Backness switch in Russian

Jerzy Rubach

doi:10.1017/S0952675700003821

Russian exhibits several different types of palatalisation. These are exemplified in (1), where we look at voiceless stops and affricates. (1) a. Velar Palatalisation (velars change into postalveolars): k→č ruk+a ‘hand (FEM NOM SG)’ −ruč+išč+a (AUG NOM SG), ruč+en’k+a (DIM NOM SG) b. Affricate Palatalisation (affricates become postalveolar): ts→č konets ‘end’ −konč+i+t’ ‘to finish’ otets ‘father’ −otč+estv+o ‘patronymic’ c. Iotation (many disparate changes of consonants): t→č šut ‘joker’ −šuč+u ‘I joke’ d. Surface Palatalisation (consonants become [−back, +high]): t→t’ xvost ‘tail’ −xvost+ik [t’] (DIM), xvost+e [t’] LOC SG) brat ‘brother’ −brat+j+a [t’] ‘brothers (COLL)’ coherent analysis of these disparate effects is a formidable task, but one process seems to be easy: Surface Palatalisation is a straightforward spreading change. This change is particularly simple in the context of i and j since not only the feature [−back] but also the feature [+high] is spread from the triggering context onto the input consonant. In the following, I will restrict the scope of analysis to this simple case. That is, I will look at Surface Palatalisation applying in the context of i and j. I will demonstrate that standard Optimality Theory (henceforth OT: Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1995), with its insistence on parallel evaluation, cannot offer an adequate analysis of Surface Palatalisation. I will suggest that standard OT needs to be modified and to admit the possibility of a level distinction (a derivational step) in the evaluation of output forms.

Backness switch in Russian

View Online

Abstract

Details

Metrics