Outline of the stress patterns in Ukrainian

(1)

Base priority effects in inflectional subparadigms:

evidence from Ukrainian

Igor Yanovich and Donca Steriade

MIT

December 4, 2010

RUMMIT Fall 2010 @MIT

Igor Yanovich and Donca Steriade (MIT) Stress in Ukrainian nominal paradigms December 4, 2010 1 / 29

Main ideas

STRUCTURE: Paradigms have internal structure: e.g. a noun paradigm consists of a singular and a plural subparadigm.

CONTRAST: Conditions of Paradigmatic Contrast (Kenstowicz 2002) require distinct subparadigms to have phonologically distinct stems.

UNIFORMITY: Conditions of Paradigmatic Uniformity operate within and across subparadigms.

STEPWISE GENERATION: Subparadigms can stand in a Base Derivative relation (cf. Albright 2002, 2005 on bases in inflectional paradigms): e.g., in Ukrainian nouns, the Sg is the base of the Pl.

Main ideas

Basic features of Ukrainian stress

One and only one stress per word

No fixed position for stress in language as a whole Diversity of stress mobility patterns within a paradigm In some stress types, accentually non-uniform paradigms

Main ideas

Outline of the stress patterns in Ukrainian

Main four stress types of Ukrainian nouns:

a Nom Sg na"dij-a c : Nom Sg bo"lot-o stem Nom Pl na"dij-i Nom Pl bolo"t-a b Nom Sg xan"Z-a d : Nom Sg pele"n-a stem Nom Pl xan"Z-i Nom Pl "pelen-y

and represent stem syllables; and ending syllables.

and are stressed, and stressless.

Glosses:

na"dij-a‘hope’,xan"Z-a ‘bigot’,bo"lot-o‘swamp’,pele"n-a‘shroud; podea’.

(2)

Main ideas

Outline of the stress patterns in Ukrainian

+stress a Nom Sg na"dij-a c : Nom Sg bo"lot-o stem Nom Pl na"dij-i Nom Pl bolo"t-a

−stress b Nom Sg xan"Z-a d : Nom Sg pele"n-a stem Nom Pl xan"Z-i Nom Pl "pelen-y In typesa andc, when the stress is on the stem, it is unpredictable.

Typea: "vyvyx-∅ vs. He"roj-∅.

Typec: "kuzov-aGenSg vs. ne"boZ-aGenSg.

Inb and d, when there is stem stress, it is predictable.

In type b, when the ending is null, the last stemσ is stressed: kob"zar-∅.

In type d, a more complex distribution — to be discussed in detail.

Main ideas

Outline of the stress patterns in Ukrainian

Sg6=Plranked low Sg6=Plranked high +stress a Nom Sg na"dij-a c : Nom Sg bo"lot-o

stem Nom Pl na"dij-i Nom Pl bolo"t-a

−stress b Nom Sg xan"Z-a d : Nom Sg pele"n-a stem Nom Pl xan"Z-i Nom Pl "pelen-y

In typesa andb, the singular and the plural have uniform stress.

In mobile types c and d, the singular and the plural must have different placement of stress.

Sg6=Pl(Paradigmatic Contrast): assigns a violation for each pair of stems with identical stress grids whose morphological feature matrices differ in

[singular/plural]. (cf. Kenstowicz 2002)

Uniform stress patterns

Type a : Id ±Str Stem IO >> Id ±Str Endg IO

Stress is underlying in typea:

"perepel-o ‘collar-bone’,vy"dovyS^j:-e ‘spectacle’,koZu"Syn-a‘sheepskin coat’,

"vyvyx-∅‘displacement’,bry"Had-a‘team’, etc.

Analysis:

Stem has at least one +stress syllable

Ident ±Stress Stem IO>>Ident ±Stress Ending IO (cf. Alderete 1999); Culminativityis not dominated /na"dij-"a/ Ident±Stress Stem IO Ident±Stress Ending IO

a. ☞ na"dij-a ∗

b. "nadij-a ∗!∗ ∗

c. nadi"j-a ∗!

⇒underlying stemstress surfaces

⇒underlying endingstress never plays a role

Underlying representation for type b

Typeb: stress is always on the ending, unless it is null:

Sg Pl

Nom xan"Z-a xan"Z-i

Gen xan"Z-i xan"Z-iv

Sg Pl

Nom kob"zar-∅ kobza"r^j-i

Gen kobza"r^j-a kobza"r^j-iv

When the endingis null (kob"zar-∅), the stress always falls onto the last stem syllable (i.e., no"Smobzar-∅, Smobza"r-a,Smobza"r-evi.)

(3)

Type b : Id ±Str Stem IO >> Id ±Str Endg IO

Typeb stems are −stress.

Id ±Str Stem>> Id ±Str Endgforces stress onto the ending.

In stressed disyllabic endings, the first syllable is stressed, so ending stress is always predictable.

It may be derived byStress Left, or some other favorite of yours.

/xanZ-a/ Ident ±Stress Stem IO Ident±Stress Ending IO

a. "xanZ-a ∗!

b. ☞ xan"Z-a ∗

⇒theabsenceof underlying stem stress shifts stress to the ending

⇒as in a, underlying ending stress never plays a role

Type b : Stress Stem Right with null endings

Stress Stem Right: stress the stem-final syllable if word-final.

Str Stem R is triggered by all null endings (we will see more examples later.) But it is outranked byId ±Str Stem IO.

/kobzar-∅/ Culm Id±Str Stem Str Stem R Id±Str Endg

a. kobzar-∅ ∗! ∗

b. "kobzar-∅ ∗ ∗!

c. ☞ kob"zar-∅ ∗

Mobile stress patterns: Stepwise generation

Mobile stress patterns

a Sg Pl c Sg Pl

b Sg Pl d Sg Pl

koleso Sg Pl

What it the driving force behind accentual mobility?

⇒a contrastconstraint pushing the Sg and the Pl apart.

Singular6=Plural

Sg6=Pl(Paradigmatic Contrast): assigns a violation for each pair ofstems with identical stress patterns (=stress grids of the stem) whose

morphological feature matrices differ in [singular/plural].

A hypothetical example:

/"ab-oSg, "ab-u_Pl/ Id±Str Stem IO a. ☞ "ab-o_Sg, "ab-u_Pl

b. a"b-oSg, a"b-uPl ∗!∗

c. "ab-oSg, a"b-uPl ∗!

d. a"b-oSg, "ab-uPl ∗!

With an F constraint at the top, all forms are accentually uniform.

(4)

Singular6=Plural

Sg6=Pl(Paradigmatic Contrast): assigns a violation for each pair ofstems with identical stress patterns (=stress grids of the stem) whose

morphological feature matrices differ in [singular/plural].

A hypothetical example:

/"ab-oSg, "ab-uPl/ Sg6=Pl Id±Str Stem IO

a. "ab-oSg, "ab-uPl ∗!

b. a"b-oSg, a"b-uPl ∗! ∗∗

c. ?☞ "ab-oSg, a"b-uPl ∗

d. ?☞ a"b-oSg, "ab-uPl ∗

With Sg6=Pl on top, one subparadigm has to violate Faithfulness (as in this artificial example) and/or Markedness.

⇒Sg6=Plitself does not determine the choice between the (c) and (d) candidates. Some other factor has to.

Singular6=Plural + stepwise generation

What happens if one subparadigm is generated before the other?

Suppose the singular is generated first, and stored.

It will obey Faithfulness:

/ab-oSg/ Sg6=Pl Id±Str Stem IO e. ☞ "ab-o_Sg

f. a"b-o_Sg ∗!

The plural is generated next, and has to violate F IO to satisfy Sg6=Pl:

["ab-oSg], /ab-uPl/ Sg6=Pl Id±Str Stem IO

g. "ab-uPl ∗!

h. ☞ a"b-uPl ∗

⇒The subparadigm generated first is more harmonic.

Sg6=Pl + stepwise generation in Ukrainian

Mobile stress types: Sg6=Pl forces the Sg and the Pl to be distinct Our finding: the singular is more harmonic(either by faithfulness or markedness)than the plural in the mobile types

We derive the singular priority effect of Ukrainian as follows:

1 Two subparadigms are generated in sequence.

2 The Sg is always generated first.

The Sg is more faithful: type c , one stem stress in UR

Singular: unpredictablestem stress (=Sg of type a, e.g.na"dij-a)

"dil-o, "kuzov-u, os"troH-u, etc.

Plural: predictable ending stress (=Pl of typeb, e.g.xan"Z-a) di"l-a, kuzo"v-a, ostro"H-y, etc.

d

Sg Pl

Nom "kuzov-∅ kuzo"v-y

Gen "kuzov-a kuzo"v-iv

Dat "kuzov-u kuzo"v-am

Acc =Nom Sg = Nom Pl

Inst "kuzov-om kuzo"v-amy

Loc "kuzov-i kuzo"v-ax

Voc "kuzov-e = Nom Pl

(5)

The Sg is more faithful: type c , one stem stress in UR

Analysis for type c:

The stem’s UR contains a +stress syllable

The singular is computed first, so it can be more faithful and satisfy Ident ±Stress Stem IO

The plural wants to be faithful too, but must be distinct from the singular. Hence overapplication, violatingId ±Str Stem IO

Evaluation of the singular(=na"dij-aof typea) /"kuzov-∅NomSg/, ..., /"kuzov-iLocSg/ Sg6=Pl Id±Str Stem IO a. ☞ "kuzov-∅NomSg, ..., "kuzov-iLocSg

b. ku"zov-∅NomSg, ... ∗!

The plural is evaluated with the Sg “frozen”(≈xan"Z-aof typeb) ["kuzov-∅_NomSg], ..., /"kuzov-yNomPl/, ... Sg6=Pl Id±Str Stem IO

a. "kuzov-y_NomPl, ... ∗!

b. ☞ kuzo"v-y_NomPl, ... ∗

The Sg is less marked: koleso, two stem stresses in UR

The koleso type is exhibited by 6 disyllabic stems.

Singular: constant stress on the 1ststem syllable (=Sg of typea, e.g. "vyvyx-∅)

Plural: constant stress on the 2ndstem syllable

(=Pl (of a different word) of type a, e.g. He"roj-∅)

koleso type

Nom "koles-o ko"les-a

Gen "koles-a ko"lis-∅

Dat "koles-u ko"les-am

Inst "koles-om ko"les-amy

Loc "koles-i ko"les-ax

Voc = Nom Sg = Nom Pl

The Sg is less marked: koleso, two stem stresses in UR

Analysis forkoleso:

The stem containstwostressed syllables

The Sg is computed before the Pl, so it can satisfyStress 1st In the Pl,Stress 1stcannot be satisfied anyway because of Sg6=Pl;

so the second stress surfaces

/"ko"les-oSg/ Sg6=Pl Stress 1st Id±Str Stem IO

a. ☞ "koles-oSg ∗

b. ko"les-oSg ∗! ∗

c. kole"s-oSg ∗! ∗!∗

["koles-oSg], /"ko"les-aPl/ Sg6=Pl Stress 1st Id±Str Stem IO

a. "koles-aPl ∗! ∗

b. ☞ ko"les-aPl ∗ ∗

c. kole"s-aPl ∗ ∗∗!

The singular is more faithful: type d

Sg: stress on the first ending syllable (=Sg of type b, e.g. xan"Z-a) Pl: stress on the stem, and predictable

(not like in any other stem-stress type!)

d

Sg Pl

Nom vy"n-o "vyn-a

Gen vy"n-a "vyn-∅

Dat vy"n-u "vyn-am

Inst vy"n-om "vyn-amy

Loc vy"n-i "vyn-ax

Voc = Nom Sg = Nom Pl

(6)

The singular is more faithful: type d

Sg: stress on the first ending syllable (=Sg of type b,xan"Z-a) Pl: stress on the stem, and predictable (6= any other type) Analysis for type d:

The stem is stressless

Just as in typec, the Sg is more faithful than the Pl:

/vyn-oNomSg/ Sg6=Pl Ident±Str Stem IO

a. "vyn-o_NomSg ∗!

b. ☞ vy"n-o_NomSg

[vy"n-o_NomSg], /vyn-a_NomPl/ Sg6=Pl Ident±Str Stem IO

a. ☞ "vyn-a_NomPl ∗

b. vy"n-aNomPl ∗!

Base Priority within paradigms

The singulars of types c and d are more faithful to the UR than the plurals: the Sg forms preserve the UR stem stress, the Pl violateId

±Str Stem IO

The singulars of typekoleso are less marked than the plurals: the Sg forms obeyStress 1st, the Pl forms do not

⇒canonical Base Priority effects

Polysyllabicdnouns: Stepwise generation+Uniformity

Polysyllabic d nouns without Uniformity effects

Typed: ending stress in the Sg, stem stress in the Pl

In polysyllabicd, stem stress is non-underlying, but that is not immediately evident from the surface forms.

stem-initial stress in the Pl

Sg Pl

Nom pele"n-a "pelen-y

Gen pele"n-y "pelen-∅

Dat pele"n-i "pelen-am

Acc pele"n-u = Nom Pl

Inst pele"n-oju "pelen-amy

Loc pele"n-i "pelen-ax

polysyllabicd, stem-final stress

Sg Pl

Nom bula"v-a bu"lav-y

Gen bula"v-y bu"lav-∅

Dat bula"v-i bu"lav-am

Acc bula"v-u = Nom Pl

Inst bula"v-oju bu"lav-amy

Loc bula"v-i bu"lav-ax

alternating stem-initial/stem-final stress in the Pl

Sg Pl

Nom syro"t-a "syrot-y

Gen syro"t-y sy"rit-∅

Dat syro"t-i "syrot-am

Acc syro"t-u = Gen Pl

Inst syro"t-oju "syrot-amy

Loc syro"t-i "syrot-ax

syro"t-a: Stress Stem Right >> Stress 1st

Stress Stem Right: stress the stem-final syllable if word-final (recallkob"zar-∅, type bwith a null ending)

Stress 1st (recall thekoleso type)

alternating stem-initial/stem-final stress in the Pl

Sg Pl

Nom syro"t-a "syrot-y

Gen syro"t-y sy"rit-∅

Dat syro"t-i "syrot-am

Acc syro"t-u = Gen Pl

Inst syro"t-oju "syrot-amy

Loc syro"t-i "syrot-ax

The ranking for typesyro"t-a:

Sg6=Pl,Stress Stem Right >>Stress 1st

(7)

syro"t-a: Stress Stem Right >> Stress 1st

The Sg is generated first, so it is maximally faithful (=typeb,xan"Z-a)

/syrot-aNomSg, .../ Sg6=Pl Str Stem R Id±Str Stem Stress 1st

a. "syrot-a, ... ∗!

b. sy"rot-a, ... ∗!

c. ☞ syro"t-a, ... ∗

The Pl is generated with reference to the Sg:

["syrot-a]NomSg, ..., /syrot-y, syrit-∅, .../ Sg6=Pl Str Stem R Id±Str Stem Str 1st

a. "syrot-y, "syrit-∅, ... ∗! ∗∗

b. ☞ "syrot-y, sy"rit-∅, ... ∗∗ ∗

c. sy"rot-y, sy"rit-∅, ... ∗∗ ∗∗!

d. syro"t-y, sy"rit-∅, ... ∗! ∗ ∗∗

As Stress Stem Rtargets only the form with a null ending, the Pl subparadigm is non-uniform.

pele"n-a: Stress 1st >> Stress Stem Right

The pele"n-a type with uniform stem-initial stem stress in the Pl is derived by the opposite ranking:

