Bulgarian Phonology

This article discusses the phonological system of the Bulgarian language.

The phonemic inventory of Contemporary Standard Bulgarian (CSB) has been a contested and controversial matter for decades, with two major currents, or schools of thought, forming at national and international level:

One school of thought assumes palatalization as a phonemic distinction in Contemporary Standard Bulgarian and consequently states that it has 17 palatalized phonemes, rounding its phonemic inventory to ''45 phonemes''. This view, originally suggested in a sketch made by Russian linguist Nikolai Trubetzkoy in his 1939 book ''Principles of Phonology,'' was subsequently elaborated by Bulgarian linguists Stoyko Stoykov and Lyubomir Andreychin. It is the traditional and prevalent view in Bulgaria and is endorsed by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; some international linguists also favour it.

The other view considers that there are only 28 phonemes in Contemporary Standard Bulgarian: 21 consonants, 1 semivowel and 6 vowels and that only one of them, the semivowel , is palatal. This view is held by a minority of Bulgarian linguists and a substantial number of international ones.

Vowels

According to their place of articulation, Bulgarian vowels can be grouped in three pairs—front vowels: ⟨е⟩ () and ⟨и⟩ (); central vowels: ⟨а⟩ () and ⟨ъ⟩ (); and back vowels: ⟨о⟩ () and ⟨у⟩ ().

Here , and are "low", and , and are "high".

The dominant theory of Bulgarian vowel reduction posits that Bulgarian vowels have a phonemic value only in stressed position, while when unstressed, they neutralize in an intermediate centralized position, where lower vowels are raised and higher vowels are lowered. This concerns only the central vowels and , which neutralize into , and the back vowels and , which neutralize into .

The merger of and is not allowed in formal speech and is regarded as a provincial (East Bulgarian) dialectal feature; instead, unstressed is both raised and centralized, approaching the schwa (). The Bulgarian vowel does not exist as a phoneme in other Slavic languages, though a similar reduced vowel transcribed as does occur. The theory further posits that such neutralization may nevertheless not always happen: vowels tend to be distinguished in emphatic or deliberately distinct pronunciation, while reduction is strongest in colloquial speech.

Nevertheless, the hypothesis that high and low vowels neutralize into a common centralized vowel has never been properly studied or proven in a practical setting. Several recent studies by both Bulgarian and foreign researchers, involving volunteers speaking Contemporary Standard Bulgarian, have established—on the contrary—that while unstressed low vowels , and are indeed raised as expected, unstressed high and are also raised somewhat, rather than lowered, while remains in the same position.

All three studies indicate that a clear distinction is kept between unstressed and both stressed and unstressed . The situation with unstressed and is more complex, but all studies indicate that they both approach unstressed and very closely and overlap with them to a great extent, but their average realisations remain slightly more open. One of the studies finds that unstressed to be practically undistinguishable from stressed , while another finds a lack of statistically significant difference between and , and a third one finds coalescence only in formants for one of the pairs and only in tongue position for the other.

While the difference between all stressed vowels and between unstressed and can be heard in almost all cases, the unstressed back and central vowels are perceptually neutralised in minimal pairs, with only 62% identifying unstressed , 59% unstressed and and a mere 57% unstressed .

Semivowels

The Bulgarian language officially has only one semivowel: . It is traditionally regarded as a semivowel, but in recent years, it has largely been treated as a "glide" or approximant, thus making it part of the consonant system. Orthographically, it is represented by the Cyrillic letter ( with a breve) as in (prefix 'most') and ( ('trolleybus'), except when it precedes or (and their reduced counterparts and ), in which case both phonemes are represented by a single letter, or , respectively: e.g., ('flat iron'), but ('Jordan').

As a result of lenition of velarized (), ongoing since the 1970s, appears to be an emerging allophone of velarized among younger speakers, especially in preconsonantal position: ('wolf') instead of . While certain Western Bulgarian dialects (in particular, those around Pernik), have had a long-standing tradition of pronouncing as , the use of the glide in the literary language was first noted by a radio operator in 1974. A Ukrainian researcher found in 2012 that Bulgarians split into three age-specific groups in terms of pronunciation: 1) people in their 40s or older who have standard pronunciation; 2) people in their 30s, who can articulate but unconsciously say ; and 3) younger people who are unable to differentiate between the two sounds and generally say .

A study of 30 graduate students was therefore conducted in 2014 to quantify the trend. The study testified to an extremely wide proliferation of the phenomenon, with 9 out of 30 participants unable to produce in any given word, and only 2 participants able to produce correctly, but in no more than half the words in the study. Remarkably, not a single participant was able to enunciate between a bilabial consonant and a rounded vowel, e.g., in ('applauded'), or between a rounded vowel and a velar consonant, e.g. in ('so'). Another discovery of the study was that in particular positions, certain participants enunciated neither nor , but the high back unrounded vowel (or its corresponding glide ).

The glide can also be found in English loan words such as ('whiskey') or ('Wikipedia').
The semivowel forms a number of diphthongs, which are summarized below:

Consonants

According to current scholarly consensus, Bulgarian has a total of 35 consonant phonemes (see table below). Three additional phonemes can also be found (, , and ), but only in foreign proper names such as ('Houston'), (' Dzerzhinsky'), and , ('Jadzia'). They are, however, normally not considered part of the phonetic inventory of the Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian obstruent consonants are divided into 12 pairs of voiced and voiceless consonants. The only obstruent without a counterpart is the voiceless velar fricative . The voicing contrast is neutralized in word-final position, where all obstruents are voiceless, at least with regard to the official orthoepy of the contemporary Bulgarian spoken language (word-final devoicing is a common feature in Slavic languages); this neutralization is, however, not reflected in spelling.

An alternative analysis, however, treats palatal consonants merely as palatalized allophones of their respective "hard" counterparts, which are realised as sequences of consonant + (for example, is analysed as ). This effectively reduces the consonant inventory to 22 phonemes. No ambiguity arises from such a reanalysis since palatalized consonants only occur before vowels and never before other consonants or in the syllable coda as they do in some other languages with palatal consonants (for example, in fellow Slavic language Russian).

This was the prevailing opinion among Bulgarian linguists prior to 1945, shared, among other things, by Stefan Mladenov, Lyubomir Andreychin, Aleksandar Teodorov-Balan, etc. According to French linguist Léon Beaulieux, Bulgarian is characterised by the tendency to eliminate all palatal consonants. Czech linguist Horalek claimed as early as 1950 that palatalisation in standard Bulgarian has practically disappeared through the decomposition and development of a specific glide and that words such as (white) and (grandfather) are not pronounced as and , but rather as and .

Among modern Bulgarian phoneticians, this view is held by Blagoy Shklifov and by Dimitrina Tsoneva, who argues that palatal consonants, though present in a number of dialects and in earlier stages of the development of the Bulgarian language, have been eliminated from the modern literary language.

A phonological table based on this reanalysis is shown below:

According to , are dental. He also analyzes as palatalized dental nasal, and provides no information about the place of articulation of .

Only as an allophone of and before and . For example, ('inflation').

As an allophone of before , and . Examples: ('thin' neut.), ('tango').

is voiced at word boundaries before voiced obstruents. Example: ('I saw him').

Described as having "only slight friction".

Not a native phoneme, but appears in borrowings from English, where it is often vocalised as or pronounced as a fricative in older borrowings which have come through German or Russian. It is always written as the Cyrillic letter ⟨⟩ in Bulgarian orthography. Allophone of /ɫ/ among some younger speakers, possible ongoing sound change (see section below).

as a phoneme in Bulgarian has three allophones in complementary distribution; "clear" , occurring before front vowels, "dark" or velarized occurring before central and back vowels, in between vowels and before consonants, and palatalized , occurring before and a central or back vowel.

