1. Anaptyxis and Russian Word Structure

A. Substantival Derivation

The cornerstone of a general understanding of word structure, specifically of morphophonemics, is what I have called the principle of markedness complementarity (Shapiro 1974c:34; cf. Shapiro 1972:359). Grossly considered, this principle states that oppositely marked stems and desinences attract, identically marked stems and desinences repel. For instance, to illustrate using data genetically unconnected with Russian, in Japanese one may assume that vocalic stems (i.e., those ending in a vowel) are unmarked, while consonantal stems (i.e., those ending in a consonant or glide) are marked.¹ Similarly, we may assume that vocalic desinences (those beginning in a vowel) are unmarked, whereas consonantal desinences (those beginning in a consonant or glide) are marked. One may (and, ultimately, must) assume this when confronted, first of all, by the alternations of the nonpreterite desinence u ~ ru: tabe-ru ‘eat,’ iki-ru ‘live,’ nusum-u ‘steal,’ kos-u ‘cross,’ etc.

The nonpreterite unmarked tense is realized by a marked desinence alternant ru and an unmarked desinence alternant u. With unmarked stems such as tabe, the principle of markedness complementarity dictates the juxtaposition of ru, the marked nonpreterite desinence. Conversely, with marked stems like yom ‘read,’ the same principle dictates the juxtaposition of u, the unmarked nonpreterite desinence.

The preterite desinence ta is marked, being consonantal, hence the concatenation with it of unmarked (vocalic) stems, as in tabeta ‘ate’ and ikita ‘lived.’ When it comes to consonantal stems, which are marked, the preterite desinence remains ta. However, in accordance with the principle of markedness complementarity, the stem final [M str] segment of the nonpreterite alternates with an [U str] segment in the preterite stem (Table 7).

TABLE 7

Japanese Verbs

Note that stems ending in s and n (sas and sin) do not alternate the stem final segment (cf. n. 2), since these segments are both unmarked for stridency.

The above analysis of Japanese conjugation is by way of introduction to a detailed examination of vowel/zero alternations in the Russian substantive. My aim once again is to capture the essentially semeiotic nature of the morphophonemic alternations in terms of a theory of markedness which includes (inter alia) the principle of markedness complementarity.

Russian, along with the other Slavic languages, evinces alternations of vowel with zero throughout its morphophonemic component. Historically, these alternations correspond to the so-called jers, which were reduced vowels in Common Slavic. In all the Slavic languages these reduced vowels were either lost or developed into ‘full’ (unreduced) vowels, depending on a host of factors. In Old Russian their syncope in certain positions and their maintenance in others, within one and the same stem, gave rise to the alternations that now abound in Russian. Isačenko (1970) marshalled much of the pertinent data and formulated an impressive array of plausible rules to describe both the diachronic and the synchronic situations.³ However, neither he nor any other student of the problem produced a coherent explanation of the phenomenon itself. What follows is an attempt to explain vowel/zero alternations in terms which are of sufficient generality as to be applicable as explanantes of typologically congruent morphophonemic phenomena in other languages as well. These terms will facilitate an answer to the question regarding the nature of the relationship between derivation and inflection raised by Stankiewicz (1962) and Worth (1967a, 1967b, 1968b) among others. The patent concreteness of the sign system represented by Russian morphophonemics will also suggest important inferences about the deep vs. surface structure dichotomy, buttressing those of the preceding section.

In order to understand the process of vowel alternating with zero in stems, we must start with the markedness values of certain oppositions within pertinent grammatical categories. Russian substantives which have a Ø desinence in the nom sg can be one of two genders, fem or masc. The value of this Ø is contextually dependent on the value of the category which it expresses formally (cf. Shapiro 1972b). Specifically, in a marked grammatical context zero has the opposite sign value, viz. unmarked; and vice versa.

Since Russian substantival desinences simultaneously express membership in several grammatical categories (gender, number, case), the markedness value of a desinence must be synthetic, i.e., representative of all pertinent categories.⁴ The synthetic markedness value is assigned on the basis of presence vs. absence of a marked category among the categorial correlates of a given desinence.⁵ Thus, in accordance with this criterion, nom sg desinences are designated [U des] while gen pl are designated [M des]. The synthetic markedness value of Ø assigned in terms of these relations is M in the context of nom sg and U elsewhere in the paradigm.

As a working hypothesis one can go a step further and posit the condition of complementarity obtaining between stem and desinence as regards their respective markedness value (again, the principle of markedness complementarity). More specifically, if one assumes the syntagmatic manifestation of grammatical units to proceed by concatenation of opposite valued entities (U + M or M + U, rather than U + U or M + M), then the markedness value of a stem preceding a Ø desinence must differ from the value of that desinence. However, these relationships between stem and desinence obtain only if there is no change in the stem shape as regards vowels. If there is such a change—i.e., an alternation of vowel and zero—the markedness value of the stem before a zero desinence is reversed, and it is this new, reversed value that is utilized in derivation (but not in inflection).⁶

This line of argumentation can be exploited to comprehend peculiarities of the Russian declensional system insofar as vowel/zero alternations are concerned. Six substantives of the 3rd (chiefly fem) declension display a vowel/zero alternation: ljubóv’ ‘love,’ neljubóv’ ‘dislike,’ cérkov’ ‘church,’ rož’ ‘rye,’ lož’ ‘falsehood,’ voš’ ‘louse.’⁷ The vowel o is present in the nom sg and instrumental sg while being absent elsewhere in the paradigm. In other words, the vowel appears just in case the stem is attached to either a zero desinence or one that begins with a nonvocalic segment (the j of ju).⁸ As in Japanese, Russian desinences are unmarked when vocalic, marked when consonantal. This means that, in conformity with the principle of markedness complementarity vis-à-vis stem and desinence values, one should expect the unmarked form of the stem to occur before ju, a marked desinence. This is, indeed, what takes place (Figure 25).

Note that for derivational purposes the sign value of the stem is reversed so that voš’ = M and ljubóv’ = M. It is this reversed value which manifests itself in ljubóvnyj [adj], vóška [dim], etc.

A similar pattern can be detected in the 1st (masc) declension, with important consequences for derivation. Consider the following schema for bagor/bagra ‘gaff and lob/lba ‘forehead’ (Figure 26).

The value of the Ø desinence of the nom sg is M, since the category is evaluated synthetically as U. This makes the stem U. In derivation, however, due to the discrepancy in stem shape between the maximally unmarked form and the other forms in the paradigm, the markedness values are reversed in the pre-zero shape only, rendering the latter M.⁹ This reversal occurs in bagór/bagrá and all other syllabic stems. However, in dealing with nonsyllabic stems like lob/lba syllabicity may become relevant. More precisely, the fact that nonsyllabic stems are marked for syllabicity, syllabic stems being unmarked, effects yet another reversal in markedness values. Thus lob, the pre-zero stem shape, ends up—after two markedness reversals—being an unmarked stem (see below for counterexamples).

FIGURE 25.

FIGURE 26

Before going any further, I would like to clarify the meaning of markedness reversal as it applies to hierarchies of contexts (among the latter are grammatical as well as phonological categories). If syllabicity, for instance, is said to effect a reversal of a markedness value that would otherwise obtain, this simply means that syllabicity has taken rank precedence over any other pertinent contexts in the hierarchy of contexts in which the relevant units are embedded. As importantly, these reversals must not be taken to mean some sort of process in time, such as a mutation or transformation. The meaning, consequently, of the assertion that there are two reversals in the above example—one attributable to the fact of a stem occurring before a zero desinence, the other attributable to the stem’s syllabicity—is that syllabicity takes precedence in the hierarchy of contexts over two other contexts, that of (1) stem shape before desinences other than zero, and (2) stem shape before zero desinences. It is in this specific way that all of the grammatical categories and environment conditions that are part of structure can be seen to have a semeiotic relevance matching that of particular units. There is thus no contextless unit, nor unitless context in language, despite the evident possibility of isolating one from the other for purposes of analysis or inventorization.

Reversal occurs when elements of structure are dominated by a marked context, and it is this markedness dominance that is the semeiotic principle at work here. A change in rank associated with markedness dominance is to be understood as a diagrammatization of the semeiotic values of the units and contexts involved.

The process of complementary concatenation in derivation fuses unmarked stems with marked suffixes and marked stems with unmarked suffixes. In the case of derivational suffixes, as opposed to inflectional suffixes (desinences), it is the vocalic suffixes that are marked and the consonantal ones that are unmarked (cf. the Japanese situation). Hence, derivatives such as bagórščik ‘gaffer’ and lobovój ‘forehead’ [adj] can be analyzed in the following manner:

It is instructive to examine the way in which the process of concatenation affects certain Russian diminutives, viz. masc substantives in #k and ik. If one assumes (contrary to the usual practice) that suffixes containing a vowel/zero alternation instead of a stable (full) vowel are consonantal, the #k is assigned to the category of unmarked suffixes, while ik is assigned to the category of marked suffixes. In such masc diminutives as čéxlik ‘cover,’ kóvrik ‘rug,’ órlik ‘eagle’ whose correlate nondiminutive stems display a vowel/zero alternation (e.g. čexól/čexlá) , it is the unmarked form of the stem that appears with the marked form of the suffix. Conversely, the concatenation of the unmarked suffix #k occasions the utilization of the marked stem form, hence kogotók (kógot’/ kógtja ‘talon’), nogotók (nógot’/nógtja ‘nail’), etc. Note, importantly, the difference in stem shape between čéxlik, on the one hand, and čexolók (Dal’ 1934:1292) or čexól’čik, on the other, wherein the sole conditioning factor is the markedness value of the suffix. In this connection, the shape of the presuffixal element in čexól’čik, kovërčik ‘rug’ [dim], vixórčik ‘cowlick’ [dim] can be seen to be #c, that is the diminutive suffix functioning here as a concatenator (cf. Shapiro 1967).¹⁰

Feminine and neuter diminutives are no less corroborative of the concatenation principle enunciated above. In order to ascertain this, consider first the relationships expressed by the following chart using zemljá ‘land’ and suknó ‘linen’ as examples (Figure 27).

Accordingly, the stem shape which contains a vowel is M and will appear in any derivatives utilizing an unmarked suffix. This situation can be exemplified by such formations as zemél’ka, sukónce, búločka (búlka/ búlok ‘roll’), okóško (oknó/ókon ‘window’). In fact, the entire network of graded affectives (cf. Stankiewicz 1968), insofar as their morphophonemics is concerned, conforms to the principle of markedness complementarity, e.g. golová/golóvka/golóvočka ‘head,’ śito/śitce/śitečko ‘sieve,’ bob/ bobók/bobóček ‘bean.’

The markedness values of stems which undergo no anaptyxis on the inflectional level but do so on the derivational level require special attention. In contradistinction to consonant clusters preceding desinences, those clusters (excepting st and zd)¹¹ which precede derivational suffixes are all potentially susceptible of anaptyxis.¹² Most such clusters, as will become evident below, do undergo anaptyxis; however, only those ending in a glide—which is marked for both vocalicity and consonantality—must perforce undergo it. Hence any cluster ending in j will intercalate the vowel e before it, e.g. pit’ë ‘drink’ → pitéjnyj [adj], stat’já ‘article’ → statéjka [dim], etc.

FIGURE 27.

With respect to the processes to be analyzed, stems must be distinguished by declension type, reflecting their different treatment before marked and unmarked zeros (cf. Figures 27 and 28). Masculine stems ending in a consonant cluster before the Ø desinence of the nom sg maintain the markedness value assigned them by extension of the criterion governing synthetic markedness, viz. U. Thus the stem value of korábl’ ‘ship,’ which intercalates no vowel between the stem final consonants of the nom sg, is U. This, in turn, means that the corresponding marked shape of the stem is anaptyctic, i.e., korabel’. Indeed, it is the latter form of the stem that appears before unmarked derivational (viz. consonantal) suffixes: korabél’nyj [adj], korabél’ščik ‘mariner’; cf. koráblik [dim] and korablĩsko [pej]. Similarly, consider the behavior of vengr ‘Hungarian.’ It is the marked form of the stem, viz. venger, which appears before consonantal derivational suffixes: vengérka [fem], vengérskij [adj]. vengérec [obsolete masc].¹³ This process is not confined to the older vocabulary; note, for example, dirižábl’ ‘dirigible’ but dirižábel’nyj [adj]. The analysis proffered here also has the advantage of obviating the necessity for invoking dialect borrowing in cases like žurávl’ ‘crane’ but žuravél’nik ‘geranium.’ It should be borne in mind, on comparing e.g. ugórskij ‘Ugric’ [adj] (cf. úgry ‘Ugrians’) with négrskij ‘negro’ [adj] or gágrskij ‘Gagra’ [adj], that anaptyxis—with its semeiotic motivation—can now be circumvented in contemporary standard Russian, especially in non-Russian nomina propria. At the same time it is important to realize that négrskij is a rarer version of negritjánskij, while gágrskij is replaced in colloquial Russian by gágrinskij (Superanskaja 1966:259). Clearly, however, in the face of njujórkskij ‘New York’ [adj], oksfórdskij ‘Oxford’ [adj], sévrskij ‘Sèvre’ [adj], njukásl’skij ‘Newcastle’ [adj], etc. there can be no doubt that the rules are easily bent to accommodate foreign items. Nonetheless, it is the foreignness of the exceptions which proves the systematic validity of the rules.¹⁴

In nonmasculine items, whose stem occurs before the Ø desinence in the gen pl, it is markedness reversal which figures prominently in the occurrence of anaptyxis. The stem value of týkva ‘pumpkin,’ búkva ‘letter,’ iglá ‘needle,’ igrá ‘game,’ baraxló ‘junk,’ etc. for the purposes of derivation is opposite that expected, since these items fail to undergo anaptyxis in the gen pl though they ought to (see section B, below). Hence, before Ø, the assigned value M is reversed to U, entailing the corresponding assignment of M to the anaptyctic stem shapes tykov, bukov, igol, igor, baraxol, etc. The latter shapes are extant in derivatives containing consonantal suffixes: týkovka [dim], búkovka [dim], igólka [dim], igól’nyj [adj], igórka [dim], igórnyj [adj], baraxólka ‘flea market,’ baraxól’nyj [adj], baraxól’ščik ‘junkman,’ etc. The latter three items are particularly revealing, for no gen pl form of baraxló (a collective singulare tantum) exists. This means that markedness reversal is here effected on the extant stem shape baraxl, such that its value as M is reversed to U, in turn rendering baraxol marked; cf. kéglja → kégel’nyj [adj] ‘tenpin.’ Similarly, fluctuation in the form of the gen pl does not alter the derivational result. Thus usád’ba ‘estate,’ whose gen pl is either usád’b or usádeb, nonetheless gives rise to usádebnyj [adj], since the markedness value of the anaptyctic stem shape is M regardless. Given gen pl usádeb, whose markedness value is M, usádebnyj results from the concatenation of the anaptyctic stem with the unmarked consonantal suffix # n . Given usád’b, whose markedness value is also M, the presence of a consonant cluster which ought to undergo anaptyxis but does not in stem final position before Ø entails a markedness reversal, such that the non-anaptyctic stem shape becomes U, rendering, in turn, the anaptyctic shape M. The result in either instance, consequently, is usádebnyj; cf. dýšlo/dýšl ~ dýšel dýšel’ce ‘thill’ [dim]. This accounts, incidentally, for the total absence of formal doublets in items derived from stems (like usád’ba) which vacillate in the gen pl, and more generally, before any Ø desinence.

In some isolated instances of verb/substantive derivational relations, the substantive displays a stable full vowel while the correlate verb syncopates it. The 3rd declension feminines lest’ ‘flattery,’ čest’ ‘honor,’ and mest’ ‘revenge’ are correlated with the verbs l’stit’ ‘flatter,’ čtit’ ‘honor,’¹⁵ and mstit’ ‘avenge’ (cf. Isačenko 1970:92-3).

The examples of Figure 28 are to be augmented by, on the one hand, čéstnyj ‘honest,’ počët ‘esteem,’ čéstvovat’ ‘honor,’ čëtkij ‘distinct,’ otméstka ‘spite’; and on the other, by čtec ‘reader,’ učtívyj ‘polite,’ mstítel’ ‘avenger.’ Note that l’stec is regular despite the fact that the suffix #c appears, since the stable full vowel (gen l’stecá, dat l’stecú, etc.) renders the suffix marked, i.e., tantamount to a vocalic one; cf. čtec/čtecá.

A similar relationship can be discerned in plésen’/pléseni ‘mould’ → plesnevét’ ‘to be covered with mould,’ plesnevój [adj]; and kópot’/ kópoti ‘soot’ → koptít’ ‘smoke.’

By a process of abduction from the above examples, certain foreign loan words in Russian are shaped in conformity with the relations characterizing lest’ → l’stit’ (cf. Worth 1968c: 121-2). Although mébel’ ‘furniture’ displays no alternation of vowel and zero, the related verb is meblirovát’ ‘furnish.’ This kind of infrequent alternation is not limited to feminine stems, however. Thus šáber/šábera ‘scraper’ is correlated with šábrit’.¹⁶ The only coherent hypothesis which suggests itself by way of explanation is as follows.

FIGURE 28.

The last vowel of the stem, when unstressed and followed by a liquid, can be interpreted as one which ought to syncopate before real (i.e., non-zero) desinences. This interpretation is motivated in part by utilizing the converse of the relations dictating anaptyxis—the presence of a stem final consonant cluster, e.g. cífra ‘figure,’ gen pl cifr, but cíferka [dim] (cf. Čurganova 1971:533). It is further supported by the existence of older autochthonous alternating items such as lest’ ~ l’stit’. Indeed, the latter example and its aforementioned congeners can only be explained in precisely the same manner, by the action of markedness reversal on the value of the pre-zero stem shape. This is reflected in Fig. 28. The reversal changes the value U to M and is conditioned by the situation whereby an alternation ought to exist in the substantival paradigm but does not in fact occur. (Cf. the reversal of tykv, motivating týkovka above.)

The semeiotic scheme adduced above in explanation of Russian vowel/zero alternations appears to be defective in two respects. First, it does not clarify the discrepancy between items such as lbíško ‘forehead’ [pej] and rotíško ‘mouth’ [pej], i.e., those with non-syllabic bases (cf. lob/lba, rot/rta). Second, it does not explain the (stress conditioned) discrepancies between items in -en’ and adjectival derivatives in ist, e.g. kremén’/kremnjá ‘flint’ → kremnístyj, kóren’/kórnja ‘root’ → kornístyj, grében’/grébnja ‘crest’ → grebnístyj, on the one hand; and kámen’/kámnja ‘stone’ → kamenístyj, stúden’/stúdnja ‘galantine’ → studenístyj, on the other.

With respect to nonsyllabic bases, as was noted earlier, there may or may not be a markedness reversal conditioned by syllabicity. That is to say, the fact that a given base is nonsyllabic may or may not constitute a semeiotically relevant context. Consequently, different derivational stems will or will not evince the nonsyllabic shape of the base, the choice being tied to specific items. Furthermore, this ambivalence gives rise to doublets, e.g. rtíšče ~ rotíšče ‘mouth’ [aug], rotóvyj ~ rtóvyj ‘oral,’ l’nóvyj ~ lënovyj ‘flaxen.’ Schematically, the choice can be represented as in Figure 29.

Given the relations of Figure 29, one might assume that syllabicity is more often pertinent than not. Thus, for tentative illustrative purposes, if one examines the various correlates of lob, it appears to be the evaluation of the anaptyctic stem shape as unmarked that motivates lobán ‘person with a prominent forehead,’ lobástyj ‘with a big forehead’ [adj], lóbik [dim], lobotrjás ‘lazybones,’ lobovój [adj]; also belolóbyj ‘white foreheaded’ [adj] and all other bahuvrihi composita (cf. Isačenko 1972), wherein the zero suffix is evaluated as marked. On the other hand, Ibíško [pej] and Ibíšče [aug] are motivated by the relations conditioned in part by the irrelevance of syllabicity, as are lobók ‘pubis’ and lóbnyj [adj]. The predominance of the latter evaluation becomes transparent when one confronts the lob word family with that of lën ‘flax.’ Here it is l’njanój [adj], l’novód ‘flax raiser,’ l’nóvyj [adj], lenók [dim]. But the picture is essentially a variegated one: cf. lëd ‘ice,’ ledokól ‘icebreaker,’ ledjanój [adj], ledóvyj [adj], ledók [dim], ledenét’ ‘grow icy,’ l’dína ‘ice floe,’ ledýška ‘small piece of ice,’ l’dístyj ‘icy,’ etc. A look at Dal’ (1934) will suffice to confirm this impression of variegatedness.

FIGURE 29

With respect to the possible stress conditioning of kremnístyj vs. kamenístyj, it should first be pointed out that the evidence of Dal’ is much more mottled than that of the standard lexicographic sources. Russian dialects have both grebnístyj and grebenístyj, kamenístyj and kamnístyj, korenístyj and kornístyj. At the same time, we find only studenístyj and kremnístyj. This state of affairs can be interpreted as hinging on the stress of the base. If one assumes that stress assignment rules generally mirror the markedness values of stem variants, then fixed stem stress in words in -en’ is at variance with the divergent stem values of these items due to the vowel/zero alternation. Thus stúden’/stúdnja with fixed stem-initial stress manifests a discrepancy between the markedness values of the variable stem shapes—M before Ø and U before real desinences—and the stress assignment. The marked stem shape should be stressless, the unmarked stressed. This is, indeed, the situation with kremén’/kremnjá. Hence in the abstract context of a discrepancy between stem value and stress, the expected derivational value of the pre-zero stem shape is reversed. For stúden’ this yields the value U ( U)—after two reversals. For kremén’, where there is no discrepancy, only one reversal takes place— the one entailed by the differing inflectional stem shapes—and the variant kremén’ is evaluated as M ( M). These considerations, therefore, constitute the explanantes of studenístyj and kremnístyj, respectively.

Let us summarize the conditions under which markedness reversal is said to occur in the inflectional paradigm vis-à-vis the implementation of inflectional stems in the derivational system.

A. Masc nom sg, where there is an inflectional vowel/zero alternation in the paradigm, e.g. bagór/bagrá → bagórščik, kovër/kovrá → kóvrik.

B. Gen pl, where anaptyxis fails to occur despite the presence of the appropriate stem final cluster, e.g. tykv ~ týkovka, igr ~ igórnyj, dyšl ~ dýšel’ce, usád’b ~ usádebnyj.

C. Stems which do not appear before Ø e.g. baraxlo ~ baraxólka, kéglja ~ kégel’nyj.

D. Nonsyllabic stems (optional), e.g. lob ~ lobotrjás ~ lobovój, lëd ~ ledóvyj ~ ledýška.

The analysis of the Russian data just completed furnishes us with several theoretical implications which go to the heart of a number of contemporary methodological issues in linguistics. First, it lends a significant measure of credence and coherence to the largely intuitive assertions of scholars like Stankiewicz (1962) and especially Worth (1967a, 1967b, 1968b) who have groped to hypostatize their notion that a fundamental cleavage exists between the (albeit interdependent) inflectional and derivational systems. Simultaneously, the proclivity to identify a methodological advance in treating this problem with the establishment of rigorous formalisms, typified by Worth (1967b, 1968a), can now be adjudged as a tack unconducive to explanatory insight. For it is only by considering the constitutive entities of morphophonemics as parts of a semeiotic—a system of signs—in which grammatical categories and their sign values are not only pertinent but inexcludable, that the precise relation between inflectional and derivational stem can be made perspicuous. The feasibility of kneading the data into one or another formalized descriptive configuration must not be permitted to obfuscate the fundamentally semeiotic nature of all grammatical phenomena.

The analysis pursued in the foregoing pages is also relevant to the question of the sign function of morphophonemic rules (raised by Andersen 1969a). The sign values which morphophonemic rules make reference to can now be acknowledged as more complex than those referred to by phonological rules. Nevertheless, the relatively small measure of productivity characteristic of morphophonemic rules does not interfere with their fundamentally semeiotic nature. In short, morphophonemic rules must not be viewed merely as a ‘junk pile’ of old phonological rules which have fallen into desuetude. One cannot emphasize their semeiotically motivated character enough, there being only a difference in details of implementation from that of phonological rules.

Finally, one aspect of the semeiotic explored above merits careful scrutiny inasmuch as it permits certain telling inferences about the deep vs. surface structure dichotomy which lies at the base of much contemporary linguistic theorizing. The behavior of Russian stems with regard to vowel/zero alternations was explained by making explicit reference to the markedness values with which these stems were endowed in their surface manifestations before zero desinences. Indeed, one of the significant and ultimately most fruitful methodological gambits exploited in the analysis was the deliberate avoidance of generalized ‘deep structure’ stem shapes as points of departure. In examining the difference, for example, between zemljá and zemél’nyj, the notion of an underlying stem shape (zem’ #l’) was eschewed as irrelevant, and it was rather the sign values of the stem—in varying but nonetheless concrete grammatical environments—that proved pivotal to the erection of a successful explanatory edifice.

B. Nominal Inflection

The specific problem to be confronted here, continuing the analysis of anaptyxis, is the delineation of the conditions attendant upon the appearance in Russian inflection of a vowel between two consonants of a cluster containing two or more consonants. I have limited myself to an examination of this process—the alternation of vowel and zero—as it bears upon nominal inflection. The conjugate problem of specifying the conditions surrounding the maintenance of a vowel between two consonants of a stem falls outside my purview. As has been true generally, the ultimate aim here is once more the semeiotic motivation of the data.

Of the four possible ways in which consonant clusters can change—syncope (of one or more consonants), metathesis, anaptyxis (vowel insertion), and permutation (segment switching)—Russian morphophonemics evinces an overwhelming preference for anaptyxis (cf. Isačenko 1970 and Worth 1968), leaving syncope to be effected by the phonological implementation rules (cf. chapter 3, section 2) while eschewing the other two altogether.

The fundamental rule of inflectional anaptyxis in Russian consonant clusters is roughly this: two immediately contiguous consonants, both marked for the stridency feature, will intercalate an inserted vowel (e or o; v. below) before a zero desinence.¹⁷ If there are more than two consonants in a cluster, at least two contiguous ones of which are [M str], the vowel is nevertheless inserted before the final one, e.g. korčém ‘tavern [gen pl]. This ‘anaptyxis rule’ may be viewed as effecting a simplification of the grammar, in that a marked sequence becomes an unmarked one.

The only consonant clusters which never undergo insertion are, understandably, st and zd, since these are the only sequences which are always unambiguously interpreted as [U str] + [U str]. Although /t d/ are susceptible of interpretation variously as [U str] or [M str] in other contexts, they appear to be invariably [U str] when preceded by s or z and followed Ø.

All sequences other than st/zd, therefore, can undergo anaptyxis, but there is a graded gamut of susceptibility which hinges on markedness values and their assimilation.

Although the usual distinctive feature treatment of Russian (e.g. Halle 1959) has not regarded the liquids /l l’ r r’/ as being distinguished by acuteness, there appears to be some evidence (cf. Panov 1967:126) that /ll’/ may be distinctively [—acute], /r r’/ distinctively [+acute].¹⁸ The redundancy or distinctiveness of acuteness in liquids appears to depend on the sequential context. Indeed, if the consonant which flanks a liquid is itself distinguished by the acuteness feature, so is the liquid; and conversely, if the contiguous consonant is redundantly [±acute], acuteness is similarly redundant in liquids. Since it is unmarked for a feature to be distinctive in a particular segment and marked for it to be redundant in that segment, this rule can be viewed as a markedness assimilation rule.

The rules mentioned so far have an obvious and important connection. The sign value of liquids with respect to the stridency feature (which is invariably redundant in them) will depend on the second rule. Practically, this means that acuteness is distinctive in liquids when the latter are preceded or followed by any segment other than velars and palatals (and other liquids). Although the ‘liquid rule’ does not appear to be firmly established in Russian as yet, we can nonetheless attribute the preponderant majority of distributional facts to its workings. The veracity of this assertion can be checked not only against the preferred (Avanesov and Ozegov 1959) forms of the gen pl dýšl ‘pole’ and kárg ‘hag,’ but also by the diachronic shift from older ívolog ‘orioles,’ távolog ‘meadow-sweets,’ ígol ‘needles,’ ígor ‘games’ to the CSR forms ívolg, távolg, ígl, ígr. (Cf. vólex ‘alder trees,’ ikor ‘calves’ in Kirparsky 1967:125-7, CSR ól’x, íkr). Also mókor’wet’ → mokr. Cf. tjagl’taxes’ ~ tjágol (Zaliznjak 1967:270), kúkol ‘dolls’ ~ kukl, svëkol ‘beets’ ~ svëkl (Toporov 1971:161-2).

Since liquids must be distinguished by either acuteness or abruptness, they are not subject to the rule (unless acuteness is distinctive in them) which varies the distinctiveness of abruptness in segments which are susceptible of such a vacillation, viz. /f f’ p p’ b b’ t t’d d’m m’ n n’ l l’ r r’/, depending on whether the surrounding consonants are or are not diacritically abrupt. This ‘abruptness rule’ goes together with a rule which specifies the status of the (syncategorematic) features of abruptness and stridency in nasal consonants. Nasals are diacritically nonstrident when redundantly abrupt, and vice versa.

Resulting from the application of these two rules are gen pl svërl ‘drills,’ vobl ‘voblas,’ utr ‘mornings,’ nedr ‘wombs,’ pros’b ‘requests,’ capf ‘pins,’ limf ‘lymphs,’ rifm ‘rhymes,’ pal’m ‘palm trees,’ travm ‘traumas,’ kosm ‘manes,’ voln ‘waves,’ ved’m ‘witches,’ bel’m ‘wall-eyes,’ obójm ‘chargers,’ vojn ‘soldiers,’ pojm ‘flood-lands,’ etc. Cf. also the nom sg masc ritm ‘rhythm,’ dërn ‘turf,’ tërn ‘sloe,’ čëln ‘dug-out,’ dobr ‘kind,’ mudr ‘wise,’ ostr ‘sharp’; but pólon ‘full.’

The varying distinctiveness of the abruptness feature in the appropriate segments results in differing shapes of stems which are phonologically identical. Thus, in sedló ‘saddle’/GP sëdel, the /d/ has been definitively interpreted as nondiacritically abrupt. Consequently, /l/ is diacritically abrupt, and both segments are, moreover, thereby assigned the value [M str]. Hence, the appearance of an anaptyctic vowel. But in pútla/GP putl or pódlyj ‘mean’/ masc short podl, /t d/ are interpreted as diacritically abrupt, implying the opposite interpretation for /l/. Ultimately, this means that /t d/ are assigned the value U str, as is /t/. Therefore, anaptyxis does not occur. Cf. óstr and ostër, mudr but bëder ‘thighs,’ mëtel ‘brooms’ but titl ‘tittles.’

Essentially the same analysis explains, on the one hand vóbla/gen pl vobl, and, on the other, skrebló ‘flint tool’/gen pi skrëbel. If the markedness values of the segments involved are compared with respect to the stridency feature, then there will invariably be no two contiguous [M str] segments. This accounts for vobl. However, comparison of values with respect to abruptness will yield the two contiguous [M abr] segments conditioning anaptyxis, hence skrëbel.

This is precisely the analysis that explains vacillations such as gen pl rúsl ‘channels’ ~ rúsel, remësl ‘trades’ ~ remësel (Zaliznjak 1967:270); or čresl ‘loins’ ~ črésel (Toporov 1971:161). Since /s/ is immutably distinguished by the abruptness feature (being [— abr]), there can be no fluctuation in its markedness value with respect to stridency, which is [U str]. However, /s/ is at the same time invariably [M abr], while /l/ is also [M abr] in the context of /s/. It is, to summarize, the ambiguity inherent in the distinctiveness and the markedness values of the syncategorematic features of abruptness and stridency that is complemented by and in part manifested through the anaptyxis rule of Russian nominal inflection.

The changes in gen pi forms undergone by stems like arbá are indicative of the preferred phonological interpretations in CSR. The older gen pi was árob (Zaliznjak 1967:270), at least as a possibility alongside arb. The former was eliminated, the latter retained. This must mean that contemporary speakers of Russian do not interpret /b/ as distinctively abrupt, at least in stem final position; cf. the elimination of ízob (Kiparsky 1967:126) as a possible variant of izb.

The relationships reflected in the ‘abruptness rule’ do not obtain when nasals are preceded by velars or palatals, i.e., by segments which are [M comp]. In that case, neither abruptness nor stridency is distinctive in nasals; hence /n/ is [M str], while /m/ is [U str]. This is again to be explained by markedness assimilation: in the context of segments marked for compactness, it is the marked property, redundancy, that characterizes the nasals with respect to abruptness and stridency.

As a direct consequence, one gets, on the one hand, gen pl paradígm ‘paradigms,’ fižm ‘farthingales,’ sintágm ‘syntagmas’; on the other, nóžen ‘scabbards’/ nožón, knjažón ‘princesses,’ mošón ‘pouches,’ ókon ‘windows,’ kúxon’’kitchens’; cf. masc nom sg ogón” fire.’

When there are more than two consonants in the stem final cluster, the rules continue to apply in the manner described. Thus, korčém (gen pl of korčmá) results because /m/ is [M str] and is contiguous to /č/, which is likewise [M str]. But in astm ‘asthmas’ (if the /t/ is unsycopated) /t/ is interpreted as diacritically abrupt.

When the nasals precede rather than follow velars or palatals, the abruptness rule may or may not apply, yielding doublets: gen pl déneg ‘money’— den’g ‘old coin,’ šáneg ‘pie’— šan’g (Toporov 1971:154). Since the anaptyctic forms are the only ones recognized as normative, the consistent implementation of the rule appears to be stabilizing here. This is supported by masc nom sg forms such as frenč ‘service jacket,’ revánš ‘revenge’; cf. gen pl zamš ‘suede,’ velikánš ‘giantesses.’

With the exception of lask ‘caresses’ (cf. lások ‘weasels’) and vojsk ‘armies’ any stem containing a final cluster ending in /k/—regardless of whether this segment is a suffix—will undergo anaptyxis in the gen pi: bánok ‘cans,’ mások ‘masks,’ júbok ‘skirts,’ kírok ‘picks,’ kišók ‘guts,’ dosók ‘boards,’ kóšek ‘cats,’ šljúpok ‘boats,’ márok ‘stamps,’ pálok ‘sticks,’ etc. This is equally true of masc short forms of adjectives: lóvok ‘agile,’ xrúpok ‘fragile,’ tjážek ‘heavy,’ etc. The only phonological factor which can be adduced to account for this property in /k/, as contrasted with clusters ending in /g/ or /x/ (cf. pasx ‘Easters,’ kirx ‘churches’), is that /k/ receives an extra mark—over and above its doubly marked status as [M str] and [M abr]. In substantives this extra mark can only be attributable to the grammatical context (i.e., the genitive plural), since masc nom sg forms do not insert a vowel before /k/, cf. park ‘park,’ vosk ‘wax,’ tal’k ‘talc,’ tomagavk ‘tomahawk,’ bank ‘bank,’ etc.

A comparable situation can be observed when stems end in /n/ or /c/. In the first instance anaptyxis always occurs in the appropriate adjectival form, unless /n/ is preceded by itself, in which case two solutions are available (see below). Thus, whereas substantives may vacillate in the gen pl—e.g. exídn ‘malicious’ ~ exíden, dómen ‘furnaces’ ~ domn —in adjectives we find búren ‘stormy,’ dréven ‘ancient,’ stróen ‘slender,’ dostóin ‘deserving,’ pólon ‘full,’ tésen ‘cramped,’ tóčen ‘exact,’ smešón ‘funny,’ etc. Anaptyxis occurs, moreover, even when the cluster is /nn/: stránen ‘strange,’ blagovónen ‘fragrant,’ neprikosnovénen ‘inviolable,’ etc. However, in certain adjectival stems, esp. those whose participial or Church Slavonic origins are still patent, the other solution, namely syncope, is implemented: božéstven ‘divine,’ blažén ‘blessed,’ derznovén ‘daring,’ svjaščén ‘holy,’ etc. In colloquial Russian this distinction tends to disappear (Zaliznjak 1967:240): médlen ‘slow’ ~ médlenen, neožídan ‘unexpected’ ~ neožídanen, voínstven ‘bellicose’ ~ voínstvenen, svjaščén ~ svjaščénen, ískren ‘sincere’ ~ ískrenen . A distinction can be made between adjectival and participial use in such cases as opredelën ‘appointed’ (pcpl) ~ opredelënen (adj).

Substantival stems ending in /nn/ never undergo anaptyxis; rather, one of the identical segments is syncopated: vann [ván].

In the second case, that of /c/, a vowel is inserted if /c/ is clearly interpretable as a diminutive suffix: krepostéc ‘fortresses,’ ozërec ‘lakes,’ bërec ‘tibias,’ bljúdec ‘saucers,’ dvérec ‘doors,’ špórec ‘spurs,’ etc. Anaptyxis also occurs in old lexicalized diminutives: koléc ‘rings,’ kryléc ‘porches,’ ovéc ‘sheep.’ Otherwise no vowel is interpolated: šújc ‘left hands,’ ubíjc ‘killers,’ propójc ‘drunkards,’ influénc ‘influenza.’ In myšc ‘muscles,’ despite its being a lexicalized diminutive, no anaptyxis occurs. In jaíc ‘eggs’ (cf. propóic, tróic ‘trios’), the /j/ of jajcó is not primary; it is derived from a vowel chain /ai/ by the application of a morpheme structure rule which states that unstressed /i/ not preceded by morpheme boundary is automatically reduced to /j/ in native Russian stems. Thus: jájca ‘eggs,’ jajcevód ‘oviduct’ but jaíčnica ‘omelette,’ jaíčnik ‘ovary,’ etc.

The behavior of /j/ in stem final position is unconnected with the anaptyxis rule. Since the morpheme structure rules of Russian do not permit /j/ to appear after a consonant when not followed by a vowel (yod is the only such segment; this is to be explained by its being marked for both vocalicity and consonantality), the insertion of a vowel is the only way of unmarking the stem while preserving its consonantal structure intact (i.e., without syncopating yod); hence: gen pl statéj ‘articles,’ sviriéj ‘pigs,’ sudéj ‘judges,’ epitimíj ‘punishments,’ skaméj ‘benches,’ etc. Therefore the vowel/zero alternation attendant upon the suffix j is a predictable concomitant of a Ø desinence after /j/, i.e., poberéžij ‘coasts, ’ pitéj ‘houses,’ žitíj ‘existences,’ vólčij [adj] ‘wolves,’ čéj ‘whose,’ góstij ‘guests,’ etc.

To conclude this inquiry into the phonological determinants of one sector of the morphophonemics of contemporary standard Russian, one might perhaps draw the inference from the processes examined that certain facts about the phonological system cannot be discovered without recourse to phenomena outside the phonology sensu stricto. Specifically, the distinctiveness/redundancy of a particular category, and thereby the correct markedness values, may prove to be identifiable only through the functioning of the morphophonemic component. At the same time, it is the markedness values of segments and the limitations inherent in their juxtaposition that govern these very same morphophonemic rules.

