Morphologically conditioned palatalization in Russian loanwords

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

University of Tokyo

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Morphologically conditioned palatalization in Russian loanwords

N. Watabe



В данной статье обсуждается палатализация, обусловленная морфологическими процессами в русских заимствованных словах. В словах этого типа, в отличие от исконных слов, палатализация согласных, предшествующих гласным переднего ряда, может отсутствовать. Однако когда такие слова подвергаются словоизмененительным или словообразовательным изменениям, присущим исконным словам, согласные в конце корней/основ не могут оставаться непалатализованными. По этой причине мы предполагаем, что для того, чтобы полностью объяснить звуковую подсистему заимствований, надо учитывать слоговую структуру, а именно, является ли слоговое ядро компонентом иноязычной морфемы. Иными словами, главная часть слогов играет важную роль и в области фонологии заимствованных слов.

Ключевые слова: русский язык, фонология, палатализация, заимствованные слова, теория оптимальности.



N. Watabe

University of Tokyo

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Morphologically conditioned palatalization in Russian loanwords

This paper discusses palatalisation conditioned by morphological processes in Russian loanwords. In this lexical class, unlike in the native phonology, palatalisation of consonants preceding front vowels can be avoided. When loanwords undergo native-like inflectional or derivational processes, however, root-/stem- final consonants cannot remain non-palatalized. For this reason, this paper suggests that it is necessary to consider syllable structure in order to completely account for sound patterns in loanwords: it is important whether the nuclei originates from a foreign morpheme. In other words, syllable head also plays a key role in loanword phonology.

Key words: Russian linguistics, phonology, palatalisation, loanwords, Optimality Theory.



Introduction

It has been well documented that phonological patterns in loanwords are different from those in native words. One example of such loanword-specific patterns is palatalisation in Russian; i.e. consonants preceding [e] This vowel may change to [i] in unstressed syllables like in native words. However, vowel reduction will not be discussed in this paper. can remain non-palatalised unlike in native words. In addition to the phonotactic restriction, palatalisation is conditioned by morphological processes (i.e. when morphemes beginning in a front vowel follow). Interestingly, when loanwords are a part of such word formation processes, root-/stem-final consonants cannot avoid palatalisation. This suggests that loanword phonology should be affected by native-like morphology. This paper, therefore, sheds light on the morphologically conditioned palatalisation in Russian loanwords and discusses how the concerned phonological patterns should be accounted for.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: First, the facts are laid out in section 2. Second, section 3 conducts a formal analysis of the given data. Third, section 4 concludes the discussion.



Facts

This section illustrates the palatalisation concerned. Subsection 2.1 briefly introduces the variations in palatalisation between native and foreign words, while subsection 2.2 analyses morphologically conditioned palatalisation.

Palatalisation

Palatalisation is a phonological process widespread across languages, including Russian. Let us begin with the native phonology.

In Russian native words, as shown in (1), consonants undergo palatalisation when they precede [i] and [e]. This means that non-palatalised consonants preceding these front vowels are unattested in the native phonology.

atv-iet `answer' atvieti-i-ti `to answer'

maskv-a

riik-a

slug-o

`Moscow'

`river'

`servant'

maskvi-e

riiki-e

slu^-i-t-i

(loc. sg.)

(loc. sg.)

`to serve'

As can be seen in (1), while all consonants undergo secondary palatalisation (traditionally called softening), velars can also undergo primary palatalisation (i.e. change to palatals). The occurrence of this process primarily depends on the morphemes that follow. This paper will not dive into the details of secondary and primary palatalisation.

In contrast, in loanwords, palatalisation can be avoided on consonants preceding [e], as shown in (2).

iiz[ne]s `business'; [de] folt `default';

draj\ye]r `driver'; [me]nedzment `management';

[ke]mping `camping'; [xe]ppening `happening'

[Kalenchuk, Savinov, Kasatkina, 2013, s. 108-109.] cf.

