This chapter has developed an OT analysis of different types of vocalic neutral-isations attested in the East Slavic dialects. It has been argued that the variety and complexity of the East Slavic vocalic patterns are shaped by two major forces. On the one hand, the presence of the underlying High tone triggers vocalic alternations in quality and quantity in pretonic positions (Type 1 dis-similation patterns, pretonic length dialects). On the other hand, harmonic processes produce assimilation in backness and/or height of the vowels in the pretonic and tonic syllables (Type II and Type III dissimilation patterns).
The patterns of dissimilative reduction are schematically presented in Figure 3, and the constraint rankings generating these systems are provided in Figure 4 below. As shown in Fig. 3, Type I patterns (Žizdra, Obojan’ and Don) arise due to the different rankings of Head=H with respect to the members of the *H/V family of constraints. These reduction patterns are attested both after hard and after soft consonants.
Type II patterns are found only in the context of palatalised consonants.
In the present model, they derive from Type I patterns by means of the con-straint agree-VV[-back]FT. Located at different points in the constraint hierar-chy, agree-VV[-back]FT generates four additional patterns of reduction (Ščigry, Sudža, Mosal’sk and Dmitrov) by inducing harmony for the feature [-back].
The present assumption that Type II is based on Type I patterns contrasts with traditional classifications which group Type I and Type II systems into one type, traditionally referred to as dissimilative [ja]-reduction. However, it should be noted that there are no attested systems of dissimilative [a]-reduction after hard consonants which would parallel Type II patterns of dissimilation after soft consonants (Djačenko, 2013: 337). Deriving Type II from Type I systems allows us to explain this asymmetry. Specifically, Type II systems are analysed as a combination of Type I patterns (Žizdra and Obojan’) with the intersyllabic harmony for the feature [-back]. The leftward propagation of [-back] in words with pretonic vowels occurring after a hard consonant would create an illegiti-mate structure of a hard [+back] consonant followed by a front [-back] vowel, which is prohibited by pal (as discussed in Chapter 6 below).
Type III systems are generated by means of the constraint agree-VV[+low]FT. Since this constraint does not conflict with pal, it is free to combine with both [ja]-reduction and [a]-reduction. Coupled with the Don type of [ja]-reduction, agree-VV[+low]FT yields the Bel’sk pattern, whereas
its combination with the Obojan’ type of [a]-reduction produces systems tradi-tionally called assimilative-dissimilative [a]-reduction (cf. Kasatkin, 2005: 40).
The present model predicts the existence of two more types of assimi-lative-dissimilative reduction which would combine the assimilation in height (driven by agree-VV[back]FT) with Dmitrov and Obojan’ dissimilation pat-terns. The absence of Dmitrov- and Obojan’-based assimilative-dissimilative patterns can be attributed to the fact that both Obojan’ and Dmitrov require archaic eight-vowel systems distinguishing between high and low mid vowels.
As the two-way contrast in mid vowels is only sporadically found in the pres-ent-day dialects, fewer reduction patterns are attested which would be based on eight-vowel systems.
Another possibility would be to combine agree-VV[+low]FT with the Žizdra pattern of dissimilation, in which the pretonic vowel surfaces as [a]
before non-low stressed vowels and as [ә] if the stressed syllable contains [a].
In this scenario, high-ranked agreeVV[+low]FT would eliminate the effect of dissimilation, producing a system of nondissimilative [a]-reduction where all vowels reduce to [a] irrespective of the quality of the vowel in the tonic position.
Figure 3 . Types of dissimilative [ja]-reduction
Type I Žizdra Obojan’ Don
Type II Mosal’sk/Sudža Ščigry Dmitrov
*H/i,u
Type III Kultuki/
Kidusovo Orexovo/ Figure 4 . Patterns of dissimilative reduction: constraint rankings
consonants
1 . Introduction
Previous chapters have analysed various patterns of [a]-reduction attested after hard consonants in different East Slavic dialects. We have argued that the vocalic reduction in immediately pretonic positions is driven by High tone, whose occurrence is restricted to the head foot of the prosodic word. On this view, the neutralisation of non-high vowels into the low vowel [a] takes place to accommodate High tone, which is best realised on more sonorous vowels. The present chapter considers cases in which High tone fails to trigger the lowering of a vowel in the immediately pretonic position. In most dialects with two- degree reduction patterns, [a]-reduction is blocked in the contexts of adjacent palatalised consonants and after hard stridents, where, instead of the expected lowering, non-high vowels undergo fronting and/or raising.
There are several ways in which a palatalised consonant can affect the quality of a reduced vowel. In a simple case, the non-high vowels //e//, //a//
and //ɔ// are reduced to [i], [e], or [a]; for example, the word reka ‘river’ can be pronounced as [rjiˈka], [rjeˈka] or [rjaˈka] (cf. the gen. pl. form rek [ˈrjek]).
These types of neutralisation are attested in the standard variety of Russian, in the central Russian dialects, and in some southern Russian and Belarusian dia-lects. In a complex case, the quality of the reduced vowel depends on both the preceding and the following consonant. For instance, [a] is found before hard consonants and [i] appears before palatalised consonants in dialects with the so-called moderate jakan’e ([ja]-reduction), e.g. [rjaˈka] (nom. sg.) vs. [rjiˈkji]
(gen. sg.). Or, some dialects show [e]-reduction before hard consonants, e.g.
[rjeˈka], and [i]-reduction before soft consonants, e.g. [rjiˈkji]. A more intricate pattern is attested in dialects such as Čuxloma, which uses [i] if the following consonant is soft, e.g. [rjiˈkji], and either [a] or [e] if the following consonant is hard, the former occurring before a non-low vowel, and the latter before a low vowel in the following stressed syllable, e.g. [rjaˈku] (acc. sg.) vs. [rjiˈka] (nom.
sg.).1 Neutralisation patterns found in the context of palatalised consonants in
1 Furthermore, some Northern Russian dialects retract the front vowel //e// if the following con-sonant is hard, e.g. [rjɔˈka] vs. [rjeˈkji]. This pattern is excluded from the present analysis because it is attested in dialects lacking High tone on the pretonic vowel (see also Footnote 10, Chapter 5).
different East Slavic dialects are summarised below, with the inflected forms of the word reka ‘river’ serving as illustrations.
(1) Context Examples
a. [i]-reduction [i]/Cj_ [rjiˈka]
b. [e]-reduction [e]/Cj_ [rjeˈka]
c. [ja]-reduction [a]/Cj_ [rjaˈka]
d. moderate [i]/Cj_Cj, [a]/Cj_C [rjiˈkji], [rjaˈka]
[ja]-reductio n
e. moderate [i]/Cj_Cj, [e]/Cj_C [rjiˈkji], [rjeˈka]
[e]-reduction
f. Čuxloma [i]/Cj_Cj, [a]/Cj_CV[+low], [e]/Cj_CV[-low] [rjiˈkji], [rjeˈka], [rjaˈku]
[ja]-reduction
A further complication arises in the context of the hard stridents [š], [ž], and [t͡s], which behave inconsistently with respect to vowel reduction in the major- ity of the East Slavic dialects. In standard Russian, for instance, this is illus-trated by the alternations such as šjopot [ˈšopәt] ‘a whisper’ – šeptat’ [šɨpˈtatj]
‘to whisper’ and šok [ˈšok] ‘a shock’ – šokirovat’ [šaˈkjirәvәtj] ‘to shock’, where the hard strident [š] patterns together with soft consonants in [šɨpˈtatj] and with hard consonants in [šaˈkjirәvәtj ], triggering raising of the mid vowel in the for-mer and lowering in the latter.
These patterns are interesting for several reasons. First, the raising of the low vowel [a] to [e] or [i] refutes our previous assertion that vowels should lower in immediately pretonic position in order to be able to carry High tone.
Second, reduction to [e] runs contra the alleged universal that mid vowels are banned from prosodically weak positions in languages with vowel reduction.
Next, the fronting of back vowels [a] and [ɔ] before palatalised consonants as well as the retraction of [e] before hard consonants are unusual from the typological perspective because Slavic languages typically show agreement in backness between vowels and the preceding, not the following, consonants (Halle, 1959; Lightner, 1972; Rubach, 2000, 2003; among others). Finally, the operation of two contradictory processes ([a]-reduction and [i]-reduction) in the context of hard stridents constitutes a non-trivial case of opacity, which cannot be resolved without resorting to derivational levels.
The present chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses pat-terns of vowel fronting and raising taking place after soft consonants. An OT analysis pursued in this section is based on the two generalisations about Slavic
phonology, concerning the tendency of consonants and the following vowels to exhibit agreement in backness and in height. Next, Section 3 demonstrates that these generalisations also hold in the CjVCj sequences, where a vowel changes to accommodate in backness and/or height both to the preceding and the fol-lowing consonant. Apparently exceptional patterns of neutralisation attested in the context of hard sibilants are discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 sum-marises the main results.