Fluid Areas' in Russian Declension

'Fluid Areas' in Russian DeclensionAuthor(s): Ronald HingleySource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 37, No. 88 (Dec., 1958), pp. 80-98Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205012 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 20:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:14:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205012?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


'Fluid Areas5 in Russian

Declension

RONALD HINGLEY

Individual aspects of Russian morphology and stress have been

studied with insight by many scholars. But there exists as yet no full

and authoritative presentation of the morphology and stress of the

language in its modern state, adequate to form part of a really satis?

factory reference grammar such as those which students of French,

German, Latin, and Greek have at their disposal. The grammar pub? lished by the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. in 19531 aroused

high hopes because of its bulk and imposing format, but a closer

scrutiny of its matter was sufficient, if not to dash, at least to dis?

appoint these hopes. Lists of words conforming to a given pattern of morphological or stress behaviour, and from their very compre? hensiveness obviously aiming at completeness, were found to contain

obvious omissions.2 The presentation was seen to suffer from incon?

sistencies and even carelessness.3 The compilers set their sights high, but did not achieve the completeness and reliability which had been

their original aim.

That a major language such as Russian should still lack an ade?

quate systematic description of its behaviour in terms of morphology and stress seems an astonishing fact which can hardly be an accident.

Can it be that the genius of the language is evilly-disposed towards

the pattern-maker, containing some elusive element destined for ever

to frustrate analysis? I do not believe that the answer to this question must necessarily be 'yes'. But I shall not attempt in this article to rush

in where more distinguished predecessors have sometimes stumbled,

by making my direct aim the systematisation of any section of the

morphology. I wish rather to examine one particular feature which

seems to me to have contributed more than any other to the frustra?

tion of attempts at analysis. I shall also give reasons for regarding this

aspect of the language as less resistant to analysis than it was a few

years ago. But my main purpose in making the examination is the

hope of illuminating the spirit of the language from a somewhat

neglected angle, rather than of proving what I in any case do not

believe?that its morphology and stress can never be fully described. 1 Grammatika russkogo yazyka. Tom I. Fonetika i morfologiya. Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk

SSSR. Moscow 1953. This work will be referred to here by the abbreviation AkG. 2 Of these the omission of 66pT, 6per, Jiec, 3aKpoM, Bec, Jior, TepeM, n6flpe3, npnciaB,

npoBOfl, ni^HKeJiB from the list of masculine nouns with nominative plural in -&/-& is characteristic (AkG., p. 148). 3 Of these the treatment of Tonojib is typical (ibid., pp. 148-9). On p. 148 mandatory norn. pl. Tonojia is ascribed to this word; on the following page it is included in a list of nouns which have alternative norn. pl. in -h/-h or -a/-H.



'fluid areas5 in russian declension 8i

The flexional apparatus of Russian is notoriously complex, offer?

ing a wide range of variations in declension and conjugation, and it

is almost overwhelmingly so if word stress is?as in my contention it

should be?considered an integral part of flexion. But it is not in this

complexity that the main difficulty of the grammarian lies. Classical

Greek presents a similar though perhaps slightly less formidable com?

plexity. But the existence of a rich flexional system, even when

accompanied by a host of irregularities and deviations, is itself no

insuperable barrier to description. What makes Russian a more

difficult task for the compiler than Greek is the existence in its

morphology of a number of what I designate as 'fluid areas'. A fluid

area is said to exist whenever the stock of words conforming to a given

irregular pattern cannot easily be listed with anything approaching

precision. These fluid areas, which will be illustrated and more fully .. described below, are the real stumbling block to the grammarian of

Russian. Nothing analogous to them exists in Classical Greek or

Latin, though it is beyond my competence to determine how far its

existence may have been concealed in these languages by various

factors?the lack of a link with the spoken tongue; a relatively small

literature containing a very small number of authors deemed 'cor?

rect'?which do not operate in the case of Russian.

Before further features of a fluid area are stated theoretically it will

be most helpful to examine one of these areas in some detail. I select

for this purpose one which is among the less difficult, while at the

same time being fairly characteristic?masculine nouns ending in a

consonant, ft or t, which may or must form their plural irregularly in -a-/-a instead of the more normal -h/-h, and which also carry stress on all the terminations of the plural.

There are about a hundred and fifty of these nouns, but the exact

number cannot be easily determined because no two authorities are

agreed as to precisely which nouns constitute the stock of the group. For example, the word erept receives the following treatment in the

five foremost modern Russian authorities.

Authority* Date Forms of nominative plural Ush. 1934-40 erepH or erepa Ozh. 1952 erepn or erepa AkG. 1953 erepn or erepa AkD. 1950-6 erepn Av. 1955 erepa

4 For AkG., see footnote i, above. The other abbreviations stand for the following works: Ush.: D. N. Ushakov and B. M. Volin, Tolkovyy slovar' russkogoyazyka, Moscow, I-IV, 1934-40; Ozh.: S. I. Ozhegov, Slovar' russkogo yazyka, Moscow, 1952; AkD.: V. I. Chernyshov and others, Slovar' sovremennogo russkogo yazyka, I-VII, Moscow-Leningrad, 1950-58 (completed as far as the letter n); Av.: R. I. Avanesov and S. I. Ozhegov, Russ? koy e literaturnoye udareniye i proiznosheniye, Moscow 1955.



82 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

To take another example, according to Ush. the norn, pl. of (fmjibflmep may be either (jêjiL^niepH or $ejib;n;niepa. Ozh. pre? scribes (|)6jibûiepH while AkG. and Av. regard $ejibftinepa as

mandatory. These are very far indeed from being isolated instances

as anyone who cares to look up such words as KJieBep, npo>KeKTOp, mreMiiejib and many others in the same authorities can easily confirm.

A further complication increasing the impression of fluidity in the

area, and one which is again typical of fluid areas in general, is the

existence of words in the flexion of which form and stress are deter?

mined by meaning. Thus, o6pa3a, 'ikons', but 66pa3bi 'images'

(literary). Here again divergencies may occur amongst the rulings. For example, Av.'s differentiation of the plural of jiarepb into

jiarepn, 'camps' (in the ordinary sense) and jiarepn, 'camps' (in the

sense of political, philosophical, etc., schools of thought) is unique to

this authority amongst the five; similarly unique is Ush.'s differentia?

tion of aflpeca, 'addresses' (in the normal sense) and a,o;pecbi (in? scribed addresses of welcome).

Anomalies of this kind are characteristic of all the fluid areas and

must have struck every grammarian who has ever tried to systema? tise any section of the morphology. But there has perhaps been too

great a tendency to regard the irregularities characteristic of the

fluid areas as just so many more irregularities, to be looked at in the

same way as other complex and irregular (but not jluid) sections of

the morphological and stress system. That fluid areas are not simply identical with areas of complicated flexional and stress behaviour can

easily be illustrated. Of all sections of the morphology the present tense is one of the most complicated and heterogeneous in its be?

haviour. Yet it contains only two fluid areas: verbs in -aTb which may or must have irregular flexion in -eT with change of consonant

(6pbi3raTb, etc.) and verbs in -HTb which may or must have

retracted stress on all forms of the present tense except the first person

singular (ropoftHTb, etc.). It is characteristic of the fluid areas that

these two relatively restricted sections of the material create a much

more difficult problem of classification than does the larger and more

irregular material which is not fluid.5

The problems of fluid areas become a little less confusing when we

compare the five authorities listed above in terms of their relative

reliability as guides to modern standard usage. Av. stands in a cate?

gory by itself in this respect. It is not merely the latest of the authori?

ties to appear; it is the only one which explicitly claims to overrule

the testimony of predecessors in instances where its findings diverge

5 See my article, 'The Present Tense of the Russian Verb', Slavonic and East European Review, XXXIII, 81, London 1955, p. 486.



'fluid areas Vin russian declension 83

from theirs. Av. maintains that such divergencies are to be explained

by a superior technique of establishing standard usages which it

claims for itself. 'OrflejifeHLie pacxowêHHa Mew^y HopMaTHBHHMH

peKOMeHflaijuaMH "

TpaMMaTHKH pyccnoro a3HKa " AH CCCP...

[AkG.] h "GiOBapa pyccKoro a3HKa " C. M. CbKerosa [Ozh.] ...

c ojjHoft ctopohh, h Hacroamero cjiOBapa, c flpyroft ctopohh, o6i>acHaioTca flaJibHeftuieM yTOHHeHHeM HopM Ha ocHOBe hobwx

nccjieÔBaTejibCKMx âHHux.'6 Can we accept the validity of this claim? I think that we need not

hesitate to do so, not only with regard to the two predecessors

actually mentioned by Av. (Ozh. and AkG.), but also with regard to

the two which it does not mention (Ush. and AkD.). With regard to

AkG., the relatively low standard of accuracy, completeness and

clarity in this work, to which reference has already been made, in

any case places it on a much lower academic level than any of the

other authorities. AkD., though an impressive work in many ways, has at the moment of writing been taken only up to the letter JV, and

its policy seems to be the impartial recording of usages attested in

literature and other written sources, rather than an attempt to deter?

mine standard usage in modern Russian by legislating between

them. With regard to Av.'s claim to supersede Ozh. in its rulings on flexion, stress and pronunciation, the fact that S. I. Ozhegov is

himself co-editor with R. I. Avanesov of Av., and hence is personally associated with the claim that his own previous dictionary (Ozh.) is

superseded in these respects is, of course, decisive. This scholar, whose

normative work on the language now spans more than two decades, is particularly entitled to respect in these matters, and since he not

merely edited Ozh., but had also been one of the collaborators on

Ush., the latter work must also be regarded as superseded by Av. in

instances where its rulings differ, despite the fact that no reference is

made to Ush. in the note from p. 4 of Av., quoted above. It is, of

course, generally agreed by scholars that Ush., despite its many virtues and the fact that it is the best complete dictionary of modern

Russian, embodies a partly obsolescent Muscovite tradition.

So far as the problem of fluid areas is concerned, therefore, the

publication of Av. does a great deal to clarify the position. If we want

to know which words conform to a given pattern we have merely to

list these words as they appear in Av., without reference to any earlier authority. However, since our purpose here is not merely to

establish standard usage throughout a given fluid area but also to

illustrate the impact of Av.'s researches on the area, we shall in fact ? Av., p. 4. Since the printing of the present article, an additional authority has become

available: S. I. Ozhegov and A. B. Shapiro, Orfograficheskiy slovar' russkogo yazyka, Moscow, 1956. Evidence from this authority could not be quoted here, but is in support of my conclusions.




adopt a slightly more complex procedure. We shall adduce evidence

from Ush. and Ozh. as well as from Av., ignoring the testimony of

AkG. and AkD. which, as explained above, is of less value and

would tend unnecessarily to complicate the picture. We shall dismiss

as valueless to our investigation a small number of rare nouns

which are attested with norn. pl. in -a/-H, but appear only in

Ush.: BHHKejib, Kjiennep, KopHep, Jincejib, HenpyT, 66ep, cokoji

('crowbar'), cKpy66ep, <j)ejibft'berepb, nrrbiK-ioHKep. We shall also post?

pone to a later stage the consideration of seventeen nouns in which

flexion is determined by meaning (e.g. xjieS, norn. pl. xjieSa, 'crops'; xjie6H, 'loaves'). The rest of the material presents the following picture.

A. Undisputed Nouns

The following seventy-one nouns have mandatory norn. pl. in

-a/-fl in all three authorities (Ush., Ozh., Av.).

6ok, 6opT, 6per, Ben, Bec, rjia3, ;ejom, Kpafi, jiec, nor, Jiyr, por,

CHer, copT, niejiK; also cêT, 'bill, account', and ijBeT, 'colour'.7

oSniJiar, nepe#, pyK&B, also (?) qepefl (Av.'s ruling is not entirely

clear).

6eper, tojioc, ropoa, >Kejio6, KopoS, cTopo>K, TepeM, xojiojj, q?pen, kojiokoji, oKopoK, nepeneji, T&repeB.

3aKpoM, OKpyr, OTKyn, OTpy6, noBap, norpeS, no;upe3, uoesji,

npncTaB; also npoBOfl, 'electrical, etc., lead', npoBoabi, 'farewell',

being a plurale tantum.

6y$ep, Beep, Beêp, K&Tep, KHBep, MacTep, HOMep, $jnorep,

ni&$ep.

^npeKTop, aoKTop, HHcneKTop, npo$eccop, xyrop. Bencejib, BeH3ejib, Hyne jib, Hieimejib.

meMnyr, mepHOB, Kynoji, octpob, napyc, nacnopT, niieapb,

noTpox, none.

B. Disputed Nouns

There remain sixty-six nouns with regard to which the evidence of Ush., Ozh. and Av. does not agree in every particular. These are

now listed in accordance with the plural flexion attributed to them

by Av. At the same time the rulings given by Ush. and Ozh. are

indicated by the following symbols:

R. Regular flexion only (norn. pl. in -h/-h) is admitted. A. Irregular flexion only (norn. pl. in -a/-n) is admitted. B. Both regular and irregular flexions are admitted as alternatives

with equal claim to validity. 7 The norn. pl. cieTH, as in CBeCTH cêTH and in the meaning 'abacus' being best

regarded as by Av. as a plurale tantum, while iJBeTii, 'flowers' is most appropriately con? ceived as the norn. pl. of ijBeroK. I do not include 6er, preferring to regard 6er& as a plurale tantum.



'fluid areas' in russian declension 85

When an alternative flexion is mentioned, but given an inferior

status, e.g. TOKapb, norn. pl. TOKapn (-h colloquial), this is indicated as follows: R (A).

I. Nouns to which Av. assigns mandatory nominative plural.

(a) In -a/-H

KOpM CTor

TOM

xjieB

anpec flbHKOH

erept KHTCUb

KJieBep

Kyêp HeBOfl Hiinnejib

OTIiyCK

TeHop

$ejib,nniep

^jiarejib moMnoji

urraSeJib

niTeMnejib

uiTencejib

uiTyijep

iuyjiep

HKOpb

nocTaB

Ush.

B

B

B

B

B

R

B

B

R

R

R

B

B

R

B

B

B

B

R

B

B

B

B

Ozh.

B

A

B

B

A

R

B

B

R

A

R

A

B

R

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

R(A)

(b) In -bi/-H

rpo6

BOJIOC

BOpOT

rpiiêJib

HHCTpyKTOp

Kp^Hflejib jiauKaH

jieKapb

OMyT nojior

nojryocTpoB nocox

npoJior

caxap CTanejib

CTpeneT

TpeH3eJib

Tyec

TypMaH

<j)6pBap?

êH3op

Topoc

Ush.

B

R(A) B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

A

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

R(A)

B

Ozh.

B

R

R

R

R

B

B

B

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

B

II. Nouns to which Av. assigns hesitant declension.

(a) With norn. pl. in -a/-H, but with -h/-h as a less preferred alternative:

TOH

B6pox

Ky30B

n&iapb

cjiecapb

TOKapb

HCTpe6

Ush.

B

A

B

B

A(R)

R(A) B

Ozh.

B

B

B

B

B

B

B




(b) With norn. pl. in -h/-h but with -a/-a as a less preferred alternative.

Ush. Ozh.

bob A (R) R

uex R (A) R

KoppeKTop B R

Kpeftcep B R

OBOfl B B

nojiyTOH B B

npo>KeKTop R B

nyêjib B B

ceKTop R (A) R

TpaKTop R (A) R

Also, as a less preferred alternative to the standard floroBop,

AoroBopu: floroBop, aoroBopa (Ush.: R (A); Ozh.: R).

(c) Nouns to which Av. assigns alternative norn. pl. in -a/-a or -li/-m without indicating a preference.

Ush. Ozh.

toa B B

Tonojib B B

The above data provide useful illustrations of the behaviour of

the fluid areas in general.

i. Each area contains:

(a) A hard core of 'firm' words, each of which definitely conforms

to the irregular flexion/stress pattern without admitting alter?

natives; in the present instance these comprise the seventy- one 'undisputed nouns' listed above.

(b) A periphery of hesitant words exhibiting a lesser or greater

degree of conformity with the irregular flexion/stress pattern.

In view of the authority enjoyed by Av., the twenty-four nouns in

our List I (a) may be regarded as virtually as firm as the undisputed

nouns, despite the variant rulings of Ush. and Ozh. At the other end

of the scale are attested usages which are definitely not standard, such as those quoted in AkG. These include ameKapa, 6H6jiHOTeKapa,

HHweHepa and even such curiosities as Mecaija and npnncKa.8 The

words on our Lists II (a), (b) and (c) come somewhere between these

in terms of fluidity. 2. Fluid areas are strikingly less fluid as presented by Av. than

they are in the presentation of the two earlier authorities, the follow?

ing being the totals of hesitant rulings as given in the above lists:

8AkG., p. 149.



'fluid areas' IN RUSSIAN DECLENSION 87

Ush.

Ozh.

Av.

52

33 20

The element of fluidity is even less in Av.'s presentation than these

figures suggest because Av. nearly always, and much more com?

monly than Ush. or Ozh., indicates a preference when recording hesitant usage.

The following table reflects this decrease in fluidity in more detail:

Authority

Ush.

Ozh.

Av.

Number of nouns to which mandatory flexion in -a/-fl is

assigned

76

75

95

Number of nouns to which hesitant flexion is assigned

-a/-H preferred

7

-bl/-H preferred

7 1

11

on equal terms

43

32 2

Total

128

109

^5

This decrease in fluidity or (as one may equally well term it) increase in uniformity appears, on the basis of fairly comprehensive

sampling, to be a general characteristic of Av.'s pictures of the fluid

areas compared with the pictures given by Ush. and Ozh.

3. Although Av. explicitly claims that divergences between its own

rulings and those of Ozh. and AkG. are attributable to an improved

technique of establishing standard usage,9 there are reasons to

believe that the trend towards greater uniformity shown by Av.'s

evidence may reflect a change in the language itself and not merely a change in the technique of studying the language:

(a) It will be noted that, although Ozh.'s presentation is more

fluid than that of Av., it is on the other hand much less fluid

than that of Ush. Thus our three main authorities, taken in

chronological order, present a picture of progressively de?

creasing fluidity.

(b) In all civilised languages the effect of modern mass media of

communication seems to be to bring about a greater uniform?

ity in usage and there is no reason to believe that Russian is

exempt from this influence.

(c) It is already generally conceded that such a trend towards

uniformity is to be observed in the sphere of Russian pronun? ciation, which tends increasingly to approximate to written

models, the well-known contrast between Muscovite and

9 flajibiieftinee yTo^Hemie nopM?see the quotation from Av. referred to in footnote 6 ve. above.




Leningrad norms of pronunciation being now mainly con?

fined to the older generation.10

We may therefore claim fairly confidently that the fluid areas in

Russian morphology and stress are now less fluid than they were, and we may tentatively suggest that they may become less fluid still in

the future. Such a trend would be consistent with the general trend

towards greater conformism which, when Russia of the present day is compared with Russia of the 1920s, we find in matters as remote

from our present study as sexual morals. With regard to linguistic conformism, one notable feature of socialist realism, as it developed from the early 1930s, was the discouragement of excessive regional? ism and vulgarism in the language of fiction. Not infrequently the

authors of novels couched in excessively regional or vulgar Russian, such as M. A. Sholokhov's Tikhiy Don and F. V. Gladkov's Tsement, revised their work by bringing the language nearer to standard

usage. Incidentally, at the same time they often toned down their love intrigues to conform more closely with conventional morality.11 Thus in both love and language the trend is away from promiscuity.

Words in which flexion and stress are determined by meaning.

As indicated above, it is characteristic of fluid areas that certain

words which are homonyms in their primary form (that is, the form

under which they are quoted in dictionary headings) adopt divergent

patterns in their inflected forms according to meaning. The nouns in

question, belonging to the area which we are considering in detail, have not so far been quoted and are:12

Mexa, 'furs'

Mexn, 'bellows'

TOKa, 'mating-places' (of birds)

tokh, -ob, 'current', 'toque'

tokh, -ob, 'threshing-floor' xjie6a 'crops'

xjie6u, 'loaves'

6opoBa, 'flues'

66poBH, -ob, 'boars'

KOHftyKTopa, 'ticket-collectors'

KOHflyKTopu, '(electrical) con?

ductors'

Kopnyca, 'hulls', 'buildings'

KopnycH, 'bodies'

Jiarepa, 'camps' (ordinary sense)

jiarepn, 'camps' (schools of

thought)

MHTOaHa, 'midshipmen' (in naval

usage)

MiraiaHbi, 'midshipmen' (in

ordinary usage)

o6pa3a, 'ikons'

66pa3H, 'images' (literary)

opêpa, 'warrants'

10 This point was made in a lecture given in Oxford by Professor Akhmanova of Moscow University in May 1956. 11 See M. Friedberg, 'New Editions of Soviet Belles Lettres', American Slavic and East European Review, New York 1954, p. 72. 12 Av.'s rulings only are given here. Some of them diverge in minor points of detail from those of Ush. or Ozh., but these divergencies are not important to our argument.



cFLUID AREAS' IN RUSSIAN DECLENSION 89

opflepu, (architectural term) co6ojih, 'sable furs'

opêHa, 'medals' c66ojih, or, less preferred,

opjjeHbi, 'orders' (of knighthood) coSojih, 'sables' (animals)

nponycKa, 'passwords'; 'passes' TopM03a, 'brakes'

(document) TopMOsu, 'hindrances'

nponyeKH, 'gaps', 'omissions' yqHTejm, 'teachers'

ceTTepa, 'setters' (in 'professional y<nrrejra, 'sages'

speech') roimepa, 'cadets' (in the tsarist

ceTTepu, 'setters' (in 'ordinary army)

speech') lOHKepti, 'Junkers'

From the above list we can draw certain further illustrations of the behaviour of fluid areas. In five of the above pairs plural flexion in

-a/-Hdifferentiates concrete objects (jiarepn, o6pa3a, ophelia, npony- ck&, TopM03a) from abstract conceptions (jiarepn, 66pa3bi, opjjeHbi, nponyeKH, TopM03bi). In three others it differentiates something fam? iliar from something more remote (yHHTejin, opêpa and, possibly,

K)HKepa?since though cadets in the tsarist army and Prussian Junkers are both remote historically, the latter is remote from the Russian in a geographical sense as well). In two other nouns plural flexion in

-k/-A is restricted to the speech of those professionally concerned with the objects in question (MiwMaHa, ceTTepa)?in other words, these forms are preferred by persons whose business makes them more familiar with midshipmen and setters than is the general public; the use of co6ojih perhaps chiefly by trappers, breeders or

furriers, may be another instance of this. For the remaining six nouns

(the monosyllables, 66poB, KOH^yKTop, Kopnyc) no such distinction can be drawn without special pleading. But the evidence is sufficient to indicate a further feature of our area: if we agree to attach the label 'Low Style' to ordinary, familiar, prosaic, concrete, everyday, popular, commonplace, practical usage; and, conversely, the label

'High Style' to remote, abstract, poetical, solemn, rhetorical, theoretical or archaic usage, assigning the former to the language of the kitchen, street or tavern, and the latter to the rostrum, disserta? tion and leading article, then it is clear that plural flexion in -a/-H belongs to the Low Style, while regular plural flexion in h/-h belongs to the High Style.

In assigning one of the two possible alternative solutions to the Low Style and the other to the High, our fluid area again behaves in a manner typical not only of all other fluid areas but of other

departments of the language as well. In those sections of the gram? mar, including vocabulary and syntax as well as morphology and

stress, where usage has not completely crystallised in favour of a

single mandatory solution and where in consequence alternative




solutions arise, one of these solutions everywhere tends to be associ?

ated with the High Style and the other with the Low. The opposition

may be lexical, as between Low rojiOBa and High rnaBa, or between

Low rjia3a and High (to the point of archaism) 6*ih. It may be

syntactical, as where the Low accusative in npocHTb KapaH#ain con?

trasts a concrete context with the abstract context and its associated

High genitive in such phrases as npocHTb coBeTa. Sometimes stress

and phonetics may combine to contrast a Low form with a High as

in pa36y>KeHHbiH, 'woken up' (e.g. by an alarm clock) and B036y>Kfl-

eHHHii, 'aroused' (by emotion). Or stress alone may be involved as

in the contrast between the concrete and Low nosojioêHHbift,

'gilded' and the figurative and High 030JiOHeHHbin, 'loaded with

riches'; cf. also such oppositions as Low oh KynHT, 'he will buy', and

High oh HCKyniiT, 'he will atone'. The opposition between High and

Low Styles has, of course, received a great deal of attention, but the

extent to which it permeates the morphology and more especially the stress system of the language perhaps deserves more emphasis than it has generally been given.13

The stylistic pressures which we are considering can also operate in the case of words where no actual change of meaning is involved,

influencing the choice of form between two possible alternatives.

There is nothing 'low' about the plurals ftOKTopa, Jieca, etc.?these

are simply the only possible standard plurals. But in the case of the

twenty nouns given in our Lists II (a), (b) and (c) above, where the

speaker still has a choice in flexion/stress, there is still scope for the

element of subjective assessment in making that choice.

Thus the irregular and Low forms neKapa, cjiecapa, TOKapa, might in a given context carry such flavours as contempt, madness or pro? letarian solidarity, whereas in more solemn contexts the regular and

High neKapn, cjiecapn, TOKapn, might be preferred. Linguists un?

sympathetic to Soviet methods of diplomacy might incline to read a

symbolic significance into the more frequent use by Soviet repre? sentatives of the Low form ôroBopa, 'treaties', instead of the High form, more acceptable to standard usage, ôroBopbi, since the Low

form, which (I have heard suggested) was particularly common on

the lips of the now demoted V. Molotov, could imply not only familiarity but also contempt.

13 Frequently, lexical, orthographic and phonetic solutions characteristic of Old Church Slavonic are present in High Style language, while solutions characteristic of Russian are present in the Low, the classic treatment of this subject being A. A. Shakh- matov's article, 'Tserkovnoslavyanskiye elementy v sovremennom russkom literaturnom yazyke' (Iz trudov A. A. Shakhmatova po sovremennomu russkomu yazyku, Moscow 1952, pp. 245 ff.). But it would be misleading to suggest that the distinction between High and Low Style is only made in Russian where some phonetic, lexical, flexional, etc., feature of specifically Slavonic character is attached to one of the two possible solutions, though it seems to be true that, wherever such a feature is attached to one of the solutions, that solution is inevitably of High Style.



'FLUID AREAS* IN RUSSIAN DECLENSION gi

As the fluidity of Russian flexion/stress declines, so the number of

words in which the speaker can, while still adhering to the norms of standard Russian, allow himself the luxury of a choice also declines. If the present trend continues the language must lose in

expressiveness what it gains in terms of the greater tractability of its material.

In all the above respects the fluid area which we have chosen for detailed consideration is typical of all other fluid areas which we shall not have space to study at similar length. In one other important aspect, however, it is not typical: it does not manifest to any per? ceptible degree what I shall define below as a 'direction of change'. If we compare the nouns in List I (a) above with those in List I (b), we find that we have on the one hand in List I (a) nouns which, when the evidence of Av. is compared with that of Ush. and Ozh,, might be said to have progressed further in the direction of an

irregular and Low Style solution; we have on the other hand in List I (b) nouns which might be said to have retrogressed in the direction of a regular and High Style solution. It is difficult to account for these changes in individual instances, though it is tempt? ing to speculate on them. Perhaps it is appropriate that such earthy and agricultural objects as KopMa, CTora, xjieBa, KJieBepa, should now be whole-heartedly Low Style in flexion after their earlier history of

hesitancy. Hlyjiepa, 'cheats, sharpers', now receive in flexional and

accentological terms the full measure of contempt which they have

always deserved. But why have flbHKOHa, TeHopa, (jjejibjnuepa, on the one hand, and HHCTpyKTopbi, jienapn, <J)6pBapftbi, on the other, opted for uncompromisingly Low and High Style solutions respectively? One may hazard occasional explanations. Thus jienapb is an old- fashioned word and such words do tend to be relegated to High Style solutions; on the other hand, the same is true of erepb, for which Av. has norn. pl. erepfl. OopBap^ is passing out of use, as I have

recently been able to confirm by interrogating spectators during a match between Dinamo and Lokomotiv at the new Moscow Stadium.

flbHKOHa could reflect official anti-clericalism. Certain other words

may have reverted to regular flexion because they are rare or

poetic, e.g. oMyr, nocox, npojior. Most of the words in Lists II (a) and II (b) have also moved

towards greater or less irregularity,14 but their evidence does

nothing to clarify the picture.

Apart from the above considerations, it should also be noted that the number of nouns which might be said to have moved in each of the two directions is roughly equal: twenty-four in List I (a) show

14 Thus Av.'s 'nyfleJit, plural -h and (admissible) -n\ may be said to be 'more regular' than the alternative flexion in -a/-a or -h/-h attributed to this word by Ush. and Ozh.




more irregular flexion; twenty-two in List I (b) show more regular flexion. It is thus impossible to determine any dominant direction of

change in this class of nouns. We can certainly say that they are

becoming less fluid; but what we cannot say is that they have as a

class tended in recent years increasingly to adopt regular or irregular flexion.15

By contrast with the nouns which we have so far studied many other fluid areas do exhibit a definite direction of change. We shall

consider first an area in which changes of flexion alone are involved:

masculine nouns ending in a consonant which may or must form

their genitive plural in a 'zero termination' instead of the regular -ob,

e.g. cojiflar, gen. pl. cojnjaT.

Here, as is normal with fluid areas, the irregular declension, that

is the declension with the zero termination in the genitive plural,

provides the Low Style solution, whereas the regular declension in

-ob is High Style.16 Here Av.'s evidence is less comprehensive than

elsewhere, particularly in the case of nouns denoting the members of

nationalities and ethnic groups. Av. includes a number of these, of

which some are rare, e.g. yftryp and dBm, but omits others, includ?

ing even such common examples as rpy3HH, pyMbm and TypoK. In this area we have again a firm core of words such as rjia3, pa3,

MOKacHH, canor, nnraH, qyjiOK, on which the evidence of Ush. and

Ozh. concurs in giving a genitive plural with zero termination (i.e. identical with the nominative singular) and the flexion of which is

confirmed by Av. Where Av.'s testimony differs from that of Ush./ Ozh. we find a very definite tendency for nouns to desert the zero

termination paradigm. This is particularly noticeable in the case of

nouns denoting the members of non-Russian or obsolete military

organisations. Although Av. prefers genitive plural ^paryH to ^paryHOB (which he admits as a less desirable alternative) he offers mandatory regular flexion in other instances where the evidence of Ush./Ozh. indicated hesitant declension: rpeHa#epoB, rycapoB, Ka#eT0B, Knpa- cnpoB, yjiaHOB, HHbraapoB. The remoteness of such words from the

contemporary Russian scene may explain their relegation to High Style flexion. IIapTH3aH, a more familiar concept to the Russian, re? tains its Low Style genitive plural napra3aH, from which perhaps only several decades of world peace may rescue it.

Av. also rejects zero termination genitive plural for certain words, not all obsolete, commonly used after numbers:

16 I do not attempt to examine the pre-Ush. history of our area. Of the rulings of pre- Ush. authorities a very full picture is given in R. Nachtigall, Akzentbewegung in der russi- schen Formen- und Wortbildung. I. Substantiva auf Konsonanten, Heidelberg 1922, pp. 150-66. This shows a considerably greater degree of fluidity than Ozh., which suggests that the 'drying-up' of this area has been going on for quite a long time.

16 ?... $OpMH Ha -OB HBJIHIOTCH 60Jiee KHHJKHHMH, a $OpMfcI C HVJieBLIM OKOHHaHHeM 6oJiee CBoficTBeHHHMH pa3roBopHoft penH.? (AkG., p. 153).



'FLUID AREAS5 IN RUSSIAN DECLENSION 93

aMnep , BaTT, aJiTHH, apniHH, bojibt, rpaMM, rpaH, KHJiorpaMM,

MHJiJinrpaMM.

With regard to members of national, etc., groups, for which, as

mentioned above, the evidence is incomplete, Av. accepts zero ter?

mination solutions for Kapeji, xo3ap, UBiraH, but rejects them for

Maftbnp, oceTHH, capanHH, ynryp, 9BeH. Thus this area has, unlike the one previously considered, a definite

direction of change, which takes the form of a tendency to revert to

regular declension and thus to High Style solutions.

We have so far examined areas in which hesitancies (a) both of

stress and flexion and (b) of flexion alone were involved. We now

turn to areas in which stress factors alone are involved and shall first

consider the stress paradigms of masculine monosyllabic nouns other

than those which may or must form their nominative plural in -a/-h. We shall again find a dominant direction of change. But this time it

is a direction opposite to that exemplified by nouns which may or

must form their genitive plural with a zero termination. In other

words, it is in the direction of Low Style solutions and of greater

irregularity, if we may agree to apply the term 'regular' to stress

when, in an inflected form, it falls on a syllable corresponding to that

which carries stress in the primary form (monosyllabic nominatives

singular being regarded as stressed). We are able to rely for much of our evidence here on a pioneer

work of crucial importance for the understanding of fluid areas, Professor V. Kiparsky's 0 kolebaniyakh udareniya v russkom literaturnom

yazyke. I. Odnoslozhnyye imena sushchestvitel'nyye (Helsinki, 1950). Kiparsky defines five types of stress paradigm for this class of noun

ranging from his Type I, in which stress falls on the stem throughout,

through Type II (stressed on the case endings from the genitive

plural onwards), Type III (stressed on all the case endings of the

plural) to Type IV (stressed on the case endings throughout).17 These four types are thus progressively 'irregular' in stress in the sense in

which the word is used here, Type I being completely regular, while

Type IV is completely irregular.

Kiparsky is able to prove by historical evidence that the stock of

the above types has been constantly changing throughout the last

200-250 years, and that the number of instances in which nouns

have changed their stress in the direction of greater irregularity, or

(to use his own term), in an 'upwards' direction, that is, in the direc? tion from Type I towards Type IV, is much greater than the num? ber of changes in the opposite direction. The number of individual

17 Kiparsky also has a Type V, which contains only a very small number of nouns and need not concern us here.




changes which he has established is: in an 'irregular' direction, 139; in a 'regular' direction, 31.

As Kiparsky himself demonstrates, the transfer of stress in an

irregular direction can be in this class of nouns an index of assimila?

tion to Low Style, whereas the less common transfer of stress to the

stem can be an index of assimilation to High Style.

... b HeKOTopbix cjiynanx nepexo# yaapemiH k HH3ineMy Tuny

oSycjioBJiHBaeTCH, noBHflHMOMy, nepexoÔM cjiOBa b Bbicmyio

CTHJiHCTHnecKyio KaTeropnio h cooTBeTCTBeHHO, 6ojiee pe^KHM,

TopjKecTBeHHHM ero ynoTpeSjieHHeM, H3BecTHbiM ?apxaH3MOM?. 3to

mojkho, no-MoeMy npeflnojiojKHTb jjjih cjiob 6ec (npoflejiaBiuero

CTHJiHCTHHecKyio 8BOjnon,HK) ot o6o3HatieHHH ^pa^yHa, Bopa h

SecnoKOtooro cKaH#aJiHCTay ABBanyMa... BnjiOTbflo ojiHneTBopeHHH

MnpoBoro 3jia y flocToeBCKoro), son, dyx, ep, fuiad, Jiaep, mjk, cmau,

cmpoii, cmpye, mamb. Bee bth cjiOBa ynoTpeSjiniOTCH Tenepb

CpaBHHTeJIbHO peflKO H TOJIbKO B COBpeMeHHOM ?BHCOKOM CTHJie?...

Ilepexofl yflapeHHH k BbicmeMy THny cooTBeTCByeT b orpoMHOM 6oJibniHHCTBe cnyqaeB noHnmeHHio cTHjiHCTHiecKoro flocTOHHCTBa cjiOBa h noaTOMy cjie#yeT npe#nojiaraTb, hto oh npoHcxoflmi enepBa b TaK Ha3HBaeM0M ?npocTopeHHH?.18

Kiparsky puts forward the stylistic factor not as an overriding

pressure affecting the stress of all nouns, which it certainly is not, but as one of a number of factors which have influenced the transi?

tion of certain nouns from one stress paradigm to another. As in the

case of masculine nouns which form their plural in -a/-n the mono?

syllabic nouns under consideration contain a hard core of firm nouns

which have shown no signs of succumbing to stylistic pressure.

Nothing could be of higher style than the biblical o#p and nepcT. Yet

these retain stress on the case endings throughout; conversely, such

mundane or contemptuous and hence thoroughly Low Style words

as pan, Tpyc, xaM have stress on the stem throughout. It is interesting to note the impact on Kiparsky's material of those

rulings of Av. on stress which conflict with Ush. or Ozh. and which, since they were published several years after Kiparsky's work, were

not available to him. They give evidence of further changes of stress

paradigm in the spirit of his findings. The words affected are all

nouns to which Ush. or Ozh. attributes hesitant stress, or on which their rulings diverge, but with regard to which Av. once again

characteristically tends to avoid giving alternatives. Those nouns whose paradigms show an increased tendency to carry stress on the

endings in Av. as compared with Ush./Ozh. and thus exemplify pro? gression towards greater irregularity in the direction of Low Style are:

18 Kiparsky, op. cit., pp. 109-10.



CFLUID AREAS' IN RUSSIAN DECLENSION 95

With stress on all the case endings in Av.: ajibT, bbhk, khh, kjiok,

JiyHb, COM, TK)K, XpHK, H3b.

Stressed on the case endings from the nominative plural onwards

in Av.: npH3, c6oh, cnnpT. Stressed on the case endings from the genitive plural onwards in

Av.: noji, 'sex', tok, 'threshing-floor'. Those nouns whose paradigms show an increased tendency to

carry stress on the stem in Av. as compared with Ush. and Ozh. and

thus exemplify retrogression to regular stress patterns and conse?

quently to the High Style, are: 6aJiJi, 6yHT, 'revolt', koh, kohi, thh.

The fact that nouns showing movement of stress in an irregular direction are more numerous than those showing movement of stress

in a regular direction is consistent with the dominant direction of

change established for the pre-Ush. period by Kiparsky. The

presence of three fairly rare words (koh, kohi, thh) among defections

to the High Style paradigm is characteristic: typical also is the

abstract 6yHT, 'revolt', now carrying fully regular stress in contrast

with the concrete 6yHT, 'parcel', stressed on all the case endings.

Supporting evidence for the association of stressed case endings with Low Style solutions is provided by polysyllabic masculine nouns.

For example, the following borrowed words in -a>K to which Ush. or

Ozh. assign hesitant or disputed stress (either on stem or case end?

ings) receive only stress on the case endings in Av.: 6jiHH#a>K, Bwpkm,

BOJibTajK, rapajK, jnrrpajK, TupajK, inaHTajK.

In other instances (jsjpeukm, KopcajK, nacca>K etc.) Av. retains stress

on the stem and agrees with Ush. and Ozh. In such instances the

adoption of stress on the case endings is an index of fuller assimila?

tion into the language. The word is no longer felt to be a loan.

The above tendencies are in keeping with some findings published in my article, 'The Stress of Rusian Nouns in -a/-fl under Inflec?

tion'.19 Here I explained the very complicated condition of nouns in

terms of their stress under inflexion by reference to a gradual transi?

tion from two old stress paradigms to a new paradigm. The two old

paradigms, of which xBana and pyKa were taken as examples, have

respectively: (a) stress on the case endings throughout, and (b) stress

on the case endings except for the accusative singular and nomina?

tive plural. Thus xBajia (xBajiy, xBajibi, xBajiain) and pyKa (pyKy,

pyKH, pyKaM). The new paradigm, which I showed to have arisen at about the

middle of the 19th century, offers stress on the case endings through? out the singular and stress on the stem throughout the plural. Of

this rpo3a (rpo3y, rpo3H, rpo3aM) was taken as an example. In a

diagram20 I showed that a number of nouns had only partially 19 Slavonic and East European Review, XXXI, 76, London 1952, p. 186. 20 Ibid., p. 198.




accomplished this transition (thus Kapra, Kapry, Kapra, KapraM;

6jioxa, Sjioxy, 6ji6xh, SjioxaM; flyra, flyry, ayra, ayraM etc.) I claimed that, 'such paradigms can be regarded as in process of

progression from one or other of the older paradigms to the new

paradigm' and added, 'Since the progression has been only partially

accomplished, further changes of stress along predictable lines are to

be expected in the future'.

This prediction (of further changes in the direction of assimilation

to the new paradigm) is borne out by the following nouns:

I. Nouns assigned by Av. to the new paradigm.

These differ from the paradigms assigned to them in Ush. or Ozh.

(a) by carrying mandatory stress on the stem throughout the

plural: ap6a, ayra, cbhhbh (but gen. pl. cBiraeft) cocHa, co<|)a,

cpejja, 'milieu', TOJina.

(b) by rejecting stress on the stem in the acc. sing.: BecHa, irapa,

Hopa.

(c) by both carrying mandatory stress on the stem throughout the

plural and rejecting stress on the stem in the acc. sing.: BepcTa,

poca, coxa, CTona, cTpafl&.

II. Nouns to which Av. assigns paradigms more closely assimilated

to the new paradigm.

3HMa, flyina, CTpyHa, cy,n;b6a. On the other hand, Av. records changes away from the new

paradigm in the following instances in which the stress of the plural forms is drawn towards the termination when compared with Ush.

or Ozh.: KaiiMa, Kapra, KHJia, KOiraa, KOiiiMa, ejnoâ. It is not clear what conclusions we can draw from Av.'s evidence

about recent stress movements affecting the accusative singular. In

this form the drift towards the new paradigm demands a drift away from stress on the stem, and this is in fact found in the eight common

nouns in Lists I (b) and (c) above. On the other hand Av. re-estab?

lishes stress on the stem in three even more common words, ropa, ijeHa, mena (ropy, u,eHy, meny) also, partially in H36a (H36y), and in

3apn, 'reveiJle' (aopio). In one of these instances at least failure to

place stress on the stem in an earlier authority was almost certainly an oversight.21

By contrast with the somewhat confused picture presented by

changes of stress in the accusative singular, changes affecting the

plural are straightforward. Sixteen nouns (Lists I (a), I (c) and II) show greater assimilation to the new paradigm and at the same time

confirm the direction of change established in my article. The six L ropa, ibid., p. 195.



'fluid areas' in russian declension 97

words which are recorded as having moved in .the opposite direction

are, except for KaftMa and Komia, rather rare, and were thus ripe for relegation to the regular and High Style solution.

On the basis of the above data it is now pertinent to ask whether, within the progressively shrinking manoeuvring space left by the

general decline in fluidity, the language may be following opposed trends in flexion and stress, by tending increasingly: (a) in the sphere of flexion, to adopt regular solutions, and (b) in the sphere of stress, to adopt irregular solutions. It lies beyond our scope to attempt a

final answer to this difficult question. Among the evidence which, after further investigation, might be adduced, would be:

(a) Tendency of fluid areas to adopt more regular flexion.

(i) The decline of the zero termination genitive plural.

(ii) The decline of the irregular genitive singular in -y/-io for

masculine nouns in a consonant, ii or b.22

(iii) The decline of irregular flexion of the type -aTb, -eT, with

change of consonant in the present tense.23

(iv) Decline of flexion in -yeT for a few verbs in -HBaTb such as

o6n3HBaTb.

(b) Tendency of fluid areas to adopt more irregular stress.

(i) The evidence of masculine and feminine nouns discussed

above.

(ii) An apparent increase, suggested to me by a fairly wide

sampling of Av.'s rulings, in the incidence of recessive stress in the

present tense of verbs in -HTb. Thus CTopoHHTbcn, third person sing.,

CTopoHHTCH (Av.), but GTopoHHTCH (Ush. and Ozh.)

(iii) Confirmation of stress on the termination in the feminine past tense of the following and their compounds: bhtb, raaTb, rmrrb,

ApaTb, pBaTb, TKaTb.

(iv) An increase in such anomalous past participles passive as

no30JioqeHHbiH < no30JiOTHTb ; contrast the regular and High Style 030JI0HeHHbIH.

On the other hand, irregular stress on the suffix -ch as in HanaJiCH

appears to be definitely on the decline.

Since irregularity, whether of flexion or stress, almost always pro? vides the Low Style solution, while regularity provides the High

Style solution, one might, if the above suggestions should be con?

firmed, describe the modern tendency of the language, in so far as

changes of flexion and stress are concerned, as conservative in flexion

and revolutionary in stress. And if fuller investigation should indeed

confirm that fluid areas are, in so far as they are still free to man?

oeuvre, becoming more regular in flexion and more irregular in

22 See AkG., p. 144. 23 See my article, quoted above in footnote 5, pp. 495-9.




stress, we might then have an explanation of the absence, among masculine nouns which may or must form their nominative plural in

-a/-H, of any definite direction of change in favour of greater regularity or irregularity. Since this fluid area involves an irregu? larity both of flexion and stress, the words in question would, if our

suggestions should be confirmed, turn out to be subject to two con?

trary pulls, each tending to cancel out the other. There would also

be a similar explanation for the absence of a marked direction of

change in the post-Ush. evidence for the accusatives singular of

nouns in -a/-H where (a) the drift towards the new paradigm tends

to cause stress to fall on the termination, but (b) the general drift

towards irregularity of stress in common nouns, should the existence

of such be confirmed, would tend to tug stress back on to the stem.



Documents

Fluid Areas' in Russian Declension