In this paper, I argue that the Russian verbal suffix
In this paper, I propose an analysis of two different Russian suffixes: i. the imperfectivizing suffix
Section 2 is devoted to the introduction of data. I point out that
My argumentation is based on a version of Distributed Morphology (
(1) | a. | Words are built in syntax. |
b. | Affixes can be roots too. | |
c. | Roots can select another root, a categorial head, or both. | |
d. |
The postulates in (1b–c) are not directly crucial for the analysis presented in this paper. However, they are relevant for the notion of
Finally, the analysis defended in this paper is derived from an analysis of Russian morphophonology, proposed in Enguehard (
In this section, I introduce: i. the morphology of Russian
In Russian, verbal aspect is morphologically expressed. Perfective and imperfective verbs are derived as follows (see
(2) | |||||
a. | móg-Ø-t’ [ˈmɔʨʲ] | ‘to be able’ | ‘to be able’ | ||
pis-á-t’ | ‘to write’ | ‘to write’ | |||
zvon-í-t’ | ‘to call’ | ‘to call’ | |||
b. | móg-Ø-t’ [ˈmɔʨʲ] | ‘to be able’ | |||
pis-á-t’ | ‘to write’ | ||||
zvon-í-t’ | ‘to call’ |
The perfective verbs with a new meaning (second column of (2b)) have no imperfective counterpart yet. As a consequence, a new imperfective form (called Secondary Imperfective) can be derived with one of the two imperfectivizing suffixes:
(3) | ||||
a. | po-móg-Ø-t’ [pʌˈmɔʨʲ] | po-mog- |
‘to help’ | |
ob-sud-í-t’ | ob-sužd |
‘to discuss’ | ||
pri-výk-nu-t’ | pri-vyk |
‘to get used to’ | ||
b. | pere-zvon-í-t’ | pere-zván |
‘to recall’ | |
za-pis-á-t’ | za |
‘to record’ | ||
za-pryg-nú-t’ | za-prýg |
‘to jump’ | ||
pro-vétr-i-t’ | pro-vétr |
‘to aerate’ |
I focus on the underlying representations of
The suffix
(4) | ||||
a. | po-móg-Ø-t’ [pʌˈmɔʨʲ] | po-mog- |
‘to help’ | |
ob-sud-í-t’ | ob-sužd |
‘to discuss’ | ||
s-léz-Ø-t’ | s-lez |
‘to climb down’ | ||
b. | za-krý-Ø-t’ | za-kry |
‘to close’ | |
na-dú-Ø-t’ | na-du |
‘to blow’ | ||
u-zná-Ø-t’ | u-zna |
‘to learn’ |
A popular hypothesis, proposed in Flier (
A competing (less popular) analysis was simultaneously proposed in Garde (
Flier and Coats do not deny the idiosyncrasy of
In order to account for the distribution of
(5)
a.
b.
Anecdotally, the reader has certainly noticed that, unlike the proposal of Flier (
I now turn to the representation of
(6) | ||||
a. | pere-zvon-í-t’ | pere-zván |
‘to recall’ | |
pro-vétr-i-t’ | pro-vétr- |
‘to aerate’ | ||
pri-tašč-í-t’ | pri-tásk- |
‘to drag’ | ||
b. | za-pis-á-t’ | za-pís- |
‘to record’ | |
ras-kol-ó-t’ | ras-kál- |
‘to split’ | ||
pro-gl’ad-é-t’ | pro-gl’ád- |
‘to overlook’ |
One can notice that the two imperfectivizing suffixes (i.e.
Flier (
However, I suggest that it is empirically dubious to assume that
Before analyzing the status of
Russian shows two adjectival forms:
Examples of SA and LA with the root
Short form | nóv |
nóv |
nóv |
nóv |
Long form | nóv |
nóv |
nóv |
nóv |
The phonetic realization of SA suffixes is illustrated in Table
Pronunciation of SA suffixes.
Orthography | Phonetics | Phonology | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
stressed | unstressed | ||||
after a hard consonant | after a soft consonant | after a hard consonant | after a soft consonant | ||
-Ø ( |
Ø | /-Ø/ | |||
-a ( |
[-ˈa] | [-ə] | /-a/ | ||
-o, -e ( |
[-ˈɔ] | [-ə] | /-o/ | ||
-i, -y ( |
[-ˈɨ] | [-ˈi] | [-ɨ] | [-i] | /-i/ |
The realizations of LA suffixes are given in Table
Pronunciation of LA suffixes (based on
Orthography | Phonetics | Phonology | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
stressed | unstressed | ||||
after a hard consonant | after a soft consonant | after a hard consonant | after a soft consonant | ||
-ij, -yj, -oj ( |
[-ˈɔj] | [-ɨj] | [-ij] | /-ój/ or /-ij/ ? | |
-aja ( |
[-ˈajə] | [-əjə] | /-aja/ | ||
-oje, -eje ( |
[-ˈɔjə] | [-əjə] | /-ojo/ | ||
-ije, -yje ( |
[-ˈɨi] | [-ˈii] | [-ɨi] | [-ii] | /-iji/ |
The representation of vowels that follow
In sum, the vowels that surround
Internal structure of LA suffixes.
V1 | LA marker | V2 | |
---|---|---|---|
/-ó/ |
/-j-/ | /-Ø/ | |
/-a/ | /-j-/ | /-a/ | |
/-o/ | /-j-/ | /-o/ | |
/-i/ | /-j-/ | /-i/ |
My main concern is the morphological status of the LA marker
To conclude this section, I pointed out that
In this section, I introduce two attempts to derive
Garde (
(7)
/nóv-a-a/ → nóva
This process relies on phonological information. However, Garde (
(8)
/nóv-i-Ø/ → nóvy
Garde’s analysis implies that the occurrence of
Most previous proposals suppose that
A competing view was introduced in Coats (
This analysis is based on the following observation: i. Secondary Imperfective verbs ending with
(9) | |||||||
a. | /za-bolʲ |
za-bol |
→ | /za-bolʲ |
za-bol |
‘to be sick’ | |
/ví-ʨistʲ |
vý-čist |
→ | /vi-ʨistʲ |
vy-či |
‘to clean’ | ||
b. | /ví-dum |
vý-dum |
→ | /vi-dúm |
vy-dúm |
‘to invent’ |
Coats and Feinberg propose to make this morphological truncation unnecessary. They point out that there is no need for a new imperfectivizing suffix stored in the lexicon if we suppose that the imperfective verb in (9b) is built on the same model as verbs in (9a): i.e.
(10) | |||||
/ví-dum |
vý-dum |
/vi-dúm |
vy-dúm |
‘to invent’ |
However, this hypothesis (though valuable) faces the following issue: some verbs ending with
(11) | |||||
/s-prosʲ |
s-pros |
/s-prásʲ |
s-prá |
‘to ask’ |
For that reason, this analysis has been quite unpopular so far. In what follows, I introduce an argument from Distributed Morphology in support of the Reduplication Hypothesis. I show that a reduplication of
This sub-section outlines an independent argument introduced in Enguehard (
In Enguehard (
(12) | |||
s-pr |
s-pr |
‘we ask’ | |
za-k |
za-k |
‘to finish’ | |
za-rab |
za-rab |
‘to earn’ |
After having argued that
However, phonological operations are possible between: i.
(13)
Representation of
A similar indirect interaction between
(14) | |||
s-pros-í-t’ | s-prá |
‘to ask’ | |
ot-korm-í-t’ | ot-kár |
‘to fatten up’ | |
vý-rast-i-t’ | vy-rá |
‘to cultivate’ |
Following their analysis, the suffix
(15)
/s-prosʲ
–vowel deletion→
s-prá
‘to ask’
I argue that the o/a alternation results from the same mechanism:
(16)
/za-rabot-v
–vowel deletion→
za-rab
‘to earn’
This analysis implies that all verbs showing an a-mutation of /o/ involve a deleted
It is important to mention that this assumption raises an issue about the representation of the palatalization in (15). In the classical analysis, it is assumed that the vowel deletion results from a constraint banning hiatuses (
(17)
a.
Perfective stem
b.
Imperfective stem with an underlying
Now assuming the Reduplication Hypothesis proposed by Coats (
(18)
Representation of
But how to account for the emergence of
To sum up this sub-section, the Reduplication Hypothesis is based on the observation that
Of course, it is possible to assume that the suffix responsible for the a-mutation is distinct from the suffix realized in
To conclude this section, I addressed analyses proposing that
In this section, I show that the presence of
Hoekstra (
Returning to the representation of
But what is the underlying status of this fixed segmentism in Russian? In the present case,
I argue that Russian
(19)
Representation of
At this stage of the analysis, the occurrence of
I now go back to LA suffixes. I argue that these are another case of reduplication involving an expletive root √I.
We already saw in Section 2.2 that most LA suffixes show two identical gender markers with an intervening consonant
Underlying representation of SA and LA suffixes.
SA suffixes | /-ъ/ | /-a/ | /-o/ | /-i/ |
LA suffixes | /-ъ-ъ/ | /-a-a/ | /-o-o/ | /-i-i/ |
In the following sub-section, I show how the reduplication can derive the intervening segment
In this sub-section, I aim to show how the expletive root √I is phonologically derived as
In the case of
(20)
Representation of
First, the last root consonant needs to be realized (see Section 2.2.1). It links to C3 (21). In absence of available position, /v/ drops. At this stage, we obtain the configuration found in Bulgarian
(21)
Derivation of
Second, the floating |I| needs to be realized too, but there is no available position. Accordingly, we expect this element to move to the nearest compatible position on its left. By assumption, it takes precedence over the element |A| (22).
