1. Consonantism

A. Japanese Tenues and Mediae

The terms ‘tenues’ and ‘mediae’ have traditionally been used to denote the series of obstruents associated with the letters p, t, k, s, etc. and b, d, g, z, etc., respectively. From the phonological point of view, tenues and mediae subsume two diacritic categories in terms of which they can be opposed: voiced vs. voiceless and tense vs. lax. The diacritic category voiced vs. voiceless presents, from a logical viewpoint, two contradictory opposites whose physical counterparts are the presence vs. absence of glottal vibrations. A distinctively voiced media is thus normally constituted by the corresponding tenuis with superimposed glottal vibrations. Since voicing and tenseness are syncategorematic features (in the sense of Shapiro 1972b:352), normally there is a complementary distribution of their physical correlates such that, in languages with distinctive voicing (like Russian), voiced obstruents are phonetically lax and voiceless ones phonetically tense. At the same time, in comparison to languages (like English) which have distinctive tenseness, languages with distinctive voicing manifest tenues which are normally relatively lax and tenuis stops which are as a rule unaspirate.

The diacritic category tense vs. lax, on the other hand, is composed of two contrary opposites—greater vs. lesser protensity—typically implemented as a difference between tenues and mediae in the relative duration of the release portion and the tenure portion (Jakobson 1962:550 ff., esp. 555).

With regard to the phonological analysis of contemporary standard Japanese (hyōjungo), to the best of my knowledge no one has discussed the tenues/mediae opposition except in terms of the diacritic category of voice. This applies equally to native phoneticians and foreign, traditionalists and generativists; cf. e.g., Jimbo 1927, Shirota 1971, Polivanov 1959, Bloch 1950, Wenck 1966, McCawley 1968. Moreover, despite the eloquent testimony afforded by the diachronic phonology and dialectology of Japanese,¹ historical treatises have likewise never veered from the position that voicing was and is distinctive. In most cases, of course, this situation is simply a reflection of the neglect of the phonological distinctions comprehended by the tenues/mediae series in the history of Japanese.

In reconsidering the problem of tenues and mediae in Japanese from a semeiotic viewpoint, we need to perceive the relevance and importance of phonological rules in facilitating a decision as to which of the two features at stake is distinctive, which redundant. More precisely, we need to exploit the heuristic potential of markedness assimilation by examining pertinent Japanese variation and neutralization rules in its light.

Unlike a language such as Russian, Japanese does not abound in rules of the kind needed. Among the small set available for inspection, one can focus provisionally on two: (1) the voiceless realization of vowels between tenuis consonants and in word-final position before pause (if there is a pitch lowering within the word); cf. Martin 1952:14; and (2) the morphophonemic² variation displayed by the preterit desinence ta,³ viz. /ta/ ~ /da/. Examples of vowel unvoicing are seen below.

If one wishes to account for vowel unvoicing in terms of markedness assimilation and to utilize the traditional markedness values for the traditional categories putatively involved, there are major obstacles. First, voiceless vowels are usually considered to be marked for voicing, while voiceless obstruents are considered to be unmarked for this feature. The juxtaposition of marked vowels and unmarked obstruents is incompatible with the principle of markedness assimilation. This impasse leaves us to surmise one of two resolutions: either the traditional markedness assignments err, or the features involved are incorrect. Perhaps this dilemma can be overcome by assuming that the voicing feature is not pertinent to the assessment of the vowel values, and that the correct redundant feature to be invoked is tenseness. However, for reasons that will become clear, this assumption only clouds the picture. Hence, short of challenging the correctness of the traditional markedness values assigned to voiceless vowels and voiceless consonants, the only recourse is to recognize tense vs. lax as the distinctive feature in the Japanese obstruent system (cf. Andersen 1968:175, 1969c:569-70). But this is precisely the prerequisite needed in order to understand the unvoicing of vowels as a markedness assimilation, since tense obstruents are [M tense].

The second case of neutralization which I wish to examine is less straight-forward than that of vowel unvoicing but is still susceptible of the same mode of argumentation and analysis. The relevant morphophonemic rule is exemplified by forms such as those below.

The alternation /ta/ ~ /da/ of the morpheme ta cannot be explained (not simply described) as a case of markedness assimilation without assuming that the relevant diacritic category is tense vs. lax. As in the first example considered, the [U voice] value of the redundantly voiced acute nasal n does not match the [M voice] value of the desinential obstruent d. After yod there is a twofold result, depending on the stem-final segment of the nonpreterit: if that segment is [U tense], so is the desinence-initial segment, hence oyógu/oyóyda; if it is [M tense], so is the desinence-initial segment, hence arúku/arúyta.

The markedness-theoretic principle of assigning phonological shape to basic forms of morphemes (specifically, desinences) delineated in Shapiro 1972b in connection with the English plural, can be exploited with similar success here, too. Since the preterit is the marked category (cf. Jakobson 1971:136-7) vis-à-vis the nonpreterit in Japanese as generally,⁴ we would expect it to be expressed by the marked term of the relevant phonological feature (cf. Jakobson 1971:350-6). Tenseness fulfills this expectation, voicing does not.

Perhaps it would not prove totally amiss to interject here a brief digression on problems of markedness assignment, as adumbrated by Shapiro 1972b and 1974b. In these studies I have attempted to sketch a deductively formulated theory of phonological structure in terms of certain formal and substantive universals of a semeiotic nature. Among the formal universals, the most salient ones pivot on the elaboration of feature hierarchies and the assignment of markedness values. In the event that a feature is physically present in a segment but phonologically redundant, I have hypothesized a reversal of otherwise operant markedness values. Figures 5 and 6 will serve to illustrate the plausibility of these theoreticalpostulates, both generally and specifically as regards the Japanese phenomena which constitute our topic herein. Consider the assignment of values for the tenseness feature in n.⁵

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 6.

Note, crucially, that the inappropriateness of voicing as a distinctive feature in the Japanese consonant system is indicated by the value [M voice] which eventuates for n.

I turn now, continuing the line of argumentation, to the set of morphophonemic alternations variously termed nigori, dakuon, and (most appositely) rendaku by native phoneticians: the change of a ‘voiceless’ consonant to a ‘voiced’ counterpart in the formation of certain compounds (cf. Latin negāre, negōtium, negligō, etc. and W. Slavic sandhi). The data are summarized (inter alia) by Martin (1952:48-57, 65-6), of which an illustrative sampling is seen below.

I would like to suggest an interpretation of this set of correspondences which will corroborate the proposed phonological reinterpretation of Japanese tenues and mediae. I will do this on the basis of admittedly limited but nonetheless highly suggestive evidence, namely comparative phenomena of word-composition from Russian.

Russian is endowed with a rich morphophonemic and derivational component. In the formation of bahuvrihi and tatpurusha composita, it evinces a somewhat curious and altogether productive alternation of sharp (palatalized) and plain (nonpalatalized) consonant, for example see below.

In each pair cited there is a correlation between [M sharp], i.e. [+ sharp], and [U sharp], i.e. [- sharp] base-final segments, such that the unmarked segment of the compositum replaces its marked counterpart but not vice versa.

If we now compare this process to that of Japanese rendaku, it would seem plausible to claim that the semeiotic purport is identical, in the face of disparate language-specific particulars. Pursuing this claim, one can then argue that the media which appears in rendaku must be valorized as the unmarked term of the phonological opposition, and this evaluation is possible only if the tense vs. lax feature is considered distinctive.

The validity of such a semeiotic analysis is also borne out by a confrontation of prosodic phenomena attendant upon composition. Given examples from English, Russian, and Japanese, respectively, we can discern a typologically homologous process at work.

ENGLISH

gráy béard → gráybèard

trée + tóad → trée tòad

bláck héad → bláckhèad

RUSSIAN

pár + voz’i → parovóz

(steam + carry → locomotive)

ikóna + p’isa → ikonopis’

(icon + write → iconography)

búr’a + lomáj → burelóm

(storm + break → fallen wood)

JAPANESE

fúufu + kenka → fuufugénka

(husband and wife + quarrel → family quarrel)

ánpo + jooyaku → anpojóoyaku

(security + treaty → security treaty)

yámato + kotobá → yamatokótoba

(Yamato + word → native Japanese word)

In each case adduced, the process of compounding entails the obliteration of the prosodic properties of the constituents taken singly and assigns primary stress or pitch, respectively, to a certain syllable or mora. This erasure of suprasegmental properties can easily be interpreted as an unmarking, i.e. as a neutralization of distinctiveness or prominence. This interpretation comports very well with our notion of markedness in general and is an important component of a systematic understanding and explanation of the linguistic process at hand as structurally motivated.⁶

The argument for positing the feature tense vs. lax as distinctive in Japanese can be buttressed by adducing perceptual evidence. Polivanov (1959:22), in discussing the development of Japanese consonantism, cites the different ways in which the North Chinese ‘semivoiced’ series is perceived, respectively, by native speakers of French, English, Russian, and Japanese:

North Chinese ^pb, ^td, ^kg, etc. (nonaspirate) are evaluated by the French as voiceless (ditto for the English, whence their customary European transcription p, t, k). On the other hand, the Russian speaker perceives them to be voiced, whence their transcription as b, d, g by Russian Sinologists (p, t, k being reserved for the Chinese aspirates p, t, k). Japanese perception of these sounds aligns itself with that of French and English: North Chinese P b (p in European transcription, b in the Russian) in the word bai-lun ‘white dragon’ is rendered in a late dialectal Japanese borrowing by p (not by b!): Nagasaki pa:ron (or pe:ron in other dialects) ‘rowing race during the holiday of the White Dragon.’ This kind of interpretation of Chinese ‘semivoiced’ obstruents in indicated also by the transcriptional practice of Japanese Sinologists.

The convergence of perceptual data between French, English, and Japanese, on one side, and Russian, on the other, gives an additional fillip to the argument elaborated above, since French and English both have distinctive tenseness, while Russian has an opposition of voiced vs. voiceless. Cf., finally, the fact that Japanese shares with English and French (Ladefoged 1971:20) a delay in voice onset, whereas the voicing of Russian mediae commences instantaneously.

This last bit of testimony leads conveniently to some concluding remarks on the relationship between phonetics and phonology, as reflected in the recent literature. I consider Ladefoged 1971, Vennemann 1972, and Shibatani 1973 to be representative—in varying degrees—of what can be called the naturalness fallacy in linguistics. Ladefoged advocates the inclusion of scalar phonetic parameters in phonology (seemingly oblivious of the crucial distinction between logically contradictory and contrary oppositions), by which he intends, notably, the concomitant rejection of the binaristic principles championed for several decades by Jakobson. Vennemann analyzes the subphonemic changes wrought by assimilation and concludes (echoing Ladefoged) that phonology must embrace non-binary rules along numerical scales which reflect redundancies such as those pertinent to certain assimilations. Shibatani argues, largely on the basis of phonetic adaptation observable in interlinguistic borrowing, that the phonetic surface structure often supersedes that of underlying morphemic structure. He concludes that ‘identifying a natural phonetic representation is a prerequisite to identifying a natural phonological process’ (1973:105).

The attention lavished by these authors on phonetic detail and accuracy is praiseworthy and highly emulable. Nevertheless, their alternately implicit (Ladefoged) and explicit (Vennemann, Shibatani) advocacy of phonetic ‘naturalness’ can only be lamented as a retrogression into the morass of prestructuralism. This step backward, apparently provoked by Chomsky and Halle 1968, illustrates the widespread conflation of form and substance which has hampered recent discussions of the evaluative component in phonology. Here the trenchant caveat of Andersen 1974a deserves to be quoted in full yet again:

It should be noted that markedness relations pertain to the form of language. They should be consistently distinguished from such notions as relative articulatory complexity, relative optimalness, or relative text frequency, which are facts about the substance of language. For even though it is often the case that, for instance, the unmarked term of an opposition involves less articulatory complexity and occurs more frequently than the corresponding marked term, this is not necessarily so. Markedness is a matter of conceptual complexity and as such is to a considerable extent independent of the substance of language. One of the principal goals of phonology is to determine the precise extent of this relative independence.

Form is the imposition of mind on the physical continuum (substance); phonological feature terms are oppositive, relative, and negative (Jakobson 1962:294, 626 ff.). This new skirmish with binarism (cf. Martinet’s older one), mounted by Ladefoged et al., is based on a fundamental misapprehension of the logical quiddity (as it were) of oppositions in language. They are binary by definition (cf. Jakobson 1962:301, 637), since they constitute minimal paradigms, in which the presence of one member implies the absence of the other (one term is in praesentia while the other is in absentia, and vice versa).

The pursuit of phonological theory in the phantasmagoria of phonetics (universal or otherwise) is redolent of the late 19th and early 20th century search for an explanatory theory of sound change in collocations of phonetic correspondences. The futility of this quest is a predictable consequence of a methodology which equated phonological causes with phonetic effects.⁷ The same, unfortunately, must be predicted for all such ‘naturalness’ theories, as even the fleetingest glance at the history of linguistics would confirm. From the Sanskrit grammarians to the Prague Schoolmen, it has been abundantly clear that linguistic structure is a product of culture not nature.⁸ As for the grounding of phonological theory in universal phonetics, suffice it to say—pace Ladefoged, Chomsky, and Halle—that the universality of phonetics is coterminous, no more no less, with the law of excluded middle. As the simultaneous occurrence of polar opposites is banished from logic, so the sole universal constraint on speech sounds (diphthongs excepted) is surely the impossibility of uttering both a given segment and its antithesis simultaneously.

The problem of Japanese tenues and mediae may serve to illustrate the efficacy and, in some measure, the possible ineluctability of the approach to linguistic explanation concomitant with a semeiotic theory of markedness. It would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that explanations, if they are to be found at all, must be sought in the forms with which the conceptualization of linguistic structure is invested; and of which the evaluative component provides the richest, if not the sole repository of explanantes.

B. Russian Consonant Syncope

Phonology is fundamentally a bipartite structure consisting of a set of phonemes and a set of implementation rules. The phoneme set is defined by a hierarchy of diacritic categories. The implementation rules are a set of interpretants by means of which the correct phonetic implementation of an utterance is directly related to a phonological representation of that utterance consisting of phonemes and phonological boundaries.

A semeiotic theory of grammar entails inter alia the assumption that the phonology, like all parts of language structure, constitutes a functional system. This assumption is indispensable to the study of sound systems specifically since it (1) imposes the formal requirement of mutual internal consistency on the statements which constitute a phonological description; and (2) forces the theory underlying the description to explicate the functional coherence among the constituent parts and to provide a method for evaluating the internal consistency of phonological descriptions.

Phonological rules have two functions. First, they translate a phonological representation couched in purely relational terms (diacritic category specifications) into a detailed three-parameter (frequency, volume, time) score which corresponds, in turn, to an acoustic signal. This is the phonetic function of the phonological rules. Second, with regard to the specific nature of these correspondences, the rules produce in the actual utterances a distributional representation of the paradigmatic relations that define the phoneme set (Andersen 1966:9). The nature of this distributional representation is that of a diagram. This is the iconic function of the rule component.

The emphasis on the functional relation between the implementation rules and the hierarchy of diacritic categories underlying the phoneme set entails envisaging this relation as one of strong cohesion—the cohesion characteristic of a functional system. Further, the requirement of internal consistency facilitates and preserves this cohesion by demanding that the phonological rules be so formulated as to refer demonstrably to relations in the hierarchy of diacritic categories.

The phonetic function of phonological rules can be fulfilled by implementation rules which simply assign the proper redundant features to a phonological representation, thus rendering the representation sufficiently explicit as to be realizable phonetically. Implementation rules which have the effect of altering distinctive feature specifications, or of deleting, adding, or metathesizing whole segments clearly cannot be interpreted as being uniquely motivated by the rule component’s phonetic function.

Neutralization rules, i.e., rules effecting the suspension of a phonological feature in phonologically defined environments, provide one of the means by which the relations obtaining within the hierarchy of diacritic categories are manifested. There are two basic types of neutralization: sequential and concomitant. Sequential neutralization can be defined as the suspension of a phonological opposition in an environment characterized by reference to its concurrent and sequential context, one and the same realization being assigned to both terms of the opposition (Andersen 1966:25). Both the particular category neutralized and the specific environment in which the neutralization takes place must ultimately be a function of the relations obtaining between the category neutralized and other categories in the hierarchy. Concomitant neutralization can be defined as the suspension of a diacritic category in part of a class of phonemes, specifically the unpaired members of the phoneme class. The unpaired phoneme is unspecified with respect to the diacritic category in question, and it is the function of an implementation rule to specify the proper implementation of the unpaired phoneme in those environments where the category is diacritic for the paired phonemes of the class.

The two basic types of neutralization sketched above are limited in scope to discrete segments of neutralization or specific categories taken singly. It seems profitable, however, to extend the notion of neutralization to blocs of segments, and perhaps even to blocs of diacritic categories. With regard to the former, it seems appropriate to consider, for example, the consistent absence of a segment from a consonant cluster to be an instance of neutralization, since the distinction based on the presence vs. the absence of the segment in question is suspended. This variety of neutralization, which can be termed bloc neutralization, as it pertains to the simplification of consonant clusters in Russian, is the chief subject of this section.

The diacritic categories of Russian, together with the phonemes they underlie, are shown in Table 1. In the discussion to be presented below, all statements concerning the distinctive feature definitions of Russian phonemes make specific reference to Table 1.

TABLE 1

Diacritic Categories and Phonemes of Russian

The phonology of Russian seems to have a rule whereby sequences of two or more identical segments (geminates) are simplified (degeminated) before or after consonant, and before word boundary (Panov 1967:87-8).⁹ Let us call this the ‘degemination rule.’ It accounts for the pronunciation of trupp ‘troupes’ (gen pl) [trúp], tonn ‘tons’ (gen pl) [tón], atóll ‘atoll’ [ʌtól], kass ‘cashboxes’ (gen pl) [kás], trëxtónka ‘3-ton vehicle’ [tr’òxtónkə]—cf. tónna ‘ton’ [tón:ə]—etc. Except in the hyperexplicit code (with a potential pause), it holds across preposition/prefix and word boundary, e.g., rov vválivaetsja ‘the ditch is collapsing’ [rófvál’ivəic:ə], v ssóre ‘in a quarrel’ [fsór’Ь] as in v sóre ‘in the trash.’ Actually, the portion of the rule which applies to sequences of identical consonants in the immediate environment of yet other consonants apparently needs to be divorced from the portion which degeminates identical consonants before word boundary. This seems indicated because acute obstruents which undergo assibilation before compact obstruents result in sequences which are not obligatorily simplified (cf. n. 1) before word boundary: matč ‘match’ [máč’:], pritč ‘parables’ [pr’ič’:] (Panov 1967:88).

Russian also contains a ‘bloc neutralization rule’ which deletes (syncopates) segments from consonant clusters, e.g. sčastlívyj ‘happy’ [š’:is’l’ivɨi̭], čéstnyj ‘honest’ [č’esnɨi̭], poezdka ‘trip’ [pʌjéskə], etc. The most general form of this syncope rule embodies the claim (later shown to be only partly correct) that in a given sequence of consonants, be they obstruent or sonorant, the medial member may drop out. However, since clusters of three consonants do occur (bódrstvovat “be awake,’ vzdërnut’ ‘yank up,’ otstranít’ ‘banish,’ etc.), there is need for restrictions which reveal the regularity of syncope in certain cases. Such restrictions may appear to be derivable from either universal rules of clustering (cf. Cairns (1969) or language-specific rules (Terexova 1966); this is only partly true. In any event, it can be seen that the ‘degemination rule’ is nothing but a special instance of the ‘bloc neutralization rule’—specifically its first portion (two identical consonants in the neighborhood of any third).

The relevant portions of sentences like ol’eni už sšiblis’ rogámi ‘the stags had already locked horns’ or ètot xlyšč sčástliv ‘this fop is happy’ (Panov 1967:87) are subject to this latter rule, hence the pronunciation [uš:’ŧbl’is’] and [xlɨš’:ás’l’if], respectively.

The syncope rule which applies as expected in kompliméntščik ‘complimenter’ [kəmpl’im’én’š’ik] is partially suspended in osmótrščik [osmótrš’ik] ‘inspector’ (cf. konsérvščik ‘canner,’ kórmščik ‘feeder,’ litáv-rščik ‘tympanist,’ etc.), which is due to the presence of a sonorant immediately preceding -š’. The systematicity of this phenomenon will be discussed below.

The syncope rule is applied obligatorily to obstruents before the compact continuant s, š, š’. It is also applied—with what appears to be a gradually attenuated obligatoriness—to consonant clusters which do not end in š and š’. Further echoing the ‘degemination rule,’ two identical consonants apparently need not be in sequence; as long as they are strident continuants they may be distributed on either side of the medial obstruent of a triplet, as in marksístskij ‘Marxist’ [mʌrks’isk’ii̭]. This holds across word boundary as well: most séryj ‘grey bridge’ [móss’ erɨi̭], mozg zébry ‘zebra brain’ [mózz’ebrɨ], matč ténnisnyj ‘tennis match’[máč’ tén’isnɨi̭], etc. Identical stops on either side of a fricative are not syncopated: čikágskij ‘Chicago’ [č’ikákskii̭], rak skatílsja ‘the crab slid off’ [rákskʌt’íls,ə], Gleb spal ‘Gleb slept’ [gl’épspál], etc.

Syncope is also obligatory for t or d before n when preceded by s or z: čéstnyj [č’ésnɨi̭], pózdnij ‘late’ [póz’n’ii̭], pérstnja ‘ring’ (gen sg) [p’érsn’ə], bezdna ‘abyss’ [b’eznə], etc. (Terexova 1966).

Finally, syncope takes place when identical consonants precede a word boundary, regardless of the nature of the segment preceding these identical consonants (specifically, even if it is a vowel).

The question is: how are these distributional facts to be accounted for? The degemination and bloc neutralization rules as distributional statements are partially true, but are they motivated functionally in terms of the relationship between phonological rules and the hierarchy of diacritic categories underlying the phoneme set?

Perhaps the most important aspect of neutralization rules is that the opposition neutralized is normally represented by the unmarked member in positions of neutralization. In the case of bloc neutralization, consequently, one can speak of the syncopated cluster as the unmarked counterpart of the unsyncopated one. Since bloc neutralization is patently a kind of simplification, the assignment of unmarkedness to its result fits well with the notion that only marked units contribute to linguistic complexity (elimination of marked units = simplification; cf. Cairns 1969: 867).

Markedness can also be determined by a consideration of the ‘universals of phonological inventory’ (Cairns 1969:870-1) or of ‘implicational laws’ (Jakobson [1941] 1968). Cairns has suggested the following heuristic principle governing the relation between implicational universals and the assignment of markedness:

If the presence in any language of a set of segments, S, is implied by the presence of another set of segments, T, in the same language, and the converse is not true, then the segments in S are unmarked for at least one feature for which the segments in T are marked.

For instance, since the existence of glides implies the existence of obstruents, glides are marked with respect to obstruents: for the feature of consonantality, obstruents are unmarked and glides marked. Note that this corresponds to the optimality criterion: optimal consonants are [+ cons], hence unmarked for consonantality; glides are [— cons], hence marked for consonantality.

With respect to syncope it does not seem inappropriate to hypothesize that something like degree of markedness must be at work in order that the simplification, in Russian, of all sks clusters be reconciled with the preservation of all ksk clusters, since the particular segments involved are the same, albeit in different order. The following reasoning seems plausible.

First, of the two types of syllable slopes, codas—which are generally subject to more restrictions than onsets—are marked and onsets unmarked (Andersen 1969b: 124). Hence the last member of a prevocalic cluster is never syncopated since, qua onset, it is always unmarked with respect to the rest of the cluster. Second, since the ‘archetypal program for vocal tract control’ is the sequence tata ... (Cairns 1969:877), obstruent syllable slopes are unmarked in relation to sonorant syllable slopes. Hence the obstruent first member of a post-vocalic cluster is never syncopated, since, qua slope, it is always unmarked with respect to the rest of the cluster. To continue with sks and ksk as examples, the k of sks is multiply marked with respect to the segments surrounding it: it is marked twice for compactness (s is unmarked), once each with respect to each s. In the case of ksk, however, neither k can syncopate because both are in unmarked syllable slope position, neutralizations taking place in marked positions only; furthermore, which does occur in a marked position, is not multiply marked (i.e., at least doubly marked) with respect to k.

The sequences stn and zdn are subject to obligatory simplification in Russian (Terexova 1966:83). If one inquires why the medial segment invariably drops, the answer appears to be the same (cf. Shapiro 1972b:349-50): t and d are marked for abruptness while n is unmarked; t and d are marked for stridency (being mellow stops) while s and z are unmarked for stridency (cf. Cairns 1969:871). This double markedness of t and d between s or z and n is a degree of complexity both necessary and sufficient for syncope to take place in marked positions in Russian.

In order to facilitate further explanation it must also be mentioned that any segment is marked when contiguous to itself. Since the optimal or archetypal sequence of segments is tata . . . (i.e., the recurrent concatenation of the optimal consonant, the diffuse obstruent t, and the optimal vowel, the compact a), in which the vowel and the consonant represent polar opposites, then markedness with respect to this unmarked structure would be gradually introduced and heightened by having the segments go from least alike to most alike. Two segments are most alike when they are identical. Hence the most marked sequences are either aa or tt.

Returning to examples of identical compact continuants in sequence, it is the doubly marked segment which is syncopated. Thus in the sequence ššš of už sšibl’is’ the medial segment is marked with respect to its righthand neighbor; it is also marked with respect to its lefthand neighbor. Both neighbors, being either preceded or followed by vowels, are unmarked.

In the cluster trš’ of osmotrščik the sonorant does not drop, not simply because it is a sonorant but because it is not multiply marked in relation to its immediate environment.

In the cluster ntš’ of kompl’iméntščik, t is marked for abruptness with respect to n, which is unmarked for abruptness. It is also marked for acuteness with respect to n, which is unmarked for this category.

Consonant clusters consisting of one or two sonorants and one or two obstruents (e.g., trš’, jtš’, rgš’, rmš’, rvš’) undergo the syncope rule optionally, meaning that there is a degree of free variation.¹⁰ The reason is that the non-nasal sonorants (liquids, glides) are always marked for consonantality with respect to obstruents since they are either [+ voc] or [— cons]. Nasals, being the optimal sonorants (they are the only consonants having formant structure), are always marked for consonantality with respect to obstruents.¹¹ The presence of this immutable markedness of sonorants with respect to obstruents can always potentially prevent the syncope rule from applying obligatorily.¹²

One of the most important implications of the iconic function is its role in determining whether a category is diacritic for a given segment. Since the rules are interpretants which translate paradigmatic relations defining the hierarchy of diacritic categories into their syntagmatic counterparts, it is the rules—and only the rules—that will indicate to learner and analyst alike whether a phonetic characteristic in a segment is relevant phonologically. Phonological rules can also indicate that the category vacillates between distinctiveness and redundancy; such a situation would constitute the functional manifestation of variability as an inherent property of language as a sign system.

We have seen that, for instance, mozg zebry ‘zebra’s brain’ pronounced without pause will yield [mózz’ébrɨ] since the [ + comp] /g/ is doubly marked, once with respect to each of its neighboring /z/’s. On the other hand, in a phrase like v zágs xotéli ‘(they) wanted (to go) to the registry office’ pronounced without pause, there is no consonant syncope since no preconsonantal segment is multiply marked with respect to its neighbors. In the case of certain clusters (stk, zdk, ste, ntk, ndk, ntk, ndk) there is variation among speakers. Thus pianístka ‘pianist (f.)’ or zagvózdka ‘hitch’ are pronounced [p’iʌn’ískə], [zʌgvóskə] or [p’iʌn’ístkə], [zʌgvóstkə]; and kostljávyj ‘bony’ is pronounced [kʌs’l’ávɨi̭] or [kʌstl’ávɨi̭] while ščastlivyj ‘happy’ is invariably [š’:is’l’í’vɨi̭]. Experiments with native speakers (Ganiev 1966) show that t tends to be syncopated in common words of the elliptic code and preserved otherwise.¹³

The /t/ or /d/ of these clusters can be variously interpreted (by speakers!) as redundantly or distinctively [+ abrupt], since in the Russian sound pattern their designation with respect to other features is sufficient to distinguish /t/ and /d/ from mellow continuants. In case they are interpreted as distinctively abrupt, their markedness value is [U abr], and syncope does not occur. However, if they are interpreted as redundantly abrupt, then their markedness value will be reversed to [M abr], and syncope will occur in virtue of their multiple markedness with respect to contiguous consonants. Thus the ambiguity of the distinctive feature relations is mirrored by the ambiguity (here: optionality) of the implementation rule, thereby instantiating one of the chief consequences of the iconic function.

This species of variation is commonly circumscribed in a functional manner. The same syncope rule which is optional is stl and stk clusters is (as we saw) obligatory in stn and zdn clusters, hence čéstnyj ‘honest’ [č’ésnɨi̭], pózdno ‘late’ [póznə], etc. The obligatoriness of the rule in these latter clusters has the functional effect of indicating that in a certain environment t and d are never interpreted as being distinctively [+ abr], just as in a second environment they are sometimes interpreted as being distinctively [+ abr]; and, finally, when prevocalic they are always interpreted as distinctively [+ abr]. This logical threefold result is characteristic of functional variation when reference is made in its definition to the sequential (rather than the purely concomitant) environment. It is the iconic counterpart in the rules of the variability inherent in the hierarchy of diacritic categories and the markedness relations defining the hierarchy.

The degemination rule, in its application to geminates before word boundary, can also be motivated in terms of markedness. To take mássa ‘mass’ as an example, the second s is marked for syllabicity while the first is unmarked. As long as a vowel follows the second s, the geminate character of the stem final can be preserved ([más:ə], [məs.ʌv’ík] massovík ‘mass propagandist,’ etc.).¹⁴ However, when the second s appears directly before word boundary, as in the gen pl mass, it is no longer in onset position as regards the syllable slope; it is in coda position, which is the marked one. Hence, the second s in coda position is doubly marked and must syncopate, giving [más].

Geminates which are not divided by morpheme boundary occur only in non-native words. Indeed, Russian stems do not end in identical segments, the exceptions being participles and adjectives with geminate n arising from a single n on either side of a morpheme boundary, e.g. imennój ‘nominal,’ podënnyj ‘quotidian,’ perevedënnyj ‘translated,’ pročítannyj ‘read,’ etc. The appearance of geminates before stressed vowels is similarly possible in native Russian words when a morpheme boundary intervenes: ssóra ‘quarrel,’ vvóz ‘importation,’ etc. Hence any occurrence of underlying geminates not split up by a morpheme boundary can be considered marked. It is also the case that even those Russian (native) stems which end in geminate n simplify when followed by word boundary: edínstvennyj ‘lone’ ~ edínstven (cf. edínstvenna et al.), oživlënnyj ‘excited’ ~ oživlën (cf. oživlënna et al.), etc. Even these geminate n’s not before word boundary are subject to simplification, in a hierarchical order. Geminate n does not simplify if it occurs at any point before the stress. This is the wholly unmarked position for geminates. Geminates which occur immediately after the stressed vowel are usually unsimplified but may be simplified in the elliptic subcode.¹⁵ Geminates which occur in any other position with relation to the stress are most susceptible of simplification, hence in the most marked position. If non-native words—the category which includes occurrences of geminates unbroken by morpheme boundary—are examined in the light of the scale of markedness established for native geminates, then the picture becomes somewhat clearer. For native words the preservation of geminates is most unmarked before stressed vowels; for non-native words the occurrence of geminates is most marked in this position, foreign words being marked for nativeness. To put it in a different way: since gemination is most common in the presence of post-geminate stress and inter-geminate morpheme boundary, the absence of inter-geminate boundary accompanied by post-geminate stress is the most marked state for geminates in non-native words. This high degree of markedness is what accounts for the simplification of geminates in foreign words with post-geminate stress and their more common maintenance in position immediately following the stressed syllable (cf. Avanesov 1968).

The wide applicability of the markedness based approach to bloc neutralization (specifically, consonant syncope) may be more readily apparent when data from other languages are considered. Even a fleeting glance at the history of English, for instance, reveals that the consonant clusters of dumb, knee, knife, wright, tight, walk, lord (<hlāford), balm, palm, bomb, two, sword, glisten, whistle, etc. were all simplified because one of the consonants was multiply marked with respect to the other. Similarly, a solution to the problem of vowel/zero alternations in the history of East Slavic (see chapter 4; cf. Isačenko 1970), lends itself to such treatment: cf. the dialectal changes, artificially banished from literary Russian, of žurávl’ ‘crane’ → žuráf’/žuravél’, rubl’ ‘ruble’ → rup’/rúbel’, etc.

C. The Problem of Russian š’

The sign function of phonological rules consists in the distributional mirroring of the constitutive relations of the phonological system. And it is this iconicity that distinguishes phonology from morphophonemics (Andersen 1969a:826-7). Phonological implementation rules, in contradistinction to morphophonemic rules, ‘produce overt signs (allophonic variation, neutralization) of the distinctive feature relations that define the phonemes.’ The relations are conceptualized by language learners and users in terms of an evaluative system—markedness.

The old problem of phonological analysis I wish to address here, using a Russian case, is that of the monophonemic status of a sound vs. its divisibility into several phonemes and resultant polyphonemic (usually biphonemic) status. Trubetzkoy (1958:51-9) dealt with this problem, as have (among others) Chao ([1934] 1963), Martinet (1939), and more recently Schane (1968). Specifically, I will be concerned with the reexamination of the status of the sounds [š’:] and [ž’:] in contemporary standard Russian, about which numerous scholars have had their special say, including Avanesov (1948), Bulygina (1971), Isačenko (1969, 1971), Reformatskij (1967), Veyrenc (1966), Zinder (1963), Flier (1980,1982), and Thelin (1974, 1981). Earlier in the century Baudouin ([1912] 1963:230) opted for the biphonemic solution, while his illustrious pupil Ščerba (1957:171) leaned towards a monophonemic one. Isačenko (1971) utilizes the approach of Halle (1959:51-2) and arrives at an apodictically enunciated conclusion (supporting Zinder) that the sounds in question must be viewed as biphonemic, namely /s/ + /č/ and /z/ + /ž/ or /ž/ + /ž/. Had he taken note of the comprehensive study of Veyrenc, Isačenko’s conclusion may have been less sure: Veyrenc adduces cogent arguments that must be taken into account. Flier and Thelin argue at cross purposes, and both fall short of a solution.

I will confine myself here to an aperçu of phenomena relating to [š’:], about which see also Barinova (1966), Borunova (1966), Panov (1968:81-102). Mutatus mutandis, the argumentation sketched hereinafter applies with equal force to [ž’:].

According to the latest Soviet sources, there are essentially two varieties of contemporary standard Russian pronunciation as regards [š’:]. The first variety has a long soft (palatalized) š wherever the orthography uses the letters щ, сч, шч, зч, жч. The second variety has this sound only where no clear cut prefix/preposition boundary intervenes; otherwise it has a sequence [š’č’] or [s’č’] and occasionally [š’:]. The length of [š’:] is neutralized in syllable coda position and phonetically present in syllable onset position (i.e., the ‘basic’ one).

Taking the second variety of pronunciation as a diagnostic case, it becomes clear that there has to be some coherent explanation for the occurrence of the biphonemic sequence at preposition boundaries (i.e., beyond simply describing that it occurs at this boundary). An explanation of this kind, I submit, is most successfully framed in terms of markedness. Let us call the position of occurrence of [š’:] (rather than [š’č’] or [š’č’]) the stem-internal position. This position is unmarked as against stem-external position, i.e., at preposition or word boundary, since the latter position is marked (neutralizations and cases of contextual variation which occur stem-internally are frequently excluded stem-externally). Further, the phonetic sequence [š’č’]/[s’č’] can also be assumed to be marked vis-à-vis the unmarked [š’:], since the degree of heterogeneity of the former exceeds that of the latter. We can see, now, that there is a correlation, via markedness, between the position and the sound(s). In the unmarked stem-internal position, the unmarked [š’:] appears to the exclusion of [š’č’]/[s’č’]. In the marked stem-external position, the marked [š’č’]/[s’č’] appears—but not to the exclusion of [š’:]. This last datum is understandable in the light of Brøndal’s ‘principle of compensation’: the marked position does not combine with the marked sound(s) unless it also combines with the unmarked sound.

The degree of markedness of a stem-external position increases proportionately with the bookishness or foreignness of the item (cf. Borunova 1966:63 ff.) This in turn enhances the frequency of [š’č’]/ [š’č’] at the expense of [š’:]. The effect of book learning and universal literacy is then to reduce positions of neutralization and to accentuate differentiation—in the present case at boundaries, but also generally (cf. Shapiro 1968:44-5).

In the preceding section I attempted to demonstrate that consonant deletion rules in Russian are governed by markedness considerations. Specifically, I suggested that in a consonant cluster of more than two segments it was the multiply marked one (relative to its neighbors) that was syncopated. This finding is in direct conflict with the assertions of Isačenko (1971). If [š’:] is to be regarded as the phonetic realization of sč, then we cannot account for the pronunciation of such items as kámenščik ‘mason’ [kám’bn’š’ik], since the sequence n’sč should drop s which is [M acute] and [M abrupt]. Moreover, the biphonemic treatment of [š’:] and the resultant derivation of the allomorphs šcik/čik from an underlying sčik or even skik—as is done in Worth (1968), as well as Isacenko (1971) and Shapiro (1972a)—must be adjudged fundamentally sterile, since this ‘derivation’ explains nothing about the particular distribution of allomorphs, viz. dental and palatal obstruents plus čik, but ščik elsewhere. On the other hand, if we invoke markedness and consider [š’:] to be both monophonemic and the basic (underlying) initial obstruent of the suffix, then things begin to fall into place. The variant čik has an initial segment which is marked for stridency; hence its concatenation with stems whose final obstruents are marked for acuteness, e.g. perevódčik perevód + čik ‘translator,’ kabátčik kabáč + čik ‘taverner,’ okútčik okúč + čik ‘heaper,’ izvózčik izvóz + čik ‘cab driver,’ perepisčik perep is + čik ‘amanuensis,’ perebéžčik perebéž + čik ‘renegade.’ The basic variant ščik begins with a segment which is [U strident]; hence its combination with stems which end in [U acute] obstruents, e.g. garderóbščik garderób + š’ik ‘cloakroom attendant,’ zabastbóvščik zabastóv + š’ik ‘striker.’ Note that this explains why items like anšlagščik anšlág + š’ik ‘headline setter’ are now tolerated by the language.

Proponents of the biphonemic solution, who appeal to morphophonemic alternations to press their case, fail to distinguish between (1) the obvious necessity of considering’morphological factors’ (cf. Reformatskij 1970) in arriving at answers to phonological problems; and (2) the quite separate matter of the sign function of phonological rules as distinguished from that of morphophonemic rules. The assignment of phonemic status to [š’:] is fully compatible with and corroborative of the markedness relations which characterize the hierarchy of diacritic categories underlying the Russian phonemes. At the same time, the biphonemic hypothesis is based on the workings of the morphophonemic component, i.e., on rules which have a different sign function and which typically reveal little or nothing about the constitutive relations of the contemporary phonological system.

In conclusion, however, one might point out the feasibility of effecting a reconciliation of the opposing views—attributable to the respective tenets of the Moscow and Leningrad Schools of phonological doctrine—by adapting the remarks of Andersen (1972:18, fn. 11) and considering the sequence [š’č’]/[s’č’] to represent the phonetic realization of a phonemic segmental diphthong. We note that the order of elements as regards markedness values accords with the principle of intra-segmental variation (š and s are [U strident], č is [M strident]). This rapprochement is facilitated by the knowledge that sequences such as bez ščuki ‘without the pike’ and vešč’ ščekotlivaja ‘delicate matter’ are pronounced with a [š’:] of normal duration.

2. Vocalism

A. Russian Unstressed Vowels

The most striking characteristic of the phonological system of Russian is the alternation of phonetic values as between stressed and unstressed syllables, a phenomenon known as vowel reduction.¹⁶ The five-vowel system under stress is qualitatively reduced to a three-vowel system in unstressed syllables; in its grossest form these alternations can be represented as in Figure 7 (letters stand for phonemes). Actually, to make this scheme a bit more accurate, one ought to note that the stressed diffuse (high) vowels /i u/ do not change qualitatively when not under stress—not in the traditional norm, anyway.¹⁷ Like all the other vowels they are reduced quantitatively (are of shorter duration), but unlike the others they undergo no further change.

That Russian vowels undergo reduction in unstressed syllables is typologically to be associated with the presence of strong dynamic stress inthis language: it is a well known tendency for languages with this kind of stress to exhibit concomitant reduction in unstressed syllables. But in contrast to the conventional view that sees vowel reduction simply as the physical consequence of strong dynamic stress (uneven distribution of articulatory energy over the utterance span), I take the view that the observed variations are signs and are, therefore, motivated semeiotically. This view implies that phonetic variation—like all variation—has a function, one which includes but also ultimately transcends phonetic substance.

FIGURE 7.

Function in the semeiotic sense has, first of all, to do with the iconic, the indexical, and the symbolic aspects of linguistic signs. The first of these aspects—the iconic—has special relevance to phonological structure, since it is the iconic function that makes manifest, or diagrams, the relational values by which the system of diacritic categories is defined.¹⁸ The functional relationship between category values and the way they are realized in speech is, on the semeiotic view, an expression of the strong cohesion obtaining between form and substance in phonology (as elsewhere, in grammar and lexis).

In the light of this conception of phonological structure, therefore, when confronted by systematic variation of the sort presented by Russian unstressed vocalism, one ought to probe beyond the physical parameters of speech to inquire into semeiotic raison d’être. That strong dynamic stress is often associated with vowel reduction cannot explain the behavior of unstressed vowels in Russian. There are, after all, other languages—Slavic ones at that—where strong dynamic stress does not imply vowel reduction (e.g. Ukrainian); or produces a different kind of reduction as to phonetic outcome (e.g. Bulgarian).

The motivation of vowel reduction (where it occurs, with or without concomitant strong dynamic stress) must reside in the fulfillment of the iconic function. Since the iconic function implicit in variation is said to realize or diagram the relations which define the underlying system of diacritic signs, the question really has to do with the precise nature of the relations that obtain between terms of phonological oppositions.

Besides the phonetic specifications, expressed as polar values (plus and minus) of phonological diacritic categories, each of the two terms of the minimal phonological paradigm has a semeiotic value, which is constituted by markedness. That is to say, each term embodies one of two possible semeiotic evaluations of the polarity (asymmetry) characterizing the phonological paradigm. In this respect, phonological paradigms are in perfect conformity with the content system of language, since ‘every single constituent of any linguistic system is built on an opposition of two logical contradictories: the presence of an attribute (“markedness”) in contraposition to its absence (“unmarkedness”)’.¹⁹

Assuming that Russian unstressed vocalism is a semeiotic diagram (icon) of the markedness relations defining the vowel system of Russian, what needs to be investigated are the particular ways in which the diagrammatization is accomplished. The first place to start is the status of stressedness itself, a point which can easily be overlooked in any treatment of the topic. It makes sense to speak of the unstressed vocalism en gros only in opposition to the stressed vocalism. Since it is the relation between stressed and unstressed syllables that is at stake, and relations, as has already been made clear, are expressed in terms of markedness values, what needs to be emphasized first is the markedness of unstressed syllables vis-à-vis the unmarkedness of stressed syllables (cf. Trubetzkoy 1975:182). Unstressed syllables in Russian are positions of neutralization vis-à-vis the vowel system of the stressed syllables: the five-vowel system under stress is reduced (as we saw) to a three-vowel system when not under stress. Since the marked term of an opposition is that which is more narrowly defined, it can be seen that vowel reduction in Russian is a sign of the marked status of unstressed syllables; and, conversely, the absence of reduction in stressed syllables is a sign of their unmarked status. There is, in other words, an over-arching semeiotic cohesion between the markedness values of the contexts (stressed/unstressed syllables), on one hand, and the markedness values of the vocalic sub-systems which manifest themselves in those contexts, on the other. As will become clear below, this fundamental type of cohesion—between contexts and units (here: vowels)—is also at the basis of the explanation of Russian unstressed vocalism.²⁰

The basic (i.e., stressed) system of Russian vowels is constituted by five vowels and three distinctive features as in Table 2. With the exception of the flatness of /a/, all of the feature specifications (plusses and minuses) are distinctive; the markedness values (M’s and U’s assigned in accordance with the principles of Shapiro 1976:36-45) take this into account. For the problem of unstressed vocalism, flatness is not relevant, only compactness and diffuseness. Indeed, the central feature involved in vowel reduction is diffuseness. The two vowels /i/ and /u/ that are unmarked for diffuseness do not undergo qualitative reduction precisely because of their markedness value: in conformity with the status of unstressedness, only those vowels that are [M dif], i.e., /a e o/, change their quality as well as their duration.

TABLE 2

The actual phonetic variants which appear as the unstressed counterparts of /a e o/ are:

The greater-than sign (>) indicates the greater duration of the variant preceding it, corresponding to the number and the position (excluding absolute initial) of unstressed syllables in the phonological word, first pretonic being segregated (together with absolute initial) from post-tonic and all other pretonic syllables. The parenthesized alpha (a) represents a possible (and quite common) more open pronunciation of neutralized /a o/ in absolute initial and, for some speakers, in phrase-final position (Verbickaja 1976:59). This variant has been characterized as a feature of Muscovite speech (Panov 1979:160) corresponding to the Leningrad caret (A), a less open vowel (Matusevič 1976:100), although the standard, Muscovite-oriented handbooks of R. I. Avanesov (1956, 1972) make exclusive use of the caret without further commentary.²¹ The schwa (ǝ) occurs normally in positions other than first pretonic, after hard consonants. The sign [b] denotes a shorter, laxer, slightly lower, and less fronted version of [i]—a kind of ‘front schwa,’ as it is occasionally transcribed.

The realizations in unstressed syllables deriving from /a o e/ could just as well be designated by the one phonetic symbol [i]. This would correctly render the negligible qualitative differences between vowel variants of increasingly lesser duration. It is, nevertheless, a phonetic fact that speakers differ in the degree to which these differences are negligible, and the standard practice is to reflect these subtleties (perhaps because of a normativist bias). Hence the common use of [i^e] to designate the vowel variant occurring after soft consonants in first pretonic position (corresponding to [ʌ]); and[b] to designate the vowel occurring after soft consonants in other unstressed syllables (corresponding to schwa).

The main unstressed vowel variants can be ranged according to the acoustic parameters of duration and formant structure (the first two formants being the only linguistically relevant ones); the data are taken from Matusevic (1976:100-20) (Table 3).²²

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

A comparison with the figures for stressed vowels is instructive (Table 4). It can readily be seen that, given the imprecision of formant structure as a criterion, duration appears to be the main physical differentiator of unstressed vowels vis-à-vis their stressed counterparts (cf. Verbickaja 1970), although length is not phonemic in Russian. We know from auditory and perceptual studies, however, that qualitative differences not readily discriminable by instrumental means are still phonologically relevant differentiators (Verbickaja 1976:47-59, 86-100), and this is borne out by proprioceptive awareness of articulatory differences. These differences can be expressed in terms of the diacritic categories which differentiate stressed vowels. The phoneme /a/ which subsumes the phonetic variants [ɑ ʌ ə], occurring chiefly after hard consonants, is specified basically as [+cmp], hence [U cmp]. The unstressed variants subsumed by /a/, which represent an articulatory and acoustic deflection away from the maximal openness of /a/, can thus be construed as discrete points on a continuum going from maximal compactness towards diffuseness (noncompactness). In relation to the [U cmp] value of /a/, these variants represent a graded increase in markedness for the category of compactness. Conversely, the phoneme /i/which subsumes the phonetic variants [i i^e b], occurring after soft consonants, and [ɨ i^e], occurring after hard consonants, is specified basically as [+dif], hence [U dif]. The unstressed variants subsumed by /i/, representing an articulatory and acoustic deflection away from the maximal closeness of /i/, can similarly be construed as discrete points on a continuum which begins at maximal diffuseness and goes towards compactness (nondiffuseness). Relative to the [U dif] value of /i/, these variants articulate a graded increase in markedness for the category of diffuseness.

The two features engaged in Russian unstressed vocalism, compactness and diffuseness, are syncategorematic (in the sense of Shapiro 1976:44) and, subsequently, complementary. An icon of this fundamental complementarity is provided by the complementarity of the contexts in which the unstressed variants subsumed by /a/and /i/occur. Specifically, [ɑ ʌ ə] are found chiefly after hard consonants, whereas [i i^e b] are found after soft.²³

The coherence between contexts and units with respect to Russian unstressed vocalism also manifests itself in the fact of /a/and /i/being the phonemic cover for the reduced vowels. Since /a/occurs mainly after hard consonants and /i/after soft, this distribution is clearly an instance of markedness assimilation,²⁴ whereby the vowel evaluated as [U cmp] coheres with the consonant evaluated as being unmarked for sharpness (palatalization); and the vowel evaluated as [M cmp] coheres with the consonant evaluated as being marked for sharpness. In the latter case, the vowel is /i/rather than /u/because of a secondary tonality assimilation: since the consonant is [M shp], the vowel is [M fla] in addition to being [M cmp].

The main arena of cohesion between contexts and units, to which we now turn, is that involving the variants of /a/and /i/, i.e., Russian unstressed vocalism proper. The overarching formal correlate of the systematic nature of the variation at hand is hierarchy or ranking, expressed in the first instance by the bifurcation of vowels into stressed and unstressed (Figure 8).

The interesting thing at this point is the existence of a few words in which the stressed vowel is not one of the normal five vowels but rather one of the two characteristically unstressed variants [ʌ ə]. Panov (1967:44, 1979:33) cites the expletive čtób t’eb’é ! [štǝ́pt’ib’é] as the only example with stressed [ə], but this is not so: the reportative particle mol, when it begins an utterance is also pronounced with stressed [ə]. Similarly,[b] appears under stress in the reportative d’éskat ‘[d’bskaf’]. ²⁵ To be sure, in all three cases the vowel can also be pronounced fully, i.e., as [o] and [e], respectively. For those speakers who do not habitually pronounce a full vowel in these words, the reduced vowel is lexicalized, and all lexicalizations are necessarily marked vis-à-vis the regularities of the rest of the phonological system (Figure 9).

FIGURE 8

The category of unstressed syllables and the vowels implementing it is further bifurcated by the first major subsidiary opposition, that of (absolute) initial vs. noninitial. Initial is defined here as the very first segment in a word, preceded by another word ending in a vowel; or by a pause. In this position the unstressed vowel undergoes the least qualitative and quantitative change vis-à-vis its stressed counterpart (Bondarko 1977:112). In conformity with our earlier understanding of deflection away from the unmarked value as a relative increase in markedness, initial position is evaluated as unmarked, noninitial position as marked (Figure 10).

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

What is important to notice here, as in the preceding case, is the cohesion between contexts and units. Words in which the stressed vowel is a lexicalized (otherwise unstressed) variant (mol, čtob, d’éskat’) display not just any reduced vowel but precisely the one evaluated as marked in the series of variants—here [ə] and [b], respectively. Thus, we have the situation of a marked context—a lexicalized pronunciation—being fulfilled by a marked vowel. This semeiotic coherence is replicated mutatis mutandis in the pronunciation of the unmarked [ʌ] in initial position—the context evaluated as unmarked relative to noninitial syllables, e.g. [ʌdná], [ʌrbá]. In fact, we will see this pattern of semeiotic coherence between the markedness values of contexts and that of vowel variants being sustained throughout the hierarchy as it bifurcates further down through the ranks of categories.

The second major subsidiary opposition, following immediately upon the opposition initial vs. noninitial, is that between position after soft consonants vs. not after soft consonants (Figure 11).²⁶

The normal vowel variant after soft consonants is a realization of /i/, hence [i^(e)] in first pretonic position and [b] in all other unstressed syllables, e.g. l’esá [l’i^e sá], m’asá [m’i^esá], m’ol’i [m’i^e l’í]; but časovój [č’bsʌvói̯], t’eremá [t’br’i^emá], ból’on [ból’bn], náčat [náč’bt], šir’e [šír’b], etc. Caret and schwa do not appear after soft consonants except in lexicalized or grammaticalized forms. The preposition dl’a is the only case of lexicalization; it is also the sole example of a preposition whose final prevocalic consonant is soft. In any event, the standard pronunciation is [ʌ] and [ə], depending on whether the vowel is one or more syllables (resp.) away from the stress, e.g. dl’a vás [dl’ʌvás], but dl’a m’en’á [dl’əm’i^en’á], etc. The relative fronting perceived in the second example is, of course, due to the doubly palatalized environment; contrast dl’a mojovó [dl’əməi̯ivó], etc.

FIGURE 11

The grammaticalized pronunciation of the nonfront [ə] for the expected [b] is confined to certain (mainly substantival) desinences and the 3pl of the indicative verb (2nd conjugation), e.g. mór’a [mór’ə], pláčom [pláč’əm], trójo [trói̯ə], v’id’at [v’íd’ət], etc.²⁷ In general, the number of instances of this pronunciation is being curtailed over time, and it would be safe to predict its ultimate disappearance, even in standard speech.

There exists one instance of the lexicalized pronunciation of [b], in the clitic v’ed’, which is invariably pronounced with the so-called second degree of reduction—or simply with [i]—no matter how close or far from the stressed syllable, e.g. v’ed’já [v’bt’já], like v’ed’ on’í [v’bt’ʌn’i], etc.

So much for reduced vowels after soft consonants. The other branch of the hierarchy is dominated by the opposite node, i.e., not after soft consonants, which likewise splits further into first pretonic vs. non-first pretonic; and lexicalized vs. non-lexicalized (Figure 12).

FIGURE 12

The normal reduced vowel in noninitial position and not in first pretonic after other than a soft consonant is schwa; here caret will occur only in certain vowel chains. In first pretonic, however, caret is normal, with schwa occurring only in the lexicalized abbreviations of the relative clause head words xotjá and koli, viz. xot ‘and kol’ both of which may have a schwa in standard speech, although lesser grades of reduction are heard as well. Hence the expected fulfillment of an unmarked context by the unmarked vowel variant in vodá[vʌdá], parí [pʌrɨ], do úžina[dʌúžɨnə], na úžin’e [nʌúzɨn’b], etc.

It is at this point that the question of the pronunciation of vowel chains looms, chains one or none of whose vowels is stressed. Sequences of vowels in Russian have generally failed to receive fully adequate treatment in the handbooks; the account here is based on Avanesov (1972), Panov (1967), Shapiro (1970), and Ward (1975), the last-cited item being the most complete factual summary available. (Figure 13).

An unstressed vowel which finds itself in a syllable other than the first pretonic after a hard consonant will be pronounced invariably with the second degree of reduction, i.e., with a schwa, unless it is followed by a vowel, in which case the outcome will hinge on the kind of vowel that follows. Hence the expected pronunciations in items like xorošó [xərʌšó], nad’el’oná [nəd’bl’i^e ná], sobral’ís’ [səbrʌl’ís’], kópot’ [kópə’t], zapad [zápət], šúba [šúbə], m’ésto [m’éstə], etc. As soon as vowel chains are involved, however, there is a split, depending on whether or not the vowel in question is preceded by a vowel, in which case other factors will come into play (see below); or whether it is preceded by a consonant, on one hand, and followed by what sort of vowel, on the other. In a vowel chain consisting of more than two vowels, each pair of vowels is taken separately, without there being any dependency relation between such pairs. In pairs preceded by a consonant and having a diffuse vowel as the second member, the first member will undergo the second degree of reduction expected of vowels in position other than first pretonic, e.g. po uglú [pəuglú], ob aist’ónk’e [ʌbəis’t’ónk’b], s aukcióna [səukcionə], etc. But the presence of a nondiffuse vowel renders the position of the unstressed syllable irrelevant, and the variant which appears here is caret rather than schwa, e.g. na obrazăx [nʌʌbrʌzáx], koop’erat’ív [kʌʌp’brʌt’íf], na aukción’e [nʌʌukcɨón’b], po etažú [pʌetʌžú], do oospóri [dʌʌʌspórɨ], etc.²⁸

FIGURE 13

This situation must be compared directly to the behavior of vowel chains in other contexts (Figure 14). As soon as the vowel at stake is both preceded and followed by another vowel, the presence of a diffuse vowel to its immediate right becomes irrelevant, and the variant is a caret, e.g. na aukción’e [nʌʌukcɨón’b], do oospóri [dʌʌʌspórɨ], etc.

In all of the vowel chains examined so far, the stressed syllable has been to the right of (followed) the vowel in question. At the lowest rank of the entire hierarchy, however, the position of the stress—either to the right (following) or to the left of (preceding) the vowel—becomes a contextual factor. As long as the stressed syllable is to the right of the vowel, and the vowel is before a consonant, the first grade of reduction (caret) will obtain, e.g. n’i odnovó [n’iʌdnʌvó], u adr’esóv [uʌdr’i^esóf], koop’erat’ív [kʌʌp’brʌt’if], etc. But as soon as the vowel at stake appears after the stressed syllable, the character of the stressed vowel again becomes a discriminating factor, precisely in the same way as before; a stressed diffuse vowel occasions the pronunciation of schwa, e.g. víorat’ [viərət’]—this being the only such example cited in the literature;²⁹ and the presence of a stressed nondiffuse vowel occasions a caret, e.g. práot’ec[práʌt’bc], n’è o kom [n’éʌkəm], n’è ot kovo [n’éʌtkəvə], etc.

It is worth pondering why a diffuse vowel should have the effect of conditioning the second degree of reduction in vowel chains. One can speculate that it has something to do, first of all, with the special status of vowel chains in Russian, where the unmarked syllabic structure is CVCV..., i.e., regular alternation of consonants and vowels. Assuming, then, the marked status of vowel chains, one can go a step further and surmise that the degree of markedness of a vowel chain varies directly with the number of vowels enchained. Practically speaking, this makes 3-vowel chains the most highly marked, 2-vowel chains the second most highly marked.

FIGURE 14

Now, while all unstressed syllables are marked as a class vis-à-vis stressed syllables, the existence of vowel chains in unstressed position can be evaluated as a case of hypermarking (cf. chapter4, section 2), the usual outcome of which is the reversal of the values that would otherwise obtain (markedness reversal). For the problem at hand, this reversal means that in hypermarked contexts the kind of semeiosis that is otherwise sustained— called replicative semeiosis—is supplanted by a kind normally reserved for morphophonemics, i.e., chiastic semeiosis (cf. chapter 2, section 2). In other words, instead of the marked variant schwa appearing in marked contexts and the unmarked variant caret in unmarked contexts (markedness assimilation), the signs apply with reversed values, articulating a complementarity, or chiasmus, between units and contexts.

This (chiastic) form of semeiosis is itself subject to gradience. Thus 3-vowel chains, being the most highly marked sequences, are constituted throughout by caret, e.g. do oospóri [dʌʌʌsporɨ], na aukción’e [nʌʌukcɨón’b], do aórti [dʌʌórtɨ], etc. But 2-vowel chains can be fulfilled by either caret or schwa, depending on two further factors in the case of prestressed chains (stress on the leftmost member); and three factors in the case of post-stressed chains (stress following the chain). In both pre-and post-stressed chains, the character of the leftmost, resp. rightmost vowel is criterial (Figure 15).

The complementarity between vowel value and the value of the context is complete, which returns us to the question posed earlier regarding the role of diffuse vowels in vowel chains. We can see that the value of the vowel varies inversely with the value of the context. Diffuse vowels are unmarked for diffuseness; as a context in which chiastic semeiosis occurs, they condition a value of the cooccurring unit that is their opposite, viz. marked, here schwa (víorat’) Nondiffuse vowels are marked for diffuseness; when they comprise the context, the resultant variant is the unmarked caret (práot’ec).

But the gradience extends beyond the diffuseness or nondiffuseness of the appropriate vowel; whether the vowel is to the left (precedes) or to the right of (follows) the vowel whose value is being determined is also criterial. In Russian, sequential neutralization habitually takes the rightmost member of the series as determinative of the whole series (as in voicing neutralization, for instance), a phenomenon otherwise known as regressive assimilation. The opposite-directed assimilation—progressive assimilation —is a rarity in Russian. Hence the markedness value of each of these assimilations is unmarked and marked, respectively. Consequently, when the diffuse vowel precedes in the vowel chain, the result is a caret (n’i odnovó); when it follows, it is schwa (po uglú). Chiastic semeiosis thus informs the entire distribution of vowel variants in Russian vowel chains.

The picture of Russian unstressed vocalism presented so far is characteristic of normative speech. Within the standard, however, colloquial pronunciations in informal settings have been given increasing legitimacy by Soviet writers on the subject, and a full account would have to take at least some departures from the traditional norm into consideration. I now turn, therefore, to two such classes of phenomena.

FIGURE 15

It has been observed for some time that unstressed vowels in absolute final position (i.e., in open syllables) may be of greater duration than word-internally, approaching the duration of absolute initial position in their most prolonged realization; conversely, they can also go in the opposite direction in allegro tempo, to the point of obliteration by syncope (cf. Matusevic 1976:97). In her fine instrumental study, Verbickaja (1976:59) treats the phenomenon in a way which lends itself to easy translation and incorporation within the framework of the present analysis. Her findings are arranged in Table 5 (abbreviated and adapted). Verbickaja’s general emphasis is on relative duration, but for the purposes of a semeiotic analysis what is significant is the greater degree of openness of the reduced vowel that is possible in final position. This qualitative nuance can be reflected in the analysis simply by the recognition of a distinction between auslaut and nonauslaut within the category of noninitial unstressed syllables. Three further categories are, of course, also relevant as in any analysis: the soft vs. nonsoft character of the preceding consonant; first pretonic syllable vs. non-first pretonic; and lexicalized/grammaticalized vs. non-lex/gram. Ignoring the problem of vowel chains, the hierarchy would look like Figure 16. Vowels of identical quality but of lesser duration are marked, in accordance with the general principle enunciated at the outset of this section; hence their uniform appearance in marked contexts in the above hierarchy.

TABLE 5

FIGURE 16

The second class of phenomena which depart from the norm (described in detail by Paufošima1980) is much more clearly dialectal in origin and can in no way be called normative.³⁰ It involves (inter alia) two major contraventions of the established norm: (1) qualitative reduction of unstressed /i u/to schwa, e.g. v ispolnénii [vəspaln’én’ii], iz Budapéšta [izbədap’éšta], vipolnjáli [vəpaln’ál’i], s istoričeskim [səstar’íc’bsk’im], buxgaltérija [bəvalt’ér’ii̯a], etc.; (2) reduction of /a o/(also /e/) in unstressed position to [u] instead of the normative schwa, e.g. popul’árnyx [pupul’árnɨx], na Ukraíne [nuukraín’i^e], dopuskájut [dupuskái̯ut], etc. In some of the cases cited by Paufošima(1980:63), the phonetic notation indicates a labialized schwa rather than a straightforward [u]. Furthermore, there seems to be an assimilative process at work (reminiscent of Russian dialects) whereby the implementation of one or the other of these two nonnormative reductions is dependent on the quality of the vowel in the following syllable, thus Ljapunóva [l’upunóva], zakutók [zukutók], Debjussí [d’ub’us’:í], etc.; but gruzovičkí [grəzəv’ič’k’í], v Uzbekistáne [və^ɨ zb’ik’istan’b], rybolóvnogo [rəbalóvnəvə], etc. Generally, Paufošima’s examples reveal a distribution which hinges on the presence of /u/in the following syllable for the appearance of [u] as the unstressed variant of /a o e/; and schwa elsewhere (with or without fronting or labialization, depending on the softness or hardness of the following consonant).

These intrusions of vowel harmony (for that is what we have) in the pronunciation of standard Russian can be understood, like all cases of vowel harmony, as instantiations of markedness assimilation. This is not the place for a full-blown analysis of Paufošima’s data; but the reader is referred to Shapiro (1974b) for the markedness-based framework (and very brief discussion of Russian dialect examples) permitting a uniform semeiotic interpretation of the data.

Returning, in conclusion, to the system of Russian unstressed vocalism in the traditional standard which has been the main subject of the present section, the clear advantages of a semeiotic analysis must be emphasized anew. Jakobson’s pronouncement that ‘all linguistic phenomena—from the smallest components to entire utterances and their interchange—act always and solely as signs’ (1971:703), if taken seriously, makes it incumbent on the linguist to seek out patterns of semeiosis even in such seemingly random phenomena as the minute phonetic variations of Russian unstressed vowels. From a programmatic and methodological standpoint, this search for sensible organization in phonetic data is a highly preferable alternative to ad hoc reliance on purely physical considerations such as target-value of vowels or the distribution of acoustic energy. Aside from the fact that the phonetic facts are outward manifestations (icons, more precisely diagrams) of an inherent order—and not vice versa—the accumulation of instrumental studies has led, not to explanations of linguistic phenomena, but to an increasing awareness of the severe limitations of the entire approach. It is widely acknowledged by phoneticians themselves that the phonetic continuum is just that, whereas phonological units are discrete entities, the search for whose discrete physical correlates has time and again proven to be vain. Even the phonetic properties used to define the distinctive features or diacritic categories of phonological analysis are already one order of abstraction above the actual phonetic surface, with which they maintain, of course, a regular interrelationship allowing speech to be realized (cf. Andersen 1979).

Nor can the manipulative strategies of transformational-generative phonology (or any of the alternative phonologies spawned by it) aspire to explanatory hegemony. For along with those who recur without hesitation to the purely physical bases of speech, the practitioners of all such approaches are doomed to the failure that comes from disregarding the crucial lessons of inter-war European structuralism (exemplified most aptly for phonology by Jakobson 1962:280-310 and 1978).³¹

The lessons in theory and method that this study of Russian unstressed vocalism has to offer center on four points. First, where there exist patterns of variation, it is these surface phenomena that must be addressed directly as explananda; an attempt must be made to understand, for instance, why phonetic facts can at all subsist alongside each other. Even so-called automatic alternations are in need of an explanation which reveals the systematic nature of the relations between the alternants. Second, it must be grasped that there is a coherence of facts at the core of structure; and that the coherence resides in the patterned cooccurrence of contexts and units. The circularity inherent, furthermore, in all manifestations of coherence must not be viewed as a defect: it is of the very nature of language as a hermeneutic object and cannot be stressed enough, particularly in the face of the received understanding of ‘independent motivation’ as criterial for linguistic theory (cf. n. 20 above). Third, contexts must be recognized as possessing semeiotic values of the exact same kind as units, namely markedness values. Fourth and last, coherence must be understood as a coordination of the markedness values, of contexts and units in their cooccurrence . This fact, a formal universal, imparts to language structure the encompassing cohesion that, as we have witnessed, embraces even the apparent vagaries of phonetic variation.

B. Changes in the Russian Vowel System

To recapitulate some of the main points of chapter 2 and earlier sections of this chapter, the conception of phonological structure as fundamentally semeiotic makes the following assumptions:

(1) terms of phonological oppositions (distinctive features) are signa (signs) each consisting of a signans (signifier) and a signatum (signified);

(2) terms of phonological oppositions constitute a binary paradigm in which the presence of one term necessarily implies the absence of the other, and vice versa;

(3) the several signantia (sign vehicles) are expressed as polar specifications of features, i.e., plus (+) vs. minus (—) a given opposition;

(4) being purely diacritic, all phonological signantia are conjugate with one and the same signatum (their meaning), namely ‘otherness’;

(5) phonological paradigms cannot occur singly or in isolation and must inhere in synthetic domains or syntagms traditionally called phonemes;

(6) phonemes are rank ordered, hypotactic structures in which one or a set of features is subordinate to one or a set of other features;

(7) the relation obtaining between terms of phonological oppositions is fundamentally asymmetric in virtue of the terms’ polarity (plus vs. minus); and secondarily symmetric in virtue of their binariness;

(8) the semeiotic manifestation of the asymmetry of phonological relations is expressed by an evaluative component—markedness—which endows each term of an opposition with a semeiotic value, so that each phonological paradigm consists of a marked and an unmarked term. ‘Marked’ is the more narrowly defined or conceptually complex term; ‘unmarked’ the less narrowly defined, conceptually less complex term;

(9) the markedness relations which characterize each phonological paradigm and thereby underlie the syntagms of feature terms (phonemes) are rendered manifest and palpable by implementation rules;

(10) in addition to a purely phonetic function, implementation rules have a diagrammatic (iconic) function, which is to say that they manifest the relation of equivalence between disparate phonological signantia. Equivalence obtains between two terms identically valorized as marked or unmarked;

(11) the cohesion characteristic of any functional system such as phonological structure consists in the congruity between the (productive) implementation rules and the (extant) relations underlying the hierarchy of diacritic signs, hence the set of phonemes or syntagms which the hierarchy defines;

(12) since the corpus of utterances from which each new generation of learners must abduce (infer) a phonological system is necessarily ambiguous (i.e., permits of alternative interpretations), the phonology of the learner may differ in a number of significant ways from that of the teaching generation. This is the chief source of phonological change;

(13) a change in phonetic output normally corresponds to a change in the phonological implementation rules, since rules are normally coherent with the category relations and hierarchies underlying the phoneme set.

Given these cardinal assumptions of phonology as semeiotic, I wish now to examine a hypothesis which flows from the last of these assumptions; more precisely, from an extension thereof.

In the typologically oriented studies of Andersen (1974a, 1975) one can discover the first coherent conceptualization of alternative rankings of phonological categories as motivations for the positing of structurally different phonological systems. The emphasis in these valuable programmatic essays, however, is exclusively on resolving the question, which of two categories is diacritic, which redundant in two or more languages; and on accomplishing this resolution by invoking a different rank order of related categories. Thus, for instance, in focusing on the vocalic tonality classes constituted by the features grave/acute and flat/nonflat in Japanese and Russian, Andersen asserts that ‘it is essentially a difference in rank that separates the Russian and the Japanese vowel systems ... in Russian, flatting is phonemic, and different values for the phonetic feature of gravity occur in complementary distribution. In Japanese, on the other hand, gravity is phonemic, and the phonetic feature of flatting is assigned by an implementation rule’ (1975:70).

Despite the firmness of this assertion, different rank order must still be adjudged only a possible mode of explanation. One can also assume that the rank order of two syncategorematic (i.e., closely related, conjugate) features such as compact/noncompact and diffuse/nondiffuse or grave/acute and flat/nonflat remains unchanged so long as only one of the two is distinctive. In order to explain the different implementation rules and resulting differences in distribution of features between, say, Japanese and Russian, one can invoke an entirely different formal universal, namely markedness reversal (designated by a slash, e.g. M) in redundant features. According to this principle of phonological structure, the markedness values that would normally obtain for features, were the latter distinctive in a given segment, are reversed in case they are redundant. Thus the Japanese system of two tonality classes can be represented as in Figure 17, where the assignment of markedness values is made in accordance with the formal universals enunciated in Shapiro 1972b. The Russian system (here the so-called Old Muscovite [= OM]) employs the same order of features; however, the markedness values for the gravity feature are the exact reverse of those in the Japanese system (Figure 18).

The reversals of values for the flatting feature in Japanese occur in virtue of this feature’s redundancy. In Russian, on the other hand, the reversal of flatting values is due to the reversal in the superordinate gravity feature. Be that as it may, what eventuates is identical markedness values for the flatting feature in both Japanese and Russian—despite its redundancy in the former.

The utilization of ordering considerations as an explanans of typological differences in the redundancy of tonality features needs to be tested further before its general validity can be determined. At the same time, phonological theory can perhaps be advanced by investigating alternative rankings of distinctive features with a view towards establishing this kind of reordering as a source of phonological change. It is to this task that I now turn; the data to be examined pertain to the development of unstressed vowels in Russian, roughly from the latter quarter of the eighteenth century to the present.

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 18

The problem of Russian vocalism chiefly concerns the ‘reduction’ of vowels in the syllable immediately preceding the stress, i.e., the so-called ‘first pretonic’ syllable. In this position, vowels have had a special development which is in need of an explanation. Specifically, up until the beginning of this century, the standard Russian of Moscow and St. Petersburg (based chiefly on the Moscow dialect) contained a set of neutralization rules which effected the following realizations of first pretonic vowels. After phonemically plain (= nonpalatalized or ‘hard’) consonants, the distinction between /a/and /o/was suspended and represented by a reduced vowel [a]. Hence the pronunciations vodá ‘water’ [vadá], travá ‘grass’ [travá], etc. The identical vowel was pronounced in absolute initial position: oknó ‘window’ [aknó], arbá ‘wagon’ [arbá], etc. After phonetically (i.e., nondiacritically) plain consonants— the so-called ‘unpaired’ hard consonants—the neutralization rule embraced /e/in addition to /a/and /o/; but the realizations differed depending on which of the unpaired hard consonants preceded which vowel. After /š/and /ž/the realization was identical for all three vowels, viz. [eⁱ], hence žará ‘heat’ [žeⁱrá], žená ‘wife’ [žeⁱnâ] (cf. pl. žëny), žerló‘muzzle’ [žeⁱ rló] (cf. pl. žérla), šagí‘steps’ [šeⁱ g’i], šelká ‘silks’ [šeⁱ lká] (cf. sg. šëlk) v, šerstí ‘in wool’ [fšeⁱrs’t’í] (cf. sg. šérst’). After /c/, however, the realizations diverged such that /e/was rendered as the expected [eⁱ] but /a/and /o/were reduced to [a]: cená ‘price’ [ceⁱná] (cf. pl. cény), cedít’‘strain’ [ceⁱ d’it’] (cf. 2nd sg. cédiš’); but carít ‘ ‘reign’ [car’ít’], capkóvka ‘hoeing’ [capkófkə] (cf. cápka ‘hoe’), cokóčut ‘they clang’ [cakóč’ut] (cf. cókot ‘clanging’), etc.³²

After (phonemically and phonetically) sharp (= palatalized or ‘soft’) consonants, the distinction between /a/, /e/, and /o/was uniformly suspended and realized in the single reduced vowel [eⁱ]: tjanút ’ ’pull’ [t’eⁱ nút’], javljátsja ‘appear’ [ieⁱ vl’ác:ə], časý ‘watch’ [č’eⁱ si], les’á ‘forests’ [l’eⁱsá], ed’á ‘food’ [ieⁱdá], v čestí ‘in honor’ [fč’eⁱs’t’í], ni čertá ‘nothing’ [n’ič’e_i rtá] (cf. sg. čërt ‘devil’), eži ‘hedgehogs’ [i̭eⁱ žɨ] (cf. sg. ëž) , etc. (Panov 1967:301).

Although the diffuse (high) vowels /i/and /u/normally were exempt from the kind of qualitative reduction ascribed to the other three vowels, the non-discrimination of underlying /i/, on the one hand, and /e/, /o/, or /a/, on the other, was not unknown in the standard Russian of the time (Panov 1967:303). Thus milá ‘nice’ and melá ‘swept’ (both feminine forms) could be pronounced identically as [m’eⁱ’lá].³³

The situation in 19th century Russian can be recapitulated by means of Table 6.

TABLE 6. 19th century Standard Russian

In the beginning of the twentieth century, however, this older norm began to be supplanted by a standard pronunciation in which no distinction obtained between first pretonic /a/, /e/, and /o/, on the one hand; and /i/, on the other, after soft consonants and the phonetically hard /c/, /š/, and /ž/. This pronunciation was called ikan’ e ‘pronouncing [i]’, since the phonetic realization of/a e o/came to be close to and practically identical with /i/, e.g. tjanút ‘ [t’eⁱ nút’] → [t’inút’] ~ [t’i^e nút’], časý [č’eⁱ sɨ] → [č’isɨ] ~ [č’i^esɨ], edá [i̭eⁱ dá] → [i̭idá] ~ [i̭i^edá], žará [žeⁱrá]→ [žɨrá] ~ [žɨ^erá], šagi [ šeⁱg’í] → [šɨg’í] ~ [sɨ^eg’i], cena→ [ceⁱná] →[cɨná] ~ (cɨ^ená), etc. The new situation for all practical purposes is summarized diagram-matically in Figure 19.

FIGURE 19. Standard at the beginning of the 20th century (= ‘Old Muscovite’)

This is, essentially, the state of affairs in present-day standard Russian, with the following exceptions. Instead of [a], which is a rather open variety of reduced /a/, the all but universal pronunciation now exhibits /ʌ/, which is a higher, less open, shorter version of [a]; and, although [i] is exceedingly prevalent, most orthoepists (e.g. Avanesov 1972) continue to recommend [i^e] as an equal and preferred variant. The most radical departure from the Old Muscovite norm in first pretonic vocalism, however, has to do with /a/after /š ž/. Except for certain archaisms such as žalét’‘pity’ [žɨl’et’], lošad’ej ‘horses, gen.’ [ləšɨd’éi̭] (and all other oblique cases of the pl.), etc., first pretonic /a/after /š ž/now universally reduces to the vowel expected after phonetically hard consonants, namely [ʌ], hence standard žará [žʌrá], šagi [šʌg’i], etc. Thus the contemporary situation can be summarized as in Figure 20.

The essential difference, then, between the OM and CSR unstressed vowel systems resides in the treatment of/a e o/after /š ž/. OM merges the three qualitatively reducible vowels after all consonants but /c/. At this stage, all nondiffuse vowels are neutralized in unstressed position, and the neutralized sound is specified as [a] after hard paired consonants and /c/; and as [i^e] or [ɨ^e] after others. CSR, on the other hand, dissociates the realizations of /a/from /e/and /o/after /š ž/; and /a o/from /e/after I c/. The fact that in OM diffuse and nondiffuse vowels are consistently kept apart in unstressed position suggests that the hierarchy of features ranks diffuse/nondiffuse above compact/noncompact (Figure 21).

FIGURE 20. Contemporary Standard Russian (CSR) Vocalism

FIGURE 21. Old Muscovite Vowel System (partial)

With reference to this hierarchy and its relative rank order of diffuse/nondiffuse vis-à-vis compact/noncompact, we can formulate the following rules to account for vowel reduction in OM. First, /a o/are implemented as /e/([eⁱ] automatically after sharp consonants and [eɨ] after hard) when the immediately preceding consonant is one of /č š ž/; and as /a/(phonetically [a]) after /c/. Second, all three qualitatively reducible vowels /a e o/are rendered as /e/(phonetically [eⁱ]) after sharp consonants unmarked for stridency (the latter set including all soft consonants but /c/); and as /a/(phonetically [a]) after plain consonants similarly unmarked for the stridency feature.³⁴ Note that the environment specifications contained in the two rules are mutually exclusive.

The first innovation in the OM rule component is the introduction of ikan’e, well documented at the turn of the century among young Muscovites by Košutič (1919). In terms of the relations which characterize the feature hierarchy of OM (Fig. 22), this innovation can be easily understood as the confirmation of an equivalence between the markedness values of /e/and /i/: though opposed by diffuseness, their unmarked status for compactness facilitated the change of reduced vowels as necessarily nondiffuse to that of facultatively diffuse. Existent prior to and concomitant with the inception of ikan’e, however, was the inherent ambiguity of /i u/with respect to their markedness value for the compactness feature. Since these two phonemes were unopposed to a [+ dif + cmp] counterpart, their markedness value could be reversed from U to M in accordance with the principle of markedness reversal in redundant features. But the exploitation of this ambiguity entailed an eventual reinterpretation of the feature hierarchy, failing which the rules of vowel reduction would have ceased to be phonologically motivated in the sense of the eleventh assumption of a semeiotic theory of phonological structure enunciated earlier, that productive rules necessarily mirror the hierarchy of diacritic category signs by being congruous or coherent with the relations which underlie it. The equation of /i u/with /a/as both [M cmp]—i.e., the consistent assignment of a marked value to /i u/in virtue of their interpretation as redundantly [— cmp]—was the key triggering factor in the reordering of the diffuseness and compactness features relative to each other (Figure 23).

FIGURE 22. CSR Vowel System (partial)

FIGURE 23

Before proceeding to the rules corresponding to this hierarchy it should be noted that the relationship between the two tonality features, gravity and flatness, is directly contingent on the internal rank order of the superordinate features, compactness and diffuseness. Indeed, as in OM (Fig. 18), when diffuseness ranks above compactness, then gravity is superordinate to flatness and the resultant markedness assignments are, illustratively, as follows for /a/(Figure 23). However, when compactness ranks higher than diffuseness, as in Fig.22, reflecting the situation in CSR, the flatness feature is superordinate to the gravity feature, with the additional difference that the pertinent feature term is acuteness rather than gravity, but the markedness assignments are identical; cf. Figures 18 and 24.

Now, in conformity with the hierarchy of CSR (Figure 22), the two rules which accounted for vowel reduction in OM were recast to reflect the severance of /a/from /e o/after /š ž/, occasioned originally by the introduction of ikan’e. First /e o/came to be implemented as /i/after /š ž c č/. Second, there came about uniform implementation of /a e o/after sharp, resp. plain consonants: after the former, the phonetic value is [i^e]; after the latter, the phonetic value is [ʌ]. Thus /a/now behaves after all [M str] segments exactly as it does after [U str] segments, e.g. šagí [šʌg’í], zar’á [žʌrá], carít’ [cʌr’ít’], časý [č’i^esɨ], tjanút ’ [t’i^enut’], etc.

FIGURE 24

It is clear, moreover, that the elimination of the pronunciation of /a/as /i/after /š ž/was an altogether natural consequence of the introduction of ikan e and the concomitant reordering of the hierarchy of diacritic signs, since this OM pronunciation was inconsistent with the new hierarchy which ranked compactness above diffuseness. The maintenance, therefore, of ikan’e after /š ž/as part of OM must be viewed as the outcome of adaptive rules, which slowly but inexorably gave way to the new norms, leaving only the residue of archaisms such as žalet’ [žɨl’ét’], lošadej [ləšɨd’ei̭], po d bešamel’ju [pədb, bšɨm’él’ju], etc.

The several phonological changes examined in connection with the recent historical development of Russian unstressed vocalism are, of course, not uniformly similar in kind. The first change—the innovation known as ikan’e —was ‘caused’ (if one can speak of causation) by the exploitation, by a new generation of speakers, of a phonological ambiguity in the hierarchy of diacritic signs which corresponded to the implementation rules of the older generation. As soon as this reinterpretation had been introduced, a reversal in the rank order of the two diacritic categories in question became at least a strong possibility. This second structural ambiguity was duly exploited by succeeding generations of Russian speakers. And it was this second change, the restructuring of the hierarchy, which led to or ‘caused’ the pronunciation of first pretonic /a/to be dissociated from that of /e o/after /š ž/.