The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9783110854978, 9783110099041

Citation preview

The Slavic Languages Unity in Diversity

Edward Stankiewicz

The Slavic Languages Unity in Diversity

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin • New York • Amsterdam

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Stankiewicz, Edward The Slavic languages. Includes indexes. 1. Slavic languages—Grammar. 2. Slavic languages—Phonology. 3. Slavic languages —History. 4. Typology (Linguistics) I. Title. PG59.S67 1986 491.8 86-21820 ISBN 0-89925-273-7 (alk. paper)

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen Bibliothek

Stankiewicz, Edward: The Slavic languages unity in diversity / Edward Stankiewicz. — Berlin ; New York ; Amsterdam : Mouton de Gruyter, 1986. ISBN 3-11-009904-7

Printed on acid free paper.

© Copyright 1986 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translations into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form — by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from Mouton de Gruyter, a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Typesetting: Druckerei Appl, Wemding. — Printing: Gerike GmbH, Berlin — Binding: Liideritz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Preface Abbreviations of Journals Abbreviations of Languages and Dialects List of Symbols Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

VII XI XVII XIX 1

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

21

The Common Slavic Prosodic Pattern and its Evolution in Slovenian

35

On Discretness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

47

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects: A study in structural dialectology

63

The Vocalic Systems of Modern Standard Slovenian

85

The Dialect of Resia and the "Common Slovenian" Accentual Pattern

93

Polish Mazurzenie and the Serbo-Croatian Palatals

105

The Singular-Plural Opposition in the Slavic Languages

113

The Grammatical Genders of the Slavic Languages

127

The Fate of the Neuter in the Slovene Dialects

143

The Collective and Counted Plurals of the Slavic Nouns

153

The Interdependence of Paradigmatic and Derivational Patterns .

171

The Accentuation and Grammatical Categories of the -a Stems in South Slavic

195

The South Slavic Infinitive and its Accentuation

207

The Inflection of Serbo-Croatian Substantives and their Genitive Plural Endings

215

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

231

VI

Table of Contents

The Appellative Forms (the Vocative and Imperative) of Bulgarian

251

The Expressive Suffix -x- in Polish and in Other Slavic Languages

259

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological and Diachronic Aspects

267

The Asyllabic Verbal Stems in Slavic and Their Accentuation . . . 301 The Slavic Vocative and its Accentuation

315

The Place and Function of Stress in Russian Nominal Forms with a Zero in the Ending

327

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

337

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

353

The Accentuation of the -I- Participle in Serbo-Croatian

377

The Slavic Athematic (Nominal) Stems

395

The Declension and Derivation of the Russian Simple Numerals . 411 Conservatism and Innovation in Slavic Adverbs: the Case of the Russian doma "at home," domoj "home"

423

Russ. vecor, vcera;S-Cr.jucefr); Pol. wczoraj'yesterday.'

435

The Etymology of Common Slavic skot'h "cattle" and Related Terms

443

Slavic Kinship Terms and the Perils of the Soul

453

Index of Languages

465

Index of Names

467

Preface

This volume is a collection of selected papers dealing with comparative and historical problems of Slavic linguistics. Their arrangement reflects, on the one hand, the shifting interests of Slavic linguistic scholarship as it evolved over the last three decades, and, on the other hand, the various phases and facets of my work. Thus the first seven articles deal primarily with phonological questions, articles 9 to 19 with questions of inflectional and derivational morphology, articles 20 to 26 with Slavic morphophonemics (in particular with Slavic accentology), and the last three articles with Slavic lexicology. Interspersed are articles that straddle the domains of phonology and morphophonemics (8) and of morphophonemics and derivation (28 and 29). The division of subjects is not, however, strict, since the formal and semantic aspects of language are inextricably linked; the mutual relation of form and function constitutes, in fact, one of the basic and recurrent themes of this volume. It will be noted that although some articles deal with individual Slavic languages or dialects, a typological or general linguistic outlook informs the overall formulation of the issues. The title I have chosen for the present collection deliberately alludes to the book by Nicolas van Wijk, Les langue slaves. De l'unité à la pluralité written in 1937 and reprinted in Mouton's Janua linguarum series in 1956. The lucid and compact monograph by the Dutch Slavist in some ways marked a new approach to "comparative Slavic grammar" by devoting one of its five chapters to the "parallelism and divergence in the evolution of the Slavic languages." The chapter in question discusses some phonetic parallelisms in the history of the Slavic languages (e. g., the fate of the nasals in Polish and Bulgarian, the change of g to h in the central Slavic languages), but stops short of any broader conclusions concerning the possibility and limits of linguistic convergence. The author remains, in effect, within the traditional historical framework, as when he believes that the sources of Slavic linguistic convergence are to be sought in the common linguistic patrimony of the Slavs ("the germs of future history", he writes, "were already contained in Common Slavic") and in their presumed "sentiment" of communality. The true focus of the book remains thus the breakdown of Common Slavic and the for-

VIII

Slavic Languages

mation of the diverse Slavic languages, a focus which is indicated by the very title of the book. A new orientation in Slavic comparative and historical grammar emerged with the rise of contemporary linguistics and its new awareness that languages do not evolve in a totally fortuitous way, or, as Baudouin de Courtenay put it, that "there is a limit on linguistic change." The latter idea was for Baudouin a corollary of the more fundamental notion that languages preserve stability throughout and despite historical change (i. e., the presence of statics within diachrony) and that variation is implicit in any synchronic state (i. e., the presence of dynamics within synchrony). Baudouin himself developed these concepts in a pathbreaking study {Zarys historiijfzyka polskiego, 1922) which showed that some of the basic, or as we would now say, unmarked elements of Polish phonology remained invariant throughout the history of the language, whereas its more complex or marked elements were subject to continuous variation and change. Change itself was not, moreover, completely contingent, for it moved, as it were, along a limited number of alternative paths. These pioneering ideas of Baudouin were taken up and advanced by the linguists of Prague who gave them a theoretical underpinning by formulating the interrelated concepts of markedness, neutralization and of the hierarchical organization of all levels of language. The question of linguistic invariance and variation became thereby grounded in the general theory of language, and historical linguistics found itself in a close alliance with linguistic typology, that rapidly developing branch of linguistics that served as the testing ground for predictive and explanatory statements about the structure and historical development of language. These pivotal ideas, which were elaborated by the linguists of Prague (above all in the field of phonology where they were first formulated by Roman Jakobson), have served as a point of departure for a number of the present studies whose major purpose is the elucidation of the convergent and divergent phenomena in the structure of the contemporary Slavic languages. The remarkable similarity of these languages is, of course, highly conducive to this kind of inquiry. Although the basic orientation of the book is typological, it is clear that such an approach carries throughout historical implications, just as the more explicit historical studies have a direct bearing on Slavic typology. A considerable part of the volume is devoted to questions of Slavic morphology whose typological and historical aspects have been far less

Preface

IX

explored than those of phonology. The concepts of oppositions, hierarchy and neutralization have also here revealed their explanatory power. But particularly rewarding seems to me the study of the interplay of diverse grammatical categories, which I have examined on the basis of such fundamental Slavic categories as gender, number and case, as well as in the study of word-formation. At the same time it has appeared that some of the generalizations of early structuralism were premature and oversimplified. Thus it can no longer be maintained that phonemic quantity and stress, or large vocalic and consonantal systems are incompatible, just as the notion of markedness has proved to require a more flexible and dynamic interpretation. And, as I have shown in several of my papers, the all-pervasive phenomenon of neutralization is frequently complemented by the introduction of supplementary, "compensatory" discriminations which balance the asymmetry of linguistic oppositions. My work on morphophonemics, which makes up a considerable part of this book, has likewise profited from the insights of linguists (in the first place of Jakobson) who have overcome the piecemeal treatment of morphophonemic alternations (as it was still practiced by Trubetzkoy and American descriptivists) by introducing the concept of base forms and of rules which predict the occurrence of the morphological alternants. Such an approach has significantly simplified the description of the formal processes of a language and has been most helpful to me in the analysis of Slavic accentuation, which had proven to be far more simple and systematic than was originally thought. The recent emphasis on simplicity for its own sake seems to me, however, a barren and otiose enterprise. A meaningful analysis of the morphophonemic processes of a language demands that they be treated with reference to their functions as well as in their mutual relations. As I have further argued (e. g., in the article on the Slavic vocative and the Russian numerals), one must avoid the tendency to absolutize the basic forms as "deep" and immutable entities, for in this case, too, language shows its capacity for coexisting patterns and innovations. A special place in the book is accorded to selected though central problems of Slavic accentology, for this is clearly the least advanced and hitherto controversial branch of Slavic linguistics. While some of the present papers have appeared in another collection, now out of print {Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology, Ann Arbor, 1979), I have here expanded their range and taken a more explicit critical stance with respect to some recent theories on Slavic accentuation. What

X

Slavic Languages

seems to me most questionable about these theories is that (in following Kurytowicz) they have too easily discarded some of the true insights of "classical" Slavic accentology (e.g., the discovery of a correlation between the distribution of stress and the inherited Common Slavic quantity of vowels), while they perpetuate its traditional preoccupation with problems of reconstruction. But in the words of the mathematician H. Weyl (quoted on p. 269 of this volume), "explanation of a phenomenon is to be sought not in its origin, but in its immanent laws. Knowledge must be far advanced before one may hope to understand... their genesis. For want of this knowledge the speculations on pedigrees . . . are mostly premature." It would seem that linguists brought up on the lessons of modern structuralism are hardly in need of such a reminder. And, indeed, many speculations about the prehistoric origin of certain accentual forms would lose ground if greater attention were paid to the immanent, structural relations of Slavic morphology (as I have shown in the analysis of the Russian numerals and the Slavic adverbs). Equally strained seems to me the attempt to press the origin of the Slavic accents into a Lithuanian mold, the more that the latter is itself in need of an adequate historical explanation. Another shortcoming of some recent accentological works is their superficial, and even inaccurate coverage of the contemporary Slavic facts (as shown in the article on the athematic nominal stems), though these facts help clarify some of the historical and synchronic accentual relations. Progress in the field will no doubt be made when Slavic accentology abandons its one-sided "archeological" approach and when the geographically scattered and heterogeneous historical facts are welded into a cohesive theory with a true comparative and historical dimension. This book is offered in the belief that problems of convergence and divergence will continue to retain their appeal to the Slavic scholar and to students of language and linguistic typology. It is my pleasant duty to thank my graduate students, Ljerka Debus and Jack Schreiber for their technical help in the preparation of the book, and the Department of Linguistics at Yale for a subvention towards its publication.

Edward Stankiewicz July, 1986

Abbreviations of Journals

AL AmerContr

Acta linguistica, Copenhagen. American Contributions to the ... International Congress of Slav(ic)ists. ANSSR Akademija Nauk SSSR. ArchNéerPhonExp Archives néerlandais de phonétique expérimentale, The Hague. Arch VerglPhon Archiv fiir vergleichende Phonetik=Zeitschrift fur Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin. ASlPh Archivfür slavische Philologie, Vienna-Berlin. ASNSL Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Braunschweig. BAN Balgarska akademija na naukite, Sofia. BdlgDial Balgarska dialektologija, Sofia. BslgEz Baigarski ezik. Organ na Instituta za balgarski ezik pri Balgarskata Akademija na Naukite, Sofia. BJF Biblioteka Juznoslovenskog filologa, Belgrade. BPTJ Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Jezykoznawczego, Cracow. BSLP Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, Paris. CFS Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, Geneva. Charisteria Mathesio Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio quinquagenario a discipulis et Circuii linguistici Pragensis sodalibus oblato, Prague, 1932. CJKZ Casopis za slovenski jezik, knjizevnost in zgodovino, Ljubljana. CslVlastivëda Ceskoslovenskà Vlastivéda, Prague. Die Sprache Die Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, Vienna. FFC Folklore Fellows Communications, Helsinki. FolSlav Folia Slavica, Columbus, Ohio. Germsl Germanoslavica, Prague. GlasSAN Glas Srpske Akademije Nauka, Belgrade (Formerly Srpska Kraljevska Akademija). Godisnjak Filozofskogfakulteta u Novom Sadu. GodFFNS

XII

GodSU

Slavic Languages

Godisnik na Sofijskija universitet, IstorikofilologiCeski fakultet, Sofia. Grada NDBiH Grada. NauCno drustvo NR Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. HDZb Hrvatski dijalektoloski zbornik, Zagreb. IJaz Institut jazykoznanija AN SSSR. IJSLP International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, The Hague. IORJaS Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, St. Petersburg - Leningrad. IRJa Institut russkogo jazyka, Moscow. IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics, Bloomington, Indiana. Izvestija ANSSSR Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Leningrad. IzvIBE Izvestija na Instituía za balgarski ezik, Sofia. Izvestija na Seminara po slavjanskata filologija pri UniIzvSSF verziteta v Sofija, Sofia. JF Juznoslovenskifilolog, Belgrade. JoumAmerFolk Journal of American Folklore, Philadelphia. JPol Jezyk Polski, Cracow. JSp Jezikoslovni spisi, Ljubljana. KSISl Kratkie soobscenija Instituía slavjanovedenija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow. Language Language. Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore. LGU Leningradskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet imeni A. Zdanova, Leningrad. LS Lingüistica Slovaca, Bratislava. LudSlow Lud Slowiañski. Pismo poswiecone dialektologii i etnografii Slowian, Cracow. LjetopisJAZU Ljetopis Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb. Materialy i Sovescenija, Voronez. MatSovesc Materialy i issledovanija po russkoj dialektologii, MosMIRD cow. MJ Makedonskijazik, Skoplje. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van WetenMKAW schappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Series A, Amsterdam. Ill Medunarodni Kongres Slavista. Izdanje izvrsnog MKSL-III odbora, Belgrade, 1939.

Abbreviations of Journals

XIII

Movoznavstvo. Naukovi zapysky, Kiev. Makedonskipregled, Sofia. Monografiepolskich cech gwarowych, Cracow. Materiafy iprace Komisji Jezykowej Akademii Umiejetnosci w Krakowie, Cracow. Materiafy iprace Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnosci, CraMPPAU cow. Nasjezik Nas jezik, Belgrade. NaukZapXark U Naukovi zapysky Xar'kivs'koho universytetu, Kharkov. Neophilologus Neophilologus. Driemaandelijks tijdschrift voor de wetenschappelijk beoefening van levende vreemde talen en van hun letterkunde, Groningen. NZapCerkasPI Naucnye zapiski Cerkasskogo pedagogiceskogo instituía, Cerkassy. PFil Pracefilologiczne,Warszaw. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of PhoPICPhonS I netic Sciences, Amsterdam, 1932. Prace Komisji Jezykowej, Polska Akademia UmiejetPKJ, PAU nosci w Krakowie, Cracow. Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, New PMLA York. Priloziproucavanjujezika, Novi Sad. PPJ Prace Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnosci, Cracow. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, PracePAU Zagreb. RadJAZU Revue des études slaves, Paris. RESl Russkijfilologiceskij vestnik, Warsaw. RFV Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Frankfurt am RhMPhil Main. RodNapr Rodopski Napredak, Sofia. RozprPAU Rozprawy Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnosci, Cracow. RWF Rozprawy Akademii Umiejetnosci. Wydziat filologiczny, Cracow. Sbor... Balan Sbornik v cest na akad. Aleksandar Teodorov-Balan, po slucaj devetdeset ipetata mu godisnina, Sofia, 1955. SborBAN Sbornik na Bslgarskata Akademija na Naukite, Sofia. SborMAE Sbornik Muzeja Antropologii i Étnografii. SborNU Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i kniznina, Sofia. SborORJaS Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti, St. Petersburg - Leningrad. Movoznavstvo MP MPCG MPKJ

XIV

Slavic Languages

Sbor Praci I SSlov Sbornik praci I Sjezdu slovanskychfilologiiv Praze, Prague, 1929. Schriften BKLA Schriften der Balkankommission. Linguistische Abteilung. I. Südslavische Dialektstudien. KAW, Vienna. SDZb Srpski dijalektoloski zbomik, Belgrade. SFen Studia Fennica, Helsinki. SFPSl Studia zfilologii polskiej i slowianskiej, Warsaw. SitzKA W Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna. SitzÖstAW Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Vienna. SKA Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, later Srpska Akademija Nauka. SlavFil Slavjanskajafilologija,Sbornik statej, Moscow, 1958. Slavia. Casopispro slovanskoufilologii, Prague. Slavia Slavjanskoejazykoznanie, Moscow. SlavJaz Slavisticna Revija, Ljubljana. SlavRev Slovenskijezik, Ljubljana. SU Stat'i i materialy po bolgarskoj dialektologii SSSR, SMBD Moscow. Slavia occidentalis, Poznan. SO Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnosci, Warsaw. SprPAU Slovenska ree, Bratislava. Studies in Slavic Morphophonemics and Accentology, SR Ann Arbor, 1979. Studies ... Symbolae... Kurylowicz Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurytowiez, Adam Heinz et al. (eds.), Wroclaw, 1965. Symbolae ... Rozwadowski Symbolae Grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, 1-2 Cracow, 1927-1928. TCLP Travaux de Cercle linguistique de Prague, Prague. TNYAS Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York. TrakSbor Trakijski sbornik, Sofia. Trudove BD Trudove po bdlgarska dialektologija, Sofia. Trudy I Ja Trudy Institutajazykoznanija AN SSSR, Moscow. Trudy VoronezU Thidy Voronezskogo universiteta, Voronez. UcenZapInstSlav Ucenye zapiski Instituta Slavjanovedenija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow - Leningrad.

Abbreviations of Journals

XV

UcenZapKazan ' U Ucenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta, Kazan'. UcenZapKalinGPI Ucenye zapiski Kaliningradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiceskogo instituía, Kaliningrad. UcenZapKisinevU Ucenye zapiski Kisinevskogo universiteta, Kishinev. UcenZapLGPI Ucenye zapiski Leningradskogo pedagogiceskogo instituía imeni Gercena, Leningrad. UcenZapMosGPI Ucenye zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarsfvennogo pedagogiceskogo insíiíuía imeni Lenina, Moscow. UcenZapSverdlPI Ucenye zapiski Sverdlovskogo pedagogiceskogo instituía, Sverdlov. VesinikMGU Vesinik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiíeía, Serija filologija, zurnalistika, Moscow. VJa Voprosyjazykoznanija, Moscow. Voprosy russkogo jazykoznanija, Lvov. VRJa Word. Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, Word New York. Die Welt der Slaven. Vierteljahrschrift fur Slavistik, WSl Wiesbaden. Zbornik Maiice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, Novi ZborFilLing Sad. ZborlnsfNauka Zbornik Insíiíuía hisíorijskih nauka u Zadru, Zadar. Zeitschriftfur Slavistik, Berlin. ZfSl ZslPh Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie, Leipzig - Heidelberg. ZMNP íurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvescenija, St. Petersburg.

Abbreviations of Languages and Dialects

BR. Bulg. ChSl CSI. CSR Cz. èak. Engl. Finn. Fr. Gr. IE Ital. kaj. Kas. Lat. Lith. LL. Mac. NHG OCS OCz. OFris. OHG OPol. ORuss. Pol. Port. Rum. Russ. S-Cr.

Byelorussian Skt. Slk. Bulgarian Slov. Church Slavic Slovn. Common Slavic Contemporary Standard Russian stok. Turk. Czech Ukr. 6akavian UL. English Finnish French Greek Indo-European Italian kajkavian Kashubian Latin Lithuanian Lower Lusatian Macedonian New High German Old Church Slavic Old Czech Old Frisian Old High German Old Polish Old Russian Polish Portugese Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian

Sanskrit Slovak Slovenian Slovincian stokavian Turkish Ukrainian Upper Lusatian

List of Symbols

[ ] / / < > ~ * # e 1

transliteration phonemic transcription morphophonemic transcription alternates with reconstructed or theoretical form morphophonemic zero S-Cr. historical e(je/e/i) stress mark neoacute accent (above vowel or syllable) length long rising in S-Cr. and Slov., otherwise stress short rising in CS1. and S-Cr. or short stressed vowel in Slov. conventional sign for S-Cr. short falling conventional sign for S-Cr. and Slov. long falling

The use of other notations is explained in the individual sections.

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

1. The comparison and classification of the Slavic languages has figured prominently in Slavic linguistics from the days of Dobrovsky up to our own time. The attempt to compare various, sometimes remote linguistic systems, is based on the assumption tljat, despite their differences, languages are comparable. In view of the striking similarities between the Slavic languages, this assumption has generally been taken for granted by Slavic scholars. However, the principles of classification of the Slavic languages have differed considerably in the course of time. The classificatory schemes which we have inherited from the nineteenth century may be characterized by two approaches. One approach is typological and oriented towards synchrony, with an almost exclusive concern with morphological features as terms of comparison; the other is genetic, with an almost exclusive interest in phonetic correspondences. The lack of rigorous criteria in determining identity of grammatical features, the comparison of ad hoc selected forms, and a naive apriorism in defining the morphological types made the typological-morphological approach unpalatable to most linguists of a neogrammarian and historical orientation.1 Although the importance of a morphological classification becomes more and more apparent in our own times, Slavic scholars working along these lines are often compelled to conclude that "a morphological [typological] classification of the Slavic languages is less promising than a genealogical comparison."2 The genetic approach, on the other hand, solves the problem of classifying the present-day differentiated Slavic languages by focussing its interest on older stages which are marked by a relative uniformity. N. van Wijk stated this clearly when he pointed out that the classification of the Slavic languages into three groups has no bearing on the contemporary linguistic differences, but pertains specifically to the period following the breakdown of Slavic unity. Even scholars who accepted the tripartition scheme voiced reservations with respect to its validity in explaining the present-day relationships among the Slavic languages.

2

Slavic Languages

Attempts to devise more complex classifications, even on the basis of genetic criteria, have therefore not been lacking.3 2. The rise of structural linguistics was accompanied by a strong interest in a typological-phonemic classification of the Slavic languages. B. de Courtenay was probably the first to state the importance of grouping the Slavic dialects on the basis of their synchronic features.4 He proposed a classification in which linguistic areas would be delimited by isoglosses which show phonemic and grammatical differences rather than historical correspondences. This program received further support in the pronouncements of V. Mathesius,5 and was given a more elaborate treatment by Isacenko, who proposed a classification of the Slavic languages in terms of their phonemic inventories.6 Examining the quantitative relationships between the consonantal and vocalic phonemes in the Slavic Standard languages, he established for the Slavic world four basic types which are characterized by different ratios of their vocalic and consonantal phonemes. On the extreme poles of the scale are found "consonantal" systems (like Polish, with thirty-five consonants and five syllabic phonemes), and "vocalic" systems (like SerboCroatian, with twenty consonants and twenty-four syllabic phonemes). The intermediary types are constituted on the one hand by systems with a fairly high number of vowels, such as Slovak and Czech, and on the other hand by systems with a lower number of vowels but with a higher number of consonants, such as Russian and Bulgarian. Upon closer examination the proposed "quantitative" scheme is, however, greatly oversimplified because it equates the Standard languages with phonemic types and ignores the differences between the culturally determined norms and the local dialects. Examination of phonemic inventories of dialects spoken in the areas represented by the so-called "consonantal" languages actually reveals that some of them have a relatively low number of consonants, as for example, the Sorbian Muzakov system with eleven vowels and only twenty-five (or twentyfour) consonants,7 whereas among the "vocalic" languages we find Standard Macedonian with twenty-five (or twenty-six) consonants and only 5 (or 6) vowels.8 The statement that these dialects are "transitional" is equivalent to saying that they form different types. But even the ratios established for the Standard languages are in no way as unambiguous as they may appear. Some Standard languages, like Czech or Ukrainian, have coexisting more or less recognized norms with different inventories. In many Standard languages we find, furthermore, "potential" or marginal phonemes, such as 3'/ in Bulgarian,

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

3

/ r ' / in Ukrainian, / g ' / in Russian, or / x / in Macedonian. There are even systems in which an entire opposition is "potential," as for example, tone in Standard Slovenian or in some peripheral Serbian dialects. In dialects which are less controlled by prescriptive norms, the status of the marginal, "stylistic" alternants is far more fluid than in the literary languages. Lists providing definite numbers for the phonemes of such dialects appear to be highly arbitrary. A phonemic typology attempting to cover the inventories of all the Slavic dialects would be extremely impractical. More important, it would fail to reveal the features which are shared by all the Slavic languages and, on the other hand, to indicate at what points of the linguistic continuum, which consists of gradually varying phonemic inventories, we can recognize distinctive types. It seems more important, and also more feasible, to set up a classification which would reveal the phonemic latitudes and the general structural make-up of the Slavic languages. 3. This task has a fair chance of success if we abstract the elements which underlie and which are shared by various systems, no matter what their number of phonemes. These ultimate, structural elements are, in Jakobson's terms, the distinctive features.9 Within a distinctive features analysis, the quantitative relations between the "vocalic" and "consonantal" Slavic systems turn out to be an implementation of the more significant qualitative distinctions. A classification of languages in terms of their phonemic oppositions is of particular importance if we compare systems which have an equal or almost equal number of phonemes, but are "realized" in different oppositions. Thus, for example, the vowels of Polish dialects are involved either in the front-back opposition or in the unrounded-rounded opposition, whereas the Russian vowels are involved in the rounded-unrounded opposition. While the Slavic languages show a remarkable uniformity with respect to most distinctive features which underlie their phonemic systems, they are clearly differentiated by a few features. This differentiation constitutes the main criterion in recognizing broader phonemic types. Within the major types we can, however, recognize further subdivisions. The subdivisions can be objectively established by the fact that systems which are characterized by identical oppositions may utilize them in a different fashion. The different utilization of identical distinctive features may operate in two ways: either a distinctive feature is heavily employed in one system, but less so in another, or a distinctive

4

Slavic Languages

feature combines with certain features in one system, but with different features in another. In the first case the different utilization of a feature yields a different number of phonemes (and in this case the number of phonemes in a system is of serious structural interest), whereas in the second case the combinations may not affect the number of phonemes but will yield different phonemic pairs. As an example of the first type, one can cite some Slovenian or Slovak dialects with four palatals (c, s, z, n) as compared with other Slovenian or Slovak dialects with six palatals (6, c, s, z, n, 1'). Illustrative of the second type are some Hanak dialects with three long vowels /e, o, a / as compared with Czech dialects with three long vowels /I, u, a/. 10 In what follows, Slavic phonemic systems are compared on the basis of their distinctive features and of their combinations. A survey of all the possible combinations, i. e. of all the phonemes found in the Slavic languages including the dialects, is beyond the scope of this paper. The Slavic systems are presented in terms of their consonants (into which, for the sake of convenience, we include the liquids and the glides) and of their vocalic patterns. 11 4. The following seven oppositions are known to underlie all Slavic consonantal systems: (1) compact/diffuse, (2) grave/acute, (3) voiced/ voiceless, (4) continuant/discontinuant, (5) nasal/oral, (6) strident/mellow, (7) sharp/plain. 12 4.1 The first five features are shared by all Slavic languages. The maximal utilization of the first four oppositions would yield the following table of consonants: Y x g k

f b P

c 3 s z

t d s z

V

compact diffuse However, in various systems, limitations are imposed upon the utilization of the four basic features.

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

5

Common to all Slavic languages is at least one empty slot in the velar voiced consonants. Of the two phonemes / g / , / y / , the stop occurs more frequently, / y / is dispersed over various areas of the Slavic world. It is found in southern Great Russia, in some Byelorussian and Czech dialects, in some cakavian dialects, and in the Primorje dialects of Slovenia. Both / y / and / g / are absent from a certain number of dialects which have instead the laryngeal / h / . This situation prevails in Carinthia, in Upper Sorbian and in some areas of Byelorussia and of the Ukraine. More frequently / h / occurs together with / g / , although the latter has in such cases a lower functional load. A special and altogether rare case is formed by the Carinthian dialects of Roz, where both velar stops /k, g/ have been replaced by the pair of laryngeals h/. 13 Within the palatal series, the spirant consonants /s, z/ are stable. Of the two palatal stops ("affricates"), /%/ is the less stable member. It occurs frequently in systems which have the strident/mellow opposition (cf.4.3). In systems without this opposition, / £ / alone (often in its mellow variety) occurs, as in Russian, eastern Bulgarian and in most Slovenian dialects. Sometimes both palatal stops are missing, as in the Russian and Byelorussian "cokan'e" dialects. The lack of the whole series of palatals has been found in various enclaves of the Slavic world, where it is unmistakably the result of foreign influence. Systems lacking /c, 3, s, z/ have been found in some Russian areas, in some Ukrainian dialects exposed to Polish "mazurzenie," in Serbo-Croatian dialects with "cakavism" and in some Slovenian villages exposed to German influence.14 Among the diffuse consonants, the dentals and the labial stops show no significant oscillations (cf.4.3). The labial spirants / f / and / v / are, however, absent from a number of languages, / f / is missing in various eastern Slavic and in some Slovenian dialects; it is generally replaced by / x / or /xv/. In southern Slavic dialects, both voiceless spirants / x / and / f / are frequently absent, although / f / has here a higher stability than / x / . The absence of / x / is a widespread phenomenon in the SerboCroatian, Bulgarian and Macedonian (including Standard Maoedotiian) dialects, / v / is likewise absent from many Slavic dialects, where it is replaced by / w / , although in some systems / v / is in free variation with / w / (e. g. in Ukrainian and Byelorussian).15 / w / alone is found in northeastern Czech dialects, in Upper and Lower Sorbian, in Slovenian Carinthia and Upper Krajna, and in some Bulgarian dialects (e. g. Xaskovo). The fluctuations common to the above phonemes may be viewed as an example of historical "drift." Some of these phonemes (/g/ or / y / )

6

Slavic Languages

lack phonemic partners, occur in expressive words (/f/ or /x/), or have a low functional load (they may occur mainly in loanwords). They are dispersed over various areas, without being specific to any compact region or language. In some dialects they appear as stylistic variants, in others they are stable in the system, but rare in contexts. The presence of these phonemes may fill in "gaps" in the pattern, rendering it more symmetrical, but their absence does not affect the basic four oppositions, which are constant in all Slavic languages. 4.2 The nasal consonants are involved in the compact/diffuse, grave/acute oppositions. Only the phonemes /m, n, n/ may occur (in various languages [rj] is a contextual variant). Of the liquids /r/ and A/, only the latter may have a palatal partner, A'/. The occurrence of both A ' / and /n/ is connected with the occurrence of other palatal or palatalized consonants (cf. 4.3,4.4). 4.3 The opposition strident/mellow is most constant in the dental series, where it may be implemented in the pairs /c, 3 / (affricates) vs. /t, d/ (stops). But whereas /c/ is present in almost all Slavic languages except in some Russian "cokan'e" dialects (where /c/ changed to /c/ or /s/), the fate of the voiced "affricate" / 3 / is often linked with the fate of /%/ (or /%/). As a rule, the absence of a voiced palatal stop also implies the absence of , as in Russian, Slovenian and in most Bulgarian dialects. On the other hand, systems which have a voiced palatal stop may often lack the phoneme, such as Czech, Upper and Lower Sorbian, and most Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian dialects (Standard Bulgarian has /3V). Quite frequently, however, /3/ occurs if /%/ (and/or /%/) occurs, as in Ukrainian, Byelorussian (the Standard language has only / 3 V ) , Polish, Kashubian, Slovak, Macedonian, and in some stokavian and Bulgarian dialects. The strident/mellow opposition rarely involves other dental and labial consonants. Quite unique is the case of some Slovenian dialects (in Carinthia and around Cerkno), where besides /t: c/ we also find the pair /s: 0/, and even /f: cp/. The extension of the strident/mellow opposition is achieved here at the expense of the stops, for the voiceless consonants have here lost their voiced partners.16 The strident/mellow opposition is, however, most significant in the palatal series. Inasmuch as the distinction between strident/mellow palatals correlates with the sharp/plain opposition, the latter will be examined first. 4.4 The feature sharp/plain is the only consonantal feature which is not shared by all the Slavic languages. It is found almost exclusively in

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

7

systems which lack prosodic features or have only phonemic stress.17 Among the languages in which it occurs, it is maximally utilized in the eastern Bulgarian (including the Standard language) and in peripheral Macedonian dialects. In one of the latter we find the following palatalized consonants:18

X'

v' f

g' k'

b' P'

m'

t' c' d'3' n' s' z' If we add to the above the soft liquids /V, r'/, we obtain a system with seventeen palatalized consonants. In other languages various restrictions are imposed upon the utilization of the feature of sharping. The following sub-types can be recognized according to the admission of palatalization in the velar, labial or dental series (marked respectively as K\ F , T ) : 1. K\ P\ T 2. P', T 3 . T 4 . K' and/or P\ Type 1, which comprises also the soft liquids /r', IV, occurs in most eastern Bulgarian dialects (Standard Bulgarian lacks /x'/), in eastern Macedonian dialects, and in some Russian dialects. The latter lack /c', 3'/ (Standard Russian also lacks / g ' / and /x'/). Type 2, which comprises also the soft liquids /V, rV, occurs in Russian and in most Byelorussian dialects. The latter lack /d', tV but have /c', 3'/ (Standard Byelorussian and the southern dialects also lack /r'/). Type 3 occurs in southern Byelorussian and in eastern Ukrainian dialects (in Standard Ukrainian and in various dialects, / r ' / is a free variant). Type 4 comprises only grave consonants. It is found in Upper and Lower Sorbian, in a few eastern Bulgarian (Rhodopian)19 dialects, and in Polish dialects (Standard Polish lacks /x'/). The last type is found in those systems in which the palatals are involved in the strident/mellow opposition. The existence of the latter opposition within palatals is incompatible with palatalization of dentals.

8

Slavic Languages

4.5 Strident/mellow palatals are found either in systems with palatalized grave consonants (type 4 above), or in systems which lack palatalization. It is utilized to a different extent in various languages. It is maximally employed when both the palatal stops and spirants yield the pairs /c:c, 3:3, s:s and z:z/. All these we find in some stokavian dialects (in E. Hercegovina, Zeta-Sjenica and Istria),20 in the Polish non"mazurzenie" dialects, and in the southwestern Ukrainian dialects. Otherwise we find either strident/mellow spirants /s : s, z : z/, or strident/mellow stops /è : c, 3 :3/. The first type occurs in Lower Sorbian, in most eastern Slovak and in the Polish "mazurzenie" dialects, which, however, lack /s : s/ (only /s/ occurs). The second type occurs in most stokavian and Macedonian dialects (including Standard Serbo-Croatian and Standard Macedonian), in the western Bulgarian and in the socalled "soft" Slovak dialects (including Standard Slovak). In most cakavian and in some Slovenian dialects (of Primoije and Bela Krajina), as well as in Upper Sorbian and in Czech (including Standard Czech), only the voiceless palatal stops, i.e. /c:6/ (in conventional Czech orthography tv : c) implement the opposition. In Czech, Kashubian and in some peripheral Polish dialects, the strident/mellow opposition also involves the liquids /r : r/. The fate of the palatals AV and /n/ is often linked with the opposition strident/mellow in the palatal series. In areas which show a tendency to reduce or to eliminate the number of strident/mellow palatals, AV and /n/ may likewise be in a state of fluctuation ; /n/ is generally more stable than AV, and also more stable than all the mellow palatals, /is./, and less frequently AV, is found in Czech and in Polish dialects (St. Czech and St. Polish have only /n/), in Serbo-Croatian, Slovak (St. S-Cr. and St. Slk. have both /n, 17), and in various Slovenian dialects (various dialects have /n/, few also have AV; St.Slov. has neither). The unstable status of the strident/mellow palatals and of A', h/, their scattered distribution over various Slavic areas, can be viewed as another example of "drift" or convergence, which affects similar structures in the same way. Those Slavic languages which have never developed or which have lost palatalization of dental consonants, share the same tendencies in their consonantism, i. e. a tendency towards symmetry or a reduction down to zero of the symmetry between the strident/ mellow palatals. 5. The classification of the vocalic systems is of utmost importance for a Slavic phonemic typology. It is, however, beset with difficulties due to the great variety and fluctuation which often run from dialect to dia-

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

9

lect. Phonemic data on the vowels are also less available than on the consonants. This lack of reliable facts warrants extreme caution and may be partially responsible for some premature generalizations which tended to establish distinctive vocalic types on the basis of a "triangular" or "quadrangular" patterning of vowels.21 The basic structural types can, however, be identified if we consider in turn the inherent and the prosodic features. 5.1 The Slavic vocalic systems are based on the following inherent distinctions: 1) compact/diffuse, 2) grave/acute, 3) plain/flat, 4) tense/ lax, 5) nasal/oral. (Features 1, 2 and 5 are also involved in the consonants.) The well known five- or six-vowel systems involve the compact/diffuse distinction, which also encompasses the intermediary open vowels /e, o / and the grave/acute ("front/back") and/or the plain/flat ("unrounded/rounded") opposition. The latter is common in five-vowel systems (e. g. the East Slavic stressed vowels) and in six-vowel systems with the back unrounded (grave plain) vowels / a / or / y / (vs. the back rounded / u / ) . The existence of / i i / (e.g. in Slovenian Styria and in some Serbo-Croatian dialects) splits the acute vowels into a plain/flat pair / i : ii/. Inasmuch as / a / or / y / sometimes present an intermediary degree of gravity (and not the back variety),22 we will simply call them, as well as /ii/, "central" vowels. The following five- or six-vowel systems may obtain:

i e as

u o a

i e

9 u a o

The five-vowel "triangle" is widely spread; it is found (under stress) in most East Slavic systems (including their Standard languages), in Czech (including St. Cz. with its five short vowels), in eastern Slovak, in various Polish dialects (including St. Pol., which also has /o/), and in most Serbo-Croatian dialects. The six-vowel "vertical quadrangle" occurs in the central and western Slovak dialects (including St. Slk.), in peripheral Serbo-Croatian dialects (Montenegro, Rumanian Banat), and in some Bulgarian (Teteven, Erkec) and Polish dialects (which may employ, instead of gravity, the feature of rounding). The six-vowel "horizontal quadrangle" is found in western Ukrainian dialects (including

10

Slavic Languages

the Lviv Standard), in most Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects (including their Standard languages), and in the stokavian Prizren-Timok dialects. The short vowels of some Slovenian dialects (the Central dialects and St. Slov.) likewise belong to this type. Seven- and eight-vowel systems result from the inclusion of "central" vowels ( / a / and/or /ii/) to type 2 or 3, or from the additional employment of the tense/lax opposition, which is implemented in the pairs / e : e/ and / o : o/. Systems consisting of /i, u, a, u; e, o, a / are mostly found in areas exposed to Turkish or Albanian influence. More common are the systems comprising /i, a, u; e, o; ae, a/, which are found in some Bulgarian (Rhodopian), Macedonian and peripheral stokavian dialects (in Banat). Seven-vowel systems involving the tense/lax distinctions are found in Upper and Lower Sorbian, in the northern dialects of Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian, in peripheral stokavian and kajkavian dialects, and in various Slovenian dialects (e. g. the St. Slov. long vowels). Eight-vowel systems, including in addition the pair /ae:a/ or / a : a / , may be found in some peripheral Polish dialects, in a few kajkavian dialects, and in Carinthia (e.g. Podjunje). The incomplete utilization of the above features may also yield lower inventories, as for example, in some northern Russian dialects where either / e / or / o / occurs. Vocalic systems with "five degrees of opening,"23 which have been found in various Slovenian dialects and in Sorbian Muzakov, may result from the extension of the tense/lax opposition to the maximally diffuse vowels, i. e. / i : 1/ and / u : u/. The occurrence of "central" vowels in these systems may result in inventories with a high number of vowels involving only inherent oral features (e.g. Sele in Carinthia or Muzakov, with twelve long vowels and eleven vowels respectively). The opposition nasal/oral has been reported in only three areas of the Slavic world, in Polish, in Kashubian, and in Carinthia (nasal vowels are optional phonemes in some Macedonian dialects). Standard Polish and some Podjunje dialects have only one nasal vowel / o / or / a / ; some Polish, Kashubian and Podjunje dialects have two nasal vowels, usually /a, o / ; in a few Polish dialects there are three nasal vowels, /;, a, u/. 5.2 The above description of the vocalic systems took into account only the vowels which are maximally differentiated or which occur in "strong position." In languages with prosodic features, the "strong position" generally coincides with the prosodically "marked" vowel, i. e. in systems with phonemic stress, the stressed vowels may be more differentiated than the unstressed vowels, in systems with phonemic tone the ac-

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

11

cented vowels or the vowels which carry a rising tone may be more differentiated than the unaccented vowels or the vowels with a falling tone, and in languages with phonemic length the long vowels may be more differentiated than the short vowels. An exception to the latter is offered by the Czech and Slovak dialects in which the number of long vowels is smaller than the number of short vowels. Thus we find in the eastern Slavic and in the eastern Bulgarian dialects, three unstressed vowels (as reflected in Standard Russian, Standard Byelorussian and in Standard Bulgarian), or four unstressed vowels (in the Russian dialects with "okan'e"), against five, six or seven stressed vowels. In some Slovenian dialects the accented vowels have five "degress of opening," whereas the unaccented vowels are reduced to three or fewer oppositions; in Standard Slovenian (and in some dialects), the vowels bearing a rising tone have the tense/lax opposition, whereas the vowels bearing a falling tone do not make this distinction. In those Slovenian dialects which have lost tone distinctions, the long vowels are often more differentiated than the short vowels.24 On the other hand, we find only three (or five) long vowels in the Czech and Hanak dialects, as against five (or seven) short vowels. However, in a variety of systems which employ prosodic features, the inherent features are equally utilized in "strong" and in "weak" position, so that the "accented" vowels form symmetrical patterns with the "unaccented" vowels. This situation prevails in some Ukrainian dialects (including the western Standard language, where only the unstressed / y / is in free variation), in western Bulgarian, in the central Slovak dialects (including St. Slovak with six long and six short vowels) and in most Serbo-Croatian dialects (including the Standard language) where the prosodically different vowels implement the same inherent features. 6. The phonemic differences among the Slavic languages can most clearly be stated in terms of their prosodic features. If one ignores the differences in distribution, and the various forms of phonetic realization of structurally identical properties (the description of which is pertinent on a different level of analysis), a number of clearly distinguished prosodic types obtains. 6.1 Among the contemporary Slavic languages, there are two basic prosodic types: A) Languages in which prosodic features have no distinctive function. In these languages the stress is limited to one position, but not the same one in all of them; for our purposes the latter fact is irrelevant. B) Languages in which prosodic features have a distinctive function. These languages yield the following subdivisions or prosodic types, according to the features which they employ:

12

Slavic Languages

1. systems with distinctive stress. 2. systems with distinctive quantity. 3. systems with distinctive stress and quantity. 4. systems with distinctive tone; the existence of tone implies the existence of quantity.25 Type4 can in turn be subdivided into: 4 a. Systems in which the position of the falling tone is predictable. These systems employ only two prosodic features: quantity and tone. 4b. Systems in which the falling tone is unpredictable. These systems employ three prosodic features: quantity, accent and tone. By accent we mean the phonemic distinctions between unaccented vowels and accented vowels; only the latter carry the rising/falling opposition. Among the languages of type A, we find Polish, Upper and Lower Sorbian, western Macedonian (including their Standard languages), southern Kashubian, eastern Slovak, Lach, and the Ukrainian Lemki. The other Slavic languages employ prosodic features (type B). Type 1 includes the East Slavic languages (and their St. languages), Bulgarian (including St. Bulg.), northern Kashubian,26 and the PrizrenTimok and eastern Macedonian dialects. Type 2 includes Czech and Slovak (except the areas listed under A). Type 3 includes a number of peripheral Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian dialects (especially Primorje and Styria). This type is gaining ground in various areas at the expense of type 4.27 Type 4 includes most Serbo- Croatian and Slovenian dialects (and their Standard languages; Standard Slovenian admits 3 as an alternative type).28 6.2 The superimposition of two or three prosodic features over vowels in types 3 and 4 could theoretically yield very large vocalic inventories. A "five-vowel" system could, for example, yield inventories of twenty (5 x 4) or of thirty (5 x 6) distinctive vowel-units, not to count the syllables (/f, J/) which may likewise be involved in the prosodic oppositions. However, as there are restrictions upon the combinations of inherent with prosodic features (cf.5.2), the combinations of prosodic features with one another are likewise subject to various limitations. In systems with two prosodic features, i. e. in systems with quantity and stress (type 3), stress distinctions may be restricted to the short vowels, and in systems with quantity and tone (type 4 a), tone distinctions may be restricted to the long vowels. The following charts illustrate the above types with and without restrictions, side by side:

13

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

Type 3

(2)

(1)

+

long

long

(+) +

stressed

+

+

stressed

—

—

+

—

Type 4 a (2)

(1)

+

long

+

rising

+

long

—

+

rising

—

—

—

+

Type3 (1) (with restrictions) occurs in some stokavian dialects (e.g. Rumanian Banat) and in most Slovenian dialects which have eliminated tone; 29 type 3 (2) (without restrictions) is found primarily in Serbo-Croatian dialects and to a lesser extent in the Slovenian dialects.30 4 a (1) (with restrictions) is best known from Standard Slovenian (and from the Central dialects); 4 a (2) (without restrictions) occurs in many stokavian dialects which have the traditional "four accents." It is best known from Standard Serbo-Croatian. In both types the position of the accent is predictable: in Standard Slovenian it coincides with the long vowel, and in the absence of the latter it falls on the last syllable of a word; in Standard Serbo-Croatian it coincides with the rising accent, and in the absence of the latter it falls on the initial syllable. In systems with three prosodic features (type 4 b), the restrictions may be even more complex. In some systems (1), only the long vowels may carry tone distinctions; in others (2), only the short vowels may carry accent distinctions; and in others (3), short vowels carry the accent distinctions and long vowels the tone distinctions. The above three types are illustrated in the following charts:

Type 4 b (2)

(1) long

+ +

accented rising

+

—

—

+

+

long

—

—

accented rising

—

(+) +

—

+ +

—

—

14

Slavic Languages

(3) long accented rising

+

(+) +

+

-

—

(1) is best known from the 5akavian dialects with the traditional "three accents" (with the so-called "¿akavian" or "metatonic acute"), but it also occurs in various stokavian dialects (with the standard "neostokavian acute"). (2) is found in some Slovenian dialects (e. g. Carinthian Zilje and Sele);31 (3) is found in some stokavian and Slovenian dialects (e. g. in Rezija).32 Systems which do not impose restrictions on the combinations of prosodic features are found mainly in stokavian areas. Here the vowels yield maximal and symmetrical patterns.33 7. The above description of the consonantal and vocalic patterns indicates that the Slavic languages differ most conspicuously in their vocalism and especially in their prosodic features, and to a lesser extent in their consonantism, where the presence or absence of palatalization constitutes the main feature of differentiation. The similarity of the Slavic consonants is furthermore heightened through the recurrence of similar tendencies in various systems. 7.1 If we correlate the vocalic and consonantal types on the basis of their distinctive features only, ignoring the differences in the extent of their utilization which yield the subdivisions discussed above (and which often correspond to dialectal varieties), we obtain the following overall phonemic types: I. Systems with distinctive palatalization of consonants; they admit only two prosodic types: a) distinctive stress and, in some areas, also b) distinctive stress and quantity. They may also dispense althogether with prosodic features. These systems are often marked by a high preponderance of consonants. II. Systems without distinctive palatalization of consonants; they may admit any of the occurring prosodic types, such as a) tone, b) quantity, and to a lesser extent c) stress and quantity or d) stress. If two or more prosodic features are employed, the number of vowels in these systems may match or exceed the number of consonants. III. Systems without distinctive palatalization of consonants and without prosodic features. In these systems the number of phonemes is lower than in I and II.

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

15

This division differs from other phonemic classifications in that it admits a larger number of phonemic types, even if some of them occur only in small areas. In these types, phonemic stress co-occurs with quantity, and the latter two features may, in turn, co-occur with the feature of palatalization. 7.2 The geographical distribution of the phonemic types shows, in addition, greater variety than has generally been assumed. Type I occurs largely in northwestern and in the eastern Slavic languages, including eastern Bulgarian, but it is also found in some Slovenian dialects. The South Slavic languages, especially Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, furthermore show a great deal of variety in their vocalic systems, and cannot simply be characterized as tone languages. In the light of Stieber's discoveries concerning northern Kashubian, such a characterization has validity in the sense that in no other Slavic area but in South Slavic, in Serbo-Croatian and in Slovenian, is tone utilized phonemically. We may thus conclude that in comparison with the east and west Slavic areas, which show a high degree of homogeneity and where we can clearly isolate a few major phonemic types, the South Slavic areas are highly differentiated and heterogeneous. If we take into account centuries of linguistic separation, dialect mixing and strong foreign influences, such a conclusion is not at all surprising. Originally published in AmerContr 4,1958, 300-319.

16

Slavic Languages

Footnotes

1 Thus Meillet wrote: "La trop fameuse classification en langues isolantes, agglutinantes et flexionelles ne se laisse poursuivre exactement, et pour autant qu'elle se laisse formuler elle n'a ni portée scientifique, ni utilité pratique," Meillet and Cohen, 1924,1. 2 Lekov, 1956,25 3 Van Wijk, 1924,5-15; Horâlek, 1955, 55-56 4 Baudouin de Courtenay, 1929,448-450 5 Mathesius, 1939,9-10 6 Isaèenko, 1939c, 74-80; idem, 1939b, 64ff. 7 Sôerba, 1915 8 Lunt, 1952 9 Jakobson, Fant, Halle, 1952; Jakobson and Halle, 1956 10 The rules of combination, which may vary among languages with identical features, can be compared to the rules of distribution which vary among systems with identical or very similar phonemic inventories; e.g. the various rules of akan'e in Russian dialects or of the distribution of tone in SerboCroatian dialects. 11 The results of the phonemic analyses presented in this paper are based on the standard works in Slavic dialectology, among which only a few pursue a consistent phonemic approach. References are given only to those general works and dialect studies which seemed to be especially pertinent to the discussion. Certain problems, such as the status of the phoneme / j / or the occurence of the velarized /l/, have been omitted as less relevant to the exposition. The author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable aid he received from the Serbian dialectologist P. Ivic, and from the Slovenian dialectologists, T. Logar and J. Rigler. 12 The opposition tense/lax, which is found besides the voiced/voiceless opposition in the consonantal system of Sele, is without significance for this general typological outline; cf. Isaèenko, 1939a. 13 Isacenko, 1935, 52-63 14 Selisôev, 1931,718-741 ; Kuraszkiewicz, 1954,52. 15 Karskij, 1955, 334; Serex, 1951, 374. In these systems, where / l / occurs before consonants and in final position, as in Ukr. hôlka, vil (as a result of morphological analogy), and contrasts with / w / , as in Ukr. vôwka, vyw, the exact phonemic status of / w / warrants further clarification. 16 Isaèenko, 1935 ; Trubetzkoy, 1949,172. The mellow phonemes /$/, /S/ have also been found in the Macedonian dialect of Bobosôica, where they occur, however, only in loanwords; cf. Srâmek, 1934,170-203. 17 Palatalized consonants have also been found in the Slovenian dialects of t r n i Vrh and along the Upper Savinja, which have distinctive stress and quantity. For a description of the latter, cf. Logar, 1954,155-160. Palatalized

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26

27 28 29

30

31 32 33

17

consonants have been recorded by this writer even at Solfcava, where according to Logar they are no longer found. Golab, 1955,289-333. Cf. MiletiS, 1912, esp. 205 ff. In these dialects, /s, z/ result from *sj, *zj;ci. Ivic, 1956,134,160,191. In Istria thev status of s, z is not as clear as in the other areas. Cf. Havranek, 1932,119ff. and the criticism of Matecki, 1933,3ff. Trubetzkoy, 1949,124. In Bulgarian, however, which Trubetzkoy quotes as a system with a "classe moyenne de localisation", / a / is clearly a back vowel; cf. Andrej6in, Kostov, Nikolov, 1947,11. But the Slovenian / a / (as shown on spectrograms), and / a / in some western Polish dialects are rather of a front variety. Trubetzkoy, 1949,126-127 Logar, 1956, 37-38 This principle of implication was formulated by Jakobson, 1931,164-182 The state of northern Kashubian word-prosody has been presented in a new light by the observations of Stieber, which show that tone or length distinctions are presently unknown in Kashubian; cf. Stieber, 1957, 461-464 and 1956,30. This is reported in a number of stokavian areas (e.g. Kosovo-Resava, ZetaSjenica, Istria and Rumanian Banat); cf. Ivic, 1956,100,157, 189 and 210. Cf. also Hraste, 1955,165-175. This type is now officially accepted by the Academy Dictionary, cf. Slovenski pravopis, 54-55. This type is also found in other stokavian areas, e. g. in Mrkovici, Vodice; cf. Ivic, 1956, 166, 190, 210. Examples illustrating it in Slovenian dialects are found mainly in the texts or lists accompanying the historically oriented dialect studies. In these only the stressed vowels are marked for length distinctions; cf. Logar, 1951, 223ff.; Kolaric, 1956,162-170. According to this author's analysis, only / s / carries stress distinctions in colloquial Standard Slovenian, whereas the other vowels admit only length distinctions. For examples of this type cf. Ivic, 1956,103,156-158; Hraste, 1955,174-175; Malecki, 1929-1930, A36-37. From the purely historical Slovenian dialect studies it is difficult to deduce the occurence of this type, but it is reported, for example, in the Poljanski (Rovte) dialect and can be illustrated by the forms ylasnu, ylava; oblak, velat. Grafenauer, 1905,195ff.; Isatenko, 1939a. Ivic, 1956,157,166; Ramovs, 1928,107-121. The description of all prosodic types which are found in the Serbo-Croatian dialects and especially of the rarer (Posavian and fcakavian) systems with contrastive rising tones, is beyond the scope of this paper.

18

Slavic Languages

References

Andrejöin, L., Kostov, N., Nikolov, E., Balgarska gramatika, Sofia, 1947. Baudouin de Courtenay, J., Izoglosy w swiecie jezykowym stowianskim, Sbor Proci I SSlov, 2,1929, 448-450. Gotab, Z., Z fonologii gwar Bogdanska (na tie ogólno-macedonskim), SFPSt, 1, 1955,289-333. Grafenauer, I., Zum Accente im Gailthalerdialekte (Brdo), AslPh, 27, 1905, 195 ff. Havrànek, B., Zur phonologischen Geographie (Das Vokalsystem des balkanischen Sprachbundes), PICPhonS I, Amsterdam, 1932 ( = ArchNeerlPhon Expl-9,1933), 119ff. Horàlek, K., (Jvod do studia slovanskych jazykù, Prague, 1955. Hraste, M., Osobine suvremene rapske akcentuacije, ZborlnstNauka, 1955, 165-175. Isaöenko, A.V., Les parlers slovènes du Podjunje en Carinthie, RESI, 15,1935, 52-63. -, Narecje vasi Sele na Rozu, Ljubljana, 1939 a. - , Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen, LS, 1,1939b, 64ff. - , Zbirka odgovora na pitanja, 1, MKSL-III, Belgrade, 1939c, 74-80 Ivic, P., Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika, Novi Sad, 1956. Jakobson, R., Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonólogie, TCLP, 4,1931,164-182. - , Fant, C.G., Halle, M., Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, ( = Technical Report No. 13), Boston, 1952. - and Halle, M., Fundamentals of Language, 's-Gravenhage, 1956. Karskij, E. F., Belorusy, Moscow, 1955. Kuraszkiewicz, W., Zarys dialektologii wschodnio-slowianskiej z wyborem tekstów gwarowych, Warsaw, 1954. Kolaric, R., Srediska govornica in spodnjeprleski govor, Slav Rev, 9, 1956, 162-170. Lekov, I., Otklonenija ot fleksivnogo stroja v slavjanskix jazykax, VJa, 2,1956, 25 ff. Logar, T., Dialektoloske studije, Slav Rev, 5-7,1954,155-160, and 8,1956, 37 ff. - , Obsosko-nadiska dialekticna meja, Slav Rev, 4,1951, 223 ff. Lunt, H., Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje, 1952. Malecki, M., Systemy wokalne jezyków balkanskich, SprPA U, 38,8,1933,3 ff. - , Gwary Ciciów a ich pochodzenie, LudSlow, 1,1929-30,36ff. Mathesius, V., in Odgovori na pitanja, 1, MKSL-III, Belgrade, 1939,9ff. Meillet, A. and Cohen, M., Les langues du monde, Paris, 1924. Miletiè, L., Die Rhodopemundarten der bulgarischen Sprache, Vienna, 1912, ( = Schriften BKLA, 6). Ramovs, F., Karakteristika slovenskega nareeja v Reziji, CJKZ, 7, 1928, 107-121.

Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages

19

Selisôev, A., Sokan'e i sokan'e v slavjanskix jazykax, Slavia, 10, 1931,718-741. Slovenski Pravopis, Ljubljana, 1950. Stieber, Z., Zarys dialektologiijezyków zachodnio-slowianskich, Warsaw, 1955. -, Elementy prozodii w dialektach kaszubskich, Slavia, 26,1957,461-464. Söerba, L. V., Vostocnoluzickoe narecie, 1, St. Petersburg, 1915. Serex, Naryssucasnoji ukrajins'koji literaturnoji movy, Munich, 1951. Srâmek, E., Le parler de Bobosöica en Albanie, RESI, 14,1934,170-203. Trubetzkoy, N., Principes de phonologie, Paris, 1949. Van Wijk, N., Remarques sur le groupement des langues slaves, RESI, 4,1924, 5-15.

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

Recent years have witnessed a spate of comparative grammars of the Slavic languages, with a prominent place given to the history of Common Slavic phonology. Notable among these works (which have come from the pen of such scholars as A.Vaillant, Fr. Mares, P.Arumaa, G. Shevelov) are the studies which offer a structural interpretation of the Slavic prehistorical facts. Z. Stieber's monograph, Zarys gramatyki porownawczej jezykow slowianskich. Fonologia (Warsaw, 1969, 91pp.), is the latest addition to this series of Slavic phonological studies. It is closest in conception to the book by G. Shevelov (which is specifically referred to in the introduction) in that it traces the phonological evolution of Common Slavic from its earliest period up to the formation of individual Slavic languages. But it differs from Shevelov's book both quantitatively and in overall design. As contrasted with Shevelov's bulky compendium of 662 pages (which includes numerous examples, tables, indexes and a bibliography at the end of each chapter), Stieber's monograph of 91 pages can be considered a compact summary of the basic problems of Common Slavic phonology. The book cites few examples, lacks an index and bibliography, and makes scant reference to the findings of other scholars. Consequently it is often difficult to know whether a preferred explanation reflects a commonly accepted view, or the author's new solution of a given problem. While Shevelov's book was, furthermore, an attempt at a reconstruction of the consecutive stages of Common Slavic phonology, Stieber's volume follows the arrangement adopted before in his Phonological Development of Polish (1952; English ed. 1968), so that the material is presented in three main chapters: 1. Vocalism (17-62); 2. Prosody (62-65); 3. Consonantism (66-91). This arrangement allows the author to give a clear and concise survey of the main lines of development of the phonological subsystems, but has the disadvantage of disconnecting phenomena which are intimately related. Thus, for example, the conclusions reached by the author concerning the evolution of Common Slavic prosody seem to find no reflection in his interpretation of the vowel system, and the various types of palatali-

22

Slavic Languages

zation are treated as if they had no bearing on the development of the vowels. The main merit of Stieber's book is the clarity of the exposition and the exemplary lucidity of its style. But these virtues also make more transparent the shortcomings of the book, which are both methodological and factual in nature: an excessive interest in absolute chronology which is established on the basis of loanwords, at the expense of the more dependable methods of internal reconstruction and relative chronology; a concern with elusive phonetic facts irrespective of their function within the system; an emphasis on the inventories of phonemes, rather than on the change and stability of phonemic systems; a readiness to draw conclusions on the basis of the Slavic literary languages, without due attention to dialectal material, which completes and complements the evidence of the literary languages. These shortcomings are particularly felt in the treatment of the South Slavic languages and are responsible for some patent misstatements and hasty generalizations. A short introduction (pp. 9-16) discusses the original habitat and migration of the Slavs, the threefold classification of the Slavic languages, and the formation of the Slavic literary languages. The chapter on vocalism consists of four sections which cover: (1) the proto-Slavic system of vowels (17-28); (2) the vocalic changes which coincide with the breakdown of Slavic unity (28-49); (3) the vowel changes before the thirteenth c. (49-59); and (4) the changes that took place after the thirteenth c. (59-61). In its oldest period Common Slavic, according to Stieber, contained four short and four long vowels, among which the e was either a midvowel located between the high vowels i and u, or a low front vowel se that was opposed to the back or rounded vowel a (cf. the table on p. 18). The author's hesitation as to the precise phonetic value of the e apparently stems from a confusion of phonological and phonetic facts, for although the short vowels se, a eventually became e, o, the lax quality of these vowels must have been redundant at a time when they were opposed to sb, a only as short vs. long. The Common Slavic diphthongs, on the other hand, are interpreted by Stieber as sequences of vowels a -I- i, a + ii, etc., which underwent shortenings of the first element (§ 9). Stieber reconstructs the original qualities of the vowels on the basis of a plethora of loanwords, from and into Slavic, which are instructive for their intrinsic linguistic information, as well as for their contribution to the history of Slavic loanwords, place names in particular. The value of these data is predicated, however, on a precise knowl-

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

23

edge of the phonetic development of both the source language and the target language and on a correct synchronization of the pertinent facts. Stieber's analysis of these facts is not free of contradictions, nor does he always succeed in seeing the full implications of the evidence at hand. A case in point is the Slavic interpretation of a foreign a which depended, according to the author, on the stressed or unstressed character of the vowel, with a stressed a yielding Slavic a and unstressed a yielding o. This rule is indeed confirmed by a large number of examples, but it is contradicted by such forms as S-Cr. Kondir, Kotor from Gr. Kantharos, Kattaros. The Slavic treatment of the foreign a should rather be explained with reference to its quantity in Vulgar Latin and in Greek, where it was phonetically (i.e. positionally) long in an open syllable (e.g. Gr. Faros, Lat. Savus, Dravus > Slavic Hvar, Sava, Drava) and short in a closed syllable. Similarly inaccurate is the claim that the Slavic z> in kbmotrb, *Bbninb (Bulg. Bnin) reflects the foreign o of comatre, Bononia (p. 19). In fact the Slavic b renders a foreign closed vowel o in the same way as b renders a foreign e(V. Lat. acetum> ocbtb, quoted by the author on p. 22). Likewise, we cannot accept the explanation that the vowel i in the toponyms Nin, Tolmin, Solin (from V. Lat. Aenona, Tolmona, Salona) reflects a Common Slavic co, which represents, in Stieber's opinion, an intermediary stage between the original long vowel u and its later reflex y. It is more accurate to depart in these loanwords from the front vowel w, which had developed in some Romance dialects from an older Q (via w), and which the Slavs identified with their phoneme i. Notice that the front quality of this i from u is reflected in the palatalized consonant which preceded the vowel, as in Pol. Rzym, krzyz(V. Lat. Rdmam, crucem). Stieber claims proof for the existence and survival of a Common Slavic vowel a> in some Carpathian Ukrainian dialects. But the complex development of the vowels in these dialects, and the preponderance of [o] in the environment of labials cited by Broch and Zilynski (cf. also the examples rcoba, dcom cited by Stieber on p. 23) make such a hypothesis highly unlikely. The author's presentation does not, moreover, make it clear whether the posited a) should be viewed as a tense back vowel o (which it is in the mentioned Ukrainian dialects), or whether we should treat it (in accordance with its position on the chart on p. 25) as an unrounded y, in which case the argument is beside the point, for this co is merely another (though misleading) symbol for y, which was opposed to the new u (from the diphthong ou) as an unrounded to a rounded high vowel. A further argument against the posited co (with the value of a

24

Slavic Languages

tense vowel o) is the fact that this position in Common Slavic was occupied by the diphthong uo, which by all evidence developed from the original diphthong ou before it reached the stage of the monophthong u. The existence of a phonemic uo (or its equivalent o ) can be reconstructed on the basis of the Slavic rendering of a long foreign o as u (e. g. Germ. *dpms, *bpkp > Comm. SI. duma, bukb; Gr. drdmos, kalogeros, V. Lat. Castellione > S-Cr. drum, kaluder, Kosljun; V. Lat. Petoio [cited by Stieber mistakenly in its older Latin form Poetovia] > Slov. *Pbtuj> Ptuj), as well as on the basis of Finnish loanwords which render the Slavic diphthongs ou, ei consistently as uo, ie (e.g. Finn, kuoma, Car. bluoda). These examples, which are cited but not explained in the book, prove beyond doubt that the Common Slavic vocalic diphthongs did not become monophthongs right away, but were at first subject to a reversal of the syllabic crest, which parallels the metathesis that later took place in the Slavic diphthongs with liquids. The change of uo to u must, finally, be viewed with relation to the concomitant change u>y, which Stieber explains in purely articulatory terms, i.e. by the delabialization of the vowel u, though both of these changes were clearly accomplished with an eye to preserving their phonemic distinction. The treatment of y is altogether puzzling in the book (§ 17), for though Stieber lists it in the table of phonemes (on p. 25), he emphatically denies its phonemic status, on the grounds that it lacked a short partner and occupied an isolated position in the system, which, according to him, explains its eventual disappearance from Slavic. This interpretation is faulty on several grounds; first because the phoneme y could, in effect, beginning with early Common Slavic, be either short or long (cf. the opposition bilo/b'iti in S-Cr.; bylo/byti in Czech), and second because the y did, in fact, survive in various Slavic languages (in North Slavic and in Bulgarian dialects), where it relinquished its phonemic status only with the appearance of the opposition between hard and soft (palatalized) consonants. In Western Ukrainian the y is phonemic even today. The nasal diphthongs, in Stieber's view (§18), were sequences of vowel plus nasal, and they retained this status until the loss of the weak jers, when they could form an opposition with syllables ending in a nasal consonant. But this solution (which was originally advanced by Trubetzkoy) contradicts the Common Slavic rule of open syllables. Both the Old Church Slavonic alphabet and the possibility of an opposition between oral and nasal vowels militate in favor of positing the latter for the earliest period of Common Slavic.

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

25

The author gives an interesting survey of the changes of é to a and of e to o after palatals in the various Slavic languages. The characteristic East Slavic change je>jo must not, however, be confused with the later change ce> co which took place also outside East Slavic (e.g. Pol. trzop, pozoga; zlòb, szlom; or the OCS. long variants clenb/clani, zlébh/zlabh). The identification of these two temporally different changes with the addition of a rule according to which co changed back to ce before front vowels (a rule for which Stieber credits Shevelov, p. 32), appears unwarranted and strained. The fate of é in the individual Slavic languages (§ 25 and § 38) is presented without an attempt at a reconstruction of its older phases, which would considerably simplify the variegated picture of reflexes which we obtain in the contemporary Slavic languages and dialects. The history of the é must not, furthermore, be treated in isolation from the fate of the nasal vowels, and particularly the front nasal p (or more specifically, sp). These two sets of phonemes in the Slavic languages were given two distinct solutions: either the nasal vowels were preserved (as in Lekhitic, Bulgarian and north-western Slovenian) together with the original low quality of the é (which is still found in some Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects), or the nasals lost their nasality (as in the rest of the Slavic languages), entailing the change of the é(i.e. of the original se) to a high front vowel e which, in turn, fanned out into a variety of directions depending on such factors as quantity, stress or type of consonantal environment. The split of the Lekhitic and Bulgarian ¿into the variants e/a (before soft and hard consonants respectively) must be seen in relation to the palatalization which developed in both of these Slavic areas. Difficulties in interpretation emerge with the transition to the next phase of vocalic developments, which, in Stieber's estimate, began after the seventh c. and which brought about the new vowels h, z>, e, o, the dissolution of the tort, tert diphthongs and various compensatory lengthenings (Ch.2, p.28ff.). The appearance of the jers and of e, o, according to the author, has "completely destroyed" the older system, though it is not clear why this should have been so, since the qualitative difference between the vowels b, b, O, e given on p. 30 and the vowels i, ù, à, à given on p. 25 can be interpreted as being purely redundant (if not a mere difference in notation). Such an interpretation is, indeed, suggested by the author himself, who explains the change of quality in purely phonetic terms, i.e. as the result of the loss of flattening and of rounding of the front and back vowels respectively. But even though it is clear (on the basis of the modern Slavic reflexes) that such a change did in fact take

26

Slavic Languages

place, we would be hard put to explain the emergence of this new qualitative opposition in phonetic terms. A phonological explanation of this change is possible only if we take into account the accentual relations of Common Slavic, which the author discusses briefly in the chapter on prosody (p.62ff.), but of which he makes no use in his analysis of Common Slavic vocalism. As is known, the Common Slavic long vowels and diphthongs admitted the opposition between rising (acute) and falling (circumflex) accents which disappeared when Slavic acquired a new, "neoacute" accent, i. e. when either the circumflex (as in Czech) or the acute (as in South Slavic), or both of these accents (as in West Slavic) became short. And it is only thanks to this shortening of one or both sets of the original long vowels that the qualitative opposition between the vowels sb, a, i, ii and e, o, b, z> (which was until then redundant) could become distinctive. The history of the diphthongs tert, tort is presented in the book in traditional terms (§§ 32-33), and yields a threefold classification according to which (1) the East Slavic languages introduced pleophony without lengthening of the vowel (tort> torot), (2) Polish and Lusatian obtained metathesis without lengthening of the vowel (tort> trot), and (3) South Slavic and Czech and Slovak obtained metathesis with lengthening of the vowel (tort> trat). This classification (which was first challenged by Rozwadowski) is oversimplified, as it recaptures only the end result of a complex historical process. Reservations about its validity are voiced by the author himself (in § 36), who points out that the original reflexes tert, tori must have given in Polish and Lusatian the groups tbret, tbrot (posited by Rozwadowski) on the grounds of the vocalization of the final jer in prepositions preceding the tort group. The complex development of the tert, tort groups needs to be revised for all Slavic languages. In the broadest terms it could be restated as follows: (1) The South Slavic languages and Czech and Slovak converted the diphthong into a monosyllabic unit in which the vowels e, a were capable of carrying the prosodic opposition that was previously carried by the diphthong (e. g. S-Cr. bradu, drevo vs. vranu, breza). It is misleading to posit lengthening of the vowels o, e at this late period of Common Slavic, when the original long vowels e, a were already opposed as short vs. long. (2) The North Slavic languages eliminated the prosodic opposition carried by the diphthong by converting it into a disyllabic sequence with a distinctive stress (e.g. Russ. borodu, derevo vs. voronu, bereza). In the West (Polish and Lusatian) this sequence acquired the shape tbrot, tbret, whereas in the East it took the shape torbt, terbt, as shown by the

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

27

modern Ukr. reflexes torot, teret (e. g. horod, bereh), rather than *torit, *terit which would have resulted from an original *torotb, tereti. The second vowel of the new disyllabic groups was in the North Slavic languages subject to lengthening in pretonic position, and in Russian under an acute accent as well; e.g. Pol. wrocisz, ktocisz, krol;dial. Russ. korol', korova, ber'dza. A similar reformulation of the facts applies to the diphthongs tbrt, tbrt, which according to Stieber became syllabic sonorants only in West and South, but not in East Slavic (§ 28). The law of the open syllable dictates that we posit the same development in East Slavic as well, a development which is not contravened by the Finnish loanwords turku, virsta, since the East Slavic sonorants x> f ' could be rendered in Finnish only through sequences of vowel plus sonorant. The treatment of the nasal vowels, to which, as we saw, Stieber allots phonemic status only after the drop of the jers, is likewise oversimplified, both in their reconstruction and in the presentation of their present state. Although some modern Slavic languages, such as Russian and Serbo-Croatian, now have the reflex a or e in place of Com. Slav, as, the older reflex of the nasal must have been ap, as shown by the Cakavian forms jazik( < jezikb),jadro,jacmen, pocat (in which the se changed to a after a palatal), whereas the Russian as became phonemically a after the introduction of the C/C' opposition. Among the areas which preserved the nasals one should add southeastern Macedonia and all of northwestern Slovenia, in which the nasals are now reflected as openvowels g, §. Some oversimplifications and mistakes are also found in section 3, which deals with the fate of the jers, of the sonorants f, / , and with the contractions of vowels in individual Slavic languages. Thus it may be noted that a strong jer (i. e. the vowel s) is preserved in southern Serbia (Prizren-Timok) and in literary Slovenian (where it did not change to e, as claimed by the author), that the South Slavic dialects exhibit more reflexes of the jers than those mentioned in the book (e. g. as, o in some Bulgarian dialects and e, o and a in some takavian dialects), that a syllabic /is still found in some Bulgarian areas, and that morphological levelling played a considerable role in the restoration of present-day noncontracted (verbal) forms. Stieber seems to accept Shevelov's theory according to which the weak jers were phonetically preserved in South Slavic, e.g. in such forms as Slov. tama, steblo, cteska;snaha, tasca, masa, zanjem; S-Cr. zanjem, tarem. The list of randomly selected examples (given on p. 51) conceals two types of phenomena which must be kept

28

Slavic Languages

apart: (1) the strong character of the jers under fixed accent, which is attested not only in South Slavic (in zanjem, masa, etc.), but also in other Slavic languages (e.g. Russ. moju, kroju, vs. p'ju, v'ju) and (2) analogical levelling in inflected forms with impermissible clusters (e. g. Slov. tsma, daska; Russ. pestryj, tesca, soxnet). Inserted vowels before sonorants have developed secondarily in all Slavic languages and must not be confused with the above phenomena. The last section of the book (§49) deals with the reduction of vowels, which the author connects with the existence of a "dynamic accent" (i. e. stress). This phenomenon, too, is actually more complex than in the author's presentation, as the existence of a phonemic stress did not necessarily entail the reduction of vowels (cf. the situation in western Bulgarian or in literary Ukrainian), whereas vowel reduction is widespread in Serbo-Croatian and in Slovenian, which have phonemic pitch, and in some Macedonian dialects which have a fixed stress. One of the shortest chapters in the book is the one devoted to the complex questions of Slavic prosody. Despite its exceptional brevity (three pages), the author manages to pack into this chapter the main attainments of Slavic accentology, which he presents in a clear and simple fashion. There are, however, sins of commission and slips of omission. A "musical accent" (i. e. distinctive intonation or pitch) was, in the author's opinion, incompatible with the existence of a "dynamic accent" (i. e. distinctive stress) (§ 9), whereas it is precisely the combination of distinctive intonation and place of stress which we encounter in various South Slavic areas (e. g. in dakavian and in Posavian) and which may be postulated in late Common Slavic. The formation of the neoacute is, curiously enough, ascribed only to the group -xja> sa, with no mention of other derivatives formed with the -j- suffix, and to the shift of the accent from a jer without reference to such verbal types as *moltisb, *ndsisb, *vdrtisb, etc. The neoacute, according to Stieber, left the long vowels intact, but it lengthened the vowels that were originally short (§ 53). The latter change was actually limited only to North Slavic (e. g. Pol. most, plotl, stop), for in South Slavic the short neoacute remained short (e.g. S-Cr. nosis, koljes, koza, volja). With respect to the so-called "neo-circumflex" accent, Stieber correctly sides with those scholars who see in it an innovation of some individual Slavic languages. On the other hand, the survey makes no mention of the Common Slavic shortening of the acute and/ or circumflex, which was due to the introduction of the neoacute (since it precluded the coexistence of two rising accents) and which modified the system of the inherited short and long vowels.

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

29

The subsequent development of the Slavic accents in the particular Slavic languages is presented in a perfunctory and not always precise fashion. Thus it is incorrect to say that East Slavic relinquished phonemic pitch because it developed a "strong dynamic accent" (§ 54), for it is rather the loss of phonemic pitch that left East Slavic only with a distinctive free stress. It is similarly imprecise to claim that Macedonian has lost phonemic stress since many Macedonian dialects have preserved a free stress, while the fixation of the stress took place not only on the ante-penultimate, but also on the penultimate syllable. The Bulgarian shifts of the place of stress are not the result of any phonological development but are due solely to morphological processes; a phonological explanation, on the other hand, is in order in connection with the various accentual shifts in Slovenian, which has by no means lost phonemic pitch; the loss of pitch took place only in some peripheral Slovenian dialects, but affected neither the basic literary norm nor its central dialects. The history of the West Slavic accents is discussed in the book only with reference to the stabilization of the stress, while the questions of quantity, and of the relation of stress and quantity, which are more important for the older period and for the dialectal breakdown of West Slavic, are ignored. Stieber's most original ideas are advanced in Chapter IV, which deals with the evolution of Common Slavic consonantism. These ideas, for which Stieber claims to find support in East Slavic dialectal material, do not, however, withstand the test of closer scrutiny, as they are deduced from isolated, nontypical examples or are based on a confusion of phonetic and phonological facts. Thus the author contends that the second palatalization of velars did not take place in northwestern Russian, from which he quotes such forms as kedit', kepec', kez, kep 'part of a flail' (for St. Russian cedit', cepec, cez, cep'). The dialectal forms cena, celyj, cep' 'flail' are, according to him, learned, higher level words drawn from the literary language. These findings prompt the author to put under question the validity of phonetic laws and of rigidly drawn isoglosses. But what Stieber fails to consider, and what ultimately shakes his hypothesis, is that the occurrence of k (actually in place of c (actually c") could be the result of the intercrossing of two developments which took place in the northwestern as well as in some central Russian dialects, i.e., (1) the confusion of c with c'(in transitional cokan'e-cokan'e areas), and (2) the substitution of c/c'by t'(e. g. the western Vologda and northern Vladimir forms molt'u, dot'ka, plet'o for molcu, decka, pleco) or by k'(cf. the frequent confusion of A:'and (' in forms such as nod'i, rut'i

30

Slavic Languages

for nog'i, ruk'i). Nor is Stieber's argument strengthened by reference to early Russian forms without palatalization, such as (dat.-loc.-sing.) noge, ruke, which are generally assumed to be due to analogical levelling, which has affected such forms not only in Russian but also in South Slavic. The phenomena in question, therefore, are rather to be viewed as the result of dialectal innovation rather than the reflection of an old, inconsistent phonemic process. While the author questions the existence of the second palatalization of velars in only one part of the East Slavic territory, he is even more assertive about its absence in the groups kv2, gv2 and sk2, zg2, which have allegedly escaped this change in all of East Slavic. This thesis, in his opinion, finds support in the wide dialectal spread of the forms kvitka (Ukr.), kvetka (BR), kvet (dial. Russ.) in the place of cvet, and in the occurrence of sc in place of the expected sc in such forms as old Russ. vz> Smolenbsce, and in the mod. Russ. forms scegol', scipat', which allegedly correspond to South Slavic (S-Cr.): cigli, cipati. East Slavic cvet and zvezda are consequently interpreted by him as loanwords from Old Church Slavonic, though it is granted that the initial z in zvezda might have also arisen by assimilation to the medial z (gvezda> zvezda). The paucity of the examples lends the ring of some plausibility to Stieber's arguments, though his general thesis is vulnerable on several points: he passes over in silence the evidence of other examples (such as the presence of the second palatalization in x2 in the East Slavic forms seryj, seddj), and ignores the possibility of a Western loan or grammatical levelling in kvet (which Saxmatov explained by analogy with the verbs kvisti, kvbtnoti), as well as the existence of different vowel grades in the cited East and South Slavic forms. Thus it is misleading to juxtapose Russ. scegol' and S-Cr. cigli, as the former is based on *scbglb, whereas the latter is the reflex of *sceglb (cf. Serb. Ch. SI. ceglyjb). There is otherwise complete agreement between Russ. scipat' and S-Cr. stipati, and between Russ. cepat' and S-Cr. cijepati (which the author confuses with the rare verb cipati). The form vb Smolenbsce can, finally, be ascribed to the northern Russian confusion of c and c. On the basis of these facts it is hard to accept Stieber's arguments concerning the second palatalization, or to subscribe to his proposal of a reclassification of the Common Slavic dialects in terms of a North/South, in place of the traditional West/East (or Southeast) division of these dialects. Similar reservations arise with respect to Stieber's interpretation of the third palatalization which, in his opinion, has been equally nonsystematic and irregular, as evidenced by the lack of this palatalization in such Old Russ. (Novgorod) forms as vxu, vxe, vxem, or by the fre-

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

31

quency of such variants as Pol. ulga/ OPol. Iza, Russ. stbga/stbza. Here too, Stieber tends to ignore the role of analogy, while his formulation of the conditions under which the palatalization took place remains incomplete, as it occurred not simply after i, b, ir, e, but also before low vowels. If we were to judge from such pairs as tegb vs. tezati (from *tegh vs. tizati< *tengb vs. *tingati), we might also agree with Mares (and others) that the palatalization occurred originally only after high vowels i, b, ir, i (from n, rp), but not after as (from en, em). These restricted conditions of the change may explain why the Slavic languages resorted so readily to levellings of one kind or another which eliminated the alternations within the stem and yielded doublets with or without the palatalization. But the existence of doublets must not obscure the fact that the palatalization is systematically implemented in the great bulk of Slavic words (such as ovbca, otbcb, khne^b), which ultimately make up the foundation of the comparative method. The interesting and ever debated question of the temporal relation between the third and second palatalization is not discussed by the author, who merely asserts (§ 63) that it occurred "most certainly" after the second palatalization (on which he is probably correct) and at the end of the eighth century A. D. (which is less certain, and surely less important than the question of its relative chronology). Several sections of the book (§§65-69) are devoted to the development of consonant plus j which, as is known, produced an epenthetic /' in the case of labials, and a new set of palatals in the case of the dentals and in the kti sequence, and deepened the dialectal differentiation of Common Slavic. The author correctly hypothesizes that the group kti did not change to tj, but rather to fi, but does not consider the question of intermediary stages when the group kt might have changed to kit > f t , to be subsequently simplified (like any geminate) to t (it may be noted in passing that a similar palatalization of the velar before t is known from Romance, e.g. the French forms nuit, toil from V.Lat. *noctem, tectum). Stieber's interpretation of the "palatalization" of the dentals before j also suffers from an excessive concern with hypothetical phonetic facts and a confusion of phonologically relevant and insignificant phonetic detail. The original clusters tj, dj, according to Stieber, yielded the sounds t', d', which are presumably still preserved in 6akavian (where d, however, changed to j as it did in Slovenian). But what is relevant here, and what the author fails to indicate, is not so much the precise phonetic quality of these sounds, which can hardly be recaptured, but

32

Slavic Languages

the fact that these palatals entered into an opposition with the older palatals c, j / z and, as such, could be implemented phonetically as either c, d(as in S-Cr. and dialectally in Slovenian), or as k, g(as in Macedonian) or as t, d (as in cakavian and in some stokavian dialects). And what is phonologically even more important is that these palatals were preserved only in those Slavic languages which did not develop the opposition between palatalized and non-palatalized consonants, whereas the languages which developed such an opposition eliminated them by merging them in the East with the reflexes of the first palatalization (c, z), and in the West with the reflexes of the second palatalization (c, j ) . The elimination of the mellow palatals c, j in southwest Slavic is clearly a later development, though it was more complex than indicated in Stieber's outline. The original f,d(c, j/k, g) overlap with c, j not only in the Timok area, but in a large variety of South Slavic dialects (in kajkavian, among the Catholics in Bosnia, in northern Macedonian including Skopje). The Bulgarian change of t, d to st, zd is to the author "completely incomprehensible" (p. 78). A closer examination of the South Slavic facts, as well as of the Glagolitic alphabet would indicate that the clusters in question were originally sc, z j or sc, z j (as they are still preserved in southern Macedonia), which at an older stage had the form jt, jd, with anticipatory softening (cf. the Torlaki forms kujta, trejti recorded by Broch). The change of the original palatals 1', n, r t o the palatalized /', n', r'to which Stieber alludes briefly on p.75, and the preservation of these palatals in southwest Slavic must likewise be considered in relation to the new opposition of hard and palatalized consonants, though even in South Slavic we note a tendency to restrict or eliminate the occurrence of the palatal sonorants. A similar lack of phonological emphasis and excessive concern with questions of absolute chronology marks the discussion of the change of the cluster pj to pi'. According to Stieber, this change was completed by the end of the seventh c. (p. 76), though the same development is found to recur in Slavic also at a later time, as in southern stokavian, where the new cluster pj (in which the j resulted from the change of eto je) is again replaced by the sequence pi' (in such forms as pl'evam, vl'etar, ml'era, tfpl'eti, zivl'eti). The loss of the epenthetic /' after labials was similarly not restricted to West Slavic alone, for it also took place in Old Bulgarian, and at a later time in various Russian dialects where the verbal forms I'ubl'u, terpl'u are systematically replaced by the form I'ub'u, terpu. The change ofj to /' would furthermore appear less puzzling than it does to the author (p. 75) if he would consider it in the context of identical or

The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic

33

parallel changes, such as the convergence of j to /' in cakavian Dobrinj, or the more widespread opposite change of /' to j which is found in Slov., 6ak. and western Bulg. dialects. In considering the loss of the epenthetic /' in early West Slavic, one should, finally, consider the effect that this loss might have had on introducing the opposition between hard and soft (palatalized) labials, independent of and perhaps prior to the spread of this opposition as a result of other developments (such as the loss of the jers or the depalatalization of front vowels). Some corrections are in order concerning Stieber's treatment of the tl, dl clusters (§ 73). First, it should be noted that these clusters were preserved only in the northwestern area of Slovenia, and not, as argued by Stieber, in literary Slov., which has no such form as modliti and in which the cluster dl (of kradla, padla) is due to analogy with the present tense forms. This dialectal archaism, furthermore, need not be attributed to West Slavic influence, in the same way as we do not ascribe the northern Russian change tl, dl> kl, gl to the influence of Lithuanian, the more that such a change also took place in Carpathian Ukrainian dialects (e. g. the forms pl'uh, vjuh, buh < pled, vedl, bodl cited by Gerovskij). Instead of saying, with Stieber, that the change d, dl, A) syllable. Thus the words ]nebo, lpofe, 'vz. oko, lsinovi, ldbt'ere were treated the same way as sUo, lsbpa, W i , bogb, rogb, yielding the forms neWp, pofe, vlpko, sinlpvi, dt^ere (mod. Slov. hcere). The disyllabic and polysyllabic words which were previously opposed in terms of stress or pitch were now opposed in terms of quantity; e.g. neb]p:seto, grada: brad a, pofe: v'oja, vrem ena: s emena, mladpsti: siarosti {in the last three pairs, the distinction of stress is a concomitant feature of the distinction of quantity).7 Since prefixes and prepositions ending in jer shifted the stress to the following vowel, length could occur also on an initial syllable (e.g., lsbgodilb, vz> oko> zgpdil, vpko). Lengthening of short vowels before some clusters, in particular before clusters with an originally weak jer, contributed to the increase of forms with an initially long nonrising syllable (e. g. n itka, st arca, sv]atba; v]etrb (mod. Slov. vetar). The increased functional load of long non-rising syllables was, furthermore, due to the emergence of the so-called "neocircumflex," which is found in Slovenian in a larger number of forms than in other Slavic languages. Recent attempts to ascribe the Slovenian "neocircumflex" to purely morphological factors are not convincing,8 as they ignore the parallel kajkavian phenomena which show that a short (i. e., an original acute) vowel was subject to lengthening before any long vowel. The phonological nature of this change is clearly demonstrated by such lexical items as fastreb, p[ajok, mesec, gavran (from fastrfb, p]ajpk, m[espc, g1avran), which are shared by Slovenian and kajkavian.9 The appearance of quantitative alternations in some northern takavian, kajkavian and Slovenian forms (e.g. ginuti:ginem, br'isati:brisem) or in kajkavian and Slovenian (e.g. mod. Slov. klecal:klecala, ndsil: nosila) must, on the other hand, be explained morphologically, although it might have been triggered by facts pertaining to phonology.10 Another common kajkavianSlovenian development was the shortening of post-tonic long vowels. This change (which is known also from some ¿akavian dialects) most probably precedes the further typically Slovenian evolution of the accentual system, which is connected with the dialectal breakdown of Slovenian itself. 4. The entire evolution of Slovenian vocalism can be viewed in terms of sharpening the opposition between the accented and nonaccented vowels. The accented vowels become long and tense, and later diphthongized, whereas the unaccented vowels become short and lax, and later reduced (and, in some environments, eliminated).

40

Slavic Languages

The lengthening, with a concomitant rising pitch, of any non-final stressed syllable (or short falling pitch) affected the whole Slovenian territory, except its periphery (Prekmuije, Prlekija, southern Bela Krajina). According to Ramovs, it took place between the twelfth and sixteenth c. The difference between the old rising pitch and the new "Slovenian rising pitch" is neutralized in the literary language, but some dialects reflect the different chronology of the two rising pitches in the quality of certain vowels; e. g. (gen. pi.) nog, kpn, vod vs. koza, ossm, nosim (cf. Dolenjsko mix, kiiin, wut vs. kuoza, uosom, nuossm). The lengthening of accented nonfinal short vowels increased the functional load of the long rising pitch (the most marked prosodic feature) and limited the occurrence of the short falling pitch (the least marked prosodic feature) to the last syllable of a word. In addition to its distinctive function (which became maximally restricted), the short falling pitch acquired a configurational function. In a subsequent Common Slovenian development, the stress shifted from the final short syllable to a preceding long vowel. The original forms zvezda, dus'a, v rei?i, na breg'u, k\u&a; jgzik, narod, sgsed, hvatil, became zvezda, dusa, v r?ci, na bregu, kjitca; jezik, narod, sgsed, hvalil. With this change, stress ceased to exist as a distinctive feature: it became redundant in words containing a non-rising long vowel and configurational (bound to the last syllable) in words lacking a long vowel. Some lexical items and grammatical forms (e.g., derivatives and the passive participle) with original pretonic length have restored their final stress; but this morphological development did not alter the prosodic system, since the pretonic syllable of these forms lacks length (e.g. suknlo, zreble, ohlafen, nasafen, oglatfen). The features of the new system and their distribution within the word are presented in the diagram (the + sign in parentheses indicates redundant length): Final 1. Pitch 2. Quantity

+ +

Non-final

+

(+)

This Common Slovenian system is still at the basis of the central dialects and of the literary language. It is also close to literary Serbo-Croatian; but in the latter system the hierarchy in the distribution of pitch and length is reversed: length can occur on a final and nonfinal syllable (but not in pretonic position), whereas the marked pitch cannot occur on the final syllable of a word.

The Common Slavic Prosodie Pattern

41

The subsequent, "secondary" shift of stress from a final short vowel to a preceding short syllable, except a, is absent in various western and northwestern Slovenian dialects. Its effect on the prosodic system was not profound. It increased the inventory of vowels by two phonemes, e, o, which carry an inherently rising pitch, and tended to restrict the opposition of quantity to monosyllabic words. But various grammatical categories and derivatives do carry a final stress (e.g., prefixed nouns, short forms of adjectives, passive participles, some adverbs), and the opposition of quantity is preserved in the final syllable of polysyllabic words as well. The shift of stress is never absent, however, in words terminating in a vowel, and in some grammatical forms with a final consonant; e.g., gora, zena, kona, v noci, na nosu; pletem, nasi, nosil. In a few dialects (Brdo and Sele in Carinthia; Horulj in Rovtarsko) the shift of stress to the preceding short vowel did not entail its lengthening but produced instead a short rising pitch. In these dialects, the opposition of quantity thus encompasses vowels with a marked, rising pitch also; because of the loss of final unstressed vowels, it can be implemented not only on the penultimate, but also on the final syllable of a word; cf. the minimal pairs in Sele (nom. sing.) 'bob, 'vol, 'snopvs. (nom. pi.) bob, vol, snop.n The shift of stress from the final short syllable to a preceding / s / is dialectally more limited. In some dialects (Kras, Brisko), it occurs only from a final open syllable. In the central and northwestern dialects (Rezija, Venetian), the shift does not take place. In the literary language, the place of stress in forms such as daska, staza, v karvi, stebar, rmzsg is largely in free variation; but as some words (especially in the colloquial language) have only a penultimate stress (k'arcma, zarno, (imp.) bsrzi), and others only a final stress ( d s z f a , barlok), the stress on the / p / becomes distinctive, although its functional load is very low. In the above mentioned Carinthian dialects (Brdo and Sele) and in Horulj, the inherently short / a / carries a rising pitch, whereas in most Eastern dialects which have lost phonemic length, it is redundantly long. The elimination of final stress from a long falling syllable (in the type ok'o, suh]p) occurred in an even smaller number of dialects. The phonemic change must not be confused with a similar morphological change which is far more widespread and which has led to the generalization of the stem-stress in various grammatical categories. The morphological development is best known from the literary language, where some forms have generalized the stem-stress as early as the sixteenth century (e. g., the masculine nouns of the type bog). As a rule the shift of stress from a final long syllable implies the existence of the shift from a final

42

Slavic Languages

short syllable, although in some dialects (Rezija) the former occurred without the latter. The shift of stress from a long vowel is widespread in Carinthia, where it contributed to the increase of forms with a short rising pitch (e.g., in Sele, where oklp> oko[uoqJ). In a few dialects (Poljanska dolina, Plajperk in Carinthia), the shift of stress to a penultimate syllable left the final length intact. In these dialects the quantitative opposition has consequently been restored in unaccented syllables. The shift of stress from a final syllable with a rising pitch is, finally, encountered in Bela Krajina, where it is probably due to Serbo-Croatian influence. 5. Of far greater significance than the "secondary" shifts of stress to a penultimate short syllable (which are of paramount interest for the history of the literary language) were the phonemic changes which have modified the Common Slovenian system of prosodic features. These changes took place in all the peripheral dialects and proceeded in two opposite directions: in the direction of increasing the number of prosodic features, or in the direction of reducing their number and/or of transforming the features. Some western Carinthian dialects (Brdo, Podjunje) have acquired internally stressed short syllables (e.g., Brdo zdiavje, bHtva, hiuska, mlackan), adding to pitch and quantity the feature of stress and restoring thereby a prosodic system which resembles cakavian. Some Rovte dialects have, on the other hand, lost phonemic pitch, but have acquired distinctive stress and quantity.13 This type of system is also represented, though with a different distribution, by the presentday literary language. Most western (Primorje, Rezija) and eastern (Styrian) dialects have relinquished pitch and quantity and exhibit only distinctive stress. At least one dialect has been recorded14 which has lost quantity and preserved distinctive pitch. The emergence of such a system (though typologically rare) is by no means as surprising as has been generally assumed. The tendency to reduce the opposition of quantity in a system which has phonemic pitch is characteristic of all Upper Carniola dialects in which the final short vowels o, e become long and i, a, u change into 9, replacing the quantitative with qualitative differences. The modern Slovenian dialects present, consequently, a variety of accentual patterns which have from one to three prosodic features. The combinations of these features yield the following types: 1) Pitch, stress and quantity - some Carinthian dialects.

The Common Slavic Prosodie Pattern

43

2) Pitch and quantity - the central dialects, Carinthia, Upper So£a (Isonzo), Venetian, part of Bela Krajina; the conservative literary norm. 3) Stress and quantity - some Rovte dialects; the official literary norm. 4) Stress - Styria, Primoije, Istria, Rezija; the most widespread substandard koine. 5) Pitch - Smlednik (in Upper Carniola). Quantity alone does not occur in any of the Slovenian dialects. It is interesting that the literary language itself exhibits three of the most widespread types (2,3,4),15 compressing, as it were, into its various styles a wide span of Slovenian history and dialectology. Originally published in IJSLP, 10,1966,29-38.

44

Slavic Languages

Footnotes

1 Jakobson, 1963; idem, 1965. 2 Ivic, 1961-62; 275ff. in this volume. 3 These include: RamovS, 1950; idem, 1929-30; Tesniere, 1929; Bajec, 1921-22; Bunc, 1933. The dialectal material is, except when otherwise indicated, based on the antiquated, but still most exhaustive compendium of Slovenian dialectology, Ramovs, 1935. 4 The consonants and Common Slavic diphthongs are quoted respectively in their reconstructed and actual South Slavic forms. 5 Jakobson, 1963,164. 6 Cf. Leskien, 1914,223, and various examples in Rozwadowski, 1959,115. 7 Jakobson's interpretation of the Slovenian shift in "Opyt..." (1963,169) in terms of eliminating "unaccented" words does not account for this phonemic process and its effect on the distribution of quantity. The shift of stress to prepositions is absent in "unaccented" (originally circumflex) words in a number of modern stokavian dialects (including literary Serbo-Croatian) without modifying in any way the common neostokavian prosodic system. The Slovenian shift of stress to the following syllable would not have changed, anyway, its configurational character. The distinction between "unaccented" and "accented" words postulated for Common Slavic (as it would be for Standard Serbo-Croatian) does not otherwise do justice to the distinctive feature of pitch which must have been relevant in forms without preposition (e. g., in the nom. sing.) as it is in modern stokavian. 8 Kurylowicz, 1960. A spirited critique of this "morphological" approach was levelled by Jaksche, 1962. 9 A full list of kajkavian forms in which the "neocircumflexes" of phonetic and morphological origin are kept apart is found in Ivsic, 1936,70-71. 10 According to Belie, the northern fcakavian "neocircumflex" in gines, bogato, sito and the stokavian mali, pravi, start are "residues" of an older, more general rule of lengthening of stem-final vowels; cf. Belie, 1935,16. Whether 6akavian and stokavian ever had a rule of phonemic lengthening of vowels (which were subsequently shortened) comparable to Slovenian and kajkavian remains a matter of conjecture. 11 IsaSenko, 1939,29. 12 Grafenauer, 1905. 13 Tominec, 1964. 14 Rigler, 1963, 52. 15 See the author's article on p. 85 ff. of this volume.

The Common Slavic Prosodie Pattern

45

References

Bajec, A., O prvotnem slovenskem naglasu v rezijanskem nareöju, CJKZ, 3, 1921-22,40-42. Belie, A., O ¿akavskoj osnovnoj akcentuaciji, GlasSAN, 168,1935,1-39. Bunc, S., K hronologiji akcentskih premikov v slovensèini in polabsèini, SO, 12, 1933,126-33. Grafenauer, L., Zum Accente im Gailthalter-dialekte (Brdo), ASlPh, 27,1905, 195-228. Isaèenko, A. V., Narecje vasi Sele na Rozu, Ljubljana, 1939. Ivic, P., Broj prozodijskih mogucnosti u reöi kao karakteristika fonoloskih sistema slovenskih jezika, JF, 25,1961-62,75-113. Ivsic, S., Jezik Hrvata kajkavaca, LjetopisJAZU, 1934/35,47-88. Jakobson, R., Opyt fonologiöeskogo podxoda k istoriéeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii, AmerContrS, 1,1963,153-78. - , Information and Redundancy in the Common Slavic Prosodie Pattern, Symbolae ... Kurytowicz, 1965,145-51. Jaksche, H., Probleme der slovenischen Akzentforschung, WSl, 7,1962,97-103. Kurylowicz, J., L'intonation 'néodouce' et l'accentuation en slovène, IJSLP, 3, 1960,79-88. Leskien, A., Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache, Heidelberg, 1914. Ramovs, F., O premiku akeenta v tipih zvëzdà, zenä in maglä v slovenskem jeziku, LudSlow, 1, A, 1929-30,48ff. -, Historicna gramatika slovenskega jezika, 7, Dialekti, Ljubljana, 1935. - , Relativna kronologija slovenskih akcentskih pojavov, SlavRev, 3, 1950, 16-23. Rigler, J., Pregled osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu, SlavRev, 14, 1963,25-78. Rozwadowski, J., Wybór pism, 1, Warsaw, 1959. Tesnière, L., L'accent slovène et le timbre des voyelles, RESI, 9,1929,89-118. Tominec, I., Crnovrski dialekt; kratka monografija in slovar, Ljubljana, 1964.

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

In a recent article, "Is a Structural Dialectology Possible?,"1 Uriel Weinreich raised a number of problems which had figured in only a general and programmatic form in the writings of the pioneers of structural dialectology.2 Although the actual achievement of some of these linguists gives the question a rather rhetorical cast,3 Weinreich's article has the merit of indicating the points of divergence and overlap between traditional and structural dialectology and of stating again the importance of dialectology for structural linguistics. However, some of the issues which are of interest to the dialectologist as well as to the general linguist warrant further discussion and clarification. This article proposes to take up and to elaborate some of the suggested approaches and questions which were left open in Weinreich's study. The central argument of this paper concerns the selection of phonemic criteria as the basis for a structural description of dialects. The illustrative material is drawn from works in Slavic dialectology, among which the number of phonemic studies is very scarce.4 In the present state of dialectology, the structural linguist is compelled to rely upon historical or phonetic descriptions which he has to interpret phonemically. The results of such a task can therefore be stated only tentatively. They are offered here primarily as an exemplification of the general problems and of a methodology which could be applied in other areas. 1. The classification of dialects on the basis of their phonemic inventories should be considered as the first step towards an exhaustive description of linguistic areas. The study of phonemic distribution and of other levels of analysis can and should complement the classificatory criteria discussed below. The various types of "akan'e" found in Russian and Byelorussian areas or the distribution of voiced and voiceless consonants in the Ukrainian dialects provide interesting distributional criteria for a supplementary classification of these territories. The "mixed" dialects in the border areas of Poland are excellent examples of speech communities which share their phonemic systems with one area and their grammatical systems and vocabularies with another.5 Any attempt

48

Slavic Languages

to fit these dialects into one major type or language would be artificial. However, a classification based on phonemic criteria is the most likely to be successful and relevant. Traditional dialectology, with all its shortcomings, has been almost entirely constructed on phonetic principles, which is suggestive of the fact that dialects are most clearly differentiated phonemically. The phonetic materials which have been accumulated by generations of scholars, some of which remained unaffected by the all-pervasive passion for historical reconstructions,6 are therefore easily accessible to the linguist, whereas few data have been collected pertaining to grammar and syntax. Where such data exist, they indicate relative uniformity over wide areas.7 Lexical differences, which are the most striking to the layman, cannot be fruitfully applied in a structural approach; they reflect ethnic, social and geographic conditions of different areas and lend themselves least to systematization. Being of a nonsystemic and cultural character, lexical criteria are otherwise utilized to define social dialects (argot, slang, professional languages). Phonology, which is the most advanced branch of modern linguistics, suggests itself, finally, as the most logical one within which we can determine criteria for the grouping of dialects. 2. Some linguists are of the opinion that dialect studies are incomplete or even impossible if they do not make use of extra-linguistic criteria. "The concept of language area (Sprachlandschaft)has practically replaced that of dialect as the central interest in most geographic work... Tests of mutual intelligibility, dialect sociology and statistical correlation methods . . . yield an insight into the makeup of a continuously varying language area which supplements, if it does not supersede, the results derived by other methods."8 While one can agree that the results obtained by other methods and in other fields can ultimately be correlated with the results yielded in a linguistic dialectology, they must be considered of secondary importance to the linguist. The use of extra-lingustic criteria, which are by no means better definable than the linguistic criteria, introduces new variables in the study of dialects which are likely to obscure and to conflict with the results obtained by linguistic methods. The concept of "Sprachlandschaft" as defined by German dialectologists was intended to overcome, or rather to bypass the difficulties which arose in traditional dialectology (see § 4). By substituting for the notion of discrete dialects the concept of "dynamic" culture-zones ("geistiges Kraftfeld"), and by declaring the whole problem of dialect boundaries to be a "static, rigid concept," the historical dialectologist shifted the emphasis to the study of geographical areas, as networks of

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

49

cultural, political, economic and linguistic change. The deterministic question of "causes" remains at the center of this approach.9 Intelligibility tests also have many shortcomings as a measure of dialect unity and differentiation. The ability to understand speakers of different speech communities depends to a large extent on training in code-switching and on individual talent, and it correlates more closely with lexical similarity than with structural correspondences between linguistic systems. Slovaks, according to Stieber,10 are better understood by Russians and Serbians than by Czechs, although the phonemic and grammatical patterns of Slovak and Czech differ less than the structures of Slovak and Russian or Serbo-Croatian. The reliance of some linguists on the opinions of native speakers in measuring differences and similarities between dialects is likewise deceptive. Social and cultural attitudes color the evaluation of one's own or foreign speech habits. This often accounts for linguistic traditionalism or for the ready acceptance of other linguistic patterns. The peasants as well as the intelligentsia of Silesia consider the speech of other Poles "foreign" (rojo po polsku), whereas in other areas of southern Poland, even peasants try to imitate literary Polish and do not recognize the differences between their local speech and the standard language.11 A structural dialectology can successfully supersede traditional dialect studies by relying primarily on internal, linguistic standards. 3. In modern linguistics there is, as Weinreich puts it, "an abyss between structural and dialectological studies." The situation in dialectology is very much like the one which prevailed in historical linguistics, where standards differed from those applied in synchronic descriptions. The central problem in dialectology is the problem of grouping divergent systems, distributed in geographical proximity, within a higher framework of similarities or of convergence. Dialects are thus viewed as varieties of what is in the layman's and in traditional terminology a "language" and of what has been recently referred to as an "overall pattern" or "diasystem."12 It is obvious that this supersystem, which shares features common to all dialects, is different from the standard language (or languages), which is sometimes based on one prestige-dialect or is a culturally determined compromise formula of various dialects; nor can it be defined in terms of extra-linguistic (e. g. political, administrative or cultural) boundaries. In comparing dialects which are similar enough to permit mutual intelligibility between speakers of neighboring areas, but different enough to be identified as such by most speakers, dialectology is confronted

50

Slavic Languages

with the problem of defining the relation between continuity and discreteness. If it is not to dissolve into a typology that compares systems or sub-systems of most remote or highly differentiated languages simply in terms of difference or identity, dialectology has the task of stating the validity of the boundaries which it sets up and of calibrating the degree of similarity among the different regional varieties. 4. Operating with different criteria of what constitutes similarity and difference, structural dialectology is bound to face different problems and to get different results than traditional dialectology. Traditional dialectology has been mainly historical and atomistic. It selected certain features of an older historical stage and mapped the territorial distribution of their etymological reflexes. To paraphrase Trubetzkoy, the pages of dialect studies were spangled with stars of reconstructed forms. In this approach the unity of different dialects was never questioned, since it was implicit in the method: it coincided with the reconstructed historical unity. Within the neogrammarian concept of a series of historical "splits," dialects were viewed as mere branches of an originally unified protolanguage. The existence of a standard language, of political boundaries, and of other external criteria has, however, played an important and often decisive role in assigning the speech of certain areas to one or another "lan-

Map. 1. Phonetic boundaries of northeastern Poland (Based on S. Urbanczyk, Zarys dialektologiipolskiej)

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

51

guage."13 Although dialectologists have generally tended to consider older features as more important than those of a more recent development, there has been no uniformity in the selection of their classificatory criteria; they varied from language to language and often from researcher to researcher. The recognized classification of the Polish dialects has been based on the different reflexes of the hushing spirants and affricates *s, *z, *c, *j, and their priority over other features is indicated on the map (cf. map 1) by the shaded and blank areas. In the blank areas, *s, *z, *c, *j coalesced with s, z, c, j ( t h e so-called "mazurzenie" dialects); in the areas marked with horizontal lines, *s, *z, *c, *j changed into i, i, c , j or fused into a single series i, i, ¿, j (the so-called "siakianie" dialects); whereas in the areas marked with slanted lines, the original three series s, z, c, j ; s, z, c, j ; s, z, c, j have remained intact. The "less important" features have served as the basis for further subdivisions and are indicated on the maps by lines. The area in which *a changed to a is delimited on the map by line (c); (g) indicates the area in which voiced consonants occur before vowels and sonorants in final position; (h) marks the southernmost limit of the pronunciation yarn (Standard Polish /v'ara/)\ (j) delimits the area with the pronunciation svat (Standard Polish / s f at/). The above classification, which was established by K. Nitsch,14 has served as the basis for all modern Polish dialect studies. In other Slavic areas, however, there has been less agreement on the choice of dialect boundaries. The Byelorussian territory has been divided into two main dialects by some scholars on the basis of a phonetic principle (Karskij's bipartition according to the reflexes of *r •), by others chiefly on the basis of a distributional principle (the types of "akan'e"). A classification into three dialectal groups has recently been proposed.15 The relatively small Slovenian territory has been subdivided by various dialectologists, from Kopitar to Ramovs, on the basis of different criteria, into a number of dialects ranging from two to about fifty.16 Historical dialectologists were sometimes well aware of the arbitrariness which marred their method. This awareness gave rise to the famous controversy over whether there are dialect boundaries. Although it partly stemmed from the challenge of the neogrammarian "blind regularity of sound-changes" and is generally connected with the name of H. Schuchardt, the scepticism as to the validity of dialect boundaries was by no means limited to anti-neogrammarian quarters.17 The controversy (between G. I. Ascoli and H. Schuchardt, P. Meyer and G. Paris) brought out the essential difficulties inherent in the methods of histori-

52

Slavic Languages

cal dialectology. Whereas Ascoli maintained that a "particular combination" of sounds, i. e. a bundle of isoglosses, is a sufficient basis for setting up dialect boundaries, his opponents argued that the lack of objective, general criteria in the selection of features predetermines the arbitrariness of all dialect divisions. The demarcation lines of dialect maps do not overlap, because they reflect isolated linguistic facts which have their own history; any division is thus an artificial construct, a "definitio nominis," and not a "definitio rei." The assumption of discrete dialects should be considered no more than a convention, whereas only the linguistic continuum is real.18 The "fictional" view, that "in reality there are no dialects" (as was stated by G. Paris),19 prevailed in dialectology. This view not only led to a phonetically complete atomization in dialect studies, which concentrated on tracing the history of isolated words (as in the French dialectological tradition of J. Gillieron), but was adopted by the majority of linguists, including some forerunners of structural linguistics.20 It is interesting that the champions of this view took the same attitude towards historical change. The concept of discrete systems in space was thus rejected together with the notion of discreteness in time, and linguistic "reality" was ascribed only to temporal continuity. G. Paris expressed this view in a succinct phrase: "Nous parlons latin."21 5. Structural dialectology is in a position to solve many of the problems which beset traditional dialectology. By shifting the emphasis to the synchronic plane and by selecting its criteria in terms of relevance and of systemic organization, it gained objective criteria for determining differences between linguistic systems. On the phonemic level, dialects are recognized as different if their phonemic inventories differ from each other. The phonemic maps drawn by the structural dialectologist will of course bear little resemblance to the traditional maps. Map 2 shows the territorial distribution of phonemic patterns in northeastern Poland.22 Area I indicates the dialects which have seven vowels and the minimal number of consonants (23 or 24) found on Polish territory. Area II has a higher roster of consonantal phonemes (28), but shows a generally lower number of vowels (5). Area III admits a number of consonantal phonemes equal to those in Area II, but they participate in different oppositions; namely here we find the opposition between hard and soft velars, which is absent in the other areas on the map, but not the opposition s, c, j / i , c, j (strident vs. mellow), which is found in Area II. In Area IV we generally find 25 or 27 consonants, and the highest number of vocalic phonemes, including nasal vowels (10). Area V has seven vowels and a high number of consonants (30), including the opposition

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

53

between hard and soft labial consonants, which is absent in the other areas. A comparison of the two maps reveals that the phonemic map ignores certain features which figured on map 1 as belonging to another level of description. For instance, the historically "important" distinction between the "mazurzenie" and the "siakanie" dialects is of secondary importance to the structuralist, inasmuch as both types basically have two series of spirants and affricates (with the exception, that is, of / ¿ / , of a different origin, which is opposed to / ¿ / only in the "mazurzenie" dialects), instead of the three series which are found elsewhere. The different "realization" of the hushing consonants in both types is a redundant, not a distinctive phenomenon. The isoglosses (g) and (j) are distributional and lexical. Of "primary" importance to the structuralist are lines (c) and (h), which point to phonemic distinctions. As opposed to the traditional map, with its "primary" and "secondary," i. e. phonetic and distributional features, the structural map is marked by a homogeneity of features and by clearly defined areas. 6. If the main difficulty of historical dialectology lay in formulating discreteness, structural dialectology is faced with the task of defining continuity and similarity among discrete local systems, and of grouping them into higher types. In search of an "overall pattern," some linguists resorted to a graphic device in which "cover symbols" stand for various phonemes or pho-

Map. 2. Phonemic areas of northeastern Poland

54

Slavic Languages

nemic sequences.23 It is obvious that loosely applied transcriptional symbols, which overdifferentiate or underdifferentiate phonemic distinctions, can be stretched to cover not only the dialects of "American English" or of "Russian," but a variety of highly differentiated languages. Such a pattern is not an abstraction of features which are constant in a variety of closely related dialects, but is a fictitious construct.24 An extreme and purely formal structuralism may question the possibility of comparing parts of systems on the ground that patterns are closed and unique configurations. However, few linguists would in practice endorse such a radical position. The historical acquisition of the phonemes /f, f / has produced no other change in the phonemic pattern of Standard Polish than the filling in of an empty slot within the framework of existing phonemic correlations. Similarly, Polish dialects in which there is an opposition between / £ / and /s/can be described in terms of the same distinctive features as those which lack this opposition. Under the influence of the literary language and of neighboring dialects, the voiceless spirant / s / easily spreads into the dialects in which it is not phonemic, whereas dialect speakers preserve the opposition between the unrounded / a / and the rounded / a / , even when they try to speak the literary language, in which this opposition is absent.25 It is, therefore, also insufficient to compare systems simply in terms of their inventories; such comparisons do not amount to more than listing. The classification of Slavic languages into phonological types, proposed by Isacenko,26 which is based on a quantitative comparison of the vocalic and consonantal subsystems, has the disadvantage of confusing these types with the literary languages and of ignoring the variety of phonemic inventories found in the local dialects. It is this variety that makes it impossible to speak of phonemic "supersystems" or phonological types as if they were actual languages defined by political boundaries or by a common standard language; within the variety of dialects found in some areas we can, however, single out a number of features, which set it apart from varieties distributed over other geographical regions. 7. One of the measures of similarity among local systems with partially different phonemic inventories lies in their utilization of the same ultimate phonemic components. For instance, all Polish dialects share the distinctive features of consonantality, continuity, compactness, gravity, voicing, nasality and stridency, but none of them utilize prosodic features. On the contrary, the dialects east of the Polish linguistic territory (Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian) have the distinctive feature of stress,

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

55

and the dialects south of Poland (Czech, Moravian, Slovak) have the distinctive feature of length. The Moravian (Lach) and Slovak (Cadce and eastern Slovak) dialects which lack phonemic length, and the Ukrainian (Lemki) dialects which lack phonemic stress, form separate dialectal zones that share a number of phonemic features with the neighboring Polish dialects,27 although distributionally and morphologically they have most features in common with the Moravian, Slovak and Ukrainian dialects, respectively. Other oppositions, such as tense vs. lax and flat vs. plain, are territorially more restricted than the prosodic features. They can provide the basis for further subdivisions of the Polish, Russian or Czech areas. Comparing, furthermore, the common core of phonemes which are found in the dialects of wider linguistic areas, we notice that they share certain phonemes which are absent in other linguistic areas. For example, most Russian, Polish and Ukrainian dialects have in common the distinctive feature of palatalization, which sets them apart from other Slavic dialects, but the palatalized consonants found in the respective dialects belong to different series. In most Russian dialects, all consonants, except the palatals, have palatalized counterparts; in the Polish dialects only hard velars and labials admit palatalized counterparts, and in the Ukrainian dialects only hard dentals and liquids admit palatalized partners. Nasal phonemes are found in all Slavic dialects; but in the Polish dialects we also find nasal vowels. The feature of length is distinctive in most Czech and Slovak dialects; however, in the Czech dialects proper, the short vowels /e, o / have no long equivalents, whereas in the Slovak dialects the short and long vowels form symmetrical patterns.28 We can thus conclude that in areas which show the same distinctive features, their combinatory possibilities may be quite different. Re-stating the above examples, we would say that in the Russian dialects sharping is incompatible with the consonantal compact-acute features; in Polish it is incompatible with the consonantal acute features; in Ukrainian it is incompatible with the consonantal compact and diffusegrave features. The feature of nasality can combine in the Polish dialects both with consonantal and vocalic features, whereas in other Slavic areas it is combined only with the consonantal feature.29 The feature of length is superposed in the Czech dialects only on compact and diffuse vowels, whereas in the Slovak dialects the combination of vocalic features with length is less restricted. Another criterion of dialectal homogeneity is gained if we give due

56

Slavic Languages

recognition to the coexistence of different styles within phonemic systems. As structural transformations in time are attenuated by the existence of certain fluctuating phonemes,30 variation in space is graduated by zones of transition in which some phonemic distinctions are not obligatory but optional, and as such endowed with social connotation. In interdialectal communication, speakers may resort to the phonemes which are "potential" in their system, but obligatory in the system of their interlocutors. As it is, these alternants are often known to them from the speech of older members of their own speech community. Thus they find projected in space the facts which pertain to the dimension of time. For instance, the opposition between nasal and oral vowels, which is obligatory in some Polish dialects, is on the periphery of the linguistic norm in neighboring dialects: it is used by the older generation and it may appear in certain contexts and in the careful speech of younger speakers.31 Similar is the status of the phoneme / r ' / in the "transitional" Ukrainian dialects, and o f / c / or / c / in the central Russian dialects.32 The admission of a broader frame of phonemic relevance also enables us to discern continuity, where on the basis of strict phonemic criteria we would see only discreteness. The phonetics-phonemics dualism has been rejected by a number of linguists on the grounds that the features endowed with other than distinctive functions are also part of the linguistic code and hence not irrelevant.33 The distinctive features, being the least dispensable in the functioning of a sound system, are most readily identified by the speakers; "it would be deceptive, however, to believe that they are trained to ignore all the rest in speech-sounds."34 Trubetzkoy suggested that the economy of a system can be evaluated in terms of the utilization of its features for various functions, i. e. the distinctive, configurational ("delimitative") and redundant ("associative").35 For example, in Standard Russian we find that the feature of gravity is distinctive in the consonants, but redundant in the vowels; in Standard Polish the feature of sharping is distinctive in the velar stops /k', g'/, but configurational in the velar spirant [x']. In Standard Czech, in which the feature of sharping is not distinctive, it has neither a redundant nor a configurational function. The study of the nondistinctive features, especially with relation to the distinctive features, reveals multiple points of structural convergence which were established in the course of a common historical development and contact among dialects. Let us consider, for example, the configurational feature of stress in the areas where stress is not distinctive. All Polish dialects (except the linguistic islet of Podhale) have in com-

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

57

mon the stress on the penultimate syllable, whereas most Czech, Moravian and Slovak dialects have an initial stress. Comparing, furthermore, forms which are phonetically identical in various dialects, such as Polish [drog'i] 'dear', [mos] 'husband', we observe that in some dialects [g'], [s], [o] are contextual variants of the phonemes / g / , / z / , / o / , whereas in others / g ' / , /§/, / o / are in phonemic contrast with / g / , / z / , / o / . Examples of such relations are easily found when we phonemically reinterpret the isoglosses of existing dialect-maps. An interesting example is supplied by the so-called "Mazur" dialects in northeastern Poland (in Areas III and IV on map 2). In the western "Mazur" area, the velar consonants have redundant palatalization before front vowels including /ae/, but in the eastern area, where /ae/ coalesced with / a / , the palatalization of velars is distinctive; we find here such interesting pairs as /droga/ 'dear' and /drog'a/ 'road', /suxa/ 'dry' and /mux'a/ 'fly'.36 The variant [ae], which is found after palatals in some eastern Slovak areas, brings these dialects closer to the central Slovak dialects in which /ae/ is phonemic.37 Instead of obscuring, the homogeneity of phonetic substance, a structural approach can emphasize its different functional utilization across various dialect areas. Over maps showing discrete phonemic systems, we could plot maps of phonically uniform territories. 8. The above remarks concerning the study of dialects from the point of view of discreteness as well as of continuity, have further implications if we pass from the synchronic aspect of dialect studies to its diachronic aspect. Dialectology, which has been one of our main sources of information on historical processes, reveals intimate connections between synchrony and diachrony. As in the case of stylistic alternants that pertain both to the "vertical" time axis and to the "horizontal" space axis, the different utilization of features across linguistic areas reflects the phenomena which have been known in diachronic linguistics as "dephonemicization," "phonemicization" and "rephonemicization."38 The allophonic status of nasal vowels in a number of Polish dialects reflects the tendency in the history of Polish (and more remotely in other Slavic languages) to eliminate nasal vowels. The phonemic status of the palatalized consonants /k', g'/ is a structural innovation which took place primarily in the western Polish dialects. Until recently /k', g'/ were in a state of oscillation between a phonemic and allophonic status in the literary language as well. The phonemic value of / y / in the central Russian dialects, in which it is opposed to / x / as voiced vs. voiceless continuant, can be cited as an example of an areal correspondence to the historical process of rephonemicization. In other Russian dialects

58

Slavic Languages

where [y] has preserved its original status as a variant of / g / , the phoneme / x / is opposed to both / g / and / k / as a continuant vs. stop, and its voiceless quality is redundant. The correlation between zonal distribution and temporal succession has its limitations in the case of dialectal contact, where speakers are known to take over distinctive as well as non-distinctive features from their neighbors. But as diachronic linguistics, with its emphasis on immanent change, takes into account the impact of external factors on the history of a language, dialectology cannot ignore problems of dialect interference and, instead of seeking in space a mirror-image of time, should rather try to indicate the problems which dialectology has in common with diachronic linguistics. As the formation of culture languages or of other vehicles of intercommunication is often achieved through the blending of different systems, the "mixed" dialects may overlap with the "core" dialects at some points or on some levels of their phonemic systems, but they lack the overall complex of features which enables us to view the "core" dialects as varieties of certain phonemic types. If we press further the analogy between the two branches of comparative linguistics, the problem of grouping dialects into an overall system has its correlate in the historical linguist's quest for periodization, i. e. for establishing a turning point (or points) in the history of a language where the structural transformation ("Umbruch") of a system was far more profound and significant than changes in its inventory which left the phonemic correlations intact. It is at such junctures of historical development that certain dialects acquire or lose distinctive features or combinations of features which set them off from other related dialects. As diachronic linguistics was able to avoid the dead end of early structuralism by abandoning its concept of isolated systems juxtaposed statically in time, dialectology can resist the danger of atomization by studying dialectal varieties in their twofold aspect of discreteness and continuity. Originally published in Word, 13,1957,44-59.

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

59

Footnotes

1 Weinreich, 1954. 2 Especially in Trubetzkoy, 1931. 3 Among the earlier studies in structural dialectology are Havranek, 1934, and Laziczius, 1932. 4 To these belong the quoted study of Havranek, the less consistently phonemic description of the Russian dialects in Avanesov (1949) and the author's "The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects" (p. 63 ff. in this volume). The other main works referred to deal with the western and eastern dialects and are as follows: Nitsch, 1915; Urbanczyk, 1953; Durnovo, Sokolov, Usakov, 1915; Zitynski, 1932; 2ylko, 1955; Karskij, 1955; Vazny, 1934. 5 For a survey of these dialects with numerous examples of phonemic and morphological diffusion, see Stieber, 1938. 6 One such outstanding dialectologist who ignored historical problems was Broch whose book (1911) is still unsurpassed in its scope; also his pupil, Zitynski. 7 Cf. Urbanczyk, 1953, 31-45; Avanesov and Orlova, 1953, 42; Havranek, 1934,96-100. 8 Weinreich, 1954,397,398. 9 The quotations are drawn from Bach, 1950; for the concept of "Sprachlandschaft," cf. esp. 56,76,122. 10 Stieber, 1937,37 ff. 11 Nitsch, 1954,216-217. For the role of prestige factors in the identification of dialects, see also van Wijk, 1956,49-50. The rudimentary state of other extralinguistic procedures is discussed by Weinreich himself, op. tit., 398. 12 Weinreich, op. cit., 390. 13 The claims of Serbian and of Bulgarian linguists to some Southern Slavic dialects on the basis of "typical" Serbian or Bulgarian features is a case in point. See Mladenov, 1929,340. 14 Cf. Nitsch, 1910, 336 ff. 15 VojtoviC, 1954,26-41. 16 Ramovg, 1931; idem, 1936,107-113. 17 This scepticism is clearly expressed in Paul, 1880,237-240. 18 A lucid account of the controversy is found in the article by Gauchat, 1903. 19 Paris, 1907,432-448. 20 See Meillet, 1950,3, and Saussure, 1949,279. In Saussure we find, however, some statements concerning the possibility of viewing dialects as discrete systems; cf. 276. 21 TTiis view, too, was embraced by the leading linguists before the rise of modem diachronic linguistics; see Meillet, 1948,81; Saussure, 1949,122. 22 This map shows only the approximate boundaries of the phonemic systems in northeastern Poland. For a more accurate description and delimitation of

60

23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Slavic Languages the dialectal areas, see "The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects" p.63ff. Trager and Smith, 1951, esp. 20,35. Cf. also the pertinent remarks of Weinreich (op. cit.), 395. This fact has been recorded not only by linguists, but also by Polish novelists. In a novel by E.Zegadlowicz, Zmory, the peasants do not make the distinction between / s / and / z / , but differentiate / a / from /&/; high-school students coming into contact with the literary language, adopt the distinction between / s / and / z / , but preserve the distinction between / a / and / ä / , whereas the intelligentsia has taken on the literary language. For a different, sociological interpretation of this phenomenon, cf. Stieber, 1938,14. Isaöenko, 1939,64ff.; cf. also Jakobson, 1955,16. Among these features are penultimate stress, palatals in place of palatalized dental consonants, one phoneme / x / , instead of / h / and / x / , the sporadic appearance of soft labial consonants. For more details, cf. van Wijk, 1928, Havränek, 1934, esp. 184,188; Zitynski, 1932, esp. 85-90,155-165. Havränek, 1934,103; Orlovsky and Arany, 1947,35-50. Nasal vowels are also found in some areas of Slovenia; cf. Tesniere, 1950, 263-265. Malmberg, 1942,44ff. Doroszewski, 1955, esp. 19,33,48. Zitynski, 1932, 80; Avanesov, 1949,132-133. Martinet, 1949,9-10; Jakobson, Fant, Halle, 1952,383. Jakobson and Halle, 1956,9. "Die Kombinatorischen Varianten sind also eben deshalb möglich, weil verschiedene phonetische Eigenschaften desselben Lautes in verschiedenen Funktionen verwendet werden", Trubetzkoy, 1937,137. Nitsch, 1954,346. Stieber, 1937,49 ff. Jakobson, 1931,241 ff.

