phonetics and phonology in unstressed vowel reduction: russian and … vr umass 04.pdf · stressed...

UMass Phonology Group [email protected] 23, 2004

-1-

Phonetics and Phonology in Unstressed Vowel Reduction:Russian and Beyond

Jonathan BarnesBoston University

I. Introduction

• Phonological vowel reduction (hereafter VR): neutralization of vowel quality contrasts inunstressed syllables.

• Figures in recent theoretical literature (e.g. Barnes 2002, Beckman 1998, Crosswhite2001, Flemming 2oo1a and b, Steriade 1994) as an example of a pattern of PositionalNeutralization with relatively clear phonetic underpinnings.

• Understanding the relationship between these phonetic underpinnings and thephonological grammar in patterns such as VR is a central task of current work on thephonetics-phonology interface.

2. Russian Vowel Reduction

2.1. Facts

• Contemporary Standard Russian: traditionally claimed to display two distinct patternsor degrees of VR, one for the syllable immediately preceding the tonic (here, firstpretonic), and one for all other unstressed syllables.

• Five vowels contrast in stressed syllables1.

• Mid vowels do not surface in unstressed syllables.

(1) Stressed vowel inventory ⇒ 1 pretonic s ⇒ 2 pretonic, posttonic s

i u i u i u e o

a a

• Focus of this talk: /a/ vs. /o/

• /a/ and /o/ contrast in stressed syllables, but this contrast is neutralized in unstressedsyllables as follows:

(2) a. /a/, /o/ ⇒ [a]/[] in first pretonic syllables, a.k.a. Degree 1 reductionb. /a/, /o/ ⇒ [] in other unstressed syllables, a.k.a. Degree 2 reduction

1 See Padgett 2001 and sources therein for arguments against a contrast between /i/ and the high central vowel//.


-2-

(3) VR in Contemporary Standard Russian

STRESSED DEGREE 1 REDUCTION DEGREE 2 REDUCTION

/o/ moldst youth malodnkj young (dim.) mladoj youngbol pain balet to hurt blvoj pain (adj.)

/a/ starj old (adj.) starik old man strna old timesrazum reason razumn wisely (adv.) rzumet to understand

• Several exceptions to the pattern described above have been recognized:

EXCEPTIONAL CONTEXT #1: No reduction to schwa in absolute word-initial position

/odnomu/ [adnamu] 'one' (dat.sg.) *[dnamu]/obiajet/ [abiajt] 'insult, abuse' (3sg.) *[biajt]

EXCEPTION CONTEXT #2: No reduction to schwa in hiatus before [a]

/odnoobraznj/ -> [adnaabraznj] 'monotonous' *[adnabraznj]/sootnoenije/ -> [saatnaenije] ‘relationship’ *[satnaenije]

EXCEPTIONAL CONTEXT #3: No reduction to schwa in absolute phrase-final syllables(Matusevic 1976: 102, Zlatoustova 1962: 109-139)

2.2. Previous approaches

• Two recent OT accounts:

a. Alderete (1995): Faithfulness constraints parameterized to the head foot (i.e. thestressed syllable and first pretonic) rank higher than markedness constraints against[a] in unstressed syllables, which in turn outrank general Faithfulness constraints.

b. Crosswhite (2001): Vowels outside the head foot cannot bear moras, but [a] cannotbe non-moraic, and so is realized as schwa.

• Both accounts assume high-ranked constraints banning mid vowels from unstressedsyllables.

• Both these approaches must present essentially diacritic solutions to the exceptionalpatterns described above.

EXAMPLE: Crosswhite (2001):

Exception #1: Align-µ − The left edge of every word must align with some mora.Schwa is non-moraic. Consonant initial words violate this constraint to avoidcreating moraic onsets.


-3-

Exception #2: *Hiatus([a], []) – The featureless vowel schwa may not occur in hiatusbefore [a].

Exception #3: Not treated. Align-mora/phrase?

CRUCIAL POINT: All previous accounts of VR in Russian treat both Degree 1 and Degree 2reduction patterns as phonological, i.e. as changing phonological category membershipthrough manipulation of distinctive feature specifications.

3. Vowel Reduction: Phonetics and phonology

3.1. Phonetic Underpinnings of VR

• Phonological VR patterns have been claimed to have their source in the reduceddurations of vowels in unstressed syllables.

• Languages with phonological vowel reduction are almost invariably those languages witha stress accent strongly and reliably cued by a difference in vowel duration betweenstressed and unstressed syllables (Lehiste 1970)2.

(4) Stress accent and vowel reduction in Slavic

DURATION-CUED STRESS PHONOLOGICAL VRRussian Yes YesBelarussian Yes YesBulgarian Yes YesMacedonian No NoSerbo-Croatian No NoCzech No NoPolish No No

THE CONNECTION:

• Shortening of vowels in unstressed syllables leads to undershoot of more open targetarticulations of non-high vowels (à la Lindblom 1963).

• Raising of these creates a compressed vowel space in which contrasts are likely to bemisperceived and to collapse over time (See Barnes 2002, Flemming 2001a fordiscussion).

• Accounts for a strong, if not exceptionless, typological generalization: in VR systems,vowel height contrasts are the first to go3. When this happens, the vowels to go arealmost invariably the mid and low vowels. High vowels stay put.

2 Exceptions, of course, exist: Shimakonde (Bantu), for example, removes mid vowels from unstressed syllableseven when they are bimoraic (and surface as such). It cannot be accidental that this system would have developedout of a system already implementing vowel height harmony.3 The other two contrast types commonly targeted in stress-based positional neutralization systems are length andnasalization, both negatively impacted by decreased duration (see Barnes 2002 for details)s.


-4-

(5) Common Stressed-Unstressed Mapping

i u i ue o ⇒

a

(6) Non-occurring Stressed-Unstressed Mapping

i ue o ⇒ e o

a a

• VR systems specifically targeting other commonly-neutralized dimensions of contrastfor vowels, such as palatality, rounding, or ATR, are spottily attested at best. No verticalvowel systems in unstressed syllables only. No VR analogue of Turkish palatal harmony4.

(7) Non-occurring Stressed-Unstressed Mapping

i u e o ⇒

a a

3.2. VR in the Grammar: Three Approaches

(8) Positional Faithfulness and Positional Markedness (Alderete 1995, Beckman 1996,1998, Crosswhite 2001, Zoll 1997, inter alia)

• Phonological strong licensing results from Faithfulness or Markedness constraintsparametrized to refer to the certain positions.

a Ident[hi]/σ@ >> *MidV >> Ident[hi]b *MidV/unstressed σ >> Ident[hi] >> *Mid

• PROBLEM: In principle, any feature or marked structure may be paired with any strong orweak position to derive attested patterns.

(9) Licensing-by-Cue and Direct Phonetics (Steriade 1997 et seq., Flemming 1995, 1997,2001, to appear, Kirchner 1998, Zhang 2001)

• Phonetic cues, not arbitrarily listed positions, license the realization of contrasts

EXAMPLE: Vowel contrasts are licensed in stressed syllables not by stressedness per se,but by the additional duration accorded vowels realized there. Durationalpressures in unstressed syllables force neutralization.

PAYOFF: Accounts for typology given above.

4 Though see below on Sosva Mansi.


-5-

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:

• Predicts necessary co-presence of PN patterns and phonetic patterns giving rise tothem.

• Must assign "unnatural" or synchronically arbitrary patterns a radically separategrammatical implementation.

(10) Grounding Conditions (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, Hayes 1997, Smith 2002)

• Smith 2002: Schema/Filter model of CON; position-specific markedness and faithfulnessconstraints freely constructed from constraint schemas (IDENT, ALIGN, C/str) andarguments.

• Results submitted to "substantive filters" which remove phonetically orpsycholinguistically problematic constraints from consideration.

• Accounts for the typology of positional neutralization patterns without allowing thephonology direct access to phonetic information.

4. One experiment, begetting another...• In order to determine more precisely the role of phonetic duration in the synchronic

VR system of Russian, the following experiment was designed.

4.1. Methodology

• Experiment #1 was designed to determine what, if any, active role phonetic durationplays in the realization of vowel reduction.

• Test words: 72 Russian trisyllables

12 stressed /a/ 12 stressed /o/12 1 pretonic /a/ 12 1 pretonic /o/12 2 pretonic /a/ 12 2 pretonic /o/

• All target vowels were located in open syllables followed by unpalatalized voiced orvoiceless stops and preceded by unpalatalized voiced stops, voiceless stops, or laterals.

• Tokens were embedded in frame sentences of the form Mashka X skazala, 'Mashka saidX'. Each token appeared twice for a total of 144 sentences.

• Sentences were randomized and arranged in blocks of 12.

• Subjects, one male from St. Petersburg, one female from Ufa, student-age nativespeakers of Russian, were instructed to read through each block of sentences onceslowly and then once again as quickly as possible to achieve maximum variation in voweldurations.

• Sessions were recorded directly to CD at a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Duration andLPC formant measurements were taken using Praat 4.1.11 speech analysis software(Copyright@1992-2003 by Paul Boersma and David Weenink).


-6-

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Mean values for duration and F1

(11) Speaker 1 51 PRETONIC 2 PRETONIC

Duration 84 ms. 41 msF1 553 Hz 462 Hz

(12) Speaker 2STRESSED 1 PRETONIC 2 PRETONIC/a/ /o/ /a, o/ /a, o/

Duration 86 ms. 73 ms 68 ms. 25 ms.F1 722 Hz 466 726 Hz 492 Hz

• Neither speaker had any significant difference between unstressed /a/ and /o/ in anyposition. This contrast is completely neutralized.

• Speaker 1 shows a mean F1 for 1 pretonic /a, o/ dramatically lower than a typical value forstressed /a/. Reflects traditional transcription of the former as [] (e.g. Matusevic ¬ 1972,Avanesov 1968). Probably more like [], see Barnes 2002, chapter 2, for details.

• For Speaker 2, no significant difference was found between F1 values for 1 pretonic /a, o/and stressed /a/.

4.2.2. Vowel height as a function of phonetic duration

• The following displays the results of linear regression analyses of the relationshipbetween vowel duration and vowel height for Speakers 1 and 2 in Experiment 1.

(13) Speaker 1

a. R (92) = .179, p > .05 b. R (60) = .602, p <.0001

First Pretonic /a/ and /o/

R2 = 0.0145

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Duration in ms.

F1 in

Hz

Series1Linear (Series1)

5 Speaker 1 in fact read a somewhat earlier version of the same experiment containing fewer words and not testingvowels in stressed syllables.

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/

R2 = 0.3981

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 20 40 60 80

Duration in ms.

F1 in

Hz



-7-

Speaker 1: unstressed /a/ and /o/

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Duration in ms.

F1 in

Hz

Series1Series2

(14) Speaker 2

a. R (146) = .142, p > .05 b. R (78) = .644, p <.0001

Speaker 2: unstressed /a/ and /o/

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Series2

First Pretonic /a/ and /o/

R2 = 0.0297

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/

R2 = 0.4204

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)


-8-

4.3. Discussion

• Neutralization of /a/ and /o/ in unstressed syllables is categorical. No significantdifference between these underlying categories is preserved. This is true regardless ofposition relative to stress.

• Reduction to schwa in Degree 2 reduction environments has a clear gradient character.Vowel height is strongly dependent on vowel duration. A cline of F1 values is recordedbetween more [a]-like values on longer vowels and more schwa-like values on shortervowels.

• Categorical vs. gradient application is argued to be a defining distinction betweensymbolic phonological processes and quantitative phonetic processes (see e.g. Keating1988c, Cohn 1990, Zsiga 1993, Myers 2000, Barnes 2002, inter alia)

• Hypothesis: given the duration-dependent cline of F1 values produced in Degree 2reduction contexts, there is no reason to think the phonology has any role in (or accessto) reduction of unstressed /a, o/ to schwa. The merger of /a/ and /o/ in unstressedsyllables, on the other hand, is clearly categorical and phonological.

5. Experiment #2: Hyperarticulation• F1 values for Degree 2 reduction in Experiment 1 approach, but fail to clearly attain

canonical [a]-like qualities. Experiment 2 seeks to draw out this result more clearly.

5.1. Methodology

• Test words were 20 trisyllables of Russian, 10 with /a/, and 10 with /o/ in open secondpretonic syllables. All target vowels were followed by unpalatalized voiced or voicelessstops and preceded by unpalatalized voiced stops, voiceless stops, or laterals.

• Target words were framed in sentences of the form Po-moemu on X skazal, 'It seems to mehe said X'.

• Speakers were four student-age native speakers of Russian: three females raised in Ufa,Saint Petersburg, and Moscow respectively, and one male, from Moscow.

• Sentences were embedded in a longer list of similar sentences and randomized.

• Following an experimental paradigm used in, e.g. Johnson, Flemming and Wright 1993,subjects read each sentence, and then were asked twice to repeat themselves by anexperimenter simulating incomprehension (speakers were informed this would occurbefore the experiment began):

(15) Sample dialogue

Sp: Po-moemu on X skazal. 'It seems to me he said X'JB: Ah? Ne ponjal. 'Huh? I didn't get that.'Sp: X on skazal! 'He said X!'JB: Sµtoetoonskazal??!! 'He said what??!!'Sp:X! 'X!'


-9-

• Each word received three repetitions, the second and third with substantialhyperarticulation.

• All speakers reported finding this experimental methodology deeply exasperating.

• Sessions were recorded directly to CD at a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. Duration andLPC formant measurements were taken using Praat 4.1.11 speech analysis software(Copyright@1992-2003 by Paul Boersma and David Weenink).

5.2. Results

(16) Vowel height as a function of phonetic duration

Speaker 1 Speaker 2

R (54) = .618, p < .0001 R (58) = .934, p < .0001

c. Speaker 3 d. Speaker 4

R (58) = .718, p < .0001 R (57) = .84, p < .0001

Speaker 1: second pretonic /a/ and /o/

R2 = 0.371

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)


R2 = 0.8741

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)


R2 = 0.5154

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)


R2 = 0.7052

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz

Series1

Linear (Series1)


-10-

(17) All speakers, raw scores: r (228) = .737, p < .0001

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/: Raw Scores

R2 = 0.5405

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Duration in ms.

F1

in

Hz


• To escape problems of interspeaker comparison of vowel formant values, raw durationand F1 values for all speakers were converted to a standardized z-score format6, yieldingthe following results:

(18) All speakers, z-scores: R (228) = .803, p < .0001

Second Pretonic /a/ and /o/: standardized

R2 = 0.6456

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Duration

F1 Series1

Linear (Series1)

5.3. Discussion

• All speakers show a highly significant correlation between vowel duration and vowelheight. Reduction of /a, o/ to [] applies gradiently, with syllables afforded sufficientduration by hyperarticulation showing little or no vowel raising.

6 zx = ( x - µx ) / σx, , where µ is the mean for a given set of values, and σ the standarddeviation.


-11-

• Crucially, no amount of lengthening is sufficient to restore an underlying /o/ in anunstressed syllable. The neutralization of /a/ and /o/ in unstressed syllables is categoricaland phonological, displaying no sensitivity whatsoever to phonetic duration.

• Were the non-application of reduction to schwa in clear speech in any sense aparalinguistic effect, e.g. a spelling pronunciation, we would expect restoration of /o/ inunstressed syllables as well. This never occurs.

6. Implications of the Russian experiments

• There are indeed two types of vowel reduction in Russian.

• Only one is accomplished in the phonology. The other is a gradient processaccomplished by the phonetics. // is not a phonological category in Russian.

• Optimality-Theoretic interpretation of this conclusion: *// remains ranked above allFaithfulness constraints.

• This conclusion simplifies Russian phonology greatly, while requiring nothing of thephonetics other than the capacity to implement fine-grained durational patternsconditioned by prosodic structure, a capacity it must have under any circumstances.

6.1. Exceptional Contexts Again• Additional payoff: the seemingly-arbitrary exceptions to Degree 2 reduction detailed in 2

above now make perfect sense.

EXCEPTION #1:

• Absolute word-initial position is associated cross-linguistically with articulatorystrengthening and/or durational enhancement of consonants and vowels (Cho 2001, Choand Jun 2000, Byrd 2000, Cho and Keating 1999, Keating, Cho, Fougeron and Hsu1999, Dilley, Shattuck-Hufnagel and Ostendorf 1996, Fougeron and Keating 1996, interalia Byrd 2000, Dilley, Shattuck-Hufnagel and Ostendorf 1996, Fougeron and Keating1996, Oller 1973).

• Consequences for positional neutralization elsewhere:

a. Nawuri (Casali 1995, Kirchner 1998): absolute word-initial vowels fail to undergo anassimilation process involving roundness of which they would otherwise be targets. Long vowelsand vowels in phrase-final position likewise avoid this assimilation.

b. Luganda: the contrast between long and short vowels is neutralized in onsetless word-initialsyllables. Additionally, only three vowels contrast in this position (in fact, initially in any morpheme):/e,o, a/ (Hubbard 1994: 161-165).

c. Runyambo, in which initial /i, u/ are lowered to [e, o] after pause (Larry Hyman, p.c.).


-12-

EXCEPTION #2:

• No reduction of /a/ to schwa before /a/ in hiatus. If reduction to schwa is essentiallyduration-dependent articulatory undershoot, a sequence of two such vowels shouldprovide adequate duration for articulators to reach targets.

EXCEPTION #3:

• Absolute phrase-final position is associated cross-linguistically with additional durationfor vowels, a phenomenon known as domain-final lengthening (see e.g. Oller 1973, Klatt1975, Beckman and Edwards 1987, Wightman et al. 1992, Keating, Wright and Zhang1999, inter alia).

• Final-syllable vowels are resistant to reduction or assimilation processes which shouldotherwise target them in Belorussian, Ukrainian dialects, Brazilian Portuguese, EasternMari, Uyghur, Hausa, Catalan dialects, English, Yakan, Maltese, Nawuri, Shimakonde,Bonggi, and Timugon Murut (see Barnes 2002 for typological details)7.

6.2. Theoretical Consequences• Any model of the phonetics-phonology interface must be equipped to handle not only

the distinction between categorical and gradient processes, but also the complete lack ofsensitivity of categorical processes to their phonetic environments.

• Best sort of model for degree 1 reduction: /a/, /o/ > /a/

Ident[hi]/σ@ >> *MidV >> Ident[hi]

• Best sort of model for degree 2 reduction: /a/ -> [] for Speaker 18

f(d) = 52.187 + 112.758 * ln(d)

where d = duration in ms, and f(d) = F1 in Hz

• This is an immediate problem for the Direct Phonetics approach.

• Technically, of course, gradience can be modeled in a categorical system by proliferatingdiscrete stages along a continuum (Flemming 2001, Kirchner 1999). Flemming'sapproach to VR in particular allows two categories to approach one another in acousticspace up to a certain threshold, after which contrast can no longer be maintained, andneutralization occurs.

• At issue though is not the way categorical and gradient processes apply, but rather thenature of the processes themselves.

6.2.1. VR in Seediq

• Seediq is an Atayalic language still spoken in Taiwan (Asai 1953, Holmer 1996, Li 1977,Li 1980)

7 See Zhang 2001 for related facts involving the licensing of contour tones.8 A logistic growth model would actually be more appropriate here, avoiding unrestricted growth of F1 for largevalues of d.


-13-

• Stressed syllables contrast five vowels: /i, e, a, o, u/.

• Pretonic syllables allow [u] only, realized variably, and analyzed by Li as epenthetic.

• Posttonic syllables realize [i, a, u], with mappings between stressed vowels and theirunstressed counterparts as follows:

(19) Posttonic vowel realizations in Seediq

/i/ -> [i]/a/ -> [a]/[]/e, o, u/ -> [u]

(20) Vowel reduction in Seediq

/haed/ ‘cook’-> h-m-aed -> hmaets -> [humauts], (Actor Focus)

infixation d -> ts epenthesis and VR

-> haed-an -> hedan -> [huedan], (Locative Focus)suffixation a -> ø epenthesis

/heyeg/ ‘stand’-> m-heyeg -> mheyew -> mheyuw10 -> mheyu -> [meheyu] (AF)

prefix g->w VR w -> ø epenth., translar. harmony

-> h-n-eyeg -> hneyeg-an -> hnyegan -> [hunuyean] (LF, Pret.)infix suffix e -> ø epenthesis

• In some respects, Seediq is typologically ordinary: surface distribution of unstressedvowels in Seediq obeys a simple generalization banning mid vowels.

• Still, we would presumably not want to generate reduction of /e/ to [u] through a gradualraising, backing, and rounding of [e], yielding intolerable perceptual proximity with [u],and ultimately neutralization11.

• Seediq merger of /e/ and /u/ is not phonetically-natural, and we do not want a model ofthe phonetics-phonology interface which makes it appear otherwise.

• Phonetics aside, however, the real question is whether there is anything wrong withSeediq vowel reduction grammatically. The direct phonetics approach to VR mustconclude that there is.

• Russian Degree 1 reduction and Seediq posttonic reduction would need to be generatedby distinct grammatical mechanisms, but are they really so different?

9 /a/ and /i/ are said by to retain their stressed qualities “to a certain extent” (Holmer 1996: 26). I assume this meansthat they are somewhat centralized.10 Final -Vw simplified to -V is independently attested and is not the source of [-u] here. Other dialects retain /w/.11 See Barnes 2002 for a possible diachronic account of this system.


-14-

• Similar problems arise for approaches deriving typological regularities in phonology fromgrounding conditions on constraint construction.

6.2.2. VR in Sosva Mansi

• Recall that while VR systems routinely target vowel height contrasts, VR systemstargeting other features, such as palatality, seem not to occur.

• This is the type of generalization grounding conditions such as Smith's SubstantiveFilters were devised to express.

• Constraints barring non-high vowels from unstressed syllables should be freelyconstructed, while constraints barring, e.g., back vowels from unstressed syllables,should be prevented from entering CON.

• In the Sosva dialect of Mansi (Ob-Ugrian), however, only /i, e, , a/ surface outside theinitial, stressed syllable (Honti 1988: 335). Contrast of front and back vowels isneutralized12.

• Again, typologically, Sosva Mansi is an aberration. But is it an aberration grammatically aswell?

7. ConclusionsQUESTION: Is there any evidence to suggest that from the point of view of synchronicphonology, there is anything wrong with the reduction systems of Seediq or Sosva Mansi?Are systems like these harder to learn, less stable over time, or in any other way more costlyto maintain than other, more common systems? Absent positive empirical evidence that this isso, our assumption should be:

• UG is capable of generating and sustaining VR systems like those of Seediq or SosvaMansi just as well as it does Russian or any other VR system, regardless of whether theyare phonetically natural or grounded synchronically.

• It follows from this that the typology of VR (and other positional neutralization)systems cannot be (solely) a consequence of constraints on possible grammars imposedby UG. So where does the typology come from?

• Barnes 2002 finds the source in phonologization: the influence of phonetics onphonology is indirect. The gradient phonetic component affects the structure of thecategorical phonological component through sound change.

• Sound change is driven by phonetics, such that sound changes are by definitionphonetically natural. "Unnatural" systems can arise through the complex interaction of aset of changes, but are predicted to be uncommon (see e.g. Ohala passim, Blevins andGarrett 1998, Blevins, in press, for related views).

12 That this system exists at all is probably due to the fact that Proto-Ob-Ugric had a system of palatalharmony in place. While both front and back vowels would have surfaced in non-initial syllables, contrast wasalready prohibited.


-15-

• Once they do arise, however, typologically disfavored patterns are predicted to be noless robust or phonologically serviceable than any others.

• Typological patterns surely sometimes are the result of constraints on possible grammarspresent in UG. This should not, however, be our null hypothesis.

• As far as the phonological grammar is concerned, it is enough for speakers to know thattheir languages contain a given phonological pattern. They need not also know why.

REFERENCES

Alderete, John. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers OptimalityArchive #94-0000

Asai, Erin. 1953. The Sedik language of Formosa. Cercle Linguistique de Kanazawa. Kanazawa, Japan:Kanazawa University.

Avanesov, R. I. 1968. Russkoe Literaturnoe Proiznoshenie. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.Barnes, Jonathan. 2001. The role of duration in the positional neutralization of vowel contrasts.

Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the LSA, Washington, D.C.Barnes, Jonathan. 2002. Positional Neutralization: a phonologization approach to typological patterns. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional Faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.Beckman, Mary E. and Jan Edwards. 1987. The phonological domains of final lengthening. Ohio State

University Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 167-176.Beckman, Mary E. and Jan Edwards. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic

constituency. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. ed. byJohn Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, pp. 152-178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beckman, Mary, Jan Edwards, and Janet Fletcher. 1991. The articulatory kinematics of finallengthening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89(1): 369-382

Blevins, Juliette and Andrew Garrett. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74:508-555.

Blevins, Juliette. Evolutionary Phonology. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Byrd, Dani. 1996. A phase window framework for articulatory timing. Phonology 13(2): 139-169.Cho, Taehong. 2001. Effects of prosody on articulation in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

California, Los Angeles.Cho, Taehong and Sun-Ah Jun (2000). Domain-initial strengthening as enhancement of laryngeal

features: aerodynamic evidence from Korean. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 99: 57-79.Cho, Taehong and Patricia Keating. 1999. Articulatory and acoustic studies of domain-initial

strengthening in Korean. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97: 100-138.Cohn, Abigail. 1990. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge.de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as

hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(1): 491-504.Flemming, Edward S. 2001a. Vowel reduction and duration-dependent undershoot. Paper presented

at the Conference on the Phonetics-Phonology Interface, ZAS, Berlin. October 12, 2001.Flemming, Edward S. 2001b. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and

phonology. Phonology 18:1Flemming, Edward S. To appear. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. The phonetic bases of

markedness, ed. by B. Hayes, R. Kirchner and D. Steriade. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.


-16-

Fougeron, Cécile. 1999. Prosodically conditioned articulatory variations: A review. UCLA WorkingPapers in Phonetics 97: 1-73.

Fougeron, Cécile and Patricia A. Keating. 1996. Articulatory strengthening in prosodic domain-initial position. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 61-87.

Hayes, Bruce. 1997. Phonetically-driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductivegrounding. Ms., UCLA.

Johnson, K., E. Flemming, and R. Wright (1993) The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets arehyperarticulated, Language 69, 505-528.

Holmer, Arthur J. 1996. A parametric grammar of Seediq. Travaux de l’Institute de Linguistique deLund 30. Lund: Lund University Press.

Honti, László. 1988. Die ob-ugrischen Sprachen. The Uralic Languages: Description, History and ForeignInfluences, ed. by Denis Sinor, 147-196. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Honti, László. 1998. ObUgrian. The Uralic Languages, ed. by Daniel Abondolo, 327-357. London:Routledge

Keating, Patricia. 1988a. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5,2: 275-292.Keating, Patricia. 1988b. The phonology-phonetics interface. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey,

Volume I: Grammatical Theory, ed. by F. Newmeyer, 281-302. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Keating, Patricia A. 1990a. The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. Papers inlaboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by John Kingston and Mary E.Beckman, 451-470. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keating, Patricia A. 1990b. Phonetic representations in a generative grammar. Journal of Phonetics18:321-334.

Keating, Patricia. 1996. The phonology-phonetics interface. Interfaces in Phonology, ed. by U.Kleinhenz, 262-278. Studia grammatica 41, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Keating, Patricia, Taehong Cho, Cecile Fougeron, Chai-Shune Hsu. 1999. Domain-initialstrengthening in four languages. University of California Working Papers in Phonetics, 97: 139-151.

Keating, Patricia, Richard Wright and Jie Zhang. 1999. Word-level asymmetries in consonantarticulation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97: 157-173.

Kiparsky, Valentin. 1979. Russian Historical Grammar. Ann Arbor: Ardis.Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

California, Los Angeles.Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1977. Morphophonemic alternations in Formosan languages. Bulletin of the Institute

of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 48(3): 375-411.Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1980. The phonological rules of Atayal dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History

and Philology, Academia Sinica 51(2): 349-403.Lindblom, Björn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 35, 11: 1773-1781.Matusevic¬, M. I. 1976. Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk: Fonetika. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: the distinction between phonetic and phonological sound

patterns. Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, ed. by Burton-Roberts, Noel,Philip Carr and Gerard Docherty, 245-272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nord, L. 1975. Vowel reduction - Centralization or contextual assimilation? Proceedings of the SpeechCommunication Seminar, Stockholm. Aug. 1-3, 1974. ed. by G. Fant, pp. 149-154, Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell.

Nord, Lennart. 1987. Acoustic studies of vowel reduction in Swedish. Proceedings of the EleventhInternational Congress of Phonetic Sciences, August 1-7, 1987, Tallinn, Estonia, USSR. Volume 4, pp. 157-160. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R.


-17-

Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the parasession on languageand behavior, Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrick and MaryFrances Miller, 178-203. Chicago: CLS.

Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Elizabeth Hume and KeithJohnson, eds., The role of speech perception in phonology, pp.187-218, Academic Press: San Diego, CA.

Padgett, Jaye and Marija Tabain. 2003. Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reductionin Russian, Ms.

Shcherba, L. V. 1912. Russkie glasnye v kachestvennom i kolichestvennom otnoshenii. Sankt Peterburg.Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg:

Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Smith, Jennifer. 2002. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst.Steriade, Donca. 1994. Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. Ms., UCLA.Turk, Alice E. and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2000. Word-boundary-related duration patterns in

English. Journal of Phonetics 28: 397-440.Zhang, Jie. 2001. The effects of duration and sonority on contour tone distribution - typological

survey and formal analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Zlatoustova, L. V. 1981. Foneticheskie Edinitsy Russkoj Rechi. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo

Universitata.Zlatoustova, L. V. 1962. Foneticheskaia Struktura Slova v Potoke Rechi. Kazan’: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo

Universiteta.Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional Asymmetries and Licensing. Rutgers Optimality Archive #282-0998.Zsiga, Elizabeth Cook. 1993. Features, gestures, and the temporal aspects of phonological organization. Ph.D.

dissertation, Yale University.

phonetics and phonology in unstressed vowel reduction: russian and … vr umass 04.pdf · stressed...

Documents