Stress 1st >>Stress Stem Right

stem-initial stress in the Pl

Sg Pl

Nom pele"n-a "pelen-y

Gen pele"n-y "pelen-∅

Dat pele"n-i "pelen-am

Acc pele"n-u = Nom Pl

Inst pele"n-oju "pelen-amy

Loc pele"n-i "pelen-ax

bula"v-a: Stress Stem Right+Uniformity

The bula"v-atype cannot be explained by markedness alone:

there are no markedness constraints in Ukrainian favoring stem-final stress, unless the ending is null.

polysyllabicd, stem-final stress

Sg Pl

Nom bula"v-a bu"lav-y

Gen bula"v-y bu"lav-∅

Dat bula"v-i bu"lav-am

Acc bula"v-u = Nom Pl

Inst bula"v-oju bu"lav-amy

Loc bula"v-i bu"lav-ax

Stress Stem Right >>Stress 1st

⇒Gen Pl has to have stem-final stress.

Uniformity>> Stress 1st

⇒The other Pl forms have to be uniform with Gen Pl.

bula"v-a: Stress Stem Right+Uniformity

Sg6=Pl>>Uniformity, Stress Stem Right >>Stress 1st Uniformity: Assign a * for eachnew accentual pattern (=new stress grid of the stem) in the subparadigm under evaluation (that is, for each pattern which has not been present in the fixed subparadigms generated earlier.)

Uniformityworks locally in each subparadigm, but favors greater global uniformity.

⇒Our formulation is different from McCarthy’s Optimal Paradigms (OP), but in thebula"v-acase, the two derive the same result. The alternative formulation becomes essential for Vocative Singular forms. Those forms can only be derived by Uniformitywithout majority-rules effects.

(8)

bula"v-a: Stress Stem Right+Uniformity

The singular (same as syro"t-a):

/bulav-aNomSg, .../ Sg6=Pl Str Stem R Id±Str Stem Stress 1st

a. "bulav-a, ... ∗!

b. bu"lav-a, ... ∗!

c. ☞ bula"v-a, ... ∗

The plural (compare withsyro"t-a, where candidate b wins in the absence of highly ranked Uniformity):

[bula"v-aNomSg], ..., /bulav-y, bulav-∅, .../ Sg6=Pl Uniformity Str Stem R Id±Str Stem Str 1st

a. "bulav-y, "bulav-∅, ... ∗ ∗! ∗∗

b. "bulav-y, bu"lav-∅, ... ∗!∗ ∗∗ ∗

c. ☞ bu"lav-y, bu"lav-∅, ... ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

d. bula"v-y, bu"lav-∅, ... ∗! ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗

Conclusions

Traditionally, there are two types of OO faithfulness acknowledged:

asymmetric Base-Derivative OO F, at work in derivational morphology symmetric Optimal Paradigms OO F, at work within inflectional paradigms

Ukrainian is one of the known cases where there are both symmetry and asymmetrywithinan inflectional paradigm, e.g. Albright 2002, Steriade 2007.

What is interesting about the Ukrainian case:

The base is not any single form, it iscollective

The relation between base and derivative enforces contrast, not uniformity

Conclusions

New open questions

We have shown that in Ukrainian, there is fine structure within the nominal inflectional paradigm

⇒Can we predict which subdivisions exist in a given language, and if there should be any such at all?

In Ukrainian, the order of stepwise generation is (Sg) →(Pl) But it does not seem to be a universal law!

Romanian: (Nom-Acc Sg)→(Plural)→ (Gen-Dat Sg)

And in Albright’s cases, the base is determined by a different principle altogether (maximal informativeness)

⇒Can we predict what the order will be in a given language?

Conclusions

New open questions

Division into the Sg and the Pl subparadigm is an innovation in Ukr.

Closely related Russian exhibits very similar stress types, but differences between the two languages show that the fine paradigm structure in Russian may be different.

⇒How does fine structure arise in paradigms? How does it change over time?