ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 6 ( 2017/1 ) |
CONSONANT SOFTENING IN RUSSIAN LOANWORDS
NAOYA WATABE*
Summary
This paper focuses on
palatalization avoidance in Russian loanwords. In native words, consonants are
palatalized (or ‘softened’) when they precede /e/, but they can remain
non-palatalized in the same context in loanwords. The survey indicated that palatalization
is more likely to be avoided (i) in stressed
syllables, (ii) when consonants are coronal, and (iii) when consonants are
obstruent. It is argued that the difference in the likelihood of palatalization
avoidance results from several phonological factors.
Key Words: Russian, Phonology, Loanword adaptation, Palatalization.
Introduction
Currently,
there are many loanwords in Russian. Foreign words are adapted so that they can
sound as natural as Russian words but often still show specific behavior that is
not observed in native words. This paper focuses on the avoidance of consonant
softening or palatalization from a loanword-specific phonological perspective.
Many
researchers have suggested a consonantal category called “hardness”/“softness” to
describe Russian phonology, (Аванесов, 1984; Касаткин и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). In contemporary phonological theory, “hard” consonants are defined as non-palatalized or velarized and “soft” consonants as palatalized (Чекман,
1979; Rubach, 2000). As can be seen in (1), most consonants have either “hardness”/“softness.”[1]
Note that [ʦ, ʂ, ʐ] always emerge as “hard” consonants and [ʧ] as a “soft” consonant.
(1)
Contrast between “hard” consonants and “soft” consonants
a.
Before vowels
tot ‘that’
vs. tʲotʲə ‘aunt’
sadu
‘yard (dat. sg.)’ vs. sʲadu
‘sit down (1sg)’
rat ‘glad’ vs. rʲat
‘row’
modə
‘mode’ vs. mʲodə ‘hunny(gen. sg.)’
vos
‘cart’ vs. vʲos ‘carried (mas. sg.)’
b.
Syllable-final positions
bɨt
‘daily life’ vs. bɨtʲ
‘to be’
vʲes
‘weight’ vs. vʲesʲ
‘entire’
dal ‘gave
(mas. sg.)’ vs. dalʲ‘distance’
However,
the contrast is restricted when a consonant precedes a front vowel: under this
condition, only palatalized consonants can emerge in native words. This can be seen
in word conjugation or declension. As (2) illustrates, stem-final consonants
undergo palatalization when a morpheme follows a front vowel.
(2)
Palatalization
a.
Locative singular suffix [-e]
ruk-a ‘hand’
~ rukʲ-e (loc. sg.)
b.
Verbal affix [-i-]
atvʲet‘(an) answer’ ~ atvʲetʲ-i-t
‘(s/he) will answer’
c.
Verbal affix [-e-]
krasn-ɨi̯ ‘red’ ~ krasnʲ-e-tʲ ‘to become red’
In
loanwords, in contrast, this restriction on the consonantal contrast ceases to
be effective. It has been found that consonants can remain non-palatalized
before [e] in these cases (Гловинская, 1971;
Аванесов, 1984; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). Kniazev & Pozharitskaya (2011)
exemplified some loanwords, as shown below.
(3) Non-palatalized
consonants preceding [e] in loanwords (Князев &
Пожарицкая 2011: 332)
ka[fe]
(café); super[me]n (superman); an[te]nna
(antenna); [re]gbi
(rugby); [ke]mping (camping)
The
acceptance of non-palatalized consonants in this position depends on the type
of consonant. While dental obstruents and nasals are
likely to emerge as non-palatalized, labials and velars rarely do (Аванесов, 1984; Князев
& Пожарицкая, 2011). In particular, it is almost impossible for
velar consonants to avoid palatalization, even though there are few examples. This
suggests that consonants in different areas of articulation have different
properties when interacting with the subsequent vowel.
In
this paper, a quantitative investigation examines the palatalization avoidance differences
between consonants. The results are then discussed in theoretical terms. This
paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides details of the investigation,
Section 2.1 describes the methods, and Section 2.2 gives the results. In Section
3 the results are discussed in detail: the stress of the vowel concerned (i.e. /e/)
is considered in Section 3.1, the consonant articulation area is examined in Section
3.2, and the consonant articulation is analyzed in Section 3.3. Section 3.4 investigates
a new tendency, the adaptation of the English [æ], in which the preceding
consonant most often avoids palatalization. Finally, Section 4 concludes the
discussion.
Survey
2.1. Methods
The
data collection was divided into two steps. First, 4790 loanwords in which a
consonant precedes /e/ were collected from Krysin’s
(2000) foreign word dictionary (Крысин, 2000: Толковый словарь иноязычных
слов). Next, Eskova
et al.’s (2015) orthoepic dictionary was consulted (Еськова, Борунова, & Воронцова, 2015: Орфоэпический словарь русского языка)
if the precise pronunciation was not mentioned in the previous dictionary. For
some words, the pronunciation variation between the non-palatalized and
palatalized consonants was noted; therefore, a consonant was classified as “non-palatalized”
if the orthoepic dictionary mentioned that such a
pronunciation was at least “acceptable.”
First,
Russian orthography is briefly outlined. Russian has two graphemes for the
vowel /e/: е and э. In principle, the latter
indicates that the preceding consonant is non-palatalized; thus the orthoepic dictionary gives no pronunciational information
about the cases in which a consonant precedes э. According to this orthographic
principle, it was judged that a consonant was non-palatalized in such cases.
The
focus was on three main factors. The
first was the presence of stress. Cases in which the target syllable was under
primary or secondary stress were classified as “stressed” and the other cases classified
as “unstressed,” regardless of the distance from the stressed syllable. Next,
cases were compared in which the consonant articulation area was different. It
has been noted that coronal consonants are more likely to remain
non-palatalized before /e/ than labials and velars. Other factors such as
manner of articulation and voicing were controlled, so liquids ([r], [l]) were excluded
in this comparison because they have no non-coronal counterparts. Finally, with
all other properties being controlled, the given data was compared with the manner
of articulation.
2.2. Results
The
full results are shown in Appendix 1. In this section, the results for each part
of the survey are presented.
First,
as Table 1 indicates, non-palatalized consonants were more often observed in
stressed syllables. As non-coronals seldom avoid palatalization in unstressed
syllables, only the effect of stress on coronal consonants was investigated.
Figure
1 illustrates the occurrence rates for non-palatalized coronal consonants for
stressed and unstressed positions. The difference between these two cases was significant
(χ2(1, N = 2997) = 22.12, p < .001), which
suggests that these consonants are more likely to avoid palatalization in the presence
of stress.
Figure
1: Occurrence of non-palatalized coronal
consonants preceding /e/
Table 2
and Figure 2 indicate the behavior of consonants articulated in different areas.
To control the other factors, obstruents were
exclusively targeted. Unstressed syllables were excluded from this examination
since non-palatalized non-coronal consonants are extremely rare. The
differences between coronals and labials (χ2(1,
N = 666) = 173.139, p < .001), between coronals and velars (χ2(1,
N = 588) = 266.44, p < .001; Fisher’s test, p < .001), and between
labials and velars (χ2(1, N = 402) = 18.46, p < .001; Fisher’s
test, p < .001) were all significant. In other words, coronal consonants
were more likely to avoid palatalization than labial and velar consonants, and
labials were more likely to do so than velars.
Table 2: Behavior of consonants preceding
stressed /e/: for each area of articulation
|
coronal |
labial |
velar |
non-pal. |
267 (62.7%) |
24 (10.0%) |
4 (2.5%) |
pal. |
159 (37.3%) |
216 (90.0%) |
158 (97.5%) |
sum. |
426 |
240 |
162 |
Figure
2: Occurrence of non-palatalized consonants preceding stressed /e: for each
area of articulation /
Finally,
Table 3 illustrates the avoidance/occurrence of palatalization on consonants for
each manner of articulation. As noted earlier, the behavior varies depending on
the area of articulation, so the behavior for each consonant area was compared.
Unstressed syllables were also excluded in this investigation. /l/ emerged as
‘soft’ in most cases, and its behavior was considerably different to that of
/r/. The fact that /l/ failed to emerge as a ‘hard’ counterpart is relevant to
another factor,[2]
so this was excluded from the investigation and only /r/ was classified into
liquid consonants.
Table
3: Behavior of consonants preceding stressed /e/: for each manner of
articulation
As can
be seen in Figure 3-a, coronal stops were significantly more likely to emerge
as non-palatalized than other coronals (stops-fricatives: χ2(1,
N = 426) = 11.78, p < .001; stops-nasals: χ2(1, N = 464) = 13.98,
p < .001; stops-liquids: χ2(1, N = 560) = 86.62, p < .001). In
contrast, as figure 3-b indicates, labial stops were not likely to emerge as
non-palatalized (stops-fricatives: χ2(1, N
= 240) = .63, p = .43; stops-nasals: χ2(1, N = 261) = .40, p = .53).
Figure
3: Occurrence of non-palatalized
consonants preceding stressed /e/: for each manner of articulation
Moreover,
as shown in Figure 3-c, velar stops were less likely to avoid palatalization
than velar fricatives, even though there was little data for the latter[3]
(i.e. /x/). Liquids, which are only coronal, are less likely to avoid
palatalization than the others (fricatives-liquids: χ2(1,
N = 330) = 13.41, p < .001; nasals-liquids: χ2(1, N = 368) = 17.21,
p < .001).To summarize, from this investigation, it is surmised that
palatalization occurrence may vary depending on the manner of articulation, but
this effect is not obvious.
Discussion
In
this section, the results presented in the previous section are discussed. The following
three sections focus on each target in the survey: Section 3.1 discusses the stress
of the given vowel, Section 3.2 focuses on the consonant articulation area, and
Section 3.3 considers articulatory manner. Section 3.4 discusses a relatively
new tendency, the adaptation of the English /æ/.
3.1. Stress and vowel reduction
The survey
indicated that consonants were more likely to avoid palatalization before /e/
in stressed syllables rather than in unstressed syllables. The vowel reduction
needs to be considered: /e/ emerges as [i] in
unstressed syllables (Аванесов, 1984;
Crosswhite, 2000; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). There
have been two perspectives on vowel reduction in loanwords. The first states that
a reduction does not occur when the preceding consonant remains non-palatalized
(Аванесов, 1984; Еськова, Борунова, & Воронцова, 2015). The second view states
that the reduction is observed regardless of whether the preceding consonant remains
non-palatalized (Гловинская,
1971; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Каленчук, Касаткин, & Касаткина, 2012).
When no consonant precedes /e/, i.e., in word-initial positions, it has been
noted that this vowel undergoes reduction in loanwords (Crosswhite,
2000; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). This fact suggests that this vowel
itself tends to reduce in unstressed syllables.
Now,
returning to the behavior of consonants preceding /e/. In unstressed positions,
if this vowel avoids reduction when the preceding consonant is non-palatalized,
this is contrary to the general tendency towards reduction. On the other hand,
if this vowel still undergoes reduction, the preceding consonant remains
non-palatalized before [i]. It has not been observed
that consonants can remain non-palatalized before [i]
in loanwords (cf. Аванесов,
1984; Crosswhite, 2000; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011), so it
can be said that they tend to be palatalized before [i].
Therefore, when consonants avoid palatalization before [i]
derived from /e/, the situation is also contrary to the general tendency in
Russian phonology. From this discussion, it can be concluded that consonants
are more likely to undergo palatalization in unstressed syllables because the
avoidance results in a violation of Russian phonological principles.
3.2. Place of articulation
As can
be seen in Section 2.2, an apparent difference in the occurrence of
palatalization in consonants at different areas of articulation was observed. In
particular, coronals were found to be even more likely to avoid palatalization
than other consonants. This hierarchical situation was more obvious when more
than one type of consonant preceded /e/ in a word. When cases in which either
consonant avoided palatalization in Eskov et al.’s
(2015) dictionary were examined, there were very few words in which the
hierarchy was violated: only 2 out of 269 cases[4]
were observed, as shown in (4b). In most cases, as can be seen in (4a), a
coronal consonant was non-palatalized if a labial or a velar consonant avoided palatalization,
and a labial was non-palatalized if the velar was non-palatalized.
(4)
Loanwords in which more than one type of consonant precedes /e/
a.[biznesmen]
(businessman); [mʲidiabiznes] (media business);
[sekondxend] (second hand); [gʲender] (gender);
[kebmen] (cabman, taxi
driver); [imidʐmei̯kʲir]
(image maker)
b.[rʲimei̯k]
(remake); [xepʲining] (happening)
In
summary, the hierarchy of consonants in the occurrence of palatalization is
absolute.
Next,
the reason why the coronals tend to avoid palatalization in comparison with
other consonants is examined. From a typological view, no research has found
that labials and velars are more likely to undergo palatalization than coronals
(cf. Bhat, 1978). In phonological theory, on the other hand, palatalization has
been considered to be an assimilation of consonants to the adjacent front vowel
(Clements & Hume, 1995; Zubritskaya, 1997; Rubach, 2000; Halle, 2005; Kochetov,
2011). Considering that front vowels are articulated on the front part of the
tongue, non-coronal consonants do not agree with front vowels at the articulation
points, so they may assimilate to the following front vowel. Note that the idea
that palatalization is caused by an adjacent front vowel is not new. Bhat
(1978) noted that palatalization was triggered by front vowels or glide in many
languages. In Slavic historical phonology, it has been noted that velar
consonants changed to postalveolar before front vowels and /j/ (Мейе, 1934; Хабургаев, 1974; Колесов, 1980). Velars have a special status
also in contemporary Slavic languages. In Polish, velar stops cannot be
non-palatalized before suffixes beginning with /e/ that do not cause other
consonants to be palatalized. In Russian loanwords, as noted in Section 2.2, it
was observed that it was quite rare for velars to avoid palatalization in
comparison with other consonants. In phonetic terms, as noted earlier, labials
are also different from front vowels, but their articulation point, i.e., the
lips, can move independently of the tongue. In other words, non-palatalized
labials are more easily articulated before front vowels than non-palatalized
velars. That is why velars, especially, undergo palatalization. However, the results
for the Russian loanwords suggested that labials are still differentiated from
coronals.
Previous
typological research has not suggested that labials are active participants in
palatalization (cf. Bhat, 1978; Kochetov, 2011). What
is to be noted is that previous studies on palatalization have focused not only
on secondary palatalization (‘softening’ in Slavic languages), but also on
changes in primary articulation (e.g. velar softening or fronting). However,
labials rarely change in primary articulation. (cf. Bhat, 1978; Kochetov, 2011). On the other hand, when changes in
secondary articulation were exclusively focused on, as in the study by Kochetov (2011), the palatalization of the labials was as
common as with other consonants. In other words, as far as the secondary
palatalization is concerned, it is not strange that both labials and velars are
more likely to undergo palatalization than coronals.
3.3. Manner of articulation
It has
not been reported that manner of articulation affects the likelihood of a
consonant undergoing palatalization (cf. Bhat, 1978; Kochetov,
2011). From the survey, in which variation was observed in the coronals, it is
not possible to suggest a significant articulation manner effect for other
consonants. In theoretical terms, nevertheless, the manner of articulation
should be considered to discuss the consonant-vowel interaction.
The
manner of consonant formation can be defined by the degree of constriction in
articulatory terms, or by sonority in acoustic terms (For Russian: see Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011).
Sonorants (liquids and nasals) are articulated with weak constriction and have
high sonority, so are similar to vowels. Stops or plosives are the opposite and
the most ‘consonantal.’ Fricatives can be regarded as in the middle between sonorants
and stops. Note that nasals have a plosive-like aspect in oral articulation as
well as a sonorant aspect in nasal articulation.
Given
that palatalization is assimilation to an adjacent vowel, it can be assumed
that the more similar consonants are to vowels, the more likely they are to
undergo this process. This hypothesis partially holds true. As can be seen in Figure
3-a, liquids are more likely to be palatalized than other consonants. As nasals
more often avoid palatalization than liquids and almost as often as fricatives,
it is suggested that the plosive property (or lack of “continuance”) is
relevant in this situation. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the
difference between stops and fricatives is quite unclear. Here, the question is
left open, but the possibility is suggested that the articulation manner of
consonants affects palatalization participation.
3.4. New tendency: vowel originating
from English [æ]
As
observed in the survey, velar consonants quite rarely remained non-palatalized
before /e/. Previous research (Аванесов,
1984; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011) has indicated that the palatalization
avoidance of velars is a new tendency. Looking at such examples more closely, it
can be found that the vowel /e/ in most of the given words originates from the English
[æ]. Since [æ] is not permitted in Russian, this vowel has often been adapted
as /a/ due to the effect of the English orthography, and the transformation to
/e/ is relatively rare (Holden, 1980). However, in recent loanwords, many cases
have been observed in which an /e/ originates from an
/æ/. The given vowel, is often transcribed as э, not as е, which indicates that the
preceding consonant is ‘hard.’ This observation suggests that the /e/ from an English
[æ] has a particular property that fails to trigger palatalization on the
preceding consonant.
Watabe
(2015) suggested that the /æ/ should still be distinguished from the /e/ in
underlying forms of Russian and adapted as “non-palatalizing” [e]. In fact, the
front mid vowel varies slightly depending on whether the preceding consonant is
palatalized: it is more retracted (and lowered) after a non-palatalized
consonant than after a palatalized consonant (Аванесов, 1984; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). In
other words, /æ/ is originally adapted as a front mid vowel that does not cause
the preceding consonant to be palatalized. In contrast, other /e/-like vowels[5]
are considered the same vowel as the Russian /e/, but they sometimes fail to
trigger palatalization and consequently emerge as “non-palatalizing” [e].
Note
that the cases in which the English [æ] is adapted as an [e] have not been observed
often. Moreover, the transcription is not stable, i.e., the variation between э and е is
often observed, so the actual pronunciation is unclear. This adaptation process
thus requires further investigation.
Concluding remarks
Regarding
consonants preceding /e/ in Russian loanwords, as can be seen in Section 2.2, the
survey indicated that (i) they were more likely to
avoid palatalization in stressed positions than in unstressed positions, (ii)
coronals avoid palatalization more often than others, and velars quite rarely avoid
palatalization, (iii) the lower the sonority of the consonants, the more likely
they are to avoid palatalization, but it is not possible to say that stops are
more likely to avoid palatalization than fricatives. In Section 3.1–3.3, it was
argued that these results could be explained in phonological terms; even though
loanwords are to some extent free from the phonological restriction on native
words, they are still controlled by a certain phonological principle. It was also
suggested that the given palatalization-blocking process is not homogeneous. Section
3.4 argued that the adaptation of the English [æ] should be differentiated from
that of other /e/-like vowels as the former is more likely to block
palatalization.
The
absence of palatalization has been observed in “non-nativized”
loanwords (Аванесов, 1984; Касаткин, и др., 2001; Князев & Пожарицкая, 2011). In
other words, foreign-origin words undergo more of the phonological processes
observed in native words, so it appears difficult to clearly define “loanwords.”
Clearly, “loanwords” originate from a foreign language, so it is natural that
native speakers do not know the etimology of all loanwords and can only
recognize the certain peculiarity that results from the occurrence of sound
patterns not observed in native words. Ito and Mester (1995, 1999) proposed the
lexicon model, in which words are classified according to the occurrence of the
phonological processes. In their “onion” lexicon model, native words are
located in the core of the lexicon. Loanwords enter the lexicon from the
outside and approach the core though a nativization process in which the phonological
restriction gradually becomes stricter.
The palatalization avoidance discussed in this paper also
fits such a lexicon model. The variations in the occurrences suggest that
loanword adaptation is not just a simple sound pattern that allows loanwords to
be categorically distinguished from native words but a dynamic and complicated
process.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number
15J03345.
[1] With regard to velar consonants, “soft” consonants are exclusively observed before front vowels in native words because “soft” velar consonants were disfavored and transformed to postalveolar consonants in the past (see also Институт русского языка, 2013).
[2]Avanesov (1984) noted that /l/ often emerged as “European,” which is different from both the “hard” (velarized) and the “soft” (palatalized) counterparts. In other words, it is difficult for this consonant to emerge as “hard” before /e/, but it still avoids palatalization.
[3] What Russian had adapted as /x/ was mainly ch in English orthography that is not pronounced [ʧ] (e.g. [sxʲema] < scheme), so such cases were relatively rare. Recently, English /h/, which was often transformed to /g/, has also been adapted as /x/ (e.g. [xepʲining] < happening).
[4] The targeted words were counted for each pair of consonants that had different areas of articulation, so this is not the number of the words.
[5] What Russian adapts as /e/ are the vowels that are transcribed as e in English orthography.
Bibliography
Аванесов Р. И. Русское литературное произношение. М.,
1984.
Clements,
G. N., & Hume, E. V. “The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds”. In J. A.
Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of
Phonological Theory (pp. 245-306). Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Crosswhite, K.
M. “Vowel Reduction in Russian: A Unified Account of Standard, Dialectal, and
‘Dissimilative’ Patterns”. University of Rochester Working Papers in the
Language Sciences, Spring 2000(1), 107-172, 2000.
Еськова Н. А., Борунова С. Н., Воронцова В. Л.
Орфоэпический словарь русского языка: произношение, ударение, грамматические фо рмы: свыше 70000 слов / Под ред. Н. А.
Еськовой. М., 2015.
Halle,
M. “Palatalization/Velar Softening: What It Is and What It Tells Us about the
Nature of Language”, Linguistic Inquiry 36:1, 23-41, 2005.
Ito,
J. & Mester, A. “Japanese Phonology”. In J. A.
Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of
Phonological Theory (pp. 817-838). Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Ito,
J. & Mester, A. “The Phonological Lexicon”. In N.
Tsujimura (ed.), The
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (pp. 62-100). Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Каленчук М. Л., Касаткин Л. Л., Касаткина Р. Ф. Большой
орфоэпический словарь русского языка: литературное произношение и ударение
начала XXI века: норма и её варианты. М., 2012.
Касаткин Л. Л., Клобуков Е. В., Крысин Л. П., Львов М.
Р., Ставская Г. М., Федосюк М. Ю. Русский язык / Под ред. Л. Л. Касаткина. М.,
2001.
Князев С. В., Пожарицкая С. К. Современный русский
литературный язык: Фонетика, орфоэпия, графика и орфография: Учебное пособие
для вузов. М., 2011.
Колесов В. В. Историческая фонетика русского языка. М.,
1980.
Kochetov, A. “Palatalisation”. In: C. Ewen, E.
Hume, M. Oostendorp, and K. Rice (eds.) Companion
to Phonology (pp. 1666-1690).
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Крысин Л. П. Толковый словарь иноязычных слов. - 2-е
изд., доп. - М., 2000.
Мейе А. Общеславянский язык. / Перевод П. С. Кузнецов.
М., 2001.
Padgett,
J. “Contrast Dispersion and Russian Palatalization”. In E. Johnson, & K.
Johnson (eds.), The role of speech
perception in phonology (pp. 187-218). Academic Press. 105, 2001.
Rubach,
J. “Backness switch in Russian”, Phonology, 17(1),
39-64, 2000.
Townsend,
C. E., & Janda, L. A. Common and Comparative
Slavic: Phonology and Inflection. Columbus: Slavica
Publishers, 1996.
Гловинская М. Я. Об одной фонологической подсистеме в
современном русском литературном языке. // Развитие фонетики современного
русского языка (фонологические подсистемы) / Под ред. Л. М. Гаврилова. М.,
1971.
Иститут русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова РАН Русская
фонетика в развитии. Фонетические «отцы» и «дети» начала XXI века. М., 2013.
Watabe,
N. “Adaptation of English [æ] in Russian loanwords”. Oral presentation in
“Phonology Forum 2015” at Osaka University, Toyonaka Campus, on August 20,
2015.
Хабургаев, Г. А. Старославянский язык. М., 1974.
Чекман В. Н. Исследование по исторической фонетике
праславянского языка. Минск, 1979.
Zubritskaya, K. “Mechanism
of sound change in Optimality Theory”, Language
Variation and Change, 9, 121-148, 1997.
Appendix:
Full data of the results
*Naoya
Watabe – The author is a Ph.D. student in Department of Language and
Information Sciences, Graduate school of Arts and Sciences at the University of
Tokyo, a JSPS research fellow. His main field of research is phonology of
Slavic languages, especially of Russian and Polish. e-mail:
n_watabe@phiz.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES