Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:33:07.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exponence and morphosyntactically triggered phonological processes in the Russian verbal complex1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2015

VERA GRIBANOVA
VERA GRIBANOVA*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Margaret Jacks Hall, Building 460, Stanford, CA 94305-2150, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines a non-canonical morphophonological vowel alternation in the roots of Russian verbs that is conditioned by aspectual information (derived imperfectivization). This aspectual morpheme is usually expressed as a suffix, but in the forms of interest appears as a vocalic nucleus in the root (whereas there is no vocalic nucleus in the perfective form). In a manner broadly compatible with Distributed Morphology (DM), I argue that this alternation is part of a more general phonological process – yer realization – special only in that it is triggered by morphosyntactic, rather than phonological, information. I propose an analysis of this pattern in which autosegmental representations – in this case, a mora – can be the exponents of morphosyntactic features. This approach obviates the need for DM readjustment rules, which have been criticized on empirical and theoretical grounds (Siddiqi 2006, 2009; Bye & Svenonius 2012; Haugen & Siddiqi 2013). I demonstrate that the required allomorphic interaction between the root and the derived imperfective morpheme is local, despite surface appearances: the intervening vowel is a theme vowel, inserted post-syntactically. This approach makes sense of broader patterns involving this theme vowel, and vindicates theories of allomorphic interaction that impose strict locality conditions (e.g., structural and/or linear adjacency).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , 01 November 2015 , pp. 519 - 561
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32.2, 239–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 2011. Featural affixes. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1945–1971. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret. 1979. Morphological investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Anderson, Steven R.. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 737–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John F.. 1995a. A configurational approach to Russian ‘free’ word order. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John F.. 1995b. Underlying phrase structure and ‘short’ verb movement in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 31, 13–58.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Trommer(ed.), 8–83.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina. 1992. Polish syllables: The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev. 2012. Vowel–zero alternations in Russian prepositions: Prosodic constituency and productivity. In Makarova, Veronika (ed.), Russian language studies in North America, 43–69. London: Anthem Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. & Struijke, Caro (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 35–71.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Harbour, Daniel. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Trommer (ed.), 195–235.Google Scholar
Butler, Lindsay. 2012. Status: Local (aspect, transitivity and voice in Mayan status allomorphy). Poster presented at the Workshop on Locality and Directionality at the Morphosyntax–Phonology Interface, Stanford.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrick & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer (ed.), 427–495.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coats, Herbert. 1974. On the alternation j/v in Russian. In Koubourlis, Demetrius J. (ed.), Topics in Slavic phonology, 29–42. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2003. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33, 303–336.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2013. Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Marantz, Alec & Matushansky, Ora (eds.), Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 151–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, von Ginneken, Ivo & Jacobs, Haike (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Lawrence. 1990. The morphology of Russian imperfective derivation. The Slavic and East European Journal 24.2, 145–154.Google Scholar
Flier, Michael S.. 1972. On the source of derived imperfectives in Russian. In Worth, Dean S. (ed.), The Slavic word, 236–260. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garde, Paul. 1998. Grammaire Russe: Phonologie et morphologie, 2nd edn.Paris: Institut d’études Slaves.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2012. Unexceptional segments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.1, 79–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2009. Phonological evidence for a distinction between Russian prepositions and prefixes. In Zybatow et al. (eds.), 383–396.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2010. Composition and locality: The morphosyntax and phonology of the Russian verbal complex. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2013a. A new argument for verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44.1, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2013b. Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.1, 91–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1963. O pravilax Russkogo sprjaženija. American contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, September 1963, Sofia, 113–132. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In Carter, Juli (ed.), The Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 20 (NELS 20), 150–184. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 351–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Jason. 2008. Morphology at the interfaces: Reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Jason & Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44.3, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, Aleksandr V.. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj Russkogo jazyka. Morfologija. Čast’ vtoraja. Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej Akademie.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Miyamoto, Yoichi & Ochi, Masao (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 4 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55), 97–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian conjugation. Word 4, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja. 2006. Polish yers and the finer structure of output-output correspondence. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 31.1, 181–192.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah. 2006. Russian consonant cvljusters. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63, 463–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1979. Russian historical grammar, vol. 1: The development of the sound system. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1987. An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore. 1972. Problems in the theory of phonology: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, Sook-Hee (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2002. On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42, 217–253.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2009. On the featural composition of the Russian back yer. In Zybatow et al. (eds.), 397–410.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jap (eds.), 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1993b. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. To appear. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Maria Isabel. 1999. On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. Master’s thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Maria Isabel & Arregi, Karlos. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and Lexical Phonology. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina. 2011. On locality in contextual allomorphy: Evidence from Mayan Presented at the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society 42 (NELS 42), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three dimensional phonology: The jers. The Linguistic Review 5, 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17.1, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1978. The adjacency constraint and the theory of morphology. In Stein, M. (ed.), The Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 8 (NELS 8), 189–197. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004a. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32.2, 205–253.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004b. Slavic prefixes and morphology: An introduction to the Nordlyd volume. Nordlyd 32.2, 177–204.Google Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. Ghost segments in nonlinear phonology: Polish yers. Language 68, 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Intermediate prefixes in Russian. In Antonenko, Andrei, Bailyn, John F. & Bethin, Christina Y. (eds.), The Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16, 423–445. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Townsend, Charles E.. 1975. Russian word formation. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen(ed.). 2012. The morphology and phonology of exponence (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Matthew A.. 2011. The morphosyntax of the Arabic verb: Toward a unified syntax-prosody. In LaCara, Nick, Thompson, Anie & Tucker, Matt A. (eds.), Morphology at Santa Cruz: Papers in honor of Jorge Hankamer, 177–211. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistics Research Center.Google Scholar
Vlasto, A. P.. 1986. A linguistic history of Russia to the end of the eighteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2006. For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In Bateman, Leah, O’Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers in Optimality Theory III, 315–404. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Yearley, Jennifer. 1995. Jer vowels in Russian. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 533–571. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Zybatow, Gerhild, Uwe, Junghanns, Denisa, Lenertová & Petr, Biskup (eds.). 2009. Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007 (Linguistik International 21). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar