Backness switch in Russian

Russian exhibits several different types of palatalisation. These are exemplified in (1), where we look at voiceless stops and affricates.(1) a. Velar Palatalisation (velars change into postalveolars): k→čruk+a ‘hand (FEM NOM SG)’ −ruč+išč+a (AUG NOM SG), ruč+en’k+a (DIM NOM SG)b. Affricate Palatalisation (affricates become postalveolar): ts→čkonets ‘end’ −konč+i+t’ ‘to finish’otets ‘father’ −otč+estv+o ‘patronymic’c. Iotation (many disparate changes of consonants): t→čšut ‘joker’ −šuč+u ‘I joke’d. Surface Palatalisation (consonants become −back, +high): t→t’xvost ‘tail’ −xvost+ik t’ (DIM), xvost+e t’ LOC SG)brat ‘brother’ −brat+j+a t’ ‘brothers (COLL)’ coherent analysis of these disparate effects is a formidable task, but one process seems to be easy: Surface Palatalisation is a straightforward spreading change. This change is particularly simple in the context of i and j since not only the feature −back but also the feature +high is spread from the triggering context onto the input consonant. In the following, I will restrict the scope of analysis to this simple case. That is, I will look at Surface Palatalisation applying in the context of i and j. I will demonstrate that standard Optimality Theory (henceforth OT: Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1995), with its insistence on parallel evaluation, cannot offer an adequate analysis of Surface Palatalisation. I will suggest that standard OT needs to be modified and to admit the possibility of a level distinction (a derivational step) in the evaluation of output forms.