2. Russian Conjugation

Russian conjugation has a rather special place in the history of linguistics, quite apart from its intrinsic interest as a topic of inquiry. Thirty years ago, Roman Jakobson published his celebrated article ‘Russian Conjugation’ in Word, which became the seedbed for the overarching conception of language that came to be known as transformational-generative grammar (cf. Birnbaum 1970:31, Halle 1977:141, Worth 1972:80).¹⁹ With respect to the particular historical role played by Jakobson, a confrontation of ‘Russian Conjugation’ with its important interwar antecedent ‘Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums’ (1932) appears to lend credence to the idea that the entire post-Prague period represented in many ways a dissipation of the intellectual energy that had earlier resulted in genuine breakthroughs in linguistic theory and augured more. To be sure, ‘Zur Struktur’ was but one panel of an eventual triptypch. It focused on the grammatical categories of the Russian verb and analyzed them in terms of markedness while reserving treatment of morphophonemic alternations for a future study. The latter was, indeed, executed as Jakobson 1948; and the triptych completed by Jakobson 1957.

Jakobson’s application of the concept of markedness to morphology was utilized by Trubetzkoy in his path-breaking Das morphonologische System der russischen Sprache (1934), the ‘first structural description of the morphophonemic system of a contemporary literary language’ (Stan-kiewicz 1976:109). For all its merits, however, there is no real attempt made in this short book to integrate the fine discussion of grammatical categories with the thorough analysis of morphophonemic alternations.

A good starting point in a semeiotic analysis of Russian conjugation is Trubetzkoy’s outline (based on Jakobson 1932) of the grammatical categories of the Russian verb(1934:5-10)²⁰ Taking inflection in Russian as a whole, Trubetzkoy notes that the hierarchy of categories is dominated first of all by the opposition between verbal and nonverbal inflection, within which the former is further bisected by the opposition infinitive (unmarked) vs. all other verbal forms (marked).²¹ The latter, in turn, comprises the opposition of participles (marked) vs. nonparticipial (unmarked) forms, i.e., the finite verbal forms proper. At this point in the hierarchy the ‘purely verbal categories’ part company with the ‘classes transitional to the adverbs and adjectives’ (Jakobson [1948] 1971:119). Participles are split by the opposition of passive (marked) vs. nonpassive (unmarked). The passive is further divided into predicative (marked) vs. nonpredicative (unmarked), while the active (= nonpassive) dominates the opposition between adverbals, or gerunds (marked), and attributive (unmarked) forms. In the other branch of the hierarchy, the nonparticipial forms are first bifurcated by the opposition of the imperative (marked) vs. the indicative (unmarked); secondarily, the latter splits up into preterite (marked) vs. nonpreterite (unmarked). In schematic outline the whole network of oppositions defining Russian conjugation is as in Figure 30.

It is particularly important to take note of the markedness values of the major and minor categories, for it is these values that will be seen to cohere with the values of verbal stems and suffixes in both their morphological and phonological aspects.

All Russian inflected forms comprise a stem and a desinence. A stem is defined as the portion of the form that lies to the left of (immediately precedes) the desinence. A desinence may consist of one or more suffixes (including zero). If there is more than one suffix in a desinence, any suffix but the final one is nonterminal, while the final suffix is free. Desinences consisting of at least one nonterminal suffix are complex, as opposed to simple desinences.

Russian verb stems are of two fundamental kinds, vocalic and consonantal, depending (respectively) on whether they terminate in a vowel or in a consonant. Because of its hierarchical status as maximally unmarked, the infinitive acts partly as a diagnostic in determining stem type. Any stem which exhibits a vowel before the infinitive desinence that it lacks in the nonpreterite is a vocalic stem; this final vowel is its theme vowel.²² Any stem which exhibits a consonant before the nonpreterite desinences that it lacks when immediately preceding the infinitive desinence is a consonantal stem. Each stem type, vocalic and consonantal, can manifest one or both of two stem shapes (alternants). If a stem shape terminates in a vowel, it is vocalic; if it terminates in a consonant, it is consonantal.

FIGURE 30. The Hierarchy of Grammatical Categories in Russian Conjugation.

The correct understanding of the notions stem and stem type is crucial. When the stem is characterized as being vocalic or consonantal, this means that the hierarchical status of a particular stem and the set of morphophonemic alternations with which it is associated in the conjugational paradigm are defined by whether it terminates in a vowel or a consonant. This fundamental division is hence not a classification for the convenience of the analyst but an expression of the immanent patterned relations subsumed hierarchically by the stem. The invariance represented by the stem is thus in the relations (cf. Jakobson 1977:1030), not in the form of the stem as we are forced to render it graphically for lack of any other mode of representation. The importance of this understanding of invariance cannot be overemphasized for the theory of grammar. Our recourse to a kind of shorthand for purposes of exposition must not distort the fact that the notion of a stem inheres in the whole of the pattern of forms to which it stands as its designated representative, regardless of the concrete shape it assumes in this or that particular member of the paradigm.

Not counting miscellanea, Russian has seven stem types, all but one of which are vocalic. The vocalic stems, designated by their stem-final vowel, are: -i, -e, Č-a, -u, -a, -o. The stem Č-a differs from -a in that the former necessarily has a palatal obstruent (č , š, or ž) or yod preceding the thematic vowel. Stems in -u are necessarily preceded by n, stems in -o by r or l. A large and productive class of stems in -ova will require special comment later.

The consonant stems, designated by their final consonants, may terminate in any one of the following: -s, -z, -k, -g, -b, -r, -v, -j, -t, -d, -n, -m. Additionally, stems which drop the suffix -nu in the preterite may have the final consonant -p or -x.

Russian has two conjugations, the so-called First (IC) and Second (IIC) Conjugations. Using the stems v’od ‘lead’ and l’et’é ‘fly’ as examples of the two conjugations, respectively, the nonpreterite indicative paradigms look like the chart below. Barring the lsg. desinences, which are identical, the difference between the two patterns in each case resides in the nonterminal desinential vowel. In IC it is the o (2sg., 2pl., 3sg., 1pl.) and u (3pl.); in IIC it is i and a .

Thus in addition to the categories represented in Figure 30, Russian has person and number distinctions which find their fullest expression in the nonpreterite indicative. The category of person is implemented by the opposition impersonal vs. personal. The former is realized by the 3rd person, the latter further split into 1st and 2nd person (Figure 31).

The markedness values are assigned in accordance with the discussion in Jakobson [1956] 1971:137. Factoring in the category of number, for which singular is the unmarked value and plural the marked value, we get the following synthetic desinence values (where superscripts reflect the number of marked nodes comprising the specific personal form); values for the category person are to the left of the hyphen, values for the category number to the right (Figure 32); lsg. is the category which has the greatest differentiation between its person/ number constituents as to value; and 3pl. is the category with the second greatest degree of differentiation.²³ The emphasis here is on internal difference. Given the value of U for number, the highest degree of deflection for the category person away from that value along the markedness continuum is M2; that degree is realized in 1sg. Conversely, given the value U for person, the highest degree of deflection for number is M, realized in 3pl. This means that the semeiotic structure of the desinences is different in each case and that, moreover, 1sg. and 3pl. are conceptually the most marked ones owing to their degree of internal differentiation. 1sg. as a synthetic entity implements the maximally marked person and the unmarked number. 3pl. implements the maximally unmarked person and the marked number. They are thus completely complementary in their structure with regard to the semeiotic values which comprise them (which cannot be said of any of the remaining members of the Russian nonpreterite indicative paradigm).

This complementarity is evidently one of the fundamental and ubiquitous series of complementarities that inform the structure of Russian conjugation. Congruent with the principle of markedness complementarity (ch. 4, sec. 1), oppositely valued stems normally combine with oppositely valued desinences; as a corollary, identically valued stems and desinences normally do not so combine. In Russian inflection, desinences are marked if they begin with (or are constituted by) a vowel. The reverse is grosso modo true of stems: they are marked if they end in a consonant, unmarked if they end in a vowel. The structure of any inflected Russian form thus normally reflects the fusion of two complementary entities. However, as will be seen below, the markedness values of stems do not hinge simply on the identity of their final segments, so that the complementarity can be of several kinds.

FIGURE 31

FIGURE 32

The distribution of the two conjugations according to stem type is as below.²⁴ The difference between the vocalic stems centers on the final consonant, i.e., on the character of the consonant which immediately precedes the theme vowel. In those stems which are subsumed by IC (cons., -u, -a, and -o) the final consonant is necessarily nonsharp, whereas in those stems subsumed by IIC the consonant is necessarily sharp. Given the fact that [+ shp] = [M shp] and [— shp] = [U shp], it is reasonable to conclude from the operation of the principle of markedness complementarity that IC and the stem types subsumed by it are marked, IIC and the stem types subsumed by it unmarked. Furthermore, as we shall see later, -a (with a distinct class of exceptions) and -o stems have characteristics that necessitate their being understood as hypermarked, i.e., with a degree of markedness over and above the other IC stems.

In the paradigm of the nonpreterite indicative there is a fundamental complementarity between unmarked and marked stem types as regards the alternation of the final consonant(s) in the stem. Any Russian consonant other than j and l which appears in predesinential position can alternate in respect of the feature sharp/nonsharp, a process called neperexodnoe smjagcenie ‘bare softening’ by Russian grammarians. This results in the following possible pairs of sounds in the nonpreterite indicative: k ~ k’, t ~ t’, d ~ d’, s ~ s’, z ~ z’, p ~ p’, b ~ b’, f ~ f ’, v ~ v ’, m ~ m’, n ~ n ’, r ~ r ’,.²⁵ But there is also a second type of alternation, called perexodnoe smjagcenie ‘substitutive softening,’ in which rather than have a simple shift from hard (unpalatalized) to soft (palatalized) without any other changes in the character of the consonant, there occurs ‘a concomitant change in the basic place of articulation (shift of velar or dental to palatal) or a change of one phoneme into a cluster (epenthesis of a palatalized consonant)’ (Jakobson [1948] 1971:126). This second type of softening results in the following other pairs in the nonpreterite indicative: k ~ č, sk ~ šč, g ~ ž, zg ~ žž, t ~ č, st ~ šč, d ~ ž, zd ~ žž, s ~ š, z ~ ž, p ~ pl’, b ~ bl’, f ~ fl’, v ~ vl’, m ~ ml’.

Now, regarding the distribution of the alternants, unmarked stems (-i, -e) manifest the alternation in only one of the ‘outer’ desinences (see n. 23), namely the 1sg., e.g. nos’í ‘wear’/nošú, l’ub’í ‘love’/ l’ubl’-ú, v’ert’e‘twirl’/ v’erč-ú, etc. The ‘inner’ forms are unchanged (see below).

Marked stem types (cons, and -u, but not the hypermarked -o, Č-a),²⁶ on the other hand, manifest the alternation in all of the ‘inner’ forms and in neither of the ‘outer’ (see below).

If we understand the presence of a palatalized consonant in final position to signify a marking of the stem (owing to the [M shp] value of the cons.) and an unpalatalized consonant to signify an unmarking (owing to the [U shp] value of the cons.), then the complementarity is defined as below.

(1) in unmarked stem types, only one of the ‘outer’ desinences occasions marking of the stem;

(2) in marked stem types, both of the ‘outer’ desinences occasion unmarking of the stem.

The hypermarked stem types manifest an altered stem shape (vis-à-vis the infinitive) throughout the nonpreterite indicative paradigm (see below).

In the light of the complementarity of the unmarked and marked stem types, the hypermarked must be evaluated as unmotivated. This assessment is corroborated by historical evidence (Vinogradov and Švedova 1964:155-65, cf. Krysin 1974:199-207) which show that for -a stems there has been a long and decided tendency to convert to -aj stems, i.e., to cons.; thus e.g. gloda—glodáj, ‘gnaw,’ poloska—poloskáj, ‘rinse,’ maxa—maxáj ‘wave,’ kápa—kápaj, etc. The -o stems have also tended to change their nonpreterite indictative conjugation during the last 50-70 years by joining the class of IIC [sic!] verbs (Panov 1968:142). Since they are all stem-stressed in the ‘inner’ forms and that of 3pl., the difference between the two conjugations comes down to the 3pl., where the desinence -ut is being replaced by -at. In other words, -o stems are beginning to conjugate like unmarked stems owing to the constant presence of a stem-final soft consonant (unlike any other IC verbs). This is supported by the irregular behavior of three -a stems: gna ‘drive,’ sípa ‘pour,’ spa ‘sleep.’ In each of the three, the nonpreterite indicative is conjugated as a IIC verb, hence: gon’-ú/gón’-at, sípl’-u/síp’-at,²⁷ and spl’-ú/sp’át. In fact, potentially any 3pl. which has stem stress and whose stem-final consonant is soft can join IIC, e.g. stla ‘spread’: st’el’-ú/st’él’-at (instead of the orthoepic st’él’-ut), etc. Given this tendency, it becomes understandable why the Old Muscovite pronunciation of CSR gón’-at, l’úb’-at, nós’-at, etc. reflecting the structure gón’-ut, l’úb’-ut, nós’-ut, etc. was short-lived in the recent history of Russian and has just about been expunged from the standard language altogether (Avanesov 1972:159, cf. Panov 1968:137-43).

There is a further relation of complementarity informing the structure of the nonpreterite: between the character of the theme vowel and that of the stem-final consonant. In those stems whose final consonant can vary in accordance with the alternations of bare and substitutive softening,²⁸ the markedness value for the (tonality) feature of flatness varies inversely with the value of the consonant for the (tonality) feature of sharping. Thus in -a and -o stems, there is a marking of the stem throughout the nonpreterite indicative because of its coherence, via complementarity, with the value [U fla] of the theme vowel:²⁹ p’isa/p’iš-u, p’iš-ut, kl’ev’eta/kl’ev’ešč-ú, kl’ev’éšč-ut, poro /por’-ú, pór’-ut, koló ‘prick’/ kol’-ú, kól’-ut, ora ‘plow’/ or’-ú, ór’-ut, slá/šl’-ú, šl’-út, stla/st’el’-ú, st’él’-ut, etc. However, there is a clearly-defined set of (IC) exceptions in -a where the stem marking occurs in the ‘inner’ forms only: bra ‘take’/ b’er-ú, b’er’-ót, b’er-út, rva ‘tear’/ rv-ú, rv’-ót, rv-út, žda ‘wait’/ žd-ú, žd’-ót, žd-út, žážda ‘crave’/ žážd-u, žážd’-ot, žážd-ut, stona ‘moan’/ ston-ú, stón’-ot, stón-ut. These exceptions are all subsumed under one or more of the following classes, the first two of which are rank-ordered vis-à-vis each other (see A.-D. below).

A. stem-final cons, in -r: bra ‘take,’ žra ‘wolf,’ vra ‘lie,’ orá ‘shout,’ dra ‘flay,’ sra ‘shit,’³⁰ po=prá ‘crush’

B. monosyllabic stems: rva ‘tear,’ žda ‘wait,’ lga ‘lie,’ ržá ‘neigh,’ zva ‘call,’ tka ‘weave,’ ská ‘roll’

C. reduplicative stems:³¹ sosá ‘suck’/ sos-ú, sos’-ót, sos-út; žážda

D. stem-final cons, in -n: stona

What binds these four categories of exceptions is their marked value. As opposed to stems like stla or slá whose final consonant is the [U abr] -l, those with the [M abr] sound -r manifest a markedness reversal. The presence of the [M abr] r as a stem-final consonant renders this a marked context in which the normal (unmarked) situation of stem marking throughout the nonpreterite indicative paradigm is replaced by the marked situation (here, in this group of stems) of marking only the ‘inner’ forms. Similarly, monosyllabicity is marked vis-à-vis polysyllabicity (cf. Jakobson [1948] 1971:126) in verb stems, so that the second class of exceptions (B) above is likewise to be explained as the result of a markedness reversal. In the case of the two reduplicative stems sosá and žážda, it is unmarked for Russian verb stems to have a heterogeneous segment structure (i.e., alternation of CV sequences of different and complementary Cs and/or Vs). The two exceptional stems are the only ones in -a which are at variance with this structure; hence the absence of marking in the two marked categories, lsg. and 3pl. Finally, the stem stona with its final cons, -n exhibits the marked value of the paradigm in virtue of the marked status of n with respect to stem-final position: -a stem final consonants are normally obstruents, not sonorants, unless the stem is monosyllabic; cf., most directly, the functioning of the other nasal m in perfect alignment with other labials, i.e., obstruents: dr’ema ‘doze’/ dreml’-ú, dr’éml’-ut, just like tr’epa ‘pat’/ tr’epl’-ú, tr’épl’-ut, etc.

In this (latter) connection, it should be noted that -u stems, which are invariably preceded by n (the so-called -nu verbs), behave in exactly the same way as stona. This can be explained, just as in stona, by the marked status of n. However, it should also be noted that unlike a and o, u while unmarked for flatness is the only one of the three which is differently valued for diffuseness (under any interpretation of the Russian vowel system). Hence, whereas in the case of a and o there is marking of the stem throughout the nonpreterite indicative, in the case of -nu the marking is limited to forms implementing only those categories which are unmarked, i.e., the ‘inner’ categories.

We now come to the central question of coherence in Russian conjugation, namely the particular shape the stem takes in a particular form. Jakobson’s analysis only went so far as to predict the environments in which the shapes occurred but stopped short of explaining why the shapes occurred where they did. The answer lies in the relations schematized by Figure 31 and the principle of markedness complementarity.

The distribution of stem shapes in Russian conjugation is determined by principles 3 and 4.

(3) in a category further undifferentiated by a verbal category markedness values are replicated: unmarked categories are implemented by unmarked stem shapes, marked categories by marked stem shapes;

(4) in a further differentiated category the subordinate unmarked members are implemented by complementary markedness values: unmarked categories are implemented by marked stem shapes, marked categories by unmarked stem shapes.

The practical consequences of these principles show up, on the one hand, in the infinitive and imperative; and, on the other, in the indicative (preterite and nonpreterite).

The infinitive and the imperative are the only categories which meet the conditions of the first principle above. More precisely, all stem shapes occurring before the infinitive desinences (t’, st’, st’í, and č)³² are vocalic (Flier 1978b: 274ff; cf. Bromlej and Bulatova 1972:178-88) and unmarked in that they implement a category which is further undifferentiated by a subordinate verbal category and is itself unmarked. This means, in turn, that corresponding stem shapes ending in a consonant are marked. The infinitive, as the maximally unmarked category in the hierarchy of Russian conjugation, thus serves as an inherent diagnostic in the assignment of markedness values to stem alternants (see chart below). The finite forms subsume the imperative and the indicative, of which the former is not further differentiated by a strictly verbal category and therefore conforms to the same principle of replication of markedness values as the infinitive (see chart below).

The distribution of the imperative desinences Ø and -i is determined by the type of stress in the nonpreterite indicative and secondarily by the presence of a consonant cluster in stem-final position. Normally, fixed stem stress in the nonpreterite indicative occasions Ø—unless there is a consonant cluster stem-finally, in which case the desinence is -i:³³ pláč-u/pláč-Ø, stávl’-u ‘place’/ stáv’-Ø but prígn-u ‘jump’/ prígn-i, číšč-u ‘clean’/ číst’-i, etc. Otherwise—i.e., if stress is not fixed on the stem—the imperative desinence is normally stressed -i: v’od-ú ‘lead’/ v’od’-í, živ’ú/živ’-í, etc. In either case, the stem shape is the marked one (cf. the unmarked shape in the infinitive), in conformity with the value of the imperative and its being undifferentiated further by a strictly verbal category.

It should be noted that the marking of the stem in the imperative extends to the stem-final consonant. The specific type of marking is determined by the value of the stem type. Here the opposition is between hypermarked stems, on the one hand, and all remaining stem types, on the other. The former implement the more marked degree of softening—viz. substitutive softening—while the latter implement the less marked degree of softening—viz. bare softening. The fact that the stem-final consonant undergoes marking is coherent with the marked status of the imperative and its subjection to the first (i.e., replicative) principle of coherence above.

Since the form of the imperative desinence is directly contingent on the accentual properties of the stem, an explanation of the distribution of Ø and -i must take account of the markedness values of stress. In advance of a systematic treatment of stress in Russian conjugation below, we must here acknowledge with Trubetzkoy (1975:182) the unmarked status of the stressed syllable in Russian. In morphology this translates into the relation of a marked value for unstressed stems and an unmarked value for stressed stems. Since Russian stress is permutative (cf. Jakobson 1965a: 150), the opposition is between stressed syllables and all other syllables; in syntagmatic terms this is tantamount to the concatenation of one unmarked syllable with one or more marked syllables.

The distribution of the desinence alternants is also tied up with their semeiotic value. In accord with a principle governing the value of grammatical zero enunciated in Shapiro 1972:357, the Ø of the imperative is unmarked (cf. Jakobson [1965b] 1971:194-5), since it varies inversely with the synthetic markedness value of the grammatical category or categories it expresses (imperative = M). This means, correspondingly, that the value of -i is M. If, therefore, this assignment of semeiotic values for desinence alternants comports with the role of stress in the imperative, then the unmarked value for stress (the stressed syllable) ought to be complementary to the marked value for the desinence. We can see that this is indeed the case: the absence of stress on the stem necessarily entails -i (except with the obligatorily stressed prefix ví=‘out’), and the presence of stress on the stem (in the absence of a supervening consonant cluster in stem-final position) necessarily occasions the stresslessness—hence the prosodically marked value—of the grammatically unmarked Ø.

There is one particularly revealing case of complementarity in the morphophonemics of the Russian imperative that deserves special mention. As Jakobson ([1948] 1971:124) pointed out, the sequence of yod + i occurs only if the stem ends in ji-; thus dojí ‘milk’/ doj-í, pojí ‘give to drink’/ poj-í, tají ‘hide’/ taj-í, etc.; but stojá ‘stand’/ stój-Ø, bojá-. .. s’a ‘fear’/ bój-Ø-s’a, sm’ejá-... s’a ‘laugh’/ sm’éj-Ø-s’a, p’í/p’j ‘drink’/ p’éj-Ø, p’é/pój ‘sing’/ pój-Ø, kl’ová ‘peck’/ kl’új-Ø, celova ‘kiss’/ celúj-Ø, ví/vój ‘howl’ /vój-Ø, d’élaj ‘do’/ d’élaj-Ø, vestaváj/vstaj ‘rise’/ vstaváj-Ø, etc. What is pertinent here is the supersedure of stress as a determinant: despite desinential stress in 1sg. of stems like stojá/stoj-ú, kl’ová/kl’uj-ú, p’é/pój/pjo-ú, the desinence remains Ø and the stress in the imperative falls on the last stressable syllable; cf. govor’í ‘talk’/ govor’-ú, govor’-í and likewise dojí/doj-ú, doj-í, etc.

This superficially peculiar distribution of imperative desinence alternants after stems in -j has an explanation. The first, encompassing consideration is that j is (1) a glide, hence marked for both vocalicity and consonantality; and (2) marked for acuteness, as opposed to the other two Russian glides (cf. Andersen 1969c), v and v; which are [U acu]. No other sound in the Russian system is triply marked for these three features. The multiply marked status of yod accounts for the patterned variance of stems in yod from the general picture of the Russian imperative. Now as to the distribution of Ø and i, stems with the theme vowel -a after j have in common with consonant stems in j that they both have marked values: -ja stems are marked vis-à-vis ji stems in virtue of the fact that a is [M dif] and i is [U dif],³⁴ and consonant stems are marked generally vis-à-vis vocalic stems. Once again, complementarity prevails: the marked stems take unmarked desinences, the unmarked stems marked desinences.

The special subset of stems in -ava and -ova, despite the peculiarities of stem shape in the indicative, are just like any other -a stem, except that the j which is stable in non-ova stems in j manifests itself in them only before the desinences of the nonpreterite indicative and the imperative, e.g. vstavá/ vstaj-ú, vstaváj-Ø, uznavá ‘find out’/ uznaj-ú, uznáj-Ø, davá ‘give’/ daj-ú, dáj-Ø, kl’ová/kl’uj-ú, kl’új-Ø, celova/celúj-u, celúj-Ø.

Two final peripheral sets of data from the formation of the imperative require comment. In stems (prefixed or unprefixed) where the stress falls on a syllable other than the stem-final one, -i can appear instead of Ø (cf. Zaliznjak 1977:97 and passim): stáv’i ‘place’ /stáv’-Ø but ví-stav’i alongside ví-stav’, súnu ‘stick out’ /sún’-Ø but ví-sun’i alongside vi-sun’-Ø, kášl’anu ‘cough’/ kášl’an’-i (no *kášl’an’-Ø but pl. kásl’an-Ø-t’e according to Zaliznjak, 97), za-kúpor’i ‘plug’/ za-kúpor’-i alongside za-kúpor’-Ø (but only pl. za-kúpor-Ø-t’e), u-v’édom’i ‘inform’/ u-v’édom’-i alongside u-v’édom’-Ø, etc. At the same time, the reverse is not true: given an unprefixed stem which is never stem-stressed in the indicative, the addition of ví- will never give rise to -Ø, so that like v’od ‘lead’/ v’od’-í only ví-v’od ‘lead out’/ ví-v’od’-i, pl. ví-v’od’-i-t’e is possible.

This situation has a natural explanation in alignment with all the others proffered earlier. The Russian morphophonemic pattern as regards stress position articulates a basic dichotomy between stem-final stress and all others. Moreover, stress on the final syllable of the stem (where the stem is polysyllabic) is evaluated as marked, stress on any other syllable as unmarked. This relationship transpires, for instance, from the fact that in observing the accentual properties of substantival inflection we see that stem-final stress in the singular is incompatible with a mobile stress paradigm, whereas any other position of the stress in the singular can be altered in the plural, e.g. provizór ‘pharmacist’/pl. provizóry, podrúga ‘girlfriend’/pl. podrúgi, selénie ‘settlement’/pl. selénija; but proféssor/pl. professorá, krasotá ‘beauty’/pl. krasóty, men’šinstvó ‘minority’/pl. men’šinstvó, óblako ‘cloud’/pl. oblaká, etc. Thus in the imperative, stress on any but the stem-final syllable is unmarked; and by the principle of complementarity this stress is more closely compatible semeiotically with the marked desinence -i than with the unmarked Ø.

The second set of peripheral data has to do with the role of consonant clusters in stem-final position. Ordinarily, the presence of a cluster occasions -i regardless of stem stress. However, the existence of doublets like čist’-Ø/číst’-i ‘clean,’ pórt’-Ø/pórt’-i ‘spoil,’ móršč-Ø/móršč-i ‘wrinkle,’ kórč-Ø/kórč-i ‘distort,’ etc. (cf. Zaliznjak 1977:102 and passim) shows that -Ø is possible if the cluster’s last segment is [M str].³⁵ Again, the marked stem-final is congruent with the unmarked desinence.

It is instructive to examine just how complementarity affects the structure of Russian verb desinences. In the nonpreterite indicative 1sg. has the desinence -u for both conjugations. This is to be explained by the complementarity between the maximally marked value of the grammatical form and the status of /u/ as the least marked vowel in the Russian system, this sound being unmarked for the two relevant distinctive features, flatness and diffuseness (cf. Shapiro 1976:38). 3pl. distinguishes two desinential vowels, u vs. a, just as do the forms outside 1sg. and 3pl. (o vs. i). The latter are to be explained by the coherence of an unmarked stem (IIC) and the [M flat] vowel /i/, on the one hand; and that of a marked stem (IC) with the [U flat] vowel /o/, on the other. The former (u vs. a in 3pl.) presents the same complementarity of stem and desinential vowel, except that the relevant distinctive feature is diffuseness rather than flatness. The [M dif] vowel /a/ combines with unmarked stems, the [U dif] vowel /u/ with marked stems.

The desinences of the finite forms (i.e., all forms but the infinitive, participles, and gerund) in Russian all either begin with or consist of a sonorant or zero. Put negatively, a finite desinence cannot begin with or consist of an obstruent. The specific sonorants involved are: the vowels a, i, u, o; and liquids l, l’.

In the nonpreterite indicative the nonterminal portion consists of a vowel, the terminal portion of a consonant, or zero (see chart below). In the preterite, the order is reversed: the nonterminal portion consists of the liquids l (sg.) or l’ (pl.), the terminal portion of the vowels a (fem.), o (neut.), i (pl.), and zero (masc.). This means that in the unmarked indicative category of the nonpreterite the nonterminal portion (tense marker) of the desinences is diagrammatically expressed by segments which are unmarked for vocalicity (vowels), whereas in the corresponding marked indicative category of the preterite the nonterminal portion (tense marker) is diagrammatically expressed by segments which are marked for vocalicity (liquids).

The markedness values of the three genders and two numbers in the preterite are likewise diagrammed by the markedness values of the sounds expressing these categories. The gender hierarchy of Russian is dominated by the opposition feminine vs. nonfeminine, the latter bifurcating further into masculine vs. neuter (Figure 33).³⁶ The set of desinences expressing gender consist of two real vowel desinences (a, o) and Ø. The maximally unmarked category masculine is represented diagrammatically by the unmarked zero (whose value varies inversely with the synthetic markedness value of the categories it implements—here the marked preterite and the unmarked masculine, hence with the synthetic value M). The singly marked feminine is realized by a, which is [M dif]. The doubly marked neuter is realized by o, which is also [M dif]. The greater degree of markedness for the feature diffuse of a vis-à-vis o, in virtue of the former’s specifications as [+ cmp] and the latter’s as [— cmp], mirrors the higher rank (hierarchical dominance) of the feminine/nonfeminine distinction.

FIGURE 33.

Getting back to the nonpreterite, the diagram of sound and meaning in the desinences is constituted by coherence of markedness values between expression and content. First, in comparing the terminal consonants of desinences by numbers, there is no differentiation in the third person: this accords with the maximally unmarked value of that category. The marked category (vis-à-vis the third person) of 2nd person is, however, differentiated. The š of the 2sg. is opposed as [U abr] to the [M abr] value of t’ in the 2pl. Within the two numbers, in the singular the š of the marked second person is opposed as [M cmp] to the [U cmp] value of t in the unmarked third person. In the plural, the t’ of the 2nd person is opposed as [M shp] to the [U shp] t of the 3rd person, and the m of the 1st person is opposed to both t and t’ as [M nas] to [U nas]. The only apparently unmotivated relationships in this pattern are that of 1sg. to 2sg. and 3sg.; and 1pl. to 1sg. However, we should note that the maximally marked status of lsg. is mirrored in its having the only desinence devoid of a consonantal terminal. Accordingly, the pertinent locus of comparison shifts to the vocalic portions (Figure 34).

Here, however, the diagram changes from a replicative to a complementary one, since marked categories are expressed—insofar as the nonterminal (vocalic) portions of the desinences are concerned—by unmarked values of the relevant features and corresponding unmarked categories by marked values for the features involved. This dichotomy between the replicative diagram for terminal (consonantal) desinences, on the one hand, and the complementary diagram for nonterminal (vocalic) desinences, on the other, is to be understood as an instance of markedness reversal. Since nonterminal desinences are marked vis-à-vis terminal, the straightforward diagrammatization of the unmarked context is reversed in the dominant marked context, and the signs apply with opposite markedness values.

FIGURE 34.

Whereas replication is the norm for sound/meaning cohesions in desinences whose realization is morphophonemically independent of the properties of the stems with which they fuse, complementation is the norm in desinences (like that of the imperative above) whose realization is contingent on stem structure. This is the case with the infinitive, which (we have seen) has four regular desinence alternants: č, st’í, st’, and t’. Their distribution is as follows (cf. n. 32):

1. if stem is consonantal and ends in k or g, then č

2. if stem is unstressed in preterite, then st’í

3. If consonant stem ends in obstruent other than velar, then st’

4. If stem is vocalic, or consonantal ending in sonorant, then t’

This distribution makes semeiotic sense if we assume, to begin, that the desinence alternants themselves have a relational structure. The two polar members of the continuum of stem types are clearly: (1) obstruent stems in k or g; and (2) sonorant stems (including vowel stems). The former utilize a desinence which consists of one segment, and that segment is marked for compactness and stridency. The velars k and g are also marked for compactness; they are, however, unmarked for stridency. This means that one feature value (compactness) is replicated as between the stem-final and the infinitive desinence, one feature value (stridency) complemented (Figure 35).

In the other polar case, that of sonorant and vowel stems, the desinence utilized is also monosegmental, t’. Here as in the two other (transitional) stem/desinence relationships mentioned above, the final sounds of consonant stems are uniformly noncompact. But they are either marked for nasality (n and m) or marked for consonantality (vowels and glides). Since, as with velar stems and č, there is an identical markedness value for a common feature, that of stridency,³⁷ between sonorants and the [M str] t ’, it is the sole feature of nasality and its unmarked realization in the desinence alternant t’ that informs the complementary relation between stem and desinence (Figure 36).

FIGURE 35.

The transitional stem/desinence cohesions, which involve obstruent stems, manifest the alternants st’í and st’, differentiated by stress and the concomitant final vowel. Here stridency is not the relevant feature because the obstruent can be either strident or nonstrident (e.g. krad ‘steal’/ krá-st’ alongside griz ‘gnaw’/ grí-st’, v’od ‘lead’/ v’o-st’í alongside v’oz ‘carry’/ v’o-st’í, etc.). The identically valued common feature is nasality (in addition to the unmarked value for compactness that separates velar stems from all the rest): both the stem-final consonants and the desinence alternants are composed entirely of [U nas] segments. The difference in the case of st’í infinitives is the complementary value for stress. Since stems which take st’í are invariably stressless, the complementation here is between the prosodically marked stem and the prosodically unmarked desinence. Conversely, when the stem is stressed, hence unmarked prosodically, the desinence alternant is unstressed, hence marked prosodically, i.e., st’-Ø.

The only other fact requiring explanation is the presence of the (historically metanalytic) segment s before the t’ in the two transitional alternants of the infinitive desinence. Remembering that the two polar terms in this pattern are č and t ’, we should start by reiterating the function of the compactness feature as the pivotal one. Consonant stems not having a final compact consonant have t’ in their infinitive form. Of these, the obstruent stems (plus kl’an ‘curse’/ kl’á-st’) exhibit s, which is [U cns] and/or [U nas], just like the contiguous t and (more importantly) all obstruents. The s does not appear when the stem ends in a [M nas] or [M cns] segment. This distribution, then, is the expression of the following hierarchy of stems³⁸ (Figure 37).

FIGURE 36.

This brings us to the stem shapes of the nonpreterite and preterite.³⁹ Aside from completely automatic phonological variations in the shape of verb stems (e.g. reduction of vowels in unstressed position, contextual assimilation of consonants, etc.), the predesinential portion of a stem assumes two alternating shapes depending on the grammatical category of the form. As has become abundantly clear, the alternation involves the presence vs. absence of one segment (consonant or vowel). Thus in comparing the preterite and nonpreterite forms of a verb like igrát’ ‘play,’ one observes the presence of a stem-final j in the nonpreterite that is absent in the preterite and the infinitive (Jakobson’s ‘rule of truncation’).

Consequently, there are two stem shapes, differing only in respect of the final, igráj- vs. igrá-. A comparison of the stem shapes in the two unmarked categories of infinitive and nonpreterite shows the maximally unmarked infinitive with a shape lacking the consonant that is present in the partially marked nonpreterite. This signifies that in consonantal stems, defined as those which display a predesinential consonant in the nonpreterite absent in the infinitive, the shorter or consonant-less alternant is evaluated as unmarked (but cf. n. 22). This applies partly (but see below) to verbs like beréč’ ‘guard’ (cf. péč’ ‘bake’ above) that retain the stem-final consonant in the preterite as well as the nonpreterite.

FIGURE 37

Complementarily, in verbs whose infinitive and preterite display a stem-final vowel that is lacking in the nonpreterite, the shorter or vowel-less alternant is evaluated as marked. Hence in a verb like letét’ ‘fly,’ the stem shape of the infinitive and preterite l’et’é- is unmarked, while that of the nonpreterite l’ot’-/l’oč- is marked.

Within the class of consonant stems, however, there is a differentiation (with semeiotic consequences) of verbs whose stem shape in the preterite has a final consonant from those that lack this consonant. Thus alongside the pattern of beréč’ above, cf. that of klást’ ‘place.’

The segmental pattern represented in the preterite by b’er’óg- Ø/b’er’og-l-á/b’er’og-l-ó/b’er’og-l’-í is found when the final consonant of a consonantal stem is any of s, z, k, g, b, r.⁴⁰ The pattern represented in the preterite by klá-l-Ø/klá-l-a/klá-l-o/klá-l’-i occurs when the final consonant of a consonantal stem is any of v, j, t, d, n, m. These two sets of consonants exhaust the class of possible consonantal stems in Russian. Apparently, the reason that the first set is retained in the preterite is that all of them are [U str].⁴¹ This means, moreover, that the subclass of consonantal stems in which these unmarked consonants are retained in the preterite is evaluated accordingly as the unmarked subclass vis-à-vis the marked subclass of stems whose final consonants are [M str] and therefore drop before the desinences of the preterite. In the face of the overall principle of complementation that governs the combination of stems and desinences, the fusion of consonant + consonant that one observes in the preterite of verbs like beréč’ can only be seen as motivated when the stem shape of the preterite is understood to be unmarked via its unmarked (for stridency) final consonant.

In the marked context of the preterite, then, the same formal material (not counting automatic alternations) as in the nonpreterite is evaluated differently from that in the latter. For if the stem shape of the infinitive is juxtaposed to its nonpreterite counterpart, the consonant-less alternant is unmarked and the consonantal one marked (see below).

But in the preterite the value of the shape b’er’og- is U, owing to the unmarked value of its final consonant. By contrast, verbs of the klást’ type have formally different stem shapes in the preterite and nonpreterite (see below).

This completes our survey of alternation in the stem shapes of the categories of the indicative. The complementarity principle (4) explains in each set of cases the appearance of a particular stem shape in a particular conjugational form and does it via the semeiotic terms of markedness as a coherence of oppositely valued entities.

The asymmetric principle of combination of linguistic units also informs the behavior of stress in the Russian conjugational patterns. This transpires if the following assumptions are made. First of all, as in the whole of Russian grammar, stress differentiation (mobility) in the paradigm is marked, nondifferentiation (fixed stress) unmarked. Consequently, to the extent that differentiation exists and is perpetuated, it serves a semeiotic function. With regard to conjugation specifically and in conformity with the markedness complementation established earlier, unmarked stem types generally exhibit the marked stress type, marked stem types generally exhibit the unmarked stress type (v. below for exceptions). Hypermarked stem types, furthermore, occasion reversal in the basic relation, and the stress types apply with reversed values. In the nonpreterite, where the only kind of mobility is that of a ‘retraction’ of stress from desinence to stem-final syllable, unmarked stems like nos’í or v’ert’e are desinentially stressed in lsg. but stem-stressed in the remaining forms. Historically, the tendency is most decidedly in the direction of establishing mobile stress in unmarked stems (Voroncova 1959), although there remain many with fixed desinential stress even among the commonest verbs (e.g. s’id’é ‘sit,’ govor’í ‘talk,’ etc.). There are clearly semantic constraints on the establishment of mobile stress, such as the features abstract vs. concrete or figural vs. literal that determine fixed vs. mobile stress in contrasting stems like vozbud’í ‘arouse’/ vozbuž-ú, vozbud’-íš, etc. vs. razbud’i ‘wake’/ razbuž-ú, razbúd’-iš, etc.; opr’ed’el’í ‘determine, define’/ opr’ed’el’-ú, opr’ed’el’-íš, etc. vs. razd’el’i ‘divide’/ razd’el’-ú, razd’él’-iš, etc.; kos’í ‘bend, make crooked, look askance’/ koš-ú, kos’-íš, etc. vs. kos’i ‘mow’/ ko-ú, kós-iš, etc. (correlated with kosá ‘scythe’).

In marked stems, on the other hand, the general pattern is to have fixed—hence unmarked—stress (p’ok/p’ok-ú, p’oč-óš, etc.), and there are very few exceptions (e.g. t’anu ‘pull’/ t’an-ú, t’án’-oš, etc.; tonu ‘drown’/ ton-ú, tón’-oš, etc.; mog ‘be able’/ mog-ú, móž-oš, etc.).⁴² In hypermarked stems, the reversal may be superseded by other marked contexts such as syllabicity and anaptyxis. Thus in monosyllabic -a stems which are anaptyctic in the nonpreterite like bra ‘take’/ b’or-ú, dra ‘flay’/ d’or-ú, zva‘call’/ zov-ú, as well as in nonanaptyctic ones like rva ‘tear’/ rv-ú, vra ‘lie’/ vr-ú, and tka ‘weave’/ tk-ú, expected mobile stress does not ensue due to the supervening marked context of syllabicity.⁴³

Hypermarked stems have in common with unmarked stems that they both display mobility in the nonpreterite, obligatorily in polysyllabic hypermarked stems and as a general tendency in unmarked stems. The mobility differentiates lsg. from the rest of the nonpreterite paradigm, and this is due to the fact that lsg. is the maximally marked form and hence exhibits the complementary unmarked stress (defined as stress on any syllable other than stem-final, excluding the theme vowel). The other forms, being unmarked vis-à-vis lsg., accordingly exhibit the complementary marked stress.

The picture in the preterite follows similar lines. In unmarked and hypermarked stems the stress is generally fixed on the theme vowel, except that monosyllabic -a stems mostly have desinentially stressed feminine forms, e.g. rva-l-á, žra-l-á, žda-l-á, lga-l-á, vra-l-á, zva-l-á, etc. Thus the overwhelming majority conforms to the patterns xoxotá-l-Ø, xoxota-l-a, xoxotá-l-o, xoxotá-l’-i; as in govor’í-l-Ø, govor’í-l-a, govor’í-l-o, govor’í-l’-i.⁴⁴

Consonant stems in the preterite split up into two groups depending on whether the consonant is obstruent or sonorant. Obstruent stems (which include those in r— tr/t’ór/t’er’é ‘rub,’ mr/m’ór/m’er’é ‘die,’ pr/p’ór/p’er’é ‘push’) are marked vis-à-vis sonorant stems, and these semeiotic values show up in the stress pattern of the two types: the former does not admit of differentiation in either the nonpreterite or the preterite, the latter permits differentiation in both.⁴⁵ The preterite of obstruent stems can thus have either ‘desinential’ stress (actually, stress falls on the last stressable syllable, which is mostly the desinence) or stem stress: v’oz ‘carry’/v’óz-Ø, v’oz-l-á, v’oz-l-ó, v’oz-l’-í; griz ‘gnaw’/gríz-Ø, gríz-l-a, gríz-l-o, gríz-l’-i. Stem stress is limited to a handful of stems: str’ig ‘shear, pare,’ s’ek ‘whip,’ l’éz ‘climb,’ griz ‘gnaw,’ jed ‘eat,’ klad ‘place,’ krad ‘steal,’ pr’ad ‘weave,’ jéd/jéxaj ‘ride,’ pad ‘fall,’ s’ád/s’éd ‘sit,’ šib ‘hit.’ The difference between the two patterns is rooted in the relation between stem vocalism and/or stem-final consonant and stress (cf. Shapiro 1969:19-26); the principle informing the relation is complementarity. The presence of a vowel with the value [M fla] is coherent with the placement of stress on that syllable, owing to the unmarked status of stressed syllables in Russian. This accounts for all of the stem-stressed items listed above that do not have a as their stem vowel. As for the latter, given that a is nondistinctively [+ fla] and hence [U fla], the determination of stem vs. desinence stress hinges on the presence vs. absence, respectively, of an obstruent evaluated as [M str]. Thus, on the one hand, we have stem stress in klad, krad, pr’ad; but desinence stress in pas ‘graze’ and tr ‘as ‘shake’—the only two stems with a as the preterite stem vowel and a final [U str] obstruent.⁴⁶ This means that in the preterite the unmarked stressed syllable of consonant stems containing the vowel a coincides with the stem vowel in case the stem ends in an obstruent marked for stridency; and with the last stressable vowel in case it ends with an obstruent unmarked for stridency.

Precisely the same relations characterize the infinitives of these stems. In each case where the stress in the preterite falls on the stem vowel throughout the four forms, the corresponding infinitive also has stem stress (and the desinence alternant -st’ rather than -st’í) : lé-st’, grí-st’, jé-st’, klá-st’, krá-st’, pr’á-st’, pá-st’, s’é-st’.⁴⁷

It is now time to summarize the theoretical and methodological implications of the analysis of Russian conjugation presented here. What needs underscoring first is the role of asymmetry in the manifestation of linguistic signs, specifically in its conceptual bond with complementarity and markedness. The unequal evaluation of the terms of oppositions in language has been an important notion of linguistic theorizing since at least the heyday of the Prague School’s chief Russian representatives, Trubetzkoy, Jakobson, and Karcevskij. The clearest early expression of its role is given in Jakobson’s ‘Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums’ ([1932] 1971:15), where the asymmetry of correlative grammatical forms in morphology is characterized as two antinomies: (1) between the signalization of A and nonsignalization of A; (2) between the nonsignalization of A and the signalization of non-A. In the first case two signs making reference to the same objective reality differ in semeiotic value in that the signatum of one of the signs specifies a certain ‘mark’ A of this reality while the meaning of the other makes no such specification. In the second case, the antinomy is between general and special meaning of the unmarked term, where the meaning of the latter can fluctuate between leaving the content of the ‘mark’ A unspecified, neither positing nor negating it; and specifying the meaning of the unmarked term as an absence.

In focusing on the paradigmatic asymmetry of linguistic signs expressed by the polar semeiotic values of marked and unmarked superimposed on oppositions in phonology, grammar, and lexis, the early structuralists appear to have glossed over a cardinal syntagmatic consequence of markedness: complementarity. If the conceptual system underlying and informing grammar, and language broadly conceived, consists of oppositely valued signs and sign complexes, then whatever syntagmatic coherence linguistic phenomena have in their actual manifestation must likewise be informed by principles of organization diagrammatic of this underlying asymmetry. The only aspect of the asymmetric nature of linguistic opposition that allows access to structural coherence is the complementarity of the terms of the asymmetry, the markedness values. The systematic relatability of the complementary entities and of their semeiotic values is assured by the binary nature of all opposition, which balances the asymmetry of the axiological superstructure by furnishing the system of relations with the symmetry needed for the identification and perpetuation of linguistic units by learners and users.

In explaining the cohesions between form and meaning in Russian conjugation above, moreover, complementation of markedness values was seen to be the dominant mode of semeiosis—so much so that replication was confined to the structure of desinences and the expression of further undifferentiated members of the hierarchy of categories. Given the common understanding of undifferentiated contexts, statuses, and categories as marked in value (Brøndal’s principle of compensation), it is clear that replication is itself the marked (more narrowly defined) principle of semeiosis vis-à-vis its unmarked (less narrowly defined) counterpart, complementation.

Complementation actually has two aspects or modes of manifestation, which are semeiotically distinct and need to be understood as such. The more usual effect of complementation, well known in linguistic analysis, is the distribution of phonetic properties in complementary but mutually exclusive contexts. This widespread fact of language structure serves as a diagnostic in the determination of the nondistinctiveness of a particular feature, so that, to repeat an earlier example, the complementary distribution of short and long vowel realizations in English before obstruents indicates the nonphonemic status of quantity. The general effect of variation rules is augmented by their correlation of complementary phonetic properties with specific contexts. More significantly, we have seen that the assignment of particular properties to particular contexts is governed by a universal semeiotic principle—markedness assimilation—which assigns the unmarked value of an opposition to the unmarked context and the marked value of an opposition to the marked context. Complementary distribution can thus be understood as the semeiotic instantiation of markedness assimilation.

It is not difficult to perceive that this first, familiar sense of complementation is a manifestation of symmetry, since ‘variation rules... transform relations of similarity—equivalence in markedness—into relations of contiguity in phonetic realization’ (Andersen 1979:381). What has not been perceived, however, is that this form of complementation is peculiarly characteristic of the expression system of language (phonology, phonetics). By contrast, as the analysis of Russian conjugation has repeatedly made manifest, the morphophonemic system of a language largely eschews the symmetrical, replicative patterns of semeiosis which are so favored by phonology. Indeed, morphophonemics systematically exploits a second, less studied form of complementation which is antisymmetrical in its effects, as an inversion, and can accordingly be called chiastic.⁴⁸ The predominant use of chiastic complementation comports perfectly with the semeiotic nature of morphophonemics, which is the part of grammar that is constituted by the ‘relations between the contextual variants of the same linguistic sign(s)’ and contrasted to morphology, constituted by the ‘relations between [basic] linguistic signs’ (Andersen 1969a:807). The fact that morphophonemics privileges chiasmus is, in other words, in complete alignment with its function: the manifestation of morphological alternation.

Conversely, the prevalence of symmetrical modes of semeiosis in the specification of the basic signs of morphology—such as the structure of Russian verbal desinences illustrated above (cf. Shapiro 1972b:356-61)—accords with the semeiotic status of morphological units. Thus when the constitution of hierarchically independent (invariant) entities in grammar is at issue, correspondences reflecting relations on the content level (grammatical meaning) in the relations of the expression level (sounds) function as iconic signs. More precisely, they are a variety of icon, or hypoicon in Peirce’s trichotomous classification, which Peirce called metaphors and defined as ‘those which represent the representative character of a representamen [= sign] by representing a parallelism in something else’ (2.277; emphasis mine). This idiosyncratic understanding of metaphor reflected in Peirce’s typically difficult diction seems to imply that the more familiar kind of hypoicon—diagram (image being the third)—is a more general species of sign which subsumes parallelistic semeiosis (replication of relational values) and chiastic semeiosis (alternation of relational values) as variants. If this is so, then the metaphoric relations of parallelism entail the characterization of the relations contracted by chiasmus as metonymic, owing to the status of antisymmetry as a species of metonymy via its negational quotient (cf. chapter 5, section 2).

The invocation of a framework based on markedness, to explain the coherence of linguistic entities syntagmatically, also implies the ineluctable and necessary consideration of these entities as signs, as parts of a semeiotic. Whereas heretofore things like verb stems and desinences, including their positional shapes and alternants, have been looked upon simply as artifacts of description which facilitate an economical, mutually consistent statement of distributional facts, the semeiotic analysis presented here reposes on the fundamental assumption that all of these linguistic units have values—markedness values—which vary coherently and uniformly in alignment with contexts and the values (hierarchy) of contexts. The fusion of stems and desinences owes its coherence, its semeiotic raison d’être, to the form of the meaning on both sides of the expression/content ‘solidarity,’ to what Hjelmslev (1969:54-6) so astutely called ‘content-form’ and distinguished from ‘expression-form.’

The coherence of linguistic units amongst each other is by no means a static one, for we have incontrovertible empirical evidence that languages change over time. But the fact of change must be understood correctly as a dynamic based on teleology, where the telos is greater goodness of fit (iconicity, coherence) between underlying structure and its overt manifestation in speech (cf. Anttila 1974:19-25). The picture of Russian conjugation and of its system drawn above differs strikingly little from that of Old Russian (Bulaxovskij 1958:250-3; cf. Kiparsky 1967:180), i.e., from the state of the language with respect to verb inflection dating as far back as 900-1000 years ago! Given such a long span for testing, encompassing vast upheavals in the morphophonemics of Russian occasioned by the sound change known as the ‘jer shift’ (cf. Isačenko 1970), we have every reason to suppose that present-day conjugation has a teleological coherence which has given shape to it diachronically and enables it to subsist in its present form synchronically.

3. Counter-etymological Vowels in Russian

Russian is quite punctilious about maintaining the etymologically pristine or ‘correct’ shape of stems and desinences, so that the morphophonemics of contemporary standard Russian is for the most part a faithful representation of the language’s attested history. There are, however, cases where the segmental shapes have been altered, particularly in regard to unstressed vowels and connected with the introduction of akan’e and ikan’e. Thus O(ld) R(ussian) poromъ ‘ferry’ came to be spelled parom (Bulaxovskij 1958:106). As long as the vowel never appeared under stress, this sort of ‘re-etymologization’ remained a largely orthographic phenomenon (at least in the literary language), e.g. kalač ‘kolatch’ (OR kolač b’), barsuk ‘badger’ (OR borsukъ), rabota ‘work’ (OR robota), etc. (Bulaxovskij 1958:105-6). It cannot be gainsaid, however, that some quotient of morphophonemic relevance could have attached to the forms in question as a result of even a purely orthographic change. Moreover, as soon as a counter-etymological vowel appeared in a stressed syllable as part of a morphophonemic alternation, its status changed palpably and systematically. Thus, whereas it was immaterial from the morphophonemic point of view that OR rjasnica ‘eyelash’ came to be spelled resnica (conceding, of course, the not immaterial concomitant loss of semantic correlation with rjasa ‘cassock’; v. Fasmer 1971:473-4), since the syllable in question was never stressed, the change of OR djasna ‘gum’ to desna gave rise to a morphophonemically relevant counter-etymological vowel in the stem-stressed plural forms dësny, dësnam, etc. (Bulaxovskij 1958:107). In one known case of this type, a doublet has arisen consisting of the normative paradigm kajmá ‘border,’ pl. kajmý, kaëm, kajmám, etc.; and the non-standard (proscribed) alternation kajmá, pl. kójmy, kojm, kójmam, etc. (Avanesov and Ožegov 1959:207). This singular example among substantives is paralleled by the morphophonemically identical change (especially widespread in Russian dialects) to a counter-etymological vowel in the present indicative forms (excluding lsg.) of a group of verbs with the theme vowel -i (Bromlej and Bulatova 1972:253n; cf. Orlova 1970 and Obnorskij 1953:94-9). Putatively by analogy (thus Obnorskij 1953:98; cf. Bulaxovskij 1958:106) with verbs like nosít’ ‘carry,’ 1sg. nošú [nʌšú], 2sg. nósiš’ [nós’iš], wherein a so-called stress retraction from desinence to stem conditions the alternation of /a/ and /o/, the two verbs (po)sadit’ ‘plant, seat’ and platít’ ‘pay’ in particular were accepted in the literary language through the beginning of the present century (at least as alternates) with the conjugation [sažú], [sód’iš], etc.; and [plačú], [plót’iš], etc. To the extent that the pronunciation with counter-etymological o in these verbs is still extant today, it is especially characteristic of the grammar of older generations of Muscovite speakers of CSR (Graudina 1977:103). But forms such as [plót’it] and past passive participle [ʌplóč’ъn:ɨi̭] are also to be heard from non-Muscovite speakers of the standard language. Less common are [pʌsód’iš], etc. These forms were considered standard by those grammarians (Grot and Šaxmatov; v. Bulaxovskij 1958:106) who were among the first to think in terms of a standard language in Russia. The counter-etymological forms of platít’ are explicitly proscribed as nonstandard by normative sources today (e.g. Avanesov and Ožegov 1959:396). The form sódiš’ is not mentioned by Avanesov and Ožegov; however, Ušakov (1935:22) cites it as a Muscovite alternate of sádiš’ (cf. Ušakov 1964:15). It should be noted, moreover, that non-standard forms like provozgósiš ‘ and priglósiš ‘ have reportedly begun to make inroads into CSR (Voroncova 1959:145).

Another set of data relating to counter-etymological vowels has been adduced by Janko-Trinickaja (1971). Her examples, while pertaining to current speech, are strictly limited to proper names (nicknames and sobriquets) and more generally to the affective sector of the Russian lexicon. While it is typical of names to preserve their presumed etymological vowels when serving as deriving bases for nicknames (diminutive and hypocoristic), e.g. Nadéžda → Nádja, Vasílij → Vásja, Polína → Pólja, Bor’ís → Bórja, Svetlána → Svéta, Veniamín → Vénja, etc., there are cases where the stressed vowel in the derivative is counter-etymological: Tamára → Tóma, Matrëna → Mótja, Matíl’da → Mótja, Matvéj → Mótja, Afanásij (Afanásija) → Afónja, Fónja, Larísa → Lóra (~ Lára). Most of the examples involve the substitution of /o/ for /a/. There are, however, a few examples of /i/ being substituted for /e/: Venedíkt → Vínja (~ Vénja), Semën → Síma (~ Sénja, Sëma), Revékka → Ríva (~ Réva).

One of the most favored processes in current affective formations is truncation as applied to surnames and sobriquets. Here again the norm is preservation of the original vowel: Kamergérov → Kam, Bočkarëv → Bóča, Drebínskij → Dréba, Sivkóv → Síva, etc. Counter-etymological substitution is possible too: Krašenínnikov → Kroš, Speránde → Spírka; cf. the toponym Peterbúrg → Píter (all examples from Janko-Trinickaja 1971:292). In one interesting attestation, a pet pelican’s hypocoristic displays the same sort of alternation: pelikán → Pílja, Píl’ka.

The phenomenon of counter-etymological vowels is not restricted to proper names; nor is concomitant truncation. Alongside the expected derivatives tramváj ‘streetcar’ → tram, dopolnítel’nyj (paëk) ‘extra ration’ → dop, preferáns ‘preference’ [card game] → pref, psixíčeskij (bol’noj) ‘mental patient’ → psix, televízor ‘TV set’ → télik, xorošó ‘good’ [a mark] → xórik, diréktor ‘director’ → dírik (note the accompanying suffixation in the latter three examples), Janko-Trinickaja (1971:292) cites instances like otolaringólog ‘otolaryngologist’ → lor, spekuljánt ‘speculator’ → spíkul’, and špargálka ‘crib’ → špóra. Cf. bárxat ‘velvet’ → bárxatka ~ barxótka ‘velvet ribbon,’ which Ušakov (1935:91) does not differentiate in meaning while assigning stylistic value (specifically, prostorečie ‘low style’) to the variant with the counter-etymological vowel, whereas Ožegov and Sapiro (1959:50) gloss the first as kusóček bárxata ‘a piece of velvet’ and the second as bárxatnaja léntočka ‘velvet ribbon.’

What is remarkable and in need of explanation is the fact that among affectives the substitution of vowels is invariably /o/ for /a/ and /i/ for /e/ (Janko-Trinickaja 1971 cites only one [apparent nonce] ex. to the contrary, Kitáj → Kéta). This is not so with regard to the verb alternation discussed earlier. There exist dialects in which /a/ is substituted for /o/, although the phenomenon appears to be much more restricted geographically than the reverse: lovít’ ‘catch’ → [láv’iš], solít’ ‘salt’ → [sál’iš] (Orlova 1970:119).

If we wish to understand counter-etymological vowels in the two categories of examples adduced above, we need first to distinguish the two types from each other. In the Russian verb the ‘retraction’ of stress from desinential to predesinential position has a semeiotic function (see above section 2). In conformity with the overall principle of markedness complementation governing the structure of Russian conjugation, unmarked stem types generally exhibit the marked stress type (i.e., mobility), whereas marked stem types generally exhibit the unmarked stress type (i.e., fixity). In the nonpreterite, where the only kind of mobility is the ‘retraction’ in question, it is the unmarked stem types like nos ’i- or v’ert’e- ‘twirl’ that productively exhibit this alternation (the p ’isa- ‘write’ type being hypermarked and unproductive). The lsg. as the most marked form of the paradigm displays desinential stress, furthermore, because in Russian stressed syllables are unmarked, unstressed syllables marked (Trubetzkoy 1975:182); in other words, the fact of the grammatical form’s being marked is complemented by the incidence of stress–the unmarked value for stress–on the desinence. Conversely, then, all the other forms of the pres. indic. paradigm (excluding 1sg.) are unmarked; hence the desinences of these forms are complemented by the marked value for stress, viz. stresslessness. It is these semeiotic relations that motivate the pronounced tendency of -ít’ verbs to develop this sort of stress pattern diachronically (Voroncova 1959).

The role of complementarity in the morphophonemic patterning of Russian conjugation is crucial to solving the problem of counter-etymological vowels in verbs. While in standard Russian the complementary relationships do not extend beyond the desinence/stress nexus, it seems that dialects which have forms like sódiš’ have gone one step further in realizing the semeiotic potential of the complementary relation between segmental and suprasegmental values by widening its compass to embrace stems. Specifically, the stem final or predesinential vowel, on which the retracted stress falls in forms other than lsg., may change counter-etymologically, thus manifesting an alternation defined by complementary values.

The relation between /o/ and /a/ in terms of markedness values is such that /o/, being [— compact], is marked for compactness, whereas /a/, being [+ compact], is unmarked for this feature. The complementarity between stress value and vowel value thus emerges in these examples: /o/ as the marked sound coheres semeiotically with the incidence of stress on the syllable containing it.

The explanation of counter-etymological /o/ and /i/ in affectives hinges ultimately on similar considerations. Just as in the relation of /a/ to /o/, the relation of /i/ to /e/ is that of a marked to an unmarked vowel for the same diacritic category, compactness, since the former, being [+ diffuse], is relatively less compact ([+ compact] being the unmarked value) than the latter, which is [— diffuse]. Thus while both /i/ and /e/ are marked for compactness vis-à-vis the [+ compact] vowel /a/, the former is nonetheless marked vis-à-vis the latter for the feature.

Janko-Trinickaja (1971:293) is at a loss to explain the phenomenon of counter-etymological vowels phonologically. The missing ingredient, and one she takes no systematic note of, is the stylistic value of the items she adduces. Nicknames and sobriquets are part of the affective lexicon of Russian, as are appellatives like otolaringólog → lor that manifest the same vowel alternation. Indeed, it is highly significant that not one of the examples falls outside the affective category. This seems to suggest strongly that the alternation is coherent with the value of affectives as a lexical class.

Another invariable aspect of these formations overlooked by Janko-Trinickaja is that they all involve a morphophonemic ‘truncation,’ i.e., elements present in the deriving base are absent in the derivative. But truncation as a semeiotic process involves an unmarking (see chapter 2 and chapter 3, section 1). A term of a derivational correlation taken to be primary (the deriving base) vis-à-vis a specific secondary counterpart (its derivative) is marked, and the latter is unmarked. This assignment of markedness values accords well with the common notion that the absence (signe zéro) of something is normally unmarked, whereas the presence of that same something is normally marked.

If truncation (and, for that matter, all reduction) is to be understood normally as an unmarking, then it follows that all augmentation (affixation) is normally a marking. In an opposition dominated by a marked context, however, the reverse may obtain, in conformity with this semeiotic universal by which the normally unmarked value is construed as marked and the normally marked value as unmarked. Markedness reversal can be seen to operate in the context of affectives, since reduction applies with reversed sign values in diminutives, like the proper name Míša ‘Mike’ which is marked vis-à-vis its neutral counterpart Mixaíl ‘Michael.’ An analysis of reduction in terms of markedness not only reveals the semeiotic coherence of the derivational relations involved but accounts as well for the widespread incidence of truncation as a preferred means of forming hypocoristics and diminutives. Moreover, this observation is fully compatible with the knowledge that (to repeat) ellipsis, abbreviation, and univerbation are particularly favored processes in the formation of marked (i.e., non-neutral) vocabulary and the marked (social/professional) use of language.

A second semeiotic universal is pertinent to the problem at hand, namely markedness assimilation. In the case of both markedness assimilation and reversal, context is to be understood in the broadest possible sense encompassing a whole range of features, from phonetic environments (simultaneous and sequential) to the most abstract social environments.

Coming back to the analysis of items like Tamára → Tóma and Revékka → Ríva, we are now in a position to suggest that the counter-etymological vowels have a definite semeiotic function, in that they replicate the markedness value (as an instance of markedness assimilation) of the stylistic status of the words in which they appear as affective alternants. It is the marked characters of the words as a stylistic class that is indicated by and coherent with the marked value of the vowels /o/ and /i/. Since this is admittedly a sporadic phenomenon, truncation in and of itself must be adjudged to be sufficient in realizing the marked character of affective vocabulary in Russian.

Although there is an almost perfect overlap in the results of the counter-etymological substitution in the two categories of examples, the motivations are different. In the verb the appearance of /o/ is associated with stress on this vowel as its complement. In the affectives the vowels /o/ and /i/ are replicative in one respect and complementary in another. Their marked status for compactness replicates the marked status of affectives as a class and complements the unmarked value of stress, i.e., their stressedness. The fact that the second category exhibits replication of values primarily and complementation secondarily, while the first evinces only complementation, is in alignment with the two different types of grammatical alternation each implements. The formation of affectives by means of truncation (with or without accompanying affixation) is subsumed by derivational morphology/morphophonemics, whereas the formation of conjugational paradigms falls under the rubric of inflectional morphology/morphophonemics. Counter-etymological vowels, therefore, can be perceived via their disparate semeiotic motivation as (Peircean) indexes of the fundamental division of grammar into derivation and inflection. In this respect their sign function is compatible with that of vowel/zero alternations in Russian (cf. above, section 1). But whereas vowel/zero alternations have a stable and productive role to play in Russian morphophonemics, counter-etymological vowels, as episodic occurrences, exploit a semeiotic potential that is basically covert, presumably on the common principle of linguistic diagrammatization, something like ‘the more, the merrier’ (cf. Anttila 1980:277).