On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology

61

References

Avanesov, R.J., Ocerki russkoj dialektologii, 1, Moscow, 1949. - and Orlova, V. G., Voprosy izuCenija dialektov jazykov narodov SSSR, VJa, 5,1953,42 ff. Bach, A., Deutsche Mundartforschung, Heidelberg, 1950. Broch, O., Slavische Phonetik, Heidelberg, 1911. Doroszewski, W., Studia fonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich, Wroclaw, 1955. Durnovo, N. N., Sokolov, N. N., Usakov, D. N., Opyt dijalektologiceskoj karty russkogo jazyka v Evrope, Moscow, 1915. Gauchat, L., Gibt es Mundartgrenzen?, ASNSL, 111, 1903,365-403. Havrânek, B., Nafeöi ôeskâ, CslVlastivëda, 3,1934, 84-218. Isaëenko, A. V., Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen, LS, 1,1939, 64-76. Jakobson, R., Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie, TCLP, 4,1931,241 ff. -, Slavic Languages, New York, 1955. - , Fant, C. G. M., Halle, M., Preliminaries to Speech Analysis (Technical Report No. 13), Boston, 1952. - and Halle, M., Fundamentals of Language, The Hague, 1956. Karskij, B.F., Belorusy, 2,1, Moscow, 1955. Laziczius, G., Bevezelés a fonolôgiâba, Budapest, 1932. Lötz, J., The Structure of Human Speech, TNYAS, 2,16,1954,383 ff. Malmberg, B., Bemerkungen zum quantitativen Vokalsystem im modernen Französisch, AL, 3,1,44ff. Martinet, A., Phonology as Functional Phonetics, London, 1949. Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris, 1948. -, Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1950. Mladenov, S., Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin and Leipzig, 1929. Nitsch, K., Prôba ugrupowania gwar polskich, RozprPA U, 1,1,1910,336 ff. -, Dialekty jezyka polskiego in Jezykpolski ijego historia, Encyklopedia Polska, 3.2,1915. ' -, Wybôrpism polonistycznych, 1 and 3, Wroclaw, 1954. Orlovsky, J. and Arany, L., Gramatyka jazyka slovenského, Bratislava, 1947. Paris, G., Les parlers de France, Mélanges linguistiques, 2, Paris, 1907,432-48. Paul, H., Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Halle, 1880. Ramovs, F., Dialektoloska karta slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1931. -, Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1936. de Saussure, F., Cours de linguistique générale, Paris, 19494. Stieber, Z., Stanowisko mowy Slowakôw, PFil, 17,1937,37 ff. - , Sposoby powstawania stowianskich gwar przejsciowych, PracePAU, 27, 1938. Trager, G. L. and Smith, H. L., An Outline of English Structure ( = Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 3), Norman, 1951.

62

Slavic Languages

Tesnière, L., Les voyelles nasales slaves et le parler Slovène de Replje, SlavRev, 3,1950,263 ff. Trubetzkoy, N., Phonologie et géographie linguistique, TCLP, 4,1931, 228-34. - , Über eine neue Kritik des Phonembegriffes, Arch VerglPhon, 1,3,1937,137 ff. Urbanczyk, S., Zarys dialektologiipolskiej, Warsaw, 1953. Väzny, V., Nafeöi Slovenskâ, CslVlastivëda, 3,1934,219-310. Vojtoviö, N.T., O dialektnoj osnove belorusskogo literaturnogo jazyka, VJa, 4, 1954,26-41. Weinreich, U., Is a Structural Dialectology Possible? Word, 10,1954, 388-400. van Wijk, N., Die tschechisch-polnischen Übergangsdialekte, MKA W, 65,1928, 1-36. -, Les langues slaves, de l'unité à la pluralité, The Hague, 1956. Zityynski, J., Opis fonetyczny jçzyka ukrainskiego, PKJ PA U, 19,1932. 2ylko, F. T., Narysy z dialektolohiji ukrajins'koji movy, Kiev, 1955.

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects A study in structural dialectology

The phonemic inventory of contemporary standard Polish is made up of thirty-five consonantal and six vocalic phonemes. A similar imbalance in the numbers of consonants and vowels is found in the other contemporary Slavic languages (like Upper and Lower Sorbian) in which prosodic features carry no distinctive function. In contrast, those Slavic languages which utilize the distinctive features of stress (like Russian), of quantity (like Czech), or tone (like Serbo-Croatian, which also has phonemic length) show a larger number of vocalic phonemes and a smaller number of consonantal phonemes than contemporary standard Polish.1 However, the phonemic systems of the Polish territorial dialects, although they coincide with standard Polish in the absence of prosodic features,2 show divergences from the literary language in the number of phonemes, in the number of binary oppositions, and in the types of features of which they are comprised. It is the purpose of this paper to describe the phonemic patterns of the Polish dialects in terms of their distinctive features and to compare the inventories of vocalic and consonantal phonemes in the various Polish dialects. Jakobson's analysis of phonemic patterns in terms of their distinctive features provides the simplest framework for a typological description, for it enables us to compare the structurally relevant features, the number of binary oppositions and their hierarchical organization. Moreover, it correlates the consonantal and vocalic sub-systems in terms of their common features, instead of treating them in isolation.3 The study of the relations between the numbers of vowels and consonants is intended to reveal whether differences in the number of consonantal phonemes correlate with differences in the number of vocalic phonemes in the various Polish dialects, and to show the interdependence of the decrease and increase of the consonantal and vocalic stocks in their historical development.

64

Slavic Languages

Although the student of Polish dialectology is fortunate in having at his disposal an enormous wealth of material assembled by native scholars, he is still faced with a lack of synchronic descriptions of individual dialects. Polish dialectological studies are historical in their approach even though many of them pursue a descriptive purpose. 4 This paper offers primarily a general synchronic outline of the phonemic patterns of the Polish dialects.5 1. The Polish territorial dialects are in a steady process of decline under the impact of the standard language. This process was accelerated after the last war by migrations of the population and by the increased influence of cultural institutions and communication media. The systems here described are those which were still in use, particularly before 1939, in the speech of older people in the villages and small towns. The following analysis is a phonemic interpretation of the phonetic records of that speech which are given in the works of Polish dialectologists.6 2. The phonemic systems of the Polish dialects are best described synchronically if we use as a frame of reference the standard language. Its roster of consonantal phonemes contains, in articulatory terms,7 ten labial consonants: / p , p \ b, b', f, f , v, v', m, m ' / , seven dental consonants: /t, d, s, z, c, 3, n / , four alveolar consonants : /s, z, 3/, five palatal consonants: /s, z, c, 3, n / , five velar consonants: /k, k', g, g', x / , two liquids: /r, 1/, and two semi-vowels: / j , w / . The semi-vowels / ] / and / w / are found in opposition with / i / and / u / in such contrastive pairs as / x o j n a / [fem. sg.] "lavish" vs. /xoina/ "fir tree", and / p u w k / "regiment" vs. / p w u k / "plough". 8 The roster of vocalic phonemes contains five oral vowels: /i, e, a, o, u / and one nasal vowel, / o / . The latter, which occurs only in final word position, is found in opposition to the sequence / o / plus nasal consonant; cf. the following minimal pairs: / t o / "with this" [fem. sg.], / t o n / "tone", /torn/ "volume", / t o n / "depth". The nasal vowel / e / is in free variation with / e / in emphatic or, rather, artificial speech.9 In colloquial standard Polish there is no opposition between, e.g., /zem'e/ "lands" [pi.] and /zem'e/ "land" [acc. sg.]. The two forms are homonymous. The opposition between palatalized and non-palatalized consonants is restricted to the labial and velar consonants. However, a soft velar spirant occurs in onomatopoeic and in quotation words (i.e. non-assimilated loanwords) and before the verbal suffix -iva- (e. g. [vymax'ivac] "to wave"); in the latter case its softness is configurational (i.e. occurring before a morpheme-boundary). Soft dentals are found in quotation words (e. g. sinus, genetivus, Cicero); derivative forms of such words lose their softening.

T h e P h o n e m i c Patterns o f the P o l i s h Dialects

o* o

I

+

o

I

I

+1

+ +

0 +

+ + + + + + I

O

+1 +1

+

1

o + I

o o o o

o o

I

I

I

O

+ +

+ +

O

o

o

+

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

O

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

O +

O O

+

+

O

i

+ +

o o

i

o_

i 0 1 I

60

at

-o -N

& e ~>

>

tt-i Id x>

p >

c

+ i

I

i

+ + I I

+ + + i

0 1 I

+ +

a

3 a 03

> ts

O to C o U

o Ss O =3

C

_+

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ +

3a

2

M > 4> I a

65

i

I I

o 0 +

+ + + 1 I I I

o

D *0 O 2 2 o.

o o o o o 0 1 I I I

+ + + +

o + +

o 0 1 I

o +

1 + I 0 + 1 + I + I + I 0 + 1 + I + I

o o o o o o o o

o

o

o

0 +

0 +

+

+ I + I

1 I

+ I

+ +

+ I

I I

+ I

e S •3 1

•o « 8 8

vi E

I I

& a

.c

VI

66

Slavic Languages

The following is a matrix of the Polish phonemes and of their distinctive features. 3. None of the Polish territorial dialects has a phonemic inventory which is identical with that of standard Polish. However, the consonantal stock just described is found in a number of Polish dialects. The different treatment of consonants has been a crucial criterion in classifying the Polish dialects. It is convenient to discuss the consonantal subsystems first, because of their importance and their relative stability as compared with the vocalic subsystems. 3.1. The whole ethnic Polish territory has traditionally been subdivided into dialects which in their historical development maintained distinct series of alveolar and palatal spirants and affricates, and dialects which have lost one of the series.10 In most dialects the reduction of the two series of consonants took the form of "mazurzenie," i. e. the change of the alveolar into dental consonants (/s, z, c, 3 / > / s , z, c, 3/); and in others of "siakanie," i. e. the change of the alveolar into palatal consonants (/s, z, 6,3/ > /s, z, c, 3/), or the opposite change. More rarely, this reduction resulted in the fusion of alveolars and palatals into a single senes (s, z, c, 3). Dialects which maintain the distinction between the alveolar and palatal consonants, or, in terms of distinctive features, the opposition between strident and mellow consonants in the palatal (compact-acute) series, are spoken in western and northern Poland, i. e. in southern Silesia (up to the line Strzelce-Chrapkowice), in Wielkopolska, in Kujawy, in Pomerania (which includes the dialects of Krajna, Tuchola and Kociewie) and on the right bank of the Vistula, in the Chetmno-Dobrzyn area and in western Warmia. In some of these dialects (e. g. in northwestern Wielkopolska and Warmia) we find, in addition to the consonantal phonemes which they share with the literary language, the phoneme / f / , which is opposed as a strident liquid to the mellow / r / . The "mazurzenie" dialects are spoken in Mazovia (except the extreme northeast), in Malopolska (except the areas between the rivers Wislok and San, the Upper Wieprz and Bug, which border on Ukrainian territory), and in northern Silesia. "Siakanie" dialects are found in the northeastern regions of Poland (around Malbork, Ostroda, Lubawa and in eastern Warmia) and in the southernmost part of Silesia (which borders on Czechoslovakia). Synchronically, however, there is a difference between the two types which have reduced their consonantal inventories: most representatives of the "mazurzenie" type have preserved the strident vs. mellow opposi-

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

67

tion in the palatal series by developing one strident phoneme / z / from the older / ? / (e.g. /koze/ "bark" [dat], vs. /koze/ "goat" [dat.]). Most "siakanie" dialects which have lost this opposition in the palatal series have it in the liquids / ? / vs. / r / (e.g. / k o r e / [dat.] vs. / k o r e / [acc.] "bark"), although in the speech of young people / r / is a stylistic (archaic) variant of / z / or /s/. 1 1 There is, however, a small number of "mazurzenie" dialects in which / z / also is eliminated. Instead of / z / these dialects have / z / , e. g. / m o z e / "sea" (for instance some southern Matopolska and northeastern Silesian dialects),12 / r / , e.g. / m o r e / "sea" (near the Byelorussian border), or / r / e. g. / m o r e / "sea" (in northern Silesia, in Podhale). In some areas of central Matopolska the phonemes /§/, / c / , /%/ are introduced under the influence of the literary language even in the speech of uneducated speakers. 3.2 The opposition of hard and soft velar stops which exists in the literary language (e.g. /polske/ "Poland" [acc. sg.] vs. /polsk'e/ "Polish" [pi.], /g'ow/, spelled giaf, "he bent" vs. /gowi/ "naked") is found in the western dialects and in most dialects of Matopolska and of Silesia, with the exception of some dialects between the mountains and the province of Cracow and in Upper Silesia.13 In the Pomeranian and in most Mazovian dialects, on the other hand, soft velar stops have no phonemic status, and in some of them not even allophonic status. In the Pomeranian dialects of Krajna and Tuchola /c, 3 / occur where standard Polish exhibits /k', g ' / ; e.g. /¿ibci/ "swift", /dro3e/ "dear" [pi.], St.Pol. /g'ibk'i/, drog'e/; in Kociewie, in northeastern and Nearer Mazovia (near Warsaw) the variants [k'], [g'] occur before front vowels; in the dialects of Malbork, Ostroda, Lubawa, Warmia, in the Mazovian Kurpie and in the Ptock area (on the Vistula) the soft variants are rare; in the remainder of Mazovian dialects the hard and soft velars are in free variation. Only in the northeastern corner of Mazowsze (east of Elk and Olecko) all three velars have soft counterparts /k', g', x ' / : e.g. / c e k a / "he waits" vs. /cek'ac/ "to wait", / d r o g a / "dear" vs. /drog'a/ "road", /suxa/ "dry" vs. / m u x ' a / "fly". 14 3.3 A number of Polish dialects are likewise deprived of the opposition between palatalized and non-palatalized labials. In these dialects the corresponding forms of St. Pol., /p'asek/ "sand", /rob'ic/ "to do", / f i g a / "fig", / v ' a r a / "faith", /m'asto/ "town" are: 1. /pjasek, robjic, vjara, mjasto/ or / m n a s t o / ; 2. /psasek, robzic, siga, zara, mnasto/ or /nasto/ (and in the dialects without /s, z / (cf. 3.1), /psasek, robzic, siga, zara/); 3. /px'asek, robg'ic, x'iga, g'ara, mnasto/ or /nasto/. Types 1 and 2 occur mainly in western ("Nearer") Mazovia (along the right bank

68

Slavic Languages

of the Vistula and on the left bank of the river Bug), in some areas of Further Mazovia (around Dzialdowo, Przasnysz, Ostrow, Lomza), in Podlasie, in the eastern parts of Kociewie and of the Chehnno-Dobrzyn area, in southern regions of Tuchola, in the dialects of Lubawa, Malbork, Ostroda and in Warmia, in the western areas of the Kurpie and of the Mazurs (west of Mragowo), i. e. in the majority of the northern and of the Mazovian dialects.15 The dichotomy of palatalized and non-palatalized consonants is then entirely eliminated in the largest part of northeastern Poland. Furthermore, in contrast to the literary language with its 35 consonantal phonemes, these dialects have only 25 (the "mazurzenie" dialects) or 24 consonants (the "siakanie" dialects). The dialects near the German linguistic boundaries (e. g. Warmia, western Mazurs) go furthest in the reduction of consonants by also substituting / n / for /n/. 1 6 The situation in the dialects with type 3 forms is different. These are geographically distributed on the peripheries of the types 1 and 2 (in Tuchola and Kociewie near the Kashubian border, in the eastern areas of the Kurpie and of the Mazurs), and in some regions on the right bank of the river Bug (along the line Plonsk-Pultusk-Malkinia-Czyzewo) and in linguistic islands on its left bank (near Lukow). The distinction between types 1 and 3 also follows social boundaries.17 In these dialects we find the opposition / x / versus / x ' / and / g / vs. / g ' / ; e.g. the partially minimal pairs: /trax'i/ "he meets" vs. /straxi/ "terrors", /gwog'e/ "head" [dat.] vs. /gwogem/ "hawthorn" [instr. sg.], which correspond to St. Pol. /trafi, straxi, gwov'e, gwog'em/. Like the standard language and the dialects with palatalized and non-palatalized velars, these dialects have five velar consonants, but the distribution of the feature of palatalization differs: in the former, palatalization is superposed upon velar stops: /k', g'/, in the latter upon velar spirants: /x', g'/. In the very corner of northeastern Mazovia (east of Elk and Olecko) we find the largest number of velar consonants: /k, g, x, k', g', x', g ' / (cf. 3.2.). However, some speakers of this dialect frequently alternate / g ' / with / z / (e.g. /g'ino/ or /zino/ "wine", St. Pol. /v'ino/). 18 3.4 From a synchronic point of view the consonantal subsystems of the Polish dialects fall into five major types: on the extreme poles are those with a maximal stock of consonants (35 or 36 in the dialects which also have the phoneme / f / ) , and those with a minimal stock of consonants (23,24 or 25). In the latter type the feature of palatalization is entirely eliminated. In some dialects palatalization is eliminated only in the velar series (grave compact), in others only in the labial series (grave diffuse). The geographical areas covered by the latter two types is small-

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

69

er than the territories dominated by the former two. The total or partial elimination of palatalization usually also implies the elimination of the opposition between strident and mellow palatals. Systems with 30 consonants (without soft velars) or with 27 consonants (without soft labials) are found mainly in northern and in eastern Poland. The consonantal subsystems in southern and central Poland (Malopolska) most generally have inventories of 32, more rarely of 31 consonants. 4. The vocalic inventories of the Polish dialects vary from subsystems with five vowels to subsystems with ten vowels. Since the maximal number of oral vowels in any dialect is eight, maximal vocalic subsystems include both oral and nasal vowels. In view of their low relative number, the range of vocalic difference is larger than the range of differences in the consonantal inventories. 4.1 The majority of central and western Polish dialects, i. e. Kujawy, Chelmno-Dobrzyn, central and southern Wielkopolska, northern Malopolska and southwestern Mazovia, and the dialects bordering on the Ukraine and Czechoslovakia, have five-vowel subsystems, consisting of the oral vowels: / i / , / e / , / a / , / o / , / u / . The distribution of the vowels in these dialects frequently differs from that in the literary language. Thus the standard Polish forms /mis/ "mouse", /snek/ "snow", /zembi/ "teeth", /renke/ "hand" [acc. sg.], /matka/ "mother", / p t a k / "bird", /pole/ "field, /ksonska/ "book", /gura/ "mountain", /se3q/ "they sit" have the following corresponding forms (listed according to the dialects): Kuj.: /mis, snik, zimbi, rinke, matka, ptok, pole, ksunska, gura, se3um/; Ch.-Dob.: /mis, snik, zambi, ranka, matka, ptok, pole, ksunska, gura, se3u/; WP.: /mis, snik, zembi, renke, matka, ptok (or /ptowk/), pwole, ksonska (or /ksuska/), gura (or /gwura/), se3om/.19 The existence of a five-vowel system in the northern Malopolska and western Mazovian dialects frequently coincides with the lack of consistency in the realization of "mazurzenie" (e. g. in the dialects of Lowicz, Sieradz, Kielce and in western Mazowia on the left bank of the Vistula).20 Except for the absence of nasalization, the distinctive features of the vowels and their oppositions in these dialects coincide with those in the literary language. 4.2 Six-vowel systems are found in some Malopolska dialects (in central Malopolska and Galicia, particularly in the areas between Miechow and Kielce, Tarnow and Rzeszow),21 in western Mazovian dialects (on the left and right banks of the Vistula),22 and in Wielkopolska and Krajna. These systems fall into two types, which differ in the quality of their vocalic phonemes. The Malopolska and Mazovian systems have

70

Slavic Languages

the six oral vowels: /i, e, a/, and /u, o, o/, which are opposed to each other as plain vs. flat (unrounded vs. rounded) vowels. The following examples (from Borki Nizinskie) illustrate the opposition / a / vs. / o / : /suka/ "bitch", /suko/ "he searches", /droga/ "road", /drogo/ "dear", /matka/ "mother", /matko/ "with the mother" [instr.]. In contradistinction to the above system, the majority of Wielkopolska and Krajna dialects have the six oral vowels: /i, y, u / and /e, a, o/. In view of the fact that / y / is a back vowel in none of the Polish dialects (as it is, for example, in Russian),23 / y / and / a / have an intermediate degree of gravity within the opposition acute: grave ( / i / vs. / u / , / e / vs. /o/). These examples (from WP dialects) illustrate the opposition / y / vs. / i / : /gzyx/ "sin", /snyk/ "snow", /v'y/ "he knows", and /gzip/ "mushroom", /nic/ "thread", /sp'i/ "he sleeps". The various dialects of Wielkopolska and of Krajna differ from each other primarily in the phonemic sequences of vowels and semivowels which do not exist in the standard language or in most dialects, although they are also found in Silesia.24 The standard Polish forms /gura/ "mountain", /pot/ "sweat", /pwot/ "fence", /ob'at/ "dinner," may in these dialects have the correspondences: /gwyra, pwet ("sweat, fence"), web'owt/; /gwura, pwot ("sweat, fence"), wob'owt/; /goyra, pwojt, wojb'ot/. The fluctuation of the phoneme / o / between / a / or / o / makes the six-vowel system of Malopolska and particularly of western Mazovia less stable than the six-vowel systems of Wielkopolska and Krajna. Besides the structural similarity between the former system and the system of the standard language, one can hardly ignore the cultural impact of the standard language on the central Polish dialects and the relative independence of the Wielkopolska and Krajna dialects from external linguistic influences. 4.3 A number of Polish dialects have a seven-vowel system containing the following oral vowels: /i, i, e, a, o, u, u/. This system differs from the five-vowel system in that it has the additional dichotomy of tense vs. lax vowels in the diffuse series, i. e. / i / vs. / i / and / u / vs. /i)/. It is generally found on the peripheries of the Polish ethnic territory: in northern Poland (in Lubawa, Malbork, Ostroda, southern Kociewie, in the eastern region of the Mazurs, in the dialects of Podlasie and Suwalki), in some dialects of "Further" Mazovia (around Dzialdowo, Ciechanow, Przasnysz), in the northwestern corner of Wielkopolska, and in southern Silesia (in the dialects without "mazurzenie" around Cieszyn, Raciborz, Prudnik, Strzelce). The following minimal and partially minimal pairs

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

71

exemplify the oppositions /i)/ vs. / u / , / i / vs. / i / which exist in these dialects: /gura/ "mountain", /kura/ "chicken", /mor/ "plague", / m u r / "wall", /snic/ "patina", /snic/ "to dream", /snik/ "snow", /nic/ "nothing". In a few Wielkopolska dialects with seven vowel subsystems, / o / occurs in forms which in the other dialects have / u / , and / u / in forms which have /u/. 2 5 A different seven-vowel pattern appears to exist in some areas of southwestern Malopolska (around Nowy Targ and in Podhale) in which the vowels are opposed to each other as plain vs. flat, but with an intermediate degree of flatness in the diffuse series, i. e.: /i, y, u, e, o, a, o/. These phonemes are illustrated in the following forms (from the dialect of Nowy Targ):26 /idom/ "they go", /sp'yvo/ "he sings", /vus/ "carriage", /voda/ "water", /p'ykne/ "beautifully". 4.4 Various Polish dialects have vocalic inventories which consist of eight, nine or ten vowels. These are the dialects of Mazovia (on the right bank of the Vistula, including the Kurpie), of the eastern Mazurs, of Warmia and Tuchola, of southern Malopolska and of northern Silesia in other words, the dialects which have reduced consonantal inventories. It is also mainly in these dialects that we find seven-vowel subsystems, although, as shown above, the latter are also to be found in some areas of Wielkopolska and in the southern Silesian dialects which have maximal consonantal inventories. As a matter of fact, the non-"mazurzenie" dialect in the Kozle district (the so-called "Bajoki" dialect) seems to have, in addition to its seven oral vowels, two nasal vowels, / a / and /M./.27 The Silesian dialects, known for their linguistic isolation from the rest of the Polish territory, exhibit what is, in diachronic terms, an example of peripheral conservatism.28 On the other hand, it is also in Silesia, and specifically in its northern "mazurzenie" dialects, that we find vocalic subsystems containing three nasal vowels, which are by no means a case of linguistic conservatism but of linguistic innovation (cf. 4.63). 4.5 Some dialects have vocalic sub-systems consisting of the maximal number of oral vowels. The eight oral vowels pattern either as flat vs. plain or as grave vs. acute. The flat vs. plain opposition is realized in the vowels: /o, o, u, u / and /a, e, i, i/, and the grave vs. acute opposition in the vowels /a, o, o, u/, /ae, e, i, i/. The first type of opposition is by far the more common. It is found in southern and in some northern Malopolska dialects (in Spisz, Orawa, in the Jablonkow area of Silesia, around Bochnia, Chrzanow, Rzeszow, Tarnobrzeg), in Mazovia (in the districts of Ostroleka and Ciechanow), in the central regions of East Prussia (Warmia, Western Mazurs) and in Tuchola.29 The second type is

72

Slavic Languages

restricted to some Mazovian dialects (e.g. around Przasnysz), to the eastern Mazurs (east of Mragowo), but it is also found in the South (near Nisko on the left bank of the San).30 The following are forms illustrating the eight vocalic phonemes (from the dialect of Plaza, south of Chrzanow); /zima/ "winter", /zim'a/ "earth", /bok/ "god", /buk/ "birch-tree", /matke/ "mother" [acc.], /gn'ozdo/ "nest", /sp'ivajom/ "they sing"; the fdllowing forms (from dialects east of Warmia) illustrate the opposition /ae/ vs. / a / : /drag®/ "road", /droga/ "dear", /muxas/ "fly", /suxa/ "dry". 4.6 If we leave aside the standard language with its five oral vowels and one nasal, in which the nasal vowel is not the result of the inner development of any particular dialect but rather a culturally determined compromise formula between the "-om dialects" and the "-o dialects"31 (i. e. dialects without and with the phoneme /o/), there seem to be no dialects with five or six oral vowels which would also admit nasal vowels.32 Within vocalic systems, nasal vowels form patterns of their own, but these patterns depend on the structure of the oral vowels. The problem of the interrelation between the oral and nasal vowels, particularly in the Slavic languages, has been investigated by A. Isafienko.33 One of the general principles stated in his study is that the number of nasal vowels is always smaller than the number of oral vowels. This principle is borne out by the Polish dialectal facts. However, the other principles formulated by IsaSenko, namely that no phonemic system contains only one nasal vowel (p. 276), that nasal vowels pattern symmetrically with oral vowels (p. 274), and that in the Slavic dialects nasal vowels are concomitant only with "quadrangular" systems (p.278), i.e. with systems in which gravity or flatness is also a feature of the compact vowels, find no corroboration in the Polish dialects. Let us consider these problems more closely. 4.6.1 The Polish nasal vowels show a great deal of oscillation in their phonetic quality and in the degree of their nasality. This often makes it difficult to establish their phonemic status, the more so that their phonetic transcription is less consistent than that of the oral vowels. Cultural, social, sex and age factors also affect the nasal vowels more readily than the oral vowels.34 Despite this, it is possible to determine the norms which are dominant in the various dialects. The number of nasal vowels varies from one to three. The largest number of nasal vowels is found in systems with the lowest number of oral vowels, specifically in the seven oral vowel systems which exist in the northern Silesian ("mazurzenie")

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

73

dialects. The most common are ten-vowel systems comprising eight oral and two nasal vowels, although nine-vowel systems are found in various Polish dialects. The nine-vowel systems consist either of eight oral vowels (the "quadrangular" systems) and one nasal, or of seven oral vowels (the "triangular" systems) and two nasal vowels. Both "quadrangular" and "triangular" systems, then, admit nasal vowels. 4.6.2 As for their distinctive features, the nasal vowels generally exclude features of maximal acuteness. In some systems the feature of acuteness is entirely excluded from nasal vowels. This is the case in systems with one nasal vowel which is either grave or maximally compact, i. e. / q/ or /a/, 3 5 and in systems with two nasal vowels, one of which is grave and the other maximally compact, i. e. /o, a, or A), a/. In the latter systems the nasal vowels are opposed to each other in terms of compactness. In other systems with two nasal vowels, the nasal vowels are opposed to each other as acute vs. grave (or plain vs. flat). They are, however, often differentiated from each other by another feature besides gravity (or flatness). The result of this additional differentiation makes the nasal vowels non-symmetrical with the two oral vowels /e, o/, since they differ from the latter in more than the feature of nasality. Thus, we find in some dialects the nasals /e, o/, and in others /ae, o/ or /ae, u/. In the latter two cases, the nasal vowels are opposed to each other both as acute vs. grave (or plain vs. flat) and as maximally compact vs. non-maximally compact (or diffuse). The fact of this redundant differentiation can be explained as a resistance of the nasal vowels to blurring, which occurs when nasality is superposed upon the other vocalic features,36 and hence as a means of salvaging the autonomy of the two nasal vowels. Systems with three nasal vowels usually exhibit two diffuse vowels / ¡ / and / u / , and more rarely / ¡ / and / u / , and one maximally compact vowel / a / . In all Polish dialects the nasal vowels are thus opposed to each other as maximally compact vs. non-maximally compact, and/or as acute vs. grave (or plain vs. flat). 4.6.3 Geographically, the nasal vowels are found primarily in southern Poland and in Mazovia. In northern Poland they are occasionally found in the speech of older people. Systems comprising one nasal and eight oral vowels are encountered in southern Malopolska, along the line Oswiecim-Andrychow-Limanowa, on the left bank of theriverWislok and in the district of Pszczyna. In these dialects we find forms with the nasal vowel / a / or / q / : raka/ "hand", /gaba/ "mouth", /p'isa/ "I, they write", "matka/ "mother" [acc. and instr.], or /roka, goba, p'iso, matko/.37

74

Slavic Languages

Dialects which have systems with eight oral and two nasal vowels are scattered in southern Malopolska and in Mazovia. The nasal vowels / e / , / o / are found on the left bank of the river San (near Brzeziny and Ropczyce), around Limanowa and Zakopane and in other regions of Galicia. / a / , / o / appear in the area of Nowy Sacz; in southern Tuchola and Kociewie they are quickly disappearing (forms like /pa3a krova/ are there replaced by /pan3a krova/). The vowels /ae, o / or /ae, i)/ are found in Malopolska (e.g. around Nisko on the left bank of the river San), among the western Kurpie and elsewhere in Mazovia (e. g. around Ostrow, Wegrow, Garwolin, Lukow). In some areas of eastern and western Mazovia, on the right bank of the Vistula, we likewise find systems with seven oral and two nasal vowels.38 Systems comprising seven oral vowels and two or three nasal vowels are most common in the northwestern Silesian dialects (and in small linguistic islands in the very south of Silesia) which have reduced consonantal inventories. Most of the northern Silesian dialects have the three nasal vowels (a, 1,0/ or /a, e, o/. 39 The following forms (from the "Krysioki" dialect in the area of Opole) illustrate the opposition between the three nasal vowels and the sequences of vowel plus nasal consonant: / v ' a / "I know", /kob'ita/ [acc.] "woman", /ojci/ [instr.] "with the father", /poti/ "later", /se3i)/ "they sit", /mamvj/ [instr.] "with the mother", and /tam/ "there", /mam/ [gen. pi.] "mothers", /zowdin/ "none", /ti3in/ "week", / d o m / "house". The corresponding standard Polish words of these forms are /v'em, kob'ete, ojcem, potem, se3q, mamo, tam, mam zaden, ti3en, dom/. The distribution of the nasal vowels differs at times in these dialects; in Solarnia, near Lubliniec, for instance, we find the forms /v'a/, /mam«/ [instr.], which are identical with the "Krysioki" forms, but /ojca/ [instr.], /se3um/, which are different. 5. To summarize, the vocalic subsystems of the Polish dialects consist of inventories ranging from five to ten vocalic phonemes. In addition to the core of five oral vowels, /i, e, a, o, u/, various dialects admit six, seven or eight oral vowels. Generally the nasal vowels do not occur in systems with fewer than seven oral vowels. Systems with seven oral vowels admit two or three nasal vowels, and systems with eight oral vowels admit one or two nasal vowels. Three binary oppositions are realized in all vocalic subsystems, i. e. vocality, compactness, gravity (or flatness); two additional dichotomies appear in dialects with more than six vowels, i. e. tenseness and nasality. The literary language, with its six vowels, includes the feature of nasality. The oppositions which are expressed in the consonantal subsystems consist of the above, with the ex-

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

75

ception of tenseness, and include in addition four features: consonantality, continuity, stridency, voicing, in the maximally reduced subsystems and a fifth feature, sharpness, in the others. All phonemic systems of the Polish dialects can thus be exhausted in a dichotomous scale comprised of ten features. 6. Considering now the quantitative correlation between the vocalic and consonantal subsystems, we notice that there is an inverse proportion between the number of vocalic and consonantal phonemes in the Polish dialects. This proportion is not, however, absolute, but pertinent to some vocalic rosters (e.g. the five-vowel systems of central Poland) and dialects with maximal consonantal rosters and a relatively high number of vowels (e.g. the seven-vowel systems of southern Silesia). There are dialects with reduced consonantal rosters which have also minimal phonemic systems. The relationship between the numbers of vowels and consonants can be formulated as follows: maximal vocalic subsystems are incompatible with maximal consonantal subsystems, and, conversely, minimal vocalic subsystems are incompatible with minimal consonantal subsystems. Thus, the ten-vowel patterns are found in dialects with a reduced consonantal stock (e. g. northern Silesia, southern Malopolska, Mazovia) and minimal consonantal systems are found only in dialects with more than five vowels (e.g. northern Poland, Kurpie). The existence of a maximal inventory of consonants excludes the existence of a maximal and generally even of a large number of vowels. In such systems the number of vowels ranges from five to seven (Kujawy, Wielkopolska, southern Silesia), whereas systems with more than seven vowels are found in dialects with a reduced number of consonants (cf. Malopolska, Tuchola, Mazovia). Standard Polish has a system which comes closest to the dialects with the maximal consonantal and minimal vocalic sub-systems. Some of these dialects have one consonant more (/?/) and others one vowel less ( / o / ) than the literary language. 7. If we translate the above conclusions into diachronic terms, we could say that the dialects which were most conservative in their consonantism were also most innovating in their vocalism, and vice versa. The following brief and general outline will illustrate the historical processes which took place in the phonemic systems of the Polish dialects and which produced the present-day patterns and their correlations. 7.1 The consonantal system of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century literary language did not differ significantly from contemporary standard Polish. Only the phonemes / k ' / and / g ' / were introduced into the

76

Slavic Languages

system, presumably after the change of e> e in final word position.40 The consonantal pattern of literary Polish was most likely based on the dialect of Wielkopolska, which preserved the maximal number of consonantal phonemes and later increased its consonantal stock with the two phonemes / k ' / and /g'/. As long as there is no concrete evidence in favor of the fifteenth-sixteenth-century development of "mazurzenie," as is argued by Taszycki and his followers, there is no way of discarding the theory which considers the Wielkopolska dialects as the basic source of the Polish "langue commune."41 The value of the arguments for the "late origin" of "mazurzenie" lies primarily in considering the "terminus post quem" of this phenomenon as more recent than it was previously assumed to be. Reduced consonantal inventories probably existed in most of the present-day "mazurizing" dialects as early as the fourteenth century. The absolute chronology of the elimination of the soft labial consonants in the dialects of northern Poland and of Mazovia is not quite certain. The change of soft labial consonants into phonemic sequences might have occurred in the fifteenth-sixteenth century (as is argued by Rospond42). In Mazovia and in some Malopolska dialects, palatalized velar phonemes never developed; in these dialects allophonic palatalization of velar consonants was also eliminated (or never developed). With respect to medieval Polish, Wielkopolska (in the broader sense) and southern Silesia remained conservative in their consonantism; here consonantal developments went only in the direction of an increase in the inventory. Mazovia and the northern dialects on the other hand, went in the direction of an extreme reduction in their consonantal stocks. Malopolska and northern Silesia occupy an intermediate position between these extremes. 7.2 The history of the Polish vocalism is better attested than the history of the consonantism. The elimination of phonemic quantity in the second half of the fifteenth century resulted in a system which consisted of ten vocalic phonemes: /i, e, (or A/), e, a, o, o, o, (or /v/), u, as, o/.43 The elimination of some of these vowels occurred soon (as early as in the sixteenth century) in the Wielkopolska dialects (in the broad sense44). The change of the nasal vowels (probably /e, o/) into the phonemic sequences / e N / and / o N / (where N indicates a nasal consonant m, n, n, q, depending on the following consonant), or /e, om/ in final position, occurred in the Wielkopolska dialects probably towards the end of the sixteenth century.45 The vowel / o / changed into the sequence / a w / or / o w / in all western dialects including Silesia. But whereas the Silesian dialects of the north, with their reduced consonantal invento-

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

77

ries, reconstituted the ten-vowel pattern through the phonemization of some sequences of vowels plus nasal consonants into nasal vowels, the Wielkopolska systems, with their maximal consonantal inventories, eliminated / o / , and very often also / e / . The particular feature of Wielkopolska proper was the development of the flat vowels /o/, / o / , / o / into the sequences / a w / , / w o / (or /we/), / w y / (or /wu/), in which / w / overlapped with the phoneme that resulted from the hard A/. In many southern and eastern Polish dialects which reduced their consonantal inventories, the same tendency which set in after the elimination of quantity, i. e. the tendency towards the dropping of the vowels /o/, / e / , / o / and of the nasal vowels, also began to predominate. However, only in some dialects was this development completed. Various northern and Mazovian dialects eliminated /o/, and more recently the nasal vowels. The illuminating studies of Nitsch, Stieber, Friedrich and Kuraszkiewicz have proved beyond doubt that the elimination of some vowels, in particular of the nasal vowels, was always accelerated, and often actually achieved, not through the internal development of these dialects, but through the interference of that dialect which enjoyed the highest cultural prestige and which overlapped at many points with the Czech model, i. e. of Wielkopolska up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and of the literary language in modern times. Central Poland was directly exposed to the linguistic pressure of Wielkopolska; it was, as Nitsch puts it, "a country conquered in a way by the Wielkopolska-Kujawy dialect,"46 whereas various dialects of Nearer Mazovia and of northern Malopolska ceded in later times to the influence of the literary language, which "had the best chances between these two dialects, both of which were regarded as inferior."47 The linguistic developments in the eastern Polish dialects are in addition accounted for by the contact with the neighboring Eastern Slavic languages (especially Ukrainian) and by the prestige of the literary tradition which has flourished in the "Kresy" since the seventeenth century and which has left an imprint on the development of standard Polish itself. If one takes into account these external factors of linguistic diffusion, it appears that in the dialects with reduced consonantal systems, the vocalic systems were larger in the earlier stages of their history than they are at present. This is still the prevailing situation in the dialects which were removed from the centers of cultural and linguistic diffusion. The Mazovian and northern Polish dialects, with their maximally reduced consonantal systems, have, indeed, ceded to these external influences far less than most of the Malopolska dialects, which were linguistically

78

Slavic Languages

more exposed to the influences from Wielkopolska and from the standard language. However, even those northern and Mazovian dialects which (in the course of their northern expansion along the Vistula, between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries) came in contact with the Wielkopolska dialects and with the literary language withstood the pressure of the external influences far more successfully than did the Malopolska dialects. The obvious conclusion is that external factors are most successful when the internal conditions of a system permit it. Originally published in For Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 1956,518-530.

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

79

Footnotes

1 This relation between the consonantal and vocalic phonemes in the Slavic languages was formulated by Jakobson in several of his writings: 1931a, 247 ff., 1931 b and 1955. IsaCenko provided the ratios of the Slavic consonantal and vocalic phonemes in 1939, 64ff. Some of the figures warrant a revision in the light of more recent phonemic analyses, e.g., Isatenko attributes 37 consonants to Russian and five vowels to Polish, whereas the former has 33 consonants and the latter six vowels. IsaSenko's interpretation of the Polish vowels was based on Trubetzkoy's controversial article, 1925, 24-37. 2 The linguistic separateness of Kashubian (spoken on the left bank of the Lower Vistula), which has a different word-prosody from Polish, was recognized as early as 1897 by Baudouin de Courtenay. 3 Cf. Jakobson, Fant, Halle, 1952. 4 To quote Nitsch, the dean of the Polish dialectologists,"... all of Polish dialectology up to this time has been carried on primarily from an historical point of view", 1948,119. 5 A brief survey of the phonemic inventories of the main Polish dialects was given by Stieber, 1952, 50-53 and 89-90. The present analysis differs from Stieber's in various respects: it is more exhaustive; it places the emphasis on the synchronic aspect and on the phonemic oppositions; it differs at times in the phonemic interpretation; it attempts to connect the problems of the Polish consonantism with vocalism. Stieber treats the entire history of the Polish consonants separately from that of the vowels. The important and intricate problems of the frequency of occurrence of the phonemes in the code and in the message, touched upon by Kramsky, 1946-48,39-43, are omitted in this paper, as well as the problems of the distribution of phonemes and of their variants. 6 The general studies consulted are as follows: Nitsch, 1915, 238-343; Urbanczyk, 1953; Stieber, 1952; Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Splawinski, Urbanczyk, 1955; the phonetically transcribed texts in Nitsch, 1929; Olesch, 1951. Studies dealing with particular dialectal areas are referred to below. 7 For a description of the standard Polish sounds in articulatory terms, cf. Dhiska, 1950. 8 For a different interpretation of / ) / , cf. Stieber, 1952,76. 9 Nitsch, Wybor 1,202. For a discussion of the nasal vowels in standard Polish, cf. Stieber, 1948,56 ff. 10 Nitsch, 1910,336fT., and 1915,318. 11 In the "mazurzenie" dialects [s] is a variant of / z / ; it occurs before and after a voiceless consonant and in final position, e.g. [v'esx] "top", [tsymac] "to hold", [tfas] "face." 12 Nitsch, 1929,73 and 1910,344. Urbanczyk, 1953,26. 13 E.g. in the dialect of Zogorze (cf. Jaworek, 338), and in the dialect of the

80

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29

30 31 32

33 34

35

Slavic Languages "Gorole" (cf. Olesch, 1937,10), in which softness of velars is conditioned or absent. Cf. Nitsch, Wybór3,260ff, 346fT. In all three types /v, f / correspond to standard Polish /v', f / when preceded by a hushing spirant or affricate, and / m / to / m ' / in final position or in instrumental plural; e.g. /sfat/ "world", /kam'eñami/ "with stones." Cf. Nitsch, Wybór 3,350. Cf. Nitsch, 1915,271. Nitsch, Wybór 3,273,348. Sobierajski, 1952; Kul'bakin, 1903,4; Leciejewski, 1882,108-139. Cf. Nitsch, 1929,130ff.; Doroszewski, 1955. Nitsch, 1929, 116; Klich, 1919, 20ff.; Witek and Rozwadowski, 1904, Iff.; Nitsch and Stein, 1915,183 ff. Nitsch, 1929,176; Doroszewski, 955, 24. Dluska, 1950,40ff. Tomaszewski, 1934,16ff.; UrbaAczyk, 1953,18. Wybór, 3,263ff.,328ff.; Nitsch, 1929,198ff.; Steuer, 1934; Olesch, 1937; Urbañczyk, 1953,18. For the high quality of / i / and A)/, cf. Nitsch, 1915,264; Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Splawiñski, Urbañczyk, 1955, 85,100; Domañski and Nitsch, 1951, 219. In the Podlasie-Suwatki region, we find the tense vowels /é, ó / instead of A, o/; cf. Urbañczyk, 1953,16, and Nitsch, 1915,264. Nitsch, 1929,34 ff. The phonetically transcribed texts of this dialect indicate oscillation between forms like /ida/ and /idan/, kuro/ and /kurun/; it is likely that the nasal vowels /a, u / are in free variation with the sequences /an, on/ (or /aq, urj/), which are the norm in the neighboring dialect of the "Kobylorze"; cf. Olesch, 1937 b, 8, and 1937 a, 1310. Nitsch, Wybór 1,216; idem, 1939,137. Malecki, 1938; Nitsch, 1929,109; Jaworek, 319ff; Nitsch, 1929,188; Wybór 3, 121, 328, 363. In Tuchola the opposition flat vs. plain is realized in the compact vowels /D/ and / a / ; in the production of / o / , "the tongue position is the same as in the production of a, with the difference in the presence of lip-rounding in the production of the former." cf. Nitsch, Wybór 3,121. Friedrich, 1955,38; Pastuszeñko, 1930,139ff.; Nitsch, Wybór3,259,346. Stieber, 1952,44. In a few dialects which have five or six oral vowels, the final vowel / o / has been found to occur in a restricted number of forms and to oscillate with the oral vowels or sequences /o, u, om, um/; a nasal front vowel is absent in these dialects; cf. Doroszewski, 1955, pp. 28-30; Lindertówna, 1955,208. Isaéenko, 1937,267 ff. For the range of oscillation of the nasal vowels, cf. Wybór 1,193; Olesch, 1937 a and Doroszewski's statistical data, 1955,19, 38, 48. The weakness of Doroszewski's quantitative method is, however, that it emphasizes only variation and altogether ignores the norm. An exception to this rule is recorded by Friedrich and Doroszewski in the Eastern Kurpie (in the villages of Wydmusy, Petty) where / e / or /ae/, but not / o / occur, although with a very low frequency. Friedrich's data for Jednorozec (in the Przasnysz district) conflict, however, with Doroszewski's; ac-

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45

46 47

81

cording to Friedrich / o / is never absent in the western Kurpie, cf. 1955, 63. Delattre, 1951, 864ff. Malecki, 1938,33; Kuraszkiewicz, 1943,3 ff. Nitsch and Stein, 1915, 305; Pastuszenko, 1930, A145ff.; Nitsch, 1929, 63; Wybor3,330ff.; Stieber, 1948,51; Friedrich, 1955,61 ff.; idem, 1937; Nitsch, 1929,101,180. Olesch; Nitsch, 1909,145-149; idem, 1929,30flf.; Bak, 1951,184ff. Stieber, 1948,70, 78. It is beyond our purpose to discuss in greater detail the controversial problems concerning the origin of the literary language and the chronology of "mazurzenie". For references, cf. Kuraszkiewicz, 1953; Stieber, 1948, 76ff.; Taszycki, 1954. Cf. Rospond, 1953,19 ff. Los, 1907, 16-18; Stieber, 1948, 50; Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Splawinski, Urbanczyk, 1955,88-89,97-100,102-110. Stieber, 1948,80; Nitsch, 1953,226. The views of some scholars that this phenomenon had already taken place in the 12th century conflicts with the assumption of the later influence of the Wielkopolska nasal vowels upon the Matopolska dialects and with the introduction of the grapheme a in the 14th c.; cf. Stieber, 1948,39 ff. From a structural point of view they are untenable. For the history of the nasal vowels in the Polish dialects, cf. Kuraszkiewicz, 1932; Nitsch, 1927,451-465; Kuraszkiewicz, 1953,16ff.; Stieber, 1950, HOff. Wybor 1,218. Nitsch, 1927,463.

82

Slavic Languages

References

Baudouin de Courtenay, J., Kasubskij " j a z y k " . . Z M N P , 310,1897,306-57. Bäk, S., Gwary ludowe na Dolnym Slasku, SprPA U, 1951,184 ff. Delattre, P., The physiological interpretation of sound spectrograms, PMLA, 66, 1951. Dtuska, M., Fonetyka polska, Cracow, 1950. Domanski, J. and Nitsch, K., Tekst pótnocno-malopolski, JPol, 31, 1951, 219-221. Doroszewski, W., Studia fonetyczne z kilku wsi mazowieckich, Wroclaw, 1955. Friedrich, H., Gwara kurpiowska, Warsaw, 1955. -, Studia nad nosowoscia wgwarach Mazowsza, Warsaw, 1937. Isaèenko, A., À propos de voyelles nasales, BSLP, 38,1937,267-79. -, Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen, LS, 1,1939,64-76. Jakobson, R., Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie, TCLP, 4,1931 a. -, Kxarakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza, Paris, 1931 b. -, Slavic Languages, New York, 1955. -, Fant, C.G. M., Halle, M., Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, ( = Technical Report Nr. 13), MIT, 1952. Jaworek, P., Gwary na poludnie od Chrzanowa, MPKJ, 7,1920,319-426. Krämsky, J., Fonologické vyuziti samohläskovych fonémat, LS, 4-6, 1946-48, 39-43. Klemensiewicz, Z., Lehr-Splawinski, T., Urbanczyk, S., Gramatyka historyczna jezyka polskiego, Warsaw, 1955. Klich, E., Narzecze wsi Borki Nizinskie, Cracow, 1919. Kul'bakin, S., K istorii i dialektologii pol'skogo jazyka, 1, Fonetika Svazendzkogo govora, SborORJaS, 73,1903,124. Kuraszkiewicz, W., Studia nad polskimi samogloskami nosowymi, Cracow, 1932. -, O wargowej artykulaeji polskich samogiosek nosowych, LudSl, 3, 1943, A3 ff. -, Pochodzenie polskiego jezyka literackiego, Wroclaw, 1953. Leciejewski, J., Gwara Miejskiej Gorki, RWF,9,1882,108-39. Lindertówna, B., Gwara gminy Spiczyn w wojewodztwie lubelskim, SFPSl, 1, 1955, 203-22. Los, J., Jakóba syna Parkoszowego traktat o ortografii polskiej, MPKJ, 2,1907, 379-425. Malecki, M., Jezykpolski na poludnie od Karpat, Cracow, 1938. Nitsch, K., Dialekty polskie Slaska, MPKJ, 4,1909,85-356. -, Pròba ugrupowania gwar polskich, R WF, 46,1910,336ff. -, Dialekty jezyka polskiego, in Jezyk polski ijego historia (Encyklopedia polska, 3), 1915. -, Z historii narzeeza malopolskiego, Symbolae ... Rozwadowski, 2, Cracow, 1927, 451-65;556-57. -, Wybórpolskich tekstów gwarowych, Lwów, 1929.

The Phonemic Patterns of the Polish Dialects

83

- , Co wiemy naprawde o dialektach ludowych XVI wieku?, JPol, 33, 1953, 225-244. -, Wybör pism polonistycznych, Wroclaw-Cracow, 1954-1958. - , and Stein, I., Zapiski gwarowe ze srodkowej Galicji, MPPA U, 1915,183 ff. Olesch, R., Die slawischen Dialekte Oberschlesiens, Berlin, 1937 a. -, Beiträge zur oberschlesischen Dialektforschung, Leipzig, 1937b. -, Drei polnische Mundarten, Leipzig, 1951. Pastuszenko, S., Dialekty miedzy Wlslokiem a Sanem, LudSlow, 1, 1930, A138-A168. Rospond, S., Palatalnos6 spölglosek wargowych, JPol, 33,1953,19-25. Sobierajski, Z., Gwary Kujawskie, Poznan, 1952. Steuer, F., Dialekt Sulkowski, Cracow, 1934. Stieber, Z., Dwa problemy z polskiej fonologii, BPTJ, 8,1948, 56-78. - , Przyczynki do historii polskich rymöw, JPol, 30,1950,110-13. Rozwöj fonologiczny jezyka polskiego, Warsaw, 1952. Taszycki, W., Dawnosc t.zw. mazurzenia w jezyku polskim, Warsaw, 1954. Tomaszewski, A., Mowa ludu wielkopolskiego. Charakterystyka ogölna, Poznan, 1934. Trubetzkoy, N., Les voyelles nasales des langues lechites, RESl, 5,1925,24-37. Urbanczyk, S., Zarys dialektologiipolskiej, Warsaw, 1953. Witek, J. and Rozwadowski, J., Gwary na pölnocny-wschöd od Tarnowa, MPPA U, 1,1904,1 ff.

The Vocalic Systems of Modern Standard Slovenian

Modern Standard Slovenian provides an example of coexisting phonemic norms which differ in their degree of conservatism and general acceptance. The innovating norm differs from the older system primarily through the lack of phonemic tone (pitch). Since the lack of phonemic tone has its parallel in the history of other Slavic languages and in contemporary Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian dialects, where tone has either been lost or is in the process of being eliminated,1 the Standard Slovenian development can be viewed as a special case of a widespread tendency in the history of the Slavic prosodic features. The more conservative prosodic system of Standard Slovenian, the history and principles of which have been described by a number of Slovenian and foreign linguists,2 utilizes the features of tone and quantity. This system is based on the accentually conservative central dialects of Carniola. The vowel system of Ljubljana lay at the basis of the literary language from the times of Primoz Trubar, and was replaced in the nineteenth century by that of Upper Carniola, which was codified as the norm by Kopitar. The innovating norm of the Standard language is accentually closer to the peripheral dialects which (with the exception of some areas in Carinthia) have undergone considerable innovations in their vocalic systems connected in part with the loss of distinctive tone. The statement found in various linguistic studies, that contemporary Slovenian is a polytonic language,3 is therefore an oversimplification which ignores the existence of a new literary norm and of peripheral dialects without tone. The older literary norm (which we may call the Valjavec-Pletersnik system)4 has an inventory of 18 vocalic phonemes, which are opposed to each other through inherent and prosodic features. The inherent vocalic features are: (1) compact/diffuse, (2) grave/acute, and (3) tense/lax. In traditional terms, this system has four degrees of opening, including in addition a central vowel / a / , which is neither grave nor acute.5 The above oppositions are implemented in the seven long rising vowels /i, e, a, o, Q, u/. These are found in forms such as zima 'winter,' teme 'skull,'

86

Slavic Languages

vréme 'weather,' kràva 'cow,' kóza 'goat,' kpza 'skin' and dusa 'soul.' The phonemic opposition between /é, ó / and Q/ can further be illustrated by such minimal pairs as zénin 'bridegroom' vs. zénin (adj.) 'of the wife,' pétsn (adj.) 'singable' vs. pétan 'of the foot' ; rpka (gen. sg.) 'fixed term, fate' vs. róka 'hand,' gósta (fem. adj.) 'dense' vs. gèsta (gen. sg.) 'guest.' The opposition between closed and open (tense/lax) vowels is neutralized in the long falling vowels6 and in the short vowels, of which there are respectively five /I, f, a, q, u / and six /i, e, a, a, o, u/. The vocalic inventory thus consists of twelve long and six short vowels. The syllabic sonant / \ / is likewise involved in the short/long and rising/falling opposition, increasing the number of syllabic phonemes to a total of twenty-one. Quantity and tone are in this system interdependent in that only long syllables carry the tone distinction. The rising/falling opposition can be exemplified by such pairs as: pisma (gen. sg.) 'letter' vs. pisma (nom.-acc. pi.), siba 'rod' vs. slba 'he flogs' ; pét (gen. pi.) 'foot' vs. pet 'five,' léta 'he flies' vs. leta (nom.-acc. pi.) 'years' ; màcka (gen. sg.) 'tom-cat' vs. màcka 'cat,' vràta 'door' vs. vràta (gen. sg.) 'neck' \ppt 'road' vs. pot 'sweat,' kpsi 'he eats' vs. kpsi (nom.-acc. pi.) 'pieces' ; kupa 'cup' vs. kupa (gen. sg.) 'purchase,' um 'reason' vs. razum 'reason'; grda (fem. adj.) 'ugly' vs. (iz) grda 'at worst,' sthn (adj.) 'steep' vs. strm 'precipice.' The occurrence of a rising tone on a nonfinal / a / , as in bózsg "eldertree," dózja (gen. sg.) "rain," mózag "mule," sómanj "market," dsska "board," mògia "fog," tóma "darkness," stéza "path," which was accepted by some grammarians (such as Breznik), was generally considered incorrect for the standard language and did not find its way into the dictionary of Pletersnik.7 But since all the above forms admit free variants with a falling (final) tone, i. e. bszàg, dszjà, mszàg, ssmónj, dsskà, magia, tamà, stazà, the rising/falling opposition in short vowels is a stylistic and marginal phenomenon, the more so that in no position is there a contrast between the rising / ó / , which cannot occur on a final syllable, and the falling / è / , which is restricted to the final syllable of a word. The position of stress is determined contextually in this system: it is concomitant with any long vowel (of which a word can have no more than one), in the absence of which it falls on the final syllable. This fact also accounts for the restriction of the long/short opposition to the final syllable of a word (or monosyllabic words), for only in this position can there be an opposition between forms which share the falling tone but differ in quantity; e.g., lik 'bast' vs. lik 'figure,' lev /lew/ 'lion' vs. lèv /l§w/ (adj.) 'left,' grob 'tomb' vs. grpb 'coarse,' grad 'hail' vs. gràd 'cas-

The Vocalic Systems of Modern Standard Slovenian

87

tie,' vrh 'above' vs. vrh 'peak,' oboj 'mounting' vs. obpj 'both,' golen 'unripe, green' vs. golçn 'shank,' nakup 'aggregate' vs. nakùp 'purchase.' The above norm is no longer obligatory. The majority of educated speakers dispense with tone distinctions and can hardly perceive them. The modern prescriptive grammars and dictionaries take cognizance of this state of affairs, which has existed for a long time (some well known linguists and poets, like Miklosich, Vraz, and Askerc, ignored tone differences), by omitting any discussion of tone with the stipulation that it can be used by speakers who have tone distinctions in their own dialect (obviously referring to speakers from Carniola, since the accentual patterns of other dialects differ considerably from the Valjavec-Pletersnik norm). The first to point out the fact that modern Slovenian can no longer be considered a polytonic language was Tesnière, who wrote in the conclusion of his diachronic study: "L'accent slovène est actuellement un accent d'intensité et ce que l'on appelle, d'un term discutable, l'intonation y est une variation de l'intensité sur la même voyelle."8 While Tesnière emphasized the function of stress in the modern vowel system, the recent prescriptive grammars speak of quantity and stress.9 According to these works, the standard language has seven long (stressed) vowels and twelve short vowels of which six are stressed and six unstressed. It is apparent that these descriptions are not functional in their approach, for they do not distinguish between redundant and distinctive features. The loss of phonemic tone did not alter the role of quantity in the modern vowel system. As in the older system, the quantitative opposition is implemented in final position (and in monosyllabic words), such as lik: lik, lew: Içw, grob: grçb, golen: golçn, etc. The loss of tone led, however, to an increase of lexical and grammatical homonyms, which in the older system are differentiated as rising/falling; e.g. pot"road" and "sweat"; pisma "letter" (gen. sg. and nom.-acc. pl.); vràta "door" and "neck" (gen. sg.); slba "rod" and "he flogs," etc. In the new system, the position of stress has also remained essentially unaltered : it is concomitant with length, or it falls on the final syllable of a word if there are no long vowels. It would therefore appear that in this system quantity is distinctive, whereas stress is predictable (redundant or configurative). The innovating vocalic system should thus consist of seven long and six short vowels. The situation is, however, more complex. One of the consequences of the loss of phonemic tone has been the elimination of the syllabic / f / , which carried tonal and quantitative distinctions. In the modern system /%/ has yielded the sequence / a r / or

88

Slavic Languages

/ a r a / (the latter before sonorants (/n, m, 1, w/), which is inherently short10and which may also carry the stress in nonfinal position. Besides forms with a final stress, as in partic "napkin," bartog "den," partfi "it drizzles," there are numerous forms with a compulsory internal stress, as x^arbtin "dorsal," p'arvi "first," rriarva "fodder," z'arno "grain," etc. Thus the position of stress is unpredictable and may have a distinctive function, as in the following (partially minimal and minimal) pairs: s'arca (nom.-acc. pi.) vs. sarda (gen. sg.) "heart"; tiarzi (imper.) "hurry" vs. terz'f"he hurries";p l srii(pl.) "linen" vs. pariic"napkin"; karpel(gen. pi.) "snowshoes" vs. karpel "mite of birds"; karze (acc. pi.) "corncob" vs. ksr^e"spotted ox"; hska(gen. sg.) "lustre, brightness" vs. laska(or taska) (gen. sg.) "noise." The last examples indicate that stress may differentiate even forms which in the older system invariably admitted a final stress as an alternative. Most forms with a nonfinal / a / that is not followed by / r / admit in the modern system stylistic variants with a final stress; e.g. daska ~ daska, m'azda ~ mazda, tfazag ~ baz'ag, siaza ~ staz[a. Moreover, variants can presently occur also in forms with / a r / , which precluded variation in the older system: e.g. mbrtev ~ maríav "dead," iarpez ~ tarp'ez "suffering," ceiartak ~ cetaréak "Thursday," iarstje ~ tarstj'e "reeds," éartiti ~ cartiti "to hate," tarda ~ tarda "hard," ¿arisen ~ sarjen "hornet." In Pletersnik's dictionary these forms are listed only as mrtav, trpez, cetrtak, trstje, crtiti, trda, srsan. It appears, then, that whereas in the older norm stylistic oscillation concerned only the short rising tone, in the modern norm it concerns the prosodic feature of stress, which is implemented in the single phoneme / a / . It is important to add that a nonfinal stress also occurs on short vowels other than / a / , as in ]ampak "but", nlajsi "although," m[arsigdo "many a man," kaksen "some," tfakaj "this way," s emkaj "here," feli "whether." However, these forms are compounded adverbs, pronouns and conjunctions, and their stress is predictable in terms of their morpheme boundaries. Some of them exhibit a secondary stress,11 e.g., Rendar "probably," while others admit free variants (with the variant carrying a final stress prevailing in everyday usage); e.g., dokler ~ dokter "as long as," doklej ~ doktej "how long," t'emvec ~ temv'ec "rather." Another category of words which admits stress on a nonfinal short vowel is interjections, which frequently show features that otherwise do not occur in the phonemic system; e.g., xajdi "let's go," jojmene "alas." The interjections may, in turn, be followed by flexional suffixes which function, in fact, as particles; e.g., ajva, 1ajta (dual), ajam, ]ajte (pi.) "let's go," x ajdiva, x]ajdita (dual) "forward," fexata or fejxata (dual) "woe."

The Vocalic Systems of Modern Standard Slovenian

89

The vocalic inventory of the innovating literary norm thus presents seven long and seven short vowels, of which two are opposed to each other as stressed vs. unstressed vowels, i.e., / a / vs. / b / . The loss of the older phonemic pitch has been compensated for in this system by the feature of stress. Being carried only by one phoneme, / a / , stress shows a tendency to become an optional feature. It is, finally, necessary to point out that in addition to the outlined innovating system, a new prosodic system which corresponds to the one suggested by Tesniere is gaining ground. In this system, which may be called the colloquial form of the literary language, stress alone carries a distinctive function, length being concomitant with a nonfinal stress. This development is the result of the neutralization of length in the only position of "contrast," i. e. in the final (or single) syllable of a word. Forms which are opposed to each other in the standard language, such as las "clearing" vs. las "hair," slab "weak" vs. slap "waterfall," rak "crab" vs. rak (gen. pi.) "tombs" are homonymous in the colloquial language, whereas in the colloquial system the distinction between the standard forms svet "advice" vs. svet "world," gost "guest" vs. gpst "dense" lies not in the quantity but in the quality of the vowels. In other words, the variants of the standard short vowels /e, o/, which are closed before / j / and / w / (respectively) and open elsewhere, acquire here phonemic status. The open variants overlap with the long open vowels /e, o/, and the closed variants with the long closed vowels /§, Q/. Thus the St. Slov. forms /kos/ "basket" vs. /kos/ (gen. pi.) "scythes," and gol /gow/ "naked" vs. gol /gow/ "clearing" yield in the colloquial language /kos/, /kos/ and gol /gow/. The short vowels /i, u / coalesce likewise with the long vowels /1, u/, although the former (like their unstressed counterparts) are often replaced be / a / . The St. Slov. kup "heap" vs. kup "purchase" and spi'A:"peak" vs. pik "sting" have the corresponding colloquial forms kup, spik and pik, while the St. Slov. sit "sated," kruh "bread" are colloquially sat and krah. The colloquial system has the same number of vowel phonemes as the modern standard language, with the difference that while the latter has seven long and seven short vowels, the former has eight stressed and six unstressed vowels. Originally published in IJSLP, 1/2,1959,70-76.

90

Slavic Languages

Footnotes

1 For the Serbo-Croatian dialects without phonemic tone, cf. Ivic, 1956,100, 157,189,210; Hraste, 1955, Maiecki, 1929-1930,36-37; and for the Slovenian dialects, Ramov§, 1936,123-137. 2 Of special importance are the works of Valjavec, 1897,116ff.; Skrabec, 1916; Tesniere, 1929,89 ff.; RamovS, 1950,16 ff.; Rigler, 1968. 3 Cf. Isaienko, 1939,64ff.; Jakobson, 1955,15-16; Horalek, 1955,142. 4 The examples of the tone distinctions are taken from the dictionary of Pletergnik (1894-1895), which reflects the literary norm as it was formulated by Valjavec. 5 Cf. Trubetzkoy, 1949,124. Spectographic evidence (based on the analysis of tape recordings of Standard Slovenian speech) indicates that / a / is a low, unrounded and somewhat fronted vowel. 6 The open vowels /e, 6/ with a falling tone may occur in child language, e.g. in the diminutive forms rokca "hand," nogca "leg," loncak "pot," St. Slov. rokica, nogica(or rocica, nozica), loncskand in "quotation words"; cf. Skrabec, 1916,40 ff. 7 In the first edition of his Slovenska slovnica (1916), Breznik used the accentual symbols' and * to distinguish a short rising from a short falling tone, distinctions he abandoned in the later editions of his grammar. Skrabec considered the rising short accent faulty and dialectal, recommending only the final short accent as the older and proper literary pronunciation; 1916,27. 8 Op. tit., pp. 117-118. One of the arguments of Tesniere to prove that in Standard Slovenian tone was replaced by stress is the reduction of vowels in unstressed position. This argument is not convincing, however. In some systems which employ phonemic stress (such as western Bulgarian or eastern Ukrainian), there is no vowel reduction, whereas some Slovenian dialects which retained phonemic tone show a far advanced vowel reduction. 9 Cf. Rupel, 1946,21-31; Bajec, Kolarifc, Rupel, 1956,17-20; and Ramovs et al., 1950, 54-56. 10 For a discussion of the phonetic properties (especially duration) of the stressed and unstressed short / p / , cf. the review by Solar, 1939. 11 Skrabec pointed out (1916,18-19) that as opposed to nominal compounds, all these compounds carry two stresses, although they also admit one single stress on the final syllable. In present-day usage, however, most of them have only one stress, on the nonfinal syllable, whereas nominal compounds admit two stresses in a somewhat bookish pronunciation; e.g. avantgarda, cvetecoticne, kratko^asne, Kajtim ara, etc.

The Vocalic Systems of Modern Standard Slovenian

91

References

Bajec, A., Kolariô, R., Rupel, M., Slovenska slovnica, Ljubljana, 19562. Breznik, A., Slovenska slovnica za srednje sole, Celovec, 1916. Horâlek, K., Ûvod do studia slovanskych jazykù, Prague, 1955. Hraste, M., Osobine suvremene rapske akcentuacije, ZborlnstNauka, 1955, 165-73. Isaöenko, A., Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen, LS, 1-2. Ivic, P., Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika, Novi Sad, 1956. Jakobson, R., Slavic Languages, New York, 19552. Malecki, M., Gwary Ciciôw a ich pochodzenie, LudSlow, 1,1929, A3-48. Pletersnik, M., Slovensko-nemski slovar, vol. 1-3, Ljubljana, 1894-95. Ramovs, F., Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1936. - , Relativna kronologija slovenskih akcentskih pojavov, SlavRev, 3, 1950, 16-23. - , ¿upanèiô, O., Bajec, A., Kolariö, R., Rupel, M., Smalc, M., Solar, J., Slovenski pravopis, Ljubljana, 1950. Rigler, J., Zacetki slovenskega knjiznega jezika, Ljubljana, 1968. Rupel, M., Slovensko pravorecje, Ljubljana, 1946. Skrabec, P. S., O glasu in naglasu nasega knjiznega jezika v izreki in pisavi, JSp, 1,1916,1-59. Solar, J., Fr. Bezlaj, Oris slovenskega knjiznega izgovora, SIJ, 2,1939,126-32. Tesnière, L., L'accent slovène et le timbre des voyelles, RESl, 9,1929,89-118. Trubetzkoy, N., Principes de phonologie, Paris, 1949. Valjavec, M., Glavne toüke o naglasu knjizevne slovenstine, RadJAZU, 132, 1897,116-213.

The Dialect of Resia and the "Common Slovenian" Accentual Pattern

Over a hundred years ago Baudouin de Courtenay published what was to be the first thorough description of a Slovenian dialect (Opyt fonetiki rez'janskix govorov, 1875; henceforth cited as Op.), a study he followed up with a publication of his field-notes covering the various villages of Resia (Resianische Texte, gesammelt in den JJ. 1872,1873 und 1874, in Materialien zur sudslavischen Dialektologie und Ethnographie, St. Petersburg, 1895; henceforth cited as M.). Although Baudouin's description was essentially synchronic, he also provided a reconstruction of the phonetic development of the dialect. One of his central ideas (and the original motivation for his study) was that the dialect of Resia was of a mixed Slavic-Avar origin and that this origin accounted for some of its peculiar phonetic characteristics. A new generation of Slovenian linguists (with Fran Ramovs at its head) was subsequently able to show that the dialect of Resia followed essentially the same line of development as the other Slovenian dialects. Thus, for example, it lost the length of the unaccented vowels, reduced the quality of the short vowels and tended to lengthen the internal accented vowels. The study of the Resian dialect has, unfortunately, never received the attention that was given to other Slovenian dialects, and the tentative foray into its territory did not help to clarify some of its basic linguistic problems. Thus, for example, T. Logar and J. Rigler (who visited the territory in 1962) could find no difference in the length of the vowels, although Baudouin explicitly emphasized (in Opyt, § 206, but far less consistently in the Texts) the importance of this distinction in word-final position and the shortness of the stressed vowels ae, d in any position. On the basis of the Opyt we must assume that the treatment of quantity was in Resia similar to that which we find in the literary language, except that the internal stressed vowels oe, o remained here redundantly short. Clues about the original quantity of the Resia vowels can easily be deduced from their qualitative distinctions. Thus the short vowels i, u

94

Slavic Languages

became generally e, o, while the short vowels oe, o reflect the original short vowels e, e and o as opposed to the new short vowels e, o (from i, u) and the lengthened vowels e, e and o which became in their turn I and ii} One problem which Baudouin left unresolved and which Slovenian linguistic scholarship tried to fill in (without however, adducing new factual material) was the state of the Resian pitch. Baudouin seems to suggest the existence of accentual distinctions, but as he marks these distinctions quite haphazardly (thus he writes indiscriminately zob (M 389)/zdb (Op. 54), vrdn (M 113)/vrdn (Op. 45); (g.pl.) nuhu(M 198)/««hu(Op. 77),pici(M M)/piciQA 391); (instr. sg. fem.) racjd(Op. 40)/paco (M 203); (3rd pers. sg.) brdni(M 84)/6raw (Op. 45); (inf.) mldtit (M 33), pustyt, ucyt(Op. 12)/mldtit, branit, zaplatit (Op. 66,67); (fem. adj.) gluha (M 11 )/huda (M 12)) one must assume that he did not perceive the distinctions of pitch, or that the dialect had by then lost them. 2 The distinctions of pitch that were subsequently introduced by Ramovs (5:113 ff.; 4:36 ff.) were obviously based on historical reconstructions. By ignoring the distinctions of pitch and using only the marks for stress and length I shall thus merely adhere to Baudouin's descriptive (though admittedly inconsistent) practice. It is the synchronic and historical problem of the position of the stress (which Baudouin marked scrupulously and consistently) which will be the main subject of the following remarks, inasmuch as the dialect of Resia differs in this respect conspicuously from other Slovenian dialects. As is known, Slovenian is the only Slavic language in which the original circumflex (or absolute initial) accent has shifted to the following syllable. Examples of this shift are attested by such modern literary forms as (nom. sg.) mesQ, SIOVQ, deset, vecer; (acc. sg.) glavQ, goro; (gen. sg.) moza; (nom. pi.) nosQvi, gradovi; (nom. sg. neut.) lepo, mlado; (supine) n?st, klet; (past tense masc. and neut.) zacgl, zacelo, zapodil, zappdilo). Since the shift of the Common Slavic circumflex to the following syllable ('VV> VV) is considered one of the oldest and common accentual innovations of Slovenian, the absence of this shift in the dialect of Resia presents us with an alternative: we may either assume that the lack of shift reflects an archaism, or, as most Slovenian linguists have argued (beginning with Bajec (1), Ramovs (4; 5) up to Rigler (7)), that the present position of the stress is the result (as in some other Slovenian dialects) of a secondary retraction to the initial syllable. I shall try to show below that the arguments in favor of the second assumption are not persuasive, and that the Resian position of the circumflex reflects, indeed,

The Dialect of Resia and the "Common Slovenian"

95

the original (Common Slavic) state of affairs. Since the works of the above-mentioned Slovenian linguists have dealt with the Resian accentual problems in a sporadic and highly selective fashion, I shall devote the following analysis to a more detailed examination of Baudouin's material and to an outline of the accentual alternations which can be established on the basis of this material. 2. Although Baudouin's study of Resia was a pioneering attempt at a synchronic description, his discussion of stress and quantity (in chapter V, A and B) was couched primarily in historical and comparative terms with èakavian and stokavian, and occasionally Russian, serving as the frame of reference. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that most of the prosodie developments of Resia are similar to those of other Slovenian dialects. Thus, for example, all internal stressed syllables undergo lengthening, and only the vowels e, è, o remain short (whatever their original accent). Thus we find, on the one hand, the forms bràtar, màti, zilajezika and, on the other hand, the forms ddeda, tósa, koldeno, as well as (gen. sg.) zvceccera, doma, poja, (< pòljà), roga; (fem. pple) pòparta; (masc. sg.) dòbar. The vowels e, è, o undergo lengthening, and subsequent narrowing, in monosyllabic circumflex stems (e.g., ltd (< ledi,); svit ( < svétb), lis ( < lési.), dvi ( < dbvé; ruh ( < rogb), buk/buh ( < bogb),) and in the gen. pi. ; e. g., pir; kolin, lit, dil; ùpc ( ù) and that the other cases of the plural tend to confuse the endings of the various declensions). Gen. pi.: zubu (M 378), sinóu (M 260), muzù (M 136), dnu (M 357); judi (M 25); peci (Op. 79), rici (Op. 79) kukusi (M 136), hciri (Op. 79); hori(, M 53) nuhu( iis not, however, consistent, for Baudouin cites in addition to lid,ricalso pcec(M 110) peit, seist. The latter cases are most likely the result of analogical levellings; cf. also Rigler 7: ftn 25. 2 In the following exposition I simplify Baudouin's complicated transcription by eliminating most of his diacritic marks and special letters for the vowels. I also write c for his h and v for w. I retain only his graphemes ce, o for his short vowels and the marks',' for the stressed long and short vowels. 3 On the accentuation of the Common Slavic dual, see my article "The Counted Plurals of the East Slavic Languages," IJSLP, 24,1981,51 ff.

The Dialect of Resia and the "Common Slovenian"

103

References

1. Bajec, A., O prvotnem slovenskem naglasu v rezijanskem nareSju, CJKZ, 3, 1921/22,40-42. 2. Grafenauer, J., Zum Akzente im Gailthalerdialekte, ASlPh, 27, 1905, 195-228. 3. Jaksche, H., Slavische Akzentuation, 2, Slovenisch, Wiesbaden, 1965. 4. RamovS, F., Historicna gramatika slovenskega jezika, 7. Dialekti, Ljubljana, 1935. 5. Karakteristika slovenskega narefcja v Reziji, CJKZ, 7,1928,107-121. 6. -, O premiku akcenta v tipih zvezda, zena in magld v slovenskem jeziku, LudSiow, 1A, 1929, 48-61. 7. Rigler, J., O rezijanskem naglasu, SlavRev, 20,1,1972,115-126. 8. Stankiewicz, E., The Accentuation and Grammatical Categories of the -a Stems in South Slavic, reprinted in this volume, p.l95ff. 9. -, The Accentuation of the Russian Verb, reprinted in this volume, p. 353 ff. 10. Tominec, J., Crnovrski dialekt, Ljubljana, 1964.

Polish Mazurzenie and the Serbo-Croatian Palatals

A Giovanni Maver "lo mio maestro e 1' mio autore" 1. The fundamental problem which imposes itself in comparative Slavic linