Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:21:17.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homophony avoidance in the grammar: Russian nominal allomorphy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2021

Andrei Munteanu
Andrei Munteanu*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
*E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has long been observed that languages tend to preserve contrast, either by introducing sound changes or by inhibiting them. However, it is not clear if any instances of so-called homophony avoidance reported to date constitute an active synchronic restriction in the grammar. This paper presents an instance of homophony avoidance in Russian masculine nouns. A perception experiment shows that the trends observed in the corpus are only partially extended to nonce words. I argue that the asymmetry observed in the experimental results can only be attributed to a synchronic restriction against homophonous forms in the same paradigm. Thus this paper presents strong evidence in favour of a synchronic anti-homophony constraint.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 401 - 435
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

This project was conducted in partial fulfilment of the PhD programme at the University of Toronto. I would like to thank first and foremost Yoonjung Kang for her support and encouragement throughout the project and beyond. I would also like to thank Daphna Heller, Peter Jurgec, Aleksei Nazarov and Eva Plesnik for their constructive comments on various drafts, as well as the editors and four anonymous reviewers at Phonology. I am also grateful to audiences of OCP 16 and MOT 2018, as well as classmates in the LIN1221 class of 2017 and members of the University of Toronto Phon Group. Finally, a special thanks to Alexandr Gerassimov and Andrei Munteanu Sr for their help in the creation of experiment stimuli.

References

Albright, Adam (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26. 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John (2001). Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baerman, Mathew (2010). Defectiveness and homophony avoidance. JL 47. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M. & Walker, Steven C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Lg 87. 84–125.Google Scholar
Belikov, Vladimir, Kopylov, Nikolay, Piperski, Alexander, Selegey, Vladimir & Sharoff, Serge (2013). Corpus as language: from scalability to register variation. Proceeding of the Annual Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. http://www.dialog-21.ru/media/1224/belikovvi.pdf.Google Scholar
Berko, Jean (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. (2012). Effects of vowel reduction on Russian and Belarusian inflectional morphology. Lingua 122. 1232–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Wedel, Andrew (2009). Inhibited sound change: an evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26. 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (2013). Historical linguistics: an introduction. 3rd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coats, Herbert S. (1976). Stress assignment in Russian. Vol. 1: Inflection. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine (1999). Intra-paradigmatic homophony avoidance in two dialects of Slavic. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 1: Papers in Phonology 2. 48–67.Google Scholar
De Rosario-Martinez, Helios, Fox, John & R Core Team (2015). Phia: post-hoc interaction analysis. R package (version 0.2-1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/phia/phia.pdf.Google Scholar
Do, Youngah (2018). Paradigm uniformity bias in the learning of Korean verbal inflections. Phonology 35. 547–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedianina, Nina (1982). Udarenie v sovremennom russkom jazyke. 2nd edn. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2017). Dispersion Theory and phonology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.) Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.110.Google Scholar
Gessner, Suzanne & Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2004). Anti-homophony effects in Dakelh (Carrier) valence morphology. BLS 30. 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Becker, Michael (2013). Nonce words show that Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. NLLT 31. 735–765.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. LI 44. 45–75.Google Scholar
Ichimura, Larry (2006). Anti-homophony blocking and its productivity in transparadigmatic relations. PhD dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. (1992). The computation of prosody. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Abby & Muratani, Yuka (2015). Categorical and gradient homophony avoidance: evidence from Japanese. Laboratory Phonology 6. 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert D. (1967). A measure for functional load. Studia Linguistica 21. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English. In Fasold, Ralph W. & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.) Language change and variation: periphrastic do. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysin, L. P. (1974). Russkij jazyk po dannym massovogo obsledovanija: opyt social'no-lingvističeskogo izučenija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lagerberg, Robert (2011). Variation and frequency in Russian word stress. Munich & Berlin: Sagner.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2012). The phonology of contrast. Sheffield & Bristol, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2016). Contrast preservation in Polish Palatalization. Glossa 1(1):21. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André (1955). Économie des changements phonétiques: traité de phonologie diachronique. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Mondon, Jean-François (2009). The nature of homophony and its effects on diachrony and synchrony. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Mondon, Jean-François (2010). A reassessment of anti-homophony in Bulgarian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1. 137–146.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko & Wang, William S.-Y. (2018). Evolution of homophones and syntactic categories noun and verb. In Cluskey, Christine, Flaherty, Molly, Little, Hannah, McCrohon, Luke, Ravignani, Andrea & Verhoed, Tessa (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang12). 355–363.Google Scholar
Osadcha, Iryna (2019). Lexical stress in East Slavic: variation in space and time. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 39–87.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (2010). Contrast, comparison sets, and the perceptual space. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 103–121.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary (2010). The role of homophony avoidance in morphology: a case study from Mixtec. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 21. 29–39. https://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/santa-barbara-papers#Volume21.Google Scholar
Pertsova, Katya (2015). Interaction of morphological and phonological markedness in Russian genitive plural allomorphy. Morphology 25. 229–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piperski, Alexander, Belikov, Vladimir, Kopylov, Nikolay, Morozov, Eugene, Selegey, Vladimir & Sharoff, Serge (2013). Big and diverse is beautiful: a large corpus of Russian to study linguistic variation. In Evert, Stefan, Stemle, Egon & Rayson, Paul (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-8). 24–28. http://www.webcorpora.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/wac8-proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Pocheville, Arnaud (2014). The ecological niche: history and recent controversies. In Heams, Thomas, Huneman, Philippe, Lecointre, Guillaume & Silberstein, Marc (eds.) Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. 547–586.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Riggs, Daylen (2007). Contrast preservation in the Yupik languages. In Colavin, Rebecca, Cooke, Kathryn, Davidson, Kathryn, Fukuda, Shin & Guidice, Alex Del (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2001). Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. 217–234.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey (2013). A counterexample to homophony avoidance. Diachronica 30. 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakhmatov, Aleksey (1957). Istoričeskaja morfologija russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Učebno-Pedagogičeskoe Izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Sharapova, Elisabeth Marklund (2000). Implicit and explicit norm in contemporary Russian verbal stress. PhD dissertation, University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Shtudiner, Mikhail (2016). Slovar’ trudnostej russkogo jazyka dlja rabotnikov SMI. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Slovari XXI Veka.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel (2009). Neutralization and anti-homophony in Korean. JL 46. 453–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Stojkov, Stojko (1963). Akane v govora na s. Trigrad, Devinsko. Bulgarski Ezik 13. 8–21.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo & Wedel, Andrew (2016). The co-evolution of speech and the lexicon: the interaction of functional pressures, redundancy, and category variation. Topics in Cognitive Science 8. 503–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yanovich, Elena (1986). Istoričeskaia grammatika russkogo jazyka. Minsk: Universiteckoe.Google Scholar
Yin, Sora Hen & White, James (2018). Neutralization and homophony avoidance in phonological learning. Cognition 179. 89–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaliznjak, Andrey (1985). Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Munteanu supplementary material

Munteanu supplementary material 1
Download Munteanu supplementary material(File)
File 39.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Munteanu supplementary material

Munteanu supplementary material 2
Download Munteanu supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 160.1 KB