Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T11:15:50.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical and phonological variation in Russian prepositions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2014

Tal Linzen ,
Sofya Kasyanenko  and
Maria Gouskova
Tal Linzen
Affiliation:
New York University
Sofya Kasyanenko
Affiliation:
New York University
Maria Gouskova
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonological rules can be variable in two ways: they can apply to a subset of the lexicon (lexical variation), or apply optionally, with a probability that depends on the phonological environment (stochastic variation). These two types of variation are occasionally seen as mutually exclusive. We show that the vowel–zero alternation in Russian prepositions ([s trudom] ‘with difficulty’ vs. [sə stinoj] ‘with the wall’) exhibits both types of variation. In two corpus studies and a nonce-word experiment, we document novel stochastic factors that influence the alternation: similarity avoidance, stress position and sonority profile. These constraints interact additively, lending support to a weighted-constraints analysis. In addition to phonologically determined stochastic variation, we find significant lexical variation: phonologically similar nouns differ in the rate at which they condition the alternation in the prepositions. We analyse this pattern by augmenting the weighted-constraints approach with lexical scaling factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 453 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For feedback that has led to many improvements to this work, we would like to thank Lisa Davidson, Gillian Gallagher, Vera Gribanova, Gregory Guy, Alec Marantz and audiences at NYU, Tel Aviv University, SYNC and OCP 10, as well as three anonymous reviewers and the associate editor. We would also like to thank our many anonymous participants on the internet, as well as Anna Aristova, Yevgenia Gouskova, Stephanie Harves, Barbara Partee and Kevin Roon for help with recruiting the participants.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alderete, John (1999). Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. (1968). Russkoe literaturnoe proiznoshenie. [Literary pronunciation of Russian.] Moscow: Izdatelstvo Prosvescenie. 6th edn, 1984.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2005). Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22. 279–315.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan (2004). Vowel reduction in Russian: the categorical and the gradient. Handout of paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben (2012). Package ‘lme4’ (Version 0.999999-0): linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available (August 2013) at cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Brenier, Jason M., Gregory, Michelle, Girand, Cynthia & Jurafsky, Dan (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60. 92–111.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Affix classes are defined by faithfulness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 1–26.Google Scholar
Berko, Jean (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2011). Cyclicity. In van Oostendorp et al. (2011). 2019–2048.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.) The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 8–83.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. (1992). Polish syllables: the role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. (2006). Stress and tone in East Slavic dialects. Phonology 23. 125–156.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2012). Vowel–zero alternations in Russian prepositions: prosodic constituency and productivity. In Makarova, Veronika (ed.) Russian language studies in North America: new perspectives from theoretical and applied linguistics. London & New York: Anthem Press. 43–69.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2008). Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): a case for skepticism. In Bachrach, Asaf & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Inflectional identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29–54.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 43–58. Available as ROA-221 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2009). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.34). www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) (2012). Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Lg 82. 711–733.Google Scholar
Canty, Angelo & Ripley, B. D. (2012). boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1.3–4. Available (August 2013) at cran.r-project.org/web/packages/boot/boot.pdf.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. J. & Pearson, E. S. (1934). The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26. 404–413.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto (2013). Frequency biases in phonological variation. NLLT 31. 47–89.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2008). Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. NLLT 26. 289–337.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2011). The place of variation in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 401–431.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine (1999). Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa (1988). Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Dalby, Jonathan M. (1984). Phonetic structure of fast speech in American English. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa & Roon, Kevin (2008). Durational correlates for differentiating consonant sequences in Russian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38. 137–165.Google Scholar
Davison, A. C. & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Ćavar, Damir (2002). Distributed deletion. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.) Theoretical approaches to universals. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 65–107.Google Scholar
Farina, Donna M. (1991). Palatalization and jers in modern Russian phonology: an underspecification approach. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. (2008). Cumulative faithfulness effects: opaque or transparent? Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 119–145.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. (1956). The emphatic l in Arabic. Lg 32. 446–452.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2007). Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. LI 38. 749–758.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179–228.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. (1999). The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian & Coon, Jessica (2009). Distinguishing total and partial identity: evidence from Chol. NLLT 27. 545–582.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenador, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2003). Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2007). The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24. 367–396.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2010). The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review 27. 387–448.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2012). Unexceptional segments. NLLT 30. 79–133.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Becker, Michael (2013). Nonce words show that Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. NLLT 31. 735–765.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Linzen, Tal (in preparation). Morphological conditioning of phonological regularization. Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Green, Anthony D. (2006). The independence of phonology and morphology: the Celtic mutations. Lingua 116. 1946–1985.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera (2008). Russian prefixes, prepositions and palatalization in Stratal OT. WCCFL 26. 217–225.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera (2009a). Phonological evidence for a distinction between Russian prepositions and prefixes. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Junghanns, Uwe, Lenertová, Denisa & Biskup, Petr (eds.) Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 383–396.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera (2009b). The phonology and syntax of sub-words. Paper presented at GLOW 32, Nantes.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera (2010). Composition and locality: the morphosyntax and phonology of the Russian verbal complex. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: the case of final stop deletion. In Labov (1980). 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3. 223–239.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (2007). Lexical exceptions in variable phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13:2. 109–120.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy (2011). Vowel epenthesis. In van Oostendorp et al. (2011). 1576–1596.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1973). The accentuation of Russian words. Lg 49. 312–348.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1984). The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 318–328.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1990). Precompiled phrasal phonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 85–108.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2009). Introductory phonology. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, William M. Jr. (ed.) Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 95–105.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2004). Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49. 1–49.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, C. Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1996). Exceptions and static phonological patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification. Ms, University of California, Berkeley & University of Iowa. Available as ROA-124 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, C. Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1997). The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 393–418.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 62–100.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette (2006). The winner takes it all – almost: cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics 44. 937–971.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. & Shaw, Patricia A. (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 1–30.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah (2005). Russian consonant Cvljusters. Ms, MIT. Available (August 2013) at web.mit.edu/jikatz/www/KatzPhonSquib.pdf.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank (2000). Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Rubach, Jerzy (1987). The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Lg 63. 463–497.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.Google Scholar
Kitto, Catherine & de Lacy, Paul (1999). Correspondence and epenthetic quality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16:2. 181–200.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei & Radišić, Milica (2009). Latent consonant harmony in Russian: experimental evidence for Agreement by Correspondence. In Babyonyshev, Maria, Kavitskaya, Darya & Reich, Jodi (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the Yale Meeting 2008. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 111–130.Google Scholar
Labov, William (ed.) (1980). Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1. 85–97.Google Scholar
Leben, William (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 884–891.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1965). Segmental phonology of Modern Standard Russian. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. Vol. 1: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2011). Perceptually grounded faithfulness in Harmonic Serialism. LI 42. 171–183.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman et al. (1995). 249–384.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4:2. 201–225.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec (2008). Phases and words. Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora (2002). On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42. 217–253.Google Scholar
Melvold, Janis L. (1989). Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Smolensky, Paul (2002). Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. WCCFL 21. 306–319.Google Scholar
Neu, Helene (1980). Ranking on constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: a statistical analysis. In Labov (1980). 37–54.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoff (2009). Climategate, Tiger, and Google hit counts: dropping the other shoe. Available (August 2013) at languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1943.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko (1997). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Eliasson, Stig & Jahr, Ernst Håkon (eds.) Language and its ecology: essays in memory of Einar Haugen. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 343–365.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) (2011). The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2002). Russian voicing assimilation, final devoicing, and the problem of [v] (or, The mouse that squeaked). Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2008). Glides, vowels, and features. Lingua 118. 1937–1955.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2012). The role of prosody in Russian voicing. In Borowsky et al. (2012). 181–207.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija (2005). Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62. 14–54.Google Scholar
Pająk, Bożena & Baković, Eric (2010). Assimilation, antigemination, and contingent optionality: the phonology of monoconsonantal proclitics in Polish. NLLT 28. 643–680.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 259–296.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2012). Serial Harmonic Grammar and Berber syllabification. In Borowsky et al. (2012). 43–72.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe, Potts, Christopher & Bhatt, Rajesh (2007). Harmonic Grammar with Linear Programming. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Patterson, David, LoCasto, Paul C. & Connine, Cynthia M. (2003). Corpora analyses of frequency of schwa deletion in conversational American English. Phonetica 60. 45–69.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (1981). Lexical diffusion and Southern tune, duke, news . American Speech 56. 72–78.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27. 77–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2012). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Raymond, William D., Dautricourt, Robin & Hume, Elizabeth (2006). Word-internal /t, d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18. 55–97.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi (1999). Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin (to appear). Onsets contribute to syllable weight: statistical evidence from stress and meter. Lg.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias (2006). How yers made Lightner, Gussmann, Rubach, Spencer and others invent CVCV. In Bański, Piotr, Łukaszewicz, Beata & Opalinska, Monika (eds.) Studies in constraint-based phonology. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. 133–207.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina (1997). The syntax and processing of scrambling constructions in Russian. PhD dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman et al. (1995). 439–469.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge (2005). Methods and tools for development of the Russian Reference Corpus. In Wilson, Andrew, Archer, Dawn & Rayson, Paul (eds.) Corpus linguistics around the world. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 167–180.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1995). On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Handout of talk presented at the University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2001). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga (2007). Jer vowels in Russian prepositions. In Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena & Savchenko, Ulyana (eds.) Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the Toronto Meeting 2006. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 365–385.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter (2004). Slavic prefixes and morphology: an introduction to the Nordlyd volume. Nordlyd 32. 177–204.Google Scholar
Tily, Harry & Kuperman, Victor (2012). Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. JASA 132. 3935–3940.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ukiah, Nick (1998). Stress retraction in phrases of the type нá ден', зá сопок, нé был in Modern Russian. Russian Linguistics 22. 287–319.Google Scholar
Usachev, Andrei (2004). Fully accented paradigms from Zaliznjak's (1977) grammatical dictionary. File available (August 2013) at www.speakrus.ru/dict/all_forms.rar.Google Scholar
Vlasto, A. P. (1986). A linguistic history of Russia to the end of the eighteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Yaschenko, I. V. (2002). Paradoksy teorii mnozhestv. [Paradoxes of set theory.] Moscow: Izdatelsvo Moskovskogo Tsentra Nepreryvnogo Matematicheskogo Obrazovania.Google Scholar
Yearley, Jennifer (1995). Jer vowels in Russian. In Beckman et al. (1995). 533–571.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. (1977). Grammatičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka. [A grammatical dictionary of the Russian language.] Moscow: Izdatelstvo Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. (1985). Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj. [From Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation.] Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Linzen et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Linzen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.3 MB