kle

t [PPP]

Infinitive Vowel quality Rus ryt

‘to dig’  ro

ju 1Sg

vs Non-past brit

‘to shave’  bre

ju 1Sg

vs Past pec

‘to cook’  pe¨ k Past M

Infinitive ov  uj Slk pracovat’ ‘to work’ 

vs Non-past pracujem 1Sg

Infinitive Additive pal. Rus nestı

‘to carry’ 

and 1Sg Non-past nesu

1Sg 

vs rest nese¨s

2Sg

1Sg Non-past Root in Dent Mutation Cz mohu ‘I can’  moz

2Sg

vs rest or Vel Rus plac

‘I pay’  pla

tis

2Sg

Infinitive

Mutation Pol piec ‘to bake’ 

vs 1Sg Non-past pieke˛ 1Sg 

vs rest pieczesz 2Sg

Aorist

Mutation Blg pı

sax ‘I wrote’ 

vs Imperfect pı

ex ‘I was writing’

Infinitive

Mutation Rus pisa

‘to write’ 

vs Imperative pis

2Sg

and Non-past pis

1Sg, pı

2Sg

210 4. Morphophonology

b. Nouns in -anin drop the -in in the plural (this element having been

originally a singulative suffix, related to ‘one’):

(40) Bel minc

ˇa

nin ‘inhabitant of Minsk’ minc

ˇa

ne [Pl]

hramadzja

nin ‘citizen’ hramadzja

ne [Pl]

c. Some stems show atypical palatalization when followed by certain

inflexional forms. These may derive from collective forms:

(41) Rus brat ‘brother’ NomPl bra

ja cf. Sorb brat, bratra

4.5.2 Nouns: word formation

Some word-forming suffixes may cause:

a. regressive assimilation of voice: B/C/S be

g  be

k-stvo ‘flight’

b. palatalization/mutation:

(42) Cz knih-a ‘book’ knı

-nost ‘bookishness’ knı

-ka ‘book’ [Dim]

cf. knih-ovna ‘library’

Rus be

l-(yj) ‘white’ bel-

‘linen’

c. pleophony, in East Slavic, where non-pleophonic South Slavic roots

alternate in some words with pleophonic East Slavic forms (see also

(34) above):

Table 4.4. Alternations in the word formation of verbs

Form Conditions Alternation Examples

Aspect Stress Rus uznaju

‘I recognize’ 

uzna

ju [Prfv] 1Sg

Vowel

quality

( + length)

Slk spojit’ ‘to combine’ [Prfv] 

spa

jat’ [Imprfv]

Mutation Slk odrazzzit’ ‘repel’ [Prfv] 

odra

at’ [Imprfv]

Determinate

action

Vowel

quality

Ukr nesty

‘to carry’

[Det]  nosy

ty [Indet]

Prefixed Prfv Vowel

quality

Rus podobra

‘to select’

[Prfv] 

vs Imprfv incl. zero podbira

[Imprfv]

and derived noun podbo

r ‘selection’

4.5 Morphological typology of alternations 211

(43) Rus go

rod ‘town, city’ (RusChSl) grazˇdanı

n ‘citizen’

cf. Rus gorozˇ a

nin Ukr horodja

nyn ‘town-/city-dweller’

4.5.3 Adjectives: inflexion

See table 4.2.

4.5.4 Adjectives: word formation

1. Short-form adjectives (indefinite (B/C/S, Sln); predicative adjectives

(ESl, WSl); and standard adjectives (Blg, Mac) show the changes listed

in table 4.2 under [NomSg].

2. Gradation: some forms palatalize the final consonant of the root in

forming the comparative and superlative, together with vowel changes

preceding the palatalized consonant. This category contains the lar-

gest group of suppletive roots (cf. Eng good  better/best) in Slavic

(8.4.4) (and see below on adverbs.)

3. Other word-formation processes with adjectives show:

a. regressive assimilation of voice:

(44) B/C/S te

ak ‘heavy’ [MascSg] te

k-a [FemSg]

b. palatalization/mutation:

(45) Pol wron-a ‘crow’ wron-i [-łi] (Adj)

Wron

-ski [ł]/[j

] (Name)

Cz knih-a ‘book’ knı

-nı

[Adj]

c. vowel quality, often along with patalalization:

(46) Pol kos

cio

ł ‘church’ kos

ciel-ny [Adj]

Sorb pol-o ‘field’ po

l-ny [Adj]

4.5.5 Adverbs

Adverbs are relatively less complex in the alternations found in their roots. In

the positive degree the suffixal formations with -o and -e are widespread and produc-

tive. Those with -e, when this is derived from PSl -e

(in WSl), show palatalization:

(47) Cz dobr-y

‘good’ dobr

-e ‘well’

USorb słab-y ‘weak’ słab-je ‘weakly’

212 4. Morphophonology

Normally, however, the -e is simply the fronted version of -o after a (formerly)

palatal root:

(48) Rus kra

jn-ij ‘extreme’ kra

jn-e ‘extremely’

Beyond this, they produce root changes which fall mainly within regressive assimi-

lation of palatalization, for instance Pol zły ‘bad’, z

´le

‘badly’, where the ‘‘softened’’

(i.e. de-velarized) /l/ regressively transfers its palatal quality to the initial /z/. There

are a few suppletive forms like ‘much’  ‘more’: Cz mnoho  vı

ce, Ukr baha

to 

bı

(e), but these normally unite with the root of the cognate adjective in gradation

forms.

In the graded forms of adverbs we find mutation where the suffix involved a /j/,

as in the basic comparative -je:

(49) Rus tı

xo ‘silently’ tı

e ‘more silently’

Sln blı

zu ‘near’ blı

e ‘nearer’

For other suffixes, see 8.5.

4.5.6 Verbs: inflexion

The morphophonology of Slavic verbs is very complex. The list in table 4.3 gives

typical alternations. Some general patterns emerge, for instance: the vowel  zero

alternation in roots like Slk brat’ ‘to take’  beriem ‘I take’, where the vowel is

absent in the infinitive and the past active and passive participles. A similar pattern

is found with the -ov- formant, alternating with -uj-:

(50) Slk pracovat’ ‘to work’ pracujem ‘I work’

pracoval ‘worked’ [PPA] pracuj ‘work!’

pracovany

‘worked’ [PPP] pracuju

c ‘working’ [Pres Ger]

pracuju

ci ‘working’ [PPA]

and in palatalization, where the non-palatalized forms occur in the first group of

forms (infinitive and past participles). But in Russian Class IV verbs like brodı

‘wander’ the only form to palatalize is the 1SgPres: brozˇu

‘I wander’. These patterns

are discussed in 5.5.5. At this point, we are interested in establishing some typical

contrasts within the paradigms, in order to show the extent and nature of the

morphophonology of verb inflexion.

4.5 Morphological typology of alternations 213

4.5.7 Verbs: word formation

See table 4.4.

4.6 Underlying forms and derivational rules

Slavic is one of the key disciplines for the development of theories of underlying

structures and derivational rules in modern linguistics. The intellectual forebears

include Baudouin de Courtenay (Stankiewicz, 1972), Trubetzkoj and Jakobson.

Jakobson’s paper on the one-stem Russian verb (Jakobson, 1948) laid the founda-

tions for Slavic morphophonology, and contributed later to the development of

generative phonology (Halle, 1959).

Jakobson’s insight concerned the fact that many Russian verbs appear to have

two stems:

(51) zˇi-t

‘to live’ zˇiv-u

‘I live’

zˇi-l Past Masc zˇiv-u

t ‘they live’

zˇiv-ı

! ‘live!’

zˇiv-u

ˇij

‘living’ [PresPartAct]

ves-tı

‘to lead’ ved-u

‘I lead’

-l Past Masc ved-u

t ‘they lead’

ved-ı

! ‘lead!’

ved-u

ˇij

‘leading’ [PresPartAct]

while other verbs cover the same set of conjugational forms with just one stem:

(52) govor-ı

-t

‘to speak’ govor-ju

‘I speak’

govor-ı

-l [Past Masc] govor-ja

t ‘they speak’

govor-ı

! ‘speak!’

govor-ja

ˇij

‘speaking’ [PresPartAct]

Jakobson proposed a mechanism for uniting both patterns in a single conjugational

model, by showing how both stems of the two-stem verbs can be derived from a

single underlying form: underlying forms had to be also surface alternants them-

selves, which limited the level of abstraction which was permitted. His analysis was

applied by his students to other areas of Russian (Stankiewicz, 1968a, 1979), and to

other Slavic languages (Schenker, 1954, 1964).

In practical terms, Jakobson’s proposals amount to this (Townsend, 1975: 82): if

a word has two stems, the longer is basic. If the stems are of the same length, as with

214 4. Morphophonology

the vesti example above, the 3 Person plural non-past provides the basic stem. For

the three verbs exemplified above, then, the basic forms are respectively zˇiv-, ved-

and govor-. The stem is the root, together with its prefixes and suffixes, to which

inflexions are added.

In the following chapters we shall favor surface-based representations of roots

and affixes. However, the underlying forms are often identical to actual proto-

forms (below), so where it seems helpful we shall adduce the Proto-Slavic forms (as

is done extensively in chapter 3). Jakobson’s proposals are, by contemporary

standards, both conservative and surface-oriented. Lipson’s (1968) adaptation of

the one-stem verb into a pedagogical grammar of Russian brought these ideas into

the classroom (especially in the USA), and Townsend’s (1968/1975) textbook on

word formation helped to make the linguistics of word formation part of the basic

training of students of Russian.

Jakobson’s ideas have provided a fundamental stimulus to generative phonol-

ogy. Scholars like Halle, Lightner, Lunt and Rubach have proposed models of

phonology which extend beyond the notion of abstractness represented in

Jakobson’s work, more in the spirit of Chomsky and Halle’s The sound pattern of

English (1968) and its successors. One of the most interesting features of some of

this work has been the postulation of some underlying forms which are closer to the

phonology of Proto-Slavic in a number of key respects. Synchronic derivation

therefore mirrors diachronic evolution, in a way which is typical of the traditional

orientation of Slavic linguistics not to follow Saussure in making a rigid distinction

between synchrony and diachrony.

4.7 Morphophonology and Slavic orthographies

Seen in the light of our discussion of underlying forms, Slavic orthographies

fall into two groups. One, the older, group is more historically motivated and

morphophonemic in orientation. It includes all but the more recently codified

orthographies: Belarusian, B/C/S and Macedonian. The morphophonemic systems

preserve the unity of the underlying morpheme at the expense of phonetic trans-

parency. This makes them easier to read and comprehend, but harder to

pronounce, since the reader has to bear in mind such late-level phonetic output

rules as final devoicing of obstruents; (mainly regressive) assimilation of voice and

in some cases place and manner of articulation; the simplification of consonant

clusters; special pronunciations for /v/ and /l/ in positions other than before

a vowel; synharmony requirements of palatal consonants and following vowels;

and the differences of vowel quality caused by movement of stress. (On all of these,

see 3.4.3.)

4.7 Morphophonology and Slavic orthographies 215

Of the more phonetically oriented orthographies, B/C/S and Macedonian pro-

vide more phonetically faithful spellings for devoicing (B/C/S) and simplified

consonant clusters (both) (4.3.4–4.3.5):

(53) B/C/S u`` zak ‘narrow’ u`` ska [Fem]

ra``dostan ‘joyful’ ra`` dosna [Fem]

Mac list ‘leaf’ lisje ‘foliage’

B/C/S’s lack of devoicing in final voiced obstruents makes the marking of devoicing

simpler for it – as for Ukrainian (54). Belarusian goes furthest in representing

vowels accurately, particularly akan

(54) Rus go

rod [¨g

t] ‘town’

Ukr horo

d [œ

¨r

d] ‘kitchen garden’

Bel ho

rad [¨˜

rat] ‘town’

Belarusian also deals explicitly with /v/, which is [v] only before a vowel, by the use

of the letter

u (Cyrillic r

) for other positions. While the Belarusian system is

pedagogically helpful for beginners, it can cause problems later with the identifica-

tion of forms which share a common base, since the identity of the base is obscured

by the variety of written forms.

We describe the Slavic orthographies in more detail in appendix B.

216 4. Morphophonology

Morphology: inflexion

5.1 Overview

Slavic is a morphology-rich language family, in the mainstream Indo-European

tradition, with highly articulated systems of prefixes, roots and suffixes. While

Slavic as a whole has a very Indo-European system of synthetic inflexional para-

digms, there is some movement towards a more analytic approach in verb and

especially nominal morphology, in both national standard languages and regional

and social variants. This differentiation of Slavic within the Indo-European lan-

guage family makes Slavic morphology an area of particular theoretical and

empirical interest.

This chapter will concentrate on four aspects of morphology: the morphological

categories of Slavic (5.2), morphological word-classes (5.3), the inflexional cate-

gories (5.4) and the paradigms for the major inflexional types (5.5).

5.2 Morphological categories and structures

The Slavic word consists of one or more roots – the central component of the

word – and affixes (prefixes and suffixes), which may accompany the root. For the

major categories, the word contains an inflexional suffix, or ending. As this

chapter is concerned only with inflexion, we shall simply summarize the other

aspects of word structure, with references to chapters 8 and 9 for examples and

discussion. Roots can be combined in apposition or by joining with a so-called

‘‘link-vowel’’ -o- (8.1.3, 9.5.2), or by truncation to create so-called ‘‘stump

compounds’’ and acronyms, and in mixed formations (8.2.3, 9.5.3).

Slavic also has a wealth of affixes which occur before the root (prefixes)

or after the root (suffixes). Prefixes generally modify or add to the root’s

meaning. They have a role in three domains: in inflexional morphology and the

creation of paradigms (this chapter); in word-formation (8.2.1, 8.3.1, 8.4.1); and in

lexicology (9.4).

217

Suffixes follow the root, and come in three main types: derivational, inflexional

(¼ endings), and post-inflexional, which occur in that order. Derivational suffixes

are of several sub-types. First after the root are suffixes which change the part or

sub-part of speech in familiar processes like abstract and agent nominalization,

verbalization, adjectivalization and adverbialization (8.2.2, 8.3.2, 8.4.3). The root’s

final consonant or internal phonological composition may be modified as a result

of the addition of the suffix (chapter 4; 8.1.5, 8.4.3.2). In addition to prefixes, roots

and suffixes, there are the link vowels, which are used to join the members of

a compound (8.1.3), and the so-called ‘‘thematic vowel’’, which indicates the

conjugation to which a verb belongs (8.3.2.1). In some analyses this vowel is

included in the stem, while in others it appears as a further ordered suffix, as with

the -a- and -i- formants in these two Sorbian verbs:

(1) Thematic vowel

Sorb dz

´ˇ

eł-a- ‘work’ dz

´ˇ

eł-a-c

[Inf] dz

´ˇ

eł-a-

s [2SgPres]

pal-i- ‘burn’ pal-i-c

[Inf] pal-i-

s [2SgPres]

After these come inflexions, or endings, which mark categories like infinitive, person,

number, tense, case and gender, as appropriate to the word-class of the stem (for

aspect, see 5.4.7, 6.2.5). Several inflexional suffixes may occur in a fixed order:

(2) Inflexions

Sorb Infinitive dz

´ˇ

eł-a-c

‘to work’ [Inf]

Person njes-u ‘I carry’ [1SgPres]

njes-e

s ‘you carry’ [2SgPres]

Number w

ck-o ‘eye’ [Sg]

cc-e [Du]

ck-a [Pl]

Tense pij-u ‘I drink’ [Pres]

pij-ach ‘I was drinking’ [Imperf]

Case w

ck-o ‘eye’ [Nom]

ck-a [Gen]

ck-u [Dat]

Gender now-y ‘new’ [MascSgNom]

now-a [FemSgNom]

now-e [NeutSgNom]

Last of all comes the post-inflexional reflexive (sometimes called a ‘‘postfix’’),

a clitic pronoun which has developed into a suffix in East Slavic (while remaining

a separable pronoun, and so not part of inflexion, elsewhere):

218 5. Morphology: inflexion