Hard and palatalized consonants

Some linguists believe that, similar to a number of Eastern Slavic languages, most consonant phonemes come in "hard" and "soft" pairs. The latter tend to feature palatalization, or the raising of the tongue toward the hard palate. Thus, for example, contrasts with by the latter being palatalized. The consonants , , , and are considered hard and do not have palatalized variants, though they may have palatalization in some speakers' pronunciation.

The distinction between hard and soft consonants is clear in Bulgarian orthography, where hard consonants are considered normal and precede either , , , , or . Soft consonants appear before , , or . In certain contexts, the contrast hard/soft contrast is neutralized. For example, in Eastern dialects, only soft consonants appear before and . varies: one of its allophones, involving a raising of the back of the tongue and a lowering of its middle part (thus similar or, according to some scholars, identical to a velarized lateral), occurs in all positions, except before the vowels and , where a more "clear" version with a slight raising of the middle part of the tongue occurs. The latter pre-front realization is traditionally called "soft l" (though it is not phonetically palatalized). In some Western Bulgarian dialects, this allophonic variation does not exist.

Furthermore, in the speech of many young people the more common and arguably velarized allophone of is often realized as a labiovelar approximant . This phenomenon, sometimes colloquially referred to as ('lazy l') in Bulgaria, was first registered in the 1970s and isn't connected to original dialects. Similar developments, termed L-vocalization, have occurred in many languages, including Polish, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Brazilian Portuguese, French, and English.

Palatalization

Palatalization refers to a type of consonant articulation, where a secondary palatal movement similar to that for is superimposed on the primary movement associated with the consonant's plain counterpart. During the palatalization of most hard consonants ( bilabial, labiodental and denti-alveolar consonants), the middle part of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate and the alveolar ridge, which leads to the formation of a second articulatory centre whereby the specific palatal "clang" of the soft consonants is achieved. The articulation of palatalised alveolars , and normally does not follow that rule. The palatal clang is instead achieved by moving the place of articulation further back towards the palate so that , and actually become alveopalatal (postalveolar) consonants. In turn, the articulation of soft and (transcribed as and or and ) moves from the velum towards the palate, and they are therefore considered palatal consonants.

However, the only articulatory study of palatalized consonants in Bulgarian, conducted by Stoyko Stoykov via X-ray tracings of vocal tract configurations of hard/palatalised consonant pairs, indicates that the secondary palatal movement is missing (or severely weakened) during the articulation of a number of palatalized consonants. Only the articulation of bilabial and labiodental consonants () is accompanied by a noticeable raising of the body of the tongue towards the palate, but only to a moderate extent. The articulation of soft , and (, and ) also shows distinctive palatalization, as the place of articulation moves onto the palate.

However, in denti-alveolars (), the place of articulation neither shifts towards the palate, nor is the tongue raised. Instead, they are articulated with the blade of the tongue ( laminally) rather than the tip ( apically), which results in greater surface contact of the tongue front and a modification of the primary articulatory gesture. Stoykov defines them as "weakly palatalized", while Scatton notes that the position of the mid-tongue in palatalized stops is not much higher than that in their plain counterparts. A comparison with the articulation of the same consonants in a language where palatal consonants indisputably exist, such as Russian, reveals drastically different articulation, with Bulgarian being completely non-conformant with the definition of palatalization. A comparison of the articulation of bilabials and labiodentals () in Bulgarian also reveals much less pronounced secondary palatal gesture than in Russian.

The articulation of , and is very similar to that of the denti-alveolars, but with a slight shift of the place of articulation towards the palate and some raising of the mid-tongue towards the palate. According to Stoykov, and are harder than their counterparts in the other Slavic languages, while is just as palatal. Based on Stoykov's study, several foreign and Bulgarian phonologists have noted that distinctive palatalization in Bulgarian can be only claimed in the cases of , , and , or , , and .

Moreover, a study of the perception of hard and palatlized consonants conducted by Tilkov in 1983 has indicated that with the exception of palatalized velars (, , ), Bulgarian listeners needed to hear the transition to the vowel to correctly identify a consonant as soft. All this has raised the question whether Bulgarian palatals have indeed lost their secondary articulatory gesture and have decomposed into CjV sequences, as claimed by Danchev, Ignatova-Tzoneva, Choi, etc.

A 2012 perception study of palatalized consonants in Bulgarian compared with a language where palatalization is indisputed (Russian) and a language where such consonants are undoubtedly articulated as CjV clusters (English) concluded that unlike English listeners, Russian and Bulgarian listeners could identify a palatal(ized) consonant without waiting for the transition to the following vowel. The study also found similarities in the phonetic shape of palatal(ized) consonants in Bulgarian and Russian and marked differences between those in the two languages and English, disproving the hypothesis for the decomposition of palatalization put forward by Horalek, Ignatova-Tzoneva, Choi, etc. Nevertheless, based on the phonological distribution of Bulgarian palatals, which was similar to that in English and completely different from that in Russian, the author argued in favour of CjV notation.

Palatalization of *tj/*gt/*kt and *dj in Bulgarian

While the results of the three Slavic palatalizations are generally the same across all or most Slavic languages, the palatalization of *tj (and the related *gti and *kti) and *dj in Late Common Slavic led to vastly divergent result in each individual Slavic language.

Bulgarian *tj/*kti/*gti and *dj reflexes ( '' and ( '', which are exactly the same as in Old Church Slavonic, and the near-open articulation of the Yat vowel (ě), which is still widely preserved in a number of Bulgarian dialects in the Rhodopes, Pirin Macedonia ( Razlog dialect) and northeastern Bulgaria ( Shumen dialect), etc., are the strongest evidence that Old Church Slavonic was codified on the basis of a Bulgarian dialect and that Bulgarian is its closest direct descendant. Though the ⟨⟩/⟨⟩ speaking area currently covers only the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and the eastern half of the wider region of geographical Macedonia, toponomy containing ⟨⟩ and ⟨⟩ that goes back to the Early Middle Ages is widely preserved across Northern and Central Greece, Southern Albania, the Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and the Torlak-speaking regions in Serbia.

For example, in the Struga municipality, the names of 13 out of 43 villages contain either ⟨⟩ ( Kališta, Korošišta, Labuništa, Moroišta, Piskupština, Radolišta, Tašmaruništa, Velešta and Vraništa) or ⟨⟩ ( Delogoždi, Mislodežda, Radožda and Zbaždi). The same applies to Kosovo, where Russian Slavist Afanasiy Selishchev found а number of place names around the city of Prizren featuring the Bulgarian clusters ⟨⟩/⟨⟩ in a Serbian official document from the 1300s (Nebrěgošta, Dobroušta, Sěnožeštani, Graždenikī, Obražda, Ljubižda, etc.). At present, a total of 8 villages out of 76 villages in the Prizren municipality still feature the Bulgarian consonant clusters ⟨⟩/⟨⟩, even though the region has not been ruled by Bulgaria in eight centuries: Lubizhdë, Lubizhdë e Hasit, Poslishtë, Skorobishtë, Grazhdanik, Nebregoshtë, Dobrushtë, Kushtendil. There are also numerous toponyms with the two clusters in the districts of Vranje, Pirot, Knjaževac, etc. in Serbia proper.

The development of ⟨⟩ > and ⟨⟩ > in certain dialects in the geographic region of Macedonia is a late and partial phenomenon dating back to the Late Middle Ages, probably caused by the influence of Serbian and , and possibly aided by the Late Middle Bulgarian's trend to palatalise and and then transform them into soft k and g > and .

Phonation

Phonation is a primary distinctive feature for obstruents in Bulgarian, dividing them into voiced and voiceless consonants. Obstruents form 8 minimal pairs: ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔. The only obstruent without a counterpart is the voiceless fricative , whose voiced counterpart does not exist as a separate phoneme in Bulgarian. The sonorants , , and and the approximant are always voiced.

If the existence of separate palatalised consonant phonemes (39-consonant model) is accepted, 6 more contrastive obstruent pairs are added: ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, ↔, for a total of 14.

Voicing, devoicing, assimilation, sandhi, ellision

Like all other Slavic languages apart from Serbo-Croatian and Ukrainian, Bulgarian features word-final devoicing of obstruents, unless the following word begins with a voiced consonant. Thus, is pronounced ('city'), is pronounced ('alive'). While obstruents devoice before enclitics ( ('а city?')), they do not devoice at the end of prepositions followed by a voiced consonant ( ('under the lindens')).

CSB also features regressive assimilation in consonant clusters. Thus, voiced obstruents devoice if they are followed by a voiceless obstruent (e.g., is pronounced ) ('East')), and voiceless obstruents voice if they are followed by a voiced obstruent (e.g., is pronounced ('building')).

Assimilation also occurs across word boundaries (in the form of sandhi), for example, is pronounced ('from the forest'), while becomes ('above the field').

The consonants and in consonant clusters such as tnand are usually not pronounced, unless the articulation is very careful, i.e., tends to pronounced as ('newspaper'), while tends to pronounced as ) ('abyss').

Distribution of voiced and voiceless consonants in Bulgarian

Consonant classification based on place and manner of articulation

Place of articulation

The consonants:
* (), (), and () are bilabial;
* (), () and the allophone of and before and , , are labiodental;
* (), (), (), (), (), () and the velar allophone of , , are dento-alveolar and sometimes also even described as dental;
* () and (), as well the "light" () are alveolar;
* (), (), () and () are postalveolar;
* () is palatal; and
* (), (), (), along with the allophone of before velars, , are velar.Sabev, The Sound System of Standard Bulgarian

The palatalized allophones of
* (), (), (), () and () are pronounced by many Bulgarians as sequences of C+j.;
* (), (), (), (), () and () remain dento-alveolar but are articulated with the back of the tip of the tongue ( laminally) rather than with the tip ( apically);
* (), () and () shift towards the palatum and become alveo-palatal; and
* (), () and () are articulated at the back of the palatum instead of the velum.

Manner of articulation

* Plosives (7): (), (), (), (), (), ();
* Fricatives (7): (), (), (), (), (), (), ();
* Affricates (4): (), (), () and ();
* Nasals (2): () and ()
* Trills (1): ()
* Laterals (1): ()
* Approximants (1): ()

Two schools of thought on Bulgarian consonantism

The main point of contention between the two schools of thought on Bulgarian consonantism has been whether palatalized consonants should be defined as separate phonemes or simply as allophones of their respective hard counterparts.

The first or the "traditionalist" school of thought developed gradually by consensus over the course of many decades, crystallized in the late 1930s and early 1940s and was reinvigorated after the fall of the totalitarian regime. It posits that Bulgarian has no palatal or palatalized consonants other than , that Trubetzkoy's 17 palatalized consonants are merely (positional) allophones of hard consonants and that the Bulgarian language therefore has only 28 phonemes. It has proposed alternative notation of palatalized consonants in the form of C-j-V (consonant-glide-vowel) clusters and has made a tentative hypothesis about the decomposition of Bulgarian palatals into consonants + glide using the following arguments:
* Unlike the palatal consonants in other Slavic languages, which can usually be found in all positions, palatalized consonants in Bulgarian have very limited distribution: only before central or back vowels, and then only if there is a before the vowel, noted graphically with the letters , or .
* The enormous number of palatal or palatalized consonants claimed contradicts the historical development of Bulgarian and the South Slavic languages in general towards depalatalization, especially considering that there were only 9 or 10 palatal consonants in Old and Middle Bulgarian and that four of them have since hardened or are no longer used.
* The reanalysis would make it possible to make sense of sequences like ('(I) eat') ↔ ('(I) eat till the last crumb') ↔ ('(I) finish eating something') ↔ ('(I) eat to my heart's content'), where a root is considered to be iotated in some cases and to palatalize the previous consonant in others.
* Stoykov, Andreychin and Tilkov have all provided eyewitness accounts that the pronunciation of so-called palatalized consonants as consonant + is common among Bulgarian speakers and predominates in Western Bulgaria.
* The swift adoption of an approach that looks tailored to Russian but has proven a remarkably poor fit for Bulgarian at a time when Bulgaria was governed by a totalitarian regime completely subservient to the Soviet Union is suspicious and is most likely the result of Soviet duress and/or influence.

The second school of thought came to being rather unexpectedly in the late 1940s, as a refinement of Trubetzkoy's rough draft a decade before. It quickly gained currency in the state apparatus as the ''only'' theory, most likely because it used the same approach as in Russian, which was vital for a government so tied to Moscow. It posits that apart from (), there are 17 separate palatal phonemes that are in minimal pairs with their hard counterparts, including () and (), which are not found in any native Bulgarian words and were excluded from Trubetzkoy's draft. Thus, only 5 consonants are not in minimal pairs, (), (), () and (), which are only hard, and the glide (), which is only soft. They argue that Bulgarian phonemic inventory consists of a total of 45 phonemes, whereof 6 vowels, 1 semivowel and 38 consonants, and present the following arguments:
* Even though the distribution of palatalized consonants is limited, there is still a large number of Bulgarian words can be distinguished only by the difference in palatalization, e.g. ('nude/naked') vs. ('puddle'); ('onion') vs. ('hatch'); ('to have given') vs/ ('share');
* Palatal consonants cannot be considered to be formed by their hard counterparts by adding (), as there is a clear auditory difference between pronouncing a soft consonant (as in Russian) and pronouncing a consonant and a glide (as in English). A 2012 comparative study of palatal phonemes in Russian, palatalized phonemes in Bulgarian and CjV clusters in English has deduced that the phonetic and auditory properties of Bulgarian palatals are similar to those in Russian and deviate substantially from the English consonant + glide sequences and that Bulgarian and Russian listeners did not need to wait for formant transitions to identify a consonant as palatal/palatalized unlike English listeners.

Historical development of Bulgarian consonantism

Proto-Slavic underwent three separate rounds of palatalization and one of iotation, but the resulting palatal consonants eventually hardened in Western and South Slavic.

By the Old Bulgarian period, there were only four consonants left forming contrastive pairs: () and (), () and (), () and (), () and (). Three consonants were only hard: (), () and (), four were only soft: , , and (), while the remaining eight consonants were generally hard, but could be semi-palatalized: (), (), (), (), (), (), () and ().

Historical phonetician Anna-Maria Totomanova has expressed a slightly divergent opinion: the four hard/palatal contrastive pairs were again and , and , and , and , 11 consonants, , , , (, ), , , , , and , were only hard, and six consonants, , , , , and iota (), along with the typically Bulgarian consonant combinations and , were only soft. Finally, Huntley mentions 9 palatal consonants: , , , , and , which were only soft, and , and , which could also be hard. Both Haralampiev and Totomanova have noted a marked trend towards consonant hardening.

Eventually, , and hardened permanently, disappeared from the phonemic inventory, and () was borrowed from Ottoman Turkish as only hard. But before that, two phenomena led to the palatalization of more consonants: a second iotation and the dissolution of the yat vowel. As a result of the contraction and closure of the syllable in the Middle Bulgarian period, unstressed in many cases turned into the semivowel or attached to a consonant, palatalising it. Thus, Old Bulgarian ('swine') contracted into and ('brothers') into .

In many dialects, the resulting palatalised () and () turned into palatalised () and (). These were subsequently eliminated from CSB as dialecticisms, e.g., ('flower')→ → Ø. The form accepted in the literary language was instead the unpalatalised based on the Old Bulgarian form.

The dissolution of the yat happened somewhat later, towards the end of the Middle Bulgarian period and had different effects on the various dialects. In most of the East, yat in a stressed syllable softened the preceding consonant and turned into . In the West, however, it led to in both stressed and unstressed syllables producing no palatalisation anywhere. This was one of the main factors that led to the markedly different patterns of palatalisation in Western and Eastern Bulgarian dialects, i.e., strong palatalisation of only 5 consonants in the West vs. moderate palatalisation of almost all consonants in the East.

Development of phonological theory before 1945

The first Bulgarian grammar to mention phonetics is Ivan Bogorov's ''First Bulgarian Grammar'', where he identified 22 consonants, however, including among them (), and (no phonemic status at word end). The first Bulgarian man of letters to correctly identify the 21 consonants in Bulgarian was Ivan Momchilov, in 1868. According to Momchilov, Bulgarian consonants could sound hard or soft, entirely depending on the vowel accompanying them.

Phonetics only started developing seriously after World War I, and towards the 1930s, all major Bulgarian linguists had reached consensus that Bulgarian phonemic inventory consisted of 28 phonemes. Out of the six major Bulgarian grammars published in the Interwar period, five explicitly mention the existence of 22 consonants (including the semivowel ) and 6 vowels: Petar Kalkandzhiev, Aleksandar Teodorov-Balan, who suggested 26 certain phonemes + 2 conditional ones (for the non-native and infrequent () and ()), Dimitar Popov, who posited that the only soft or palatal phoneme in Bulgarian was (), as well as Lyubomir Andreychin, who considered that even though palatalised consonants had distinctive articulation, they did not deserve phonemic status. All phoneticians referenced palatalisation extensively, but without ascribing phonemic value to the resulting sounds. Moreover, according to Stefan Mladenov,

"If we disregard individual cases of old, stronger palatalization, which may be found in Eastern and Western dialects alike, Contemporary Standard Bulgarian has developed a very distinctive "semi-palatalization", which is often neglected."

This was a result of the attempts to unify the extremely divergent patterns of Eastern and Western palatalization into a common standard in the 1800s and early 1900s, which eventually led to its general elimination from the standard language. Examples include the complete elimination of end-word palatals in a number of words ending in (), (), () and (), e.g., writing and saying ('horse') instead of } , ('road') instead of } ), etc.; the adoption of the hard suffix instead of for verbal nouns, i.e., instead of } ('writing'); labelling palatalization before front vowels as dialectal: ( instead of } ('field'), instead of } ('pumpkin')), etc. Thus, the only sanctioned palatalisation in CSB is in syllable-initial position before central and back vowels, i.e., in front of , , and .

The opinions of Bulgarian linguistics were also shared by a number of foreign Slavicists. French linguist Léon Beaulieux has stated that Bulgarian is characterised by its tendency to eliminate all palatal consonants. Czech linguist Horalek claimed as early as the 1940s that palatalisation in standard Bulgarian was on its way to disappear through decomposition and the development of a specific glide and that words such as (white) and (grandfather) were pronounced and (i.e., CjV) or even and just as often as they were pronounced and .

Word stress

Stress is not usually marked in written text. In cases where the stress must be indicated, a grave accent is placed on the vowel of the stressed syllable.

Bulgarian word stress is dynamic. Stressed syllables are louder and longer than unstressed ones. As in Russian and other East Slavic languages, as well as English, Bulgarian stress is also lexical rather than fixed as in French, Latin or the West Slavic languages. It may fall on any syllable of a polysyllabic word, and its position may vary depending on the inflection and derivation, for example:
* nouns – ('man'), ('the man'), ('men'), ('the men')
* verbs – ('I am going'), ('go!')

Bulgarian stress is also distinctive: the following examples are only differentiated by stress (see the different vowels):
* nouns
** ('wool'), ('wave')
** ('steam'), ('coin')
* verbs
** ('when he comes'), (when he came')
** ('explosive'), ('exploded')

Stress usually isn't signified in written text, even in the above examples, if the context makes the meaning clear. However, the grave accent may be written if confusion is likely.

The stress is often written in order to signify a dialectal deviation from the standard pronunciation:
* ('he told me'), instead of
* ('he wanted to come'), instead of )

References

Bibliography

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

{{Language phonologies

Phonology
Slavic phonologies