An Element-Based Approach to Ukrainian Back Fricatives

Abstract

The discussion offered in this article focuses on the problem of the back fricative segments in Ukrainian. An attempt is made to provide their phonological representations that account both for their distribution and phonological behavior. The analysis proposed here is coached within the framework of Government Phonology, a non-linear model, that awards considerable autonomy to phonological primitives building melodic expressions. Our concern, therefore, is to specify which elements define each of the turbulent sounds and determine the role they play within the relevant melodic structures. In accordance with the principles of the framework, it is predicted that the internal elemental content and organization of primes directly conditions the phonetic manifestation of the fricative segments. The aim of the present analysis is also to pinpoint the significance of the head-dependent distinction that obtains within melodic structures, as it often underlies, if not determines, the strength of expressions and their susceptibility to phonological processes.

Dorsal fricatives in Ukrainian

“…The consonantal system of Ukrainian includes three dorsal fricatives: the voiceless velar fricative [x], the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] and the voiced laryngeal/glottal fricative [ɦ] (Czaplicki 2006;Bloch-Rozmej 2008). Both [x] and [ɣ] possess palatalized and non-palatalized variants, [ç] and [ʝ] respectively, in opposition to the voiced glottal fricative [ɦ] which remains immune to palatalization.…”

“…non-headed |H|. A different conclusion is reached by Bloch-Rozmej (2008), who examines two possibilities: |H| as an active element responsible for voicelessness and |L| found in fully voiced segments. On the basis of the voicing effect found in some southwestern dialects of Ukrainian in which the voiceless [x] undergoes voicing in the neighborhood of a voiced consonant, she inclines towards the solution according to which Ukrainian obstruents are specifi ed by the active voicedness element |L|.…”

“…similarly to [ɣ] and [x], can be found in the identical context with the proviso that the former contrast only word-initially and the latter word-fi nally as in (4). These observational facts have led Bloch-Rozmej (2008) to claim that the voiceless velar [x] is the weakest of all the dorsal fricatives as it enjoys distributional freedom. Furthermore, on the basis of the same distributional constraints, Bloch-Rozmej (2008) comes to the conclusion that the absence of the glottal fricative from the word-fi nal position and the relatively unrestricted distribution of the velar fricatives (especially the voiceless one) should be ascribed to the difference in the head status supplemented with the laryngeal specifi cation of the relevant segments.…”

“…Rubach 1993;Czaplicki 2006), others come to a completely opposite conclusion (e.g. Bloch-Rozmej 2008). The proponents of the latter solution grant the glottal fricative [ɦ] a segmental status even though it is related to a strictly defi ned context.…”

Phonological Function of Noise in Irish and Ukranian Turbulent Sounds

“…The voiced laryngeal, in turn, being a headed structure, constitutes a phonologically strong segment and, consequently, calls for more potential to sustain both of its elements and its headed status. To express the relationship between segmental headedness and the licensing capacity of nuclei, Bloch-Rozmej (2008b) proposes the following Ukrainian-specific constraint: (14) h-licensing in Ukrainian A word-final empty nucleus may not license h as head. The operation of the above axiom explains the loss of the headed status of the word-final glottal fricative which, due to this change, comes to be realised as a headless velar.…”