Gliding in Russian
Janina Mo³czanow
University of Warsaw
It has been assumed in the literature that a high front vowel i and a corresponding glide j are identical in all but their syllabic affiliation. Namely, vowels are associated with syllable peaks whereas glides can only occur in syllable margins. In SPE this distinction is expressed by using a binary feature [±syllabic]: a vowel is [+syllabic] whilst a glide is [-syllabic]. Autosegmental phonology with its split of a phonological representation into several independent dimensions provides more insightful means of reflecting the nature of vowels and glides. That is, the relevant distinction is drawn on the syllabic tier whereas the melodic content of the two segments remains the same. On this view, the vowel is represented as a melodic unit linked to a mora whereas a glide is not associated to any unit of weight. Additionally, it has been assumed that glides come from underlying vowels. Gliding then consists in the deletion of a mora, its raison d’etre being to avoid onsetless syllables. For instance, the word ja ‘I’ comes from the underlying disyllabic //i.a//. Such a sequence contains two syllables that do not have onsets. When i is turned into a glide, the resulting monosyllabic ja constitutes a well-formed syllable.
Gliding is used to resolve hiatus in #iV, Vi# and ViV strings in all Slavic languages. However, languages differ in the treatment of CiV strings. Polish, for example, glides the high vowel, compare biolog [bjolok] “biologist”, whereas Slovak leaves CiV sequences intact, e.g. biolog [biolok] ‘biologist’ (Rubach 2000). Russian is different from Polish and Slovak in permitting both CiV and CjV strings, for example radio ‘radio’ vs. ladja ‘boat’. The distribution of i and j is not random in Russian. The basic generalisation is that whenever there is gliding in a post-consonantal position, a consonant and a glide are invariably separated by a yer. So words like ladja exhibit vowel ~ zero alternations, for instance ladja ‘boat’ (nom. sg.) ~ ladej (gen. pl.), whereas in radio, a consonant and a following i are never broken up by another vowel.
Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993) evaluates output forms using violable constraints. All constraints are universal, whereas the ranking of constraints is language-specific. Russian is problematic because an attempt to generate gliding in one set of forms but block it in another leads to a ranking paradox. The contradiction stems from the fact that standard OT is unable to express a generalisation that high front vowels glide before a yer. It will be argued that a modified version of OT, Derivational Optimality Theory, can provide a straightforward account of gliding in Russian.
References:
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado.
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: a DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 271-317.