[tie]ma `theme'; kompo[ne]nt `component'; komp\te\ss `compress';

[vje]rs/ja `version'; kompli[mie]nt `complement';

pa[kie]t `packet'; s[xie]ma `scheme'

[Avanesov, 1984, s. 212-221.]

In addition, primary palatalisation of velar consonants is unattested in loanwords. See (3) for examples in which velar consonants precede [i].

par\ki]ing `parking'; [gi]id `guide'; [xi]it `hit (song)'

In summary, Russian loanwords are phonologically differentiated from native words.

Phonological patterns in morphological processes

While loanwords are differentiated from native words in various aspects, they can be assimilated to the grammar of the borrowing language. In Russian, for instance, many loanwords are inflected or derived through a similar process as native words. palatalization phonological conditioned

In these `nativisation' cases, phonological patterns are also native-like; for example, as can be seen in (4), stem-/root-final consonants cannot avoid palatalisation when the following morpheme begins in a front vowel. They can also undergo primary palatalisation if they are velar.

internet `Internet' interneti-e / *internet-e (loc. sg.)

blog-o `blog (gen. sg.)' blo^-ik (dim.)

Note that these palatalisation patterns do not depend on the palatalisation of root-/stem-internal consonants.

On the other hand, word derivation is not always native-like; i.e. several foregin morphemes, as shown in (5), have been documented [cf. Shanskii, 1959. s. 87-89]. Interestingly, as can be seen in (6), these morphemes trigger only secondary palatalisation on velar consonants.

a. /-ir-/ (verbalization)

analiiz-o `analysis (gen. sg.)' analiizi-ir-ovo-tj `to analyze'

(cf. German: Gugl `Google'	analysieren) gugli-ir-ovo-ti	`to search by Google'
b. /-ist-/ (specialist) tenis `tennis'	tenisi-ist	`tennis player'
c. /-izm-/ (ideology) stalin `Stalin'	stalini-izm	`Stalinism'
(6) bloki-ir-ovo-ti /	*blotf-ir-ovo-ti	`to block'
kiorlingi-ist /	`kiorlin^-ist	`curling player'

Foreign morphemes can also be attached to native roots, though only a few examples are observed. In these cases, as shown in (7), primary palatalisation is also unattested.

(7) znaifok `badge' znai|ki-ist `person to whom a badge is awarded'

From the discussion thus far, palatalisation patterns in loanwords can be summarised as follows: while root-/stem-internal consonants can remain nonpalatalised, the behaviour of root-/stem-final consonants depends on whether the morphemes that follow are native or foreign. The next section conducts a formal analysis of this situation.

Analysis

This section discusses how the palatalisation patterns laid out in the previous section should be analysed. In the remainder of this section, previous research on loanword phonology is reviewed in 3.1, 3.2 that refines the theory thereby formalising the phonological patterns concerned.



Previous research on loanword phonology

It has been well documented that patterns unattested in native words are cross-linguistically observed in loanwords. In other words, exceptions of some phonological processes are allowed. It is important to note that exceptional patterns are not restricted to loanword phonology. In Russian, for instance, vowel-zero alternation (traditionally called -yer) is not fully predictable; i.e. whether root-final /o, e/ can be deleted is lexically determined.

In phonological studies, such idiosyncratic patterns have been accounted for in several ways. The most straightforward way is to assume special (underlying) representations. For instance, in his analysis of Polish, Gussman assumed different underlying representations for `palatalising' and `nonpalatalising' front vowels [Gussman, 2007]. In this language, consonants preceding [e] can avoid palatalisation in native words, and always do so in loanwords. This account is, however, inappropriate when it comes to the Russian pattern. Unlike in Polish, as noted in 2.1, whether palatalisation occurs varies from word to word or from speaker to speaker in Russian loanwords. Such variations are observed in loanword phonology across languages [cf. Ito, Mester, 1995]. If loanword-specific patterns are attributed to certain special representations, the representation for an identical segment should vary among words or speakers. For this reason, a representational approach is problematic, at least for loanword phonology.

s Another main approach is lexical stratification. Ito and Mester, among others, have proposed that lexicon should be divided into several strata, о among which phonological patterns can vary [Ito, Mester, 1995]. In this framework, loanwords are considered to be affiliated with a different stra- 4 tum than native words. The point is that this stratification is not static, in that loanwords, for example, can move to the strata to which many native

words belong. This assumption makes it possible to account for the variation in loanword phonology. In order to formalise loanword-specific patterns in the framework of Optimality Theory (OT) [Prince, Smolensky, 1993/2004], Ito and Mester assumed certain faithfulness constraints specific to the loanword stratum, which block the phonological processes attested in the native phonology [Ito, Mester, 1999, 2001]. As for the palatalisation avoidance in Russian, the following constraint Following Clements and Hume, palatalisation is represented as [coronal, -anterior] see [Clements, Hume, 1995]. Since this feature is monovalent, the DEP-type faithfulness constraint is assumed. can be assumed.

Dep/Foreign (coronal) (NoPal/Foreign):

`[coronal] in the output must be specified in the input, if the input is an exponent of a loanword.'

As shown in (9), if this constraint is ranked higher than the markedness constraint on non-palatalised consonants preceding front vowels, then palatalisation is unattested in loanwords that are regarded as `foreign'. This constraint should be ranked higher than the general faithfulness constraint on palatalisation (NoPal).

Agree-CV (place) (Pal [Rubach, 2000 This paper argues that secondary palatalisation should be represented as [-back]. among others]):

`Consonant preceding front vowels must not be non-palatalised.'

The ranking argument is schematised in (10), in which foreign morphemes are denoted by subscript F.

(10) a. /lun-e/ ^ [lurie] `moon (loc. sg.)'

b. /internetF/ ^ [internet] `Internet'

	NoPal/Foreign	Pal	NoPal
a. /ne/
ne		*W	L
^ nle			*
b. /neF/
^ ne		*
n'e	*W	L	*

This formalisation, however, cannot be applied to the inflection or derivation patterns in loanwords mentioned in 2.2. That is because root-/ stem-final consonants should be regarded as being part of loanwords, which the loanword-specific constraint (8) targets. The grammar assumed in (10)

would, therefore, wrongly predict palatalisation avoidance for root-/stem- final as well as root-/stem-internal consonants. This morphology-driven pattern, therefore, makes it necessary to redefine the `domain' of loanword phonology.

Proposal

This section refines the previous research on loanword phonology by redefining loanword-specific constraints as noted in 3.1.

Let us first consider how morpheme-final consonants are differentiated from morpheme-internal ones. From a phonological viewpoint, it is suggested that morpheme-final consonants are syllabified with the initial vowel of the morpheme that follows. Therefore, when a foreign morpheme is followed by a native one, the final consonant of the former and the initial vowel of the latter are parsed together into a syllable.

As discussed in 2.2, the phonological patterns concerned depend on the morpheme that follows. With the syllable structure in mind, it is therefore safe to conclude that the pattern (i.e. native or foreign) that occurs is determined by the nucleus in each syllable. In other words, the domain of native or loanword phonology coincides with syllables; i.e. the onset of a syllable is regarded as the domain of loanword phonology only when the nucleus is affiliated with a foreign morpheme. Therefore, the loanwordspecific faithfulness constraint should be redefined as (11).

NoPal/Foreign (modified):

`Consonants within a syllable must not undergo palatalisation

iff its nucleus is an exponent of a foreign morpheme.'

In order to fully account for the palatalisation patterns laid out in section 2, two more assumptions regarding loanword phonology must be considered. First, palatalisation cannot be avoided on consonants preceding [i]. This suggests that the ranking of the markedness constraint, as assumed in (9), should vary depending on the vowel that follows [cf. Rubach, 2003]. The constraints, as in (12), can be assumed.

a. AGREE-C/_i (place) (Pal-і [Rubach, 2000]):

`Consonant preceding [i] must not be non-palatalized.'

ф b. AGREE-C/_e (place) (Pal-є [Rubach, 2000]):

I `Consonant preceding [e] must not be non-palatalized.'

(12a) should be ranked higher than (12b). This constraint hierarchy has been regarded as universal. It has been documented that the higher the fol- 4 lowing vowels are, the higher the chances of palatalisation occurring [Chen, 1973; Kochetov, 2011]. Second, despite the fact that the avoidance

of secondary palatalisation shows variation, primary palatalisation of velars is completely unattested. This makes it necessary to assume the constraints exclusively on primary palatalisation of velars such as (13). If (13a) is ranked higher than the constraint on secondarily palatalised velar consonants, as in (14), then primary palatalisation is predicted.6 In contrast, (13b) should dominate (14) in order to predict the blocking of this process on loanword-internal consonants.

	Max/Foreign (dorsal)	"SoftDor	Max (dorsal)	Pal-і	NoPal/Foreign	Pal-є	NoPal
a. /lun-e/
lune						*W	L
^ lunie							*
b. /slug-i-ti/
slugiti				*W			L
slugiiti		*W	L				*
^ slugiti			*				*

a. Max (dorsal) [cf Rubach, 20037]:

`Dorsal consonants must not change to the other ones.'

b . Max/Foreign (dorsal):

`Dorsal consonants within a syllable must not change to the other ones iff its nucleus is an exponent of a foreign morpheme.'

*SoftDor [Rubach, 2003]:

`Dorsal consonants must not be secondarily palatalized.'

Now, let us see how the current grammar works.8

a. /lun-е/ ^ [lunie] `moon (loc. sg.)' b. /slug-i-t-і/ ^ [slu^iti] `to serve'

First, (15) demonstrates native phonology patterns, in which native morphemes are followed by other native morphemes. Since Pal-і and Pal-є are ranked higher than NoPal, palatalisation defeats no change in each case. When velar consonants undergo palatalisation, as can be seen in (15b), secondary palatalisation is eliminated by *SoftDor, which is ranked higher than Max (dorsal). Second, (16) demonstrates the cases in which foreign morphemes undergo inflection or derivation by native morphemes.

a. /internetF-e/ ^ [internetie] `Internet (loc. sg.)'

/gidF/ ^ [giid] `guide'

/blogF-ik/ ^ [blo^ik] `blog (dim.)'

	Max/Foreign (dorsal)	*SoftDor	Max (dorsal)	Pal-і	NoPal/Foreign	Pal-є	NoPal
a. /interne^-e/
internete						***w	L
^ internetie						**	*
internete					*w*	L	***
b. /gidF/
gid				*W	L
^ gJid		*			*		*
4id	*W	L	*		*		*
c. /blogF-ik/
blogik				*W			L
blogiik		*W	L				*
^ blogik			*				*

First, as shown in (16a), palatalisation of morpheme-internal consonants preceding [e] are defeated by the avoidance due to NoPal/Foreign, which is ranked higher than Pal-є. Morpheme-final consonants, in contrast, still undergo palatalisation because they are not targeted by NoPal/Foreign. Second, (16b) indicates that palatalisation before [i] cannot be avoided at all because Pal-і is ranked higher than NoPal/Foreign. Primary palatalisation of morpheme-internal velars is still eliminated by Max/Foreign (dorsal), which is ranked higher than *SoftDor. Third, morpheme-final velar consonants, in contrast, undergo primary palatalisation because this process does not violate Max/Foreign (dorsal), as shown in (16c). Finally, (17) demonstrates the patterns in which word derivation is caused by foreign morphemes.

a. /blokF-irF-ov-a-fi / ^ [blokiirovati] `to block'

b. /znafok-istF / ^ [znafkiist] `person to who a nadge is awarded'

	Max/Foreign (dorsal)	*SoftDor	Max (dorsal)	Pal-і	NoPal/Foreign	Pal-є	NoPal
a. /blokF-irF.../
blakir...				*W	L
^ blakiir...		*			*		*
blat|"ir...	*W	L	*		*		*
b. /znafok-istF/
znafkist				*W	L
^ znat|kJist		*			*		*
znat|"t|"ist	*W	L	*		*		*

As can be seen in (17), if morpheme-final velar consonants are changed to palatals, Max/Foreign (dorsal) would be violated regardless of whether the preceding morpheme is native or foreign. Primary palatalisation is thus eliminated in these cases.



Conclusion

This paper has discussed palatalisation triggered by morphological processes in Russian loanwords. While loanwords are differentiated from native words, as noted in 2.1, the morpheme-final consonants follow ф the native phonology when loanwords undergo native-like morphological processes, as laid out in 2.2. In 3.2, I proposed that this difference should be accounted for by assuming that the domain of loanword phonology coincides with syllables. In other words, the current analysis revealed that the nuclei of syllables play a key role in loanword phonology.



References

Avanesov, 1984 - Аванесов Р.И. Русское литературное произношение. М., 1984. [Avanesov R.I. Russkoe literaturnoe proiznoshenie [Russian Standard Pronunciation]. Moscow, 1984.]

Bateman, 2007 - Bateman N. A crosslinguistic investigation of palatalization. Ph.D. dis. University of California San Diego, 2007.

Beckman, 1997 - Beckman J.N. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology. 1997. Vol. 14. Pp. 1-46.

Bhat, 1978 - Bhat D.N.S. A General Study of Palatalization. Universals of Human Language. Greenberg J.H., Ferguson C.A., Moravcsik E.A. (eds.). Stanford, 1978. Pp. 47-92.

Clements, Hume, 1995 - Clements G.N., Hume E.V. The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Goldsmith J.A. (ed.). Oxford, 1995. Pp. 245-306.

Gussman, 2007 - Gussman E. The phonology of Polish. Oxford, 2007.

Ito, Mester, 1995 - Ito J., Mester A. Japanese Phonology. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Goldsmith J.A. (ed.). Oxford, 1995. Pp. 817-838.

Ito, Mester, 1999 - Ito J., Mester A. The Phonological Lexicon. The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Tsujimura N. (ed.). Oxford, 1999. Pp. 62-100.

Ito, Mester, 2001 - Ito J., Mester A. Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraint. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology. 2001. Vol. 7. Pp. 273-299.

Kalenchuk, Savinov, Kasatkina, 2013 - Каленчук М.Л., Савинов Д.М., Касаткина Р.Ф. Русская фонетика в развитии. Фонетические «отцы» и «дети» начала XXI века. М., 2013. [Kalenchuk M.L., Savinov D.M., Kasatkina R.F. Russkaya fone- tika v razvitii. Foneticheskie «ottsy» i «deti» nachala XXI veka [Russian phonetics undergoing development: phonetic fathers and sons in early XXI c.]. Moscow, 2013.]

Prince, Smolensky, 1993/2004 - Prince A., Smolensky P. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New York, 2004.

Rubach, 2000 - Rubach J. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology. 2000. Vol. 17. Pp. 39-64.

Rubach, 2003 - Rubach J. Polish palatalization in derivational optimality theory. Lingua. 2003. Vol. 113. № 3. Pp. 197-237.

Shanskii, 1959 - Шанский Н.М. Очерки по русскому словообразованию и лексикологии. М., 1959. [Shanskii N.M. Ocherki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniyu i leksikologii. [Notes on Russian derivational morphology and lexicology]. Moscow, 1959.]

Timberlake, 2004 - Timberlake A. A Reference Grammar of Russian. New York, 2004.

Размещено на Allbest.ru