(22)
Derivation of
Finally, the element |A| moves to the root and replaces the vowel /o/ (see
I now turn to the derivation of LA suffixes. I show that the hypothesis of an expletive root √I accounts for both the presence of
In the case of feminine
(23)
Representation of LA
Floating |I| needs to be realized. Unlike representation (22), a skeletal position (C3) is available in this case. After |I| is linked to this position, the suffix
(24)
Derivation of LA
In the case of masculine
(25)
a.
b.
This analysis accounts for the parallel drawn in Coats (
To conclude this section, I showed that the Reduplication Hypothesis and the expletive root √I account for the derivation of: i. the verbal suffix
Two issues raised by this analysis deserve to be discussed in a further study. First, is there a semantic motivation for a similar reduplication process in verbs and adjectives? Second, the quality of the expletive root is still entirely
As we saw in Section 2, the semantic value of
First, it must be noticed that long and short adjectives contrast only in predicate position. This contrast can take various forms (see
(26) | a. | on bólen | ‘he is sick’ |
ona umn-á | ‘she is smart’ | ||
stol t’ažë́l | ‘the table is heavy (for me)!’ | ||
b. | on bol’n-ój | ‘he is a sick man’ | |
ona úmn-aja | ‘she is a smart person’ | ||
stol t’ažë́l-yj | ‘the table is heavy (generally speaking)’ |
This contrast between stage-level (26a) and individual-level predicates (26b) is comparable to the contrast expressed by Russian grammatical aspects. On the one hand, both stage-level and perfective express a state or an action over a
The accurate semantics of this reduplication requires further investigation (the present paper focused on a morphonological reasoning only). An iconic relation between imperfectivity and reduplication was already pointed out in several studies, including Naylor (
Nevertheless, this observation is not absolutely true. In unprefixed verbs,
Given that √I is a root, it is supposed to be stored in the lexicon as such. Accordingly, its quality cannot be predicted phonologically. But a question arises: do we have independent arguments to confirm that the intervening element |I| found in
Interestingly, the phonological form of the expletive root √I corresponds to the phonological form of the Russian coordinating conjunction
A similar hypothesis was proposed in Fábregas (
To conclude, I argued that the imperfectivizing suffix
This analysis also sheds new light on Garde (
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
Representation and linearization in Mirror Theory. DOI:
For the needs of this paper, I use a romanization of the Russian orthography for citation forms. Indeed, unstressed vowels often undergo a neutralization that makes it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to determine their accurate phonological identity. However, when the vowel reduction is relevant, I give the phonetic transcription (in square brackets). Finally, the phonological transcription is given in slashes.
I follow the terminology of Coats (
On the surface, Russian infinitive verbs have the structure (p-)√-vs
The form of the prefix varies, depending on the stem and the targeted meaning.
A similar analysis was proposed in Lampitelli and Luo (
This issue is beyond the scope of this analysis and deserves to be discussed in another paper.
The underlying representations chosen in the mentioned papers are /-ɨv-/ and /-aj/.
The semantic motivation of this contrast is irrelevant to the issues under consideration here (see Section 5 for some details).
The presence of /j/ in plural
It is worth to mention that Halle & Matushansky (
Unlike the present paper, the authors of these studies assume that the underlying representation of
The palatalization observed in this type of verbs (here:
The issue of how the first vowel /a/ in /-va-va/ changes into /i/ will be addressed later in the paper. This derivation is not without problem. However, it is interesting to note that the Bulgarian equivalent of Russian
The following summary cannot be as comprehensive as a whole paper. I just mention some relevant data and representations. The reader is referred to Enguehard (
This mutation does not occur in two contexts: i. when the last root vowel is not /o/; and ii. in some denominal verbs. An analysis of these exceptions is proposed in Enguehard (
Here,
The representation of prefixes in the specifier of the categorial head is not the standard view. It is generally assumed (e.g.
I assume this skeletal slot to be inserted by a morphosyntactic head, e.g. v.
Note that (17b) is not the surface form (*spra
The label of the node is not crucial for the present analysis. Here, I follow the results of Enguehard (
Coats supposes that
For the sentence ‘one washes oneself’, the Italian expected form *
In native words,
The notion of “expletive root” is modeled on the notion of “expletive pronoun”. Both are: i. semantically null; and ii. inserted under structural requirement.
Both elements are heads. Following Harris & Lindsey (
Due to space limitations, only /-a-a/ is represented. The same analysis goes for the others LA suffixes: /-ъ-ъ/, /-o-o/ and /-i-i/.
Depending on the chosen analysis, it can also be a functional head. The issue concerning the accurate identity of the reduplicated node is not the core of the present analysis.
Given that /ъ/ is realized as
This hypothesis is developed in Enguehard (
See e.g. Gouskova (
I would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for their stimulating comments. I am especially grateful to Noam Faust, Cédric Patin and the participants of the third
The author has no competing interests to declare.