The Proto-Slavic accent is the accentual system of Proto-Slavic and is closely related to the accentual system of some Baltic languages (Lithuanian and Latvian) with which it shares many common innovations that occurred in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. Deeper, it inherits from the Proto-Indo-European accent. In modern languages the prototypical accent is reflected in various ways, some preserving the Proto-Slavic situation to a greater degree than others.
Evolution Proto-Balto-Slavic is reconstructed with a free lexical accent, and a distinction between "short" and "long" syllables. A long syllable was any syllable containing either a long vowel, a diphthong, or a so-called "sonorant diphthong" consisting of a short vowel plus *l, *m, *n or *r in the syllable coda. Short syllables consisted of a short vowel with either no coda or an obstruent in the coda. The distinction between long and short syllables remained important throughout the early history of Slavic.
Long vowels were present in Proto-Balto-Slavic, and remained in Proto-Slavic as well. However, alongside the distinctions in quantity, Slavic also developed distinctions in quality between short and long vowels: Short *a was rounded to *o. Short *i and *u were lowered to *ь and *ъ, and later often lost through Havlík's law. Long *ū was unrounded to *y. Long *ē was lowered to *ě. This became important towards the end of the Proto-Slavic period, where certain dialects acquired new long and short vowels distinct from the older ones, based on these differences in quality.
Proto-Balto-Slavic long syllables could bear a suprasegmental feature known as acute. The acute feature could occur independently of the accent, and Slavic retained this situation until at least the operation of Dybo's law. This sound change shifted the accent one syllable rightwards if it previously fell on a non-acuted syllable (whether short or long), and the syllable that the accent shifted onto still had the acute–nonacute distinction at this time. However, by the time of Ivšić's law, the acute feature was no longer apparent; the accent retraction that occurred as part of this law produced the same result on all long syllables, regardless of whether it was originally acuted or not. The Slavic accent had changed from being purely positional to also being intonational: the acute was converted to a distinct rising intonation on accented long syllables, and lost elsewhere. Unaccented syllables now distinguished only between long and short.
Slavic also inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic the distinction between fixed and mobile accentual paradigms in verbs and nominals. In fixed paradigms, the accent was on the same stem syllable in all forms, while in mobile paradigms, it would alternate between the first syllable of the stem and the ending. Fixed paradigms were split in two by the operation of Dybo's law, which created a new accent paradigm b by shifting the accent onto the ending. The accent was then shifted back again in some forms by Ivšić's law, creating a new type of mobile pattern. Paradigms which remained fixed were assigned to accent paradigm a. The inherited Balto-Slavic mobile paradigms were not split in this way thanks to Meillet's law, and remained unified in accent paradigm c.
System There is no consensus among linguists on the exact prosodical nature of late Proto-Slavic, or Common Slavic. Two different schools of thought exist, the more-or-less "traditional" school (exemplified by Jasanoff, Kapović and Olander among others) and the more radical "Leiden" school (exemplified by Derksen, Kortlandt and Pronk among others). The most important difference between the two, in the context of the Slavic accent and prosody in general, is that the traditional viewpoint holds that Proto-Slavic retained all length distinctions as they were inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic, whereas the Leiden school argues that some long vowels were shortened and short vowels were lengthened already in Proto-Slavic. Thus: Traditionally, the old acute is reconstructed as long, but it is reconstructed as short everywhere by the Leiden linguists. The Leiden linguists posit a lengthening of short vowels in "monosyllables" (one syllable + final yer), thus allowing for circumflex and long neoacute on originally short vowels. Traditionally, such vowels are considered short in Proto-Slavic, and the long vowels that are found in the later dialects are regarded as Post-Common-Slavic developments.
The various accent types of Proto-Slavic are indicated with different diacritical symbols. The following table helps map between the notational systems found in various sources. The vowel symbols stand for different vowel classes that the accent can appear on: o stands for any original short mid vowel, ъ stands for any original short high vowel (yer), a for any original long vowel or liquid diphthong.
+ Comparison of prosodic notation Traditional Leiden Old short Initial ȍ ъ̏ Medial ò Final Short neoacute Initial ò ъ̀ Medial Circumflex Initial ȃ ȃ ȏ ъ̑ Old acute Initial a̋ à Medial Final Long neoacute Initial ã or á á ó ъ́ Medial á Long unaccented N/A ā
There may be some variation in notation even within the same school. Both and are used for the neoacute accent for example, reflecting the accents used in standard Shtokavian (long rising) and Chakavian (neoacute) respectively. Jasanoff uses a vertical mark to mark the accent on syllables where the tonality is implied because no contrastive tone exists, using the more specific symbols above only to indicate tonal contrasts.
The old acute accent could occur on any syllable of a word (, , ), but only on a long syllable. Phonetically it is usually reconstructed as a rising tone, traditionally long, but short in the Leiden school. Within Balto-Slavic framework this matches with rising intonation of the cognate Latvian ⟨õ⟩ and length marks on the second part of diphthongs in Old Prussian. However, critics of this interpretation claim that one can hardly derive the Serbo-Croatian short falling tone ⟨ȍ⟩, shortness in Slovak, length in Czech and the rising intonation in Russian pleophony from the former long rising tone. Some speculate that Proto-Slavic acute was phonetically in fact something entirely different, e.g. a glottalized syllable comparable to stød in Danish, or something similar.
The old short and circumflex accents represent the historical lack of the acute register on the syllable, on short and long syllables respectively. They are sometimes referred to as short and long circumflex. In Slavic, they behaved similarly with respect to accent shifts such as Dybo's law, but were differentiated by word position: In initial syllables, both are reconstructed with a falling intonation, and such words were phonologically probably unaccented. That phonological unaccentedness was manifested as a falling tone (which is confirmed by Serbo-Croatian, Slovene and Russian reflexes). In non-initial syllables, the only vowels in this group which could occur were the mid vowels e and o. Ivšić's law had eliminated all circumflex and closed short vowels from non-initial syllables, becoming instead neoacute accents on the preceding syllable. Non-initial accented short vowels bore a rising intonation, although this was noncontrastive.
The neoacute accent was a new type of accent that resulted from accent retraction through Ivšić's law. It is traditionally reconstructed as a rising intonation on the basis of Slovene and Russian, and the description of dialectal Chakavian Serbo-Croatian ⟨õ⟩ as a rising tone. The neoacute occurred in both short and long varieties: The short neoacute had the same intonation as old short vowels on medial syllables, but contrasted with the short falling tone on initial syllables. There is a distinct reflex in Slovak and some Russian dialects. The long neoacute had a distinctive long rising intonation in all syllables. Unlike the other types of long accent, the long neoacute preserved its length in all languages that retain length distinctions.
Unaccented syllables did not bear contrastive tone, but according to the Leiden school, did have contrastive length. The traditional school does not reconstruct distinctly long unaccented vowels, instead regarding all original long vowels as long within Proto-Slavic.
Valence theory
There is also a third school, namely the Moscow accentological school (exemplified by Dybo, Nikolaev, Schallert, and now also Kapović, among others). Perhaps, the most important difference from the "traditional" and "Leiden" schools is the use of morphophonological valences and the refusal of the Stang theory of the origin of the "new acute" in all forms as a result of accent retraction.
+ Prosodic notation Moscow Dominant acute a̋ Recessive acute â Dominant circumflex ã Recessive circumflex ȃ Long ō
Sometimes dominant short and recessive short are used, as well as ictus (vertical mark) to remove prosodic connotations.
The dominant acute (or the old acute) is reconstructed on the historically long and short syllables. Morphophonologically it has a higher (dominant, +) valence. Phonetically reconstructed as a rising-falling syllable tone with a short, but sharp rising part and with a longer falling slope. Within Balto-Slavic framework, dominant acute corresponds to the Latvian drawling intonation and length marks on the second part of diphthongs in Old Prussian, and with the Lithuanian acute .
The recessive acute is reconstructed on the historically long and short syllables. Morphophonologically it has a lower (recessive, −) valence. Phonetic reconstruction of the syllable tone is unknown. Within Balto-Slavic framework, recessive acute corresponds to the Latvian broken intonation and the Lithuanian acute .
The dominant circumflex (or the new acute) is reconstructed on the historically long and short syllables. After rejecting the Stang's theory is recognized as a direct reflex of the Proto-Balto-Slavic dominant circumflex. Morphophonologically it has a higher (dominant, +) valence. Phonetically reconstructed as a rising syllable tone. Within Balto-Slavic framework, dominant circumflex corresponds to the Latvian falling intonation and the Lithuanian circumflex .
The recessive circumflex (or the circumflex) is reconstructed on the historically long and short syllables. Morphophonologically it has a lower (recessive, −) valence. Phonetically reconstructed as a falling syllable tone. Within Balto-Slavic framework, recessive circumflex corresponds to the Latvian falling intonation and the Lithuanian circumflex .
The long is mainly used on final vowels in the word form. A striking example of this is the "long yer" in the genitive plural.
Dybo's contour rule Valence is a morphophonological quality that determines the choice of an accent paradigm, attributed to the root morpheme and morphemic endings of the root, i.e. to affixes and endings. The first rule. In a sequence consisting only of dominant morphemes, the ictus (vertical mark) is placed on the first morpheme: *sta̍r(+)-ьс(+)-ь̄(+) *brju̍x(+)-at(+)-ě(+)-ti(+) *vy̍(+)-děl(+)-a(+)-ti(+) The second rule. In a sequence consisting only of recessive morphemes, ictus (vertical mark) is placed on the first morpheme: *lě̍n(−)-ъ(−) *lě̍n(−)-ost(−)-ь(−) *o̍(−)-krъv(−)-av(−)-i(−)-l(−)-ъ(−) The third rule. In a sequence that includes only one dominant morpheme, ictus (vertical mark) is placed on this dominant morpheme, regardless of the number and location of recessive morphemes: *lěn(−)-ost(−)-ь(−)-jǫ̍(+) *měx(−)-ov(−)-ь̍j(+)-e(−) *mold(−)-ь̍с(+)-e(−)-mь(−) *gla̍d(+)-ъk(−)-o(−)-mь(−) The fourth rule. In a sequence consisting of several dominant morphemes divided by recessive morphemes, ictus (vertical mark) is placed on the first dominant morpheme: *sta̍r(+)-ost(−)-ь(−)-jǫ(+) *bog(−)-a̍t(+)-o(−)-jǫ(+) *mě̍d(+)-ęn(−)-ic(+)-e(−)-jǫ(+) *mě̍d(+)-ęn(−)-ic(+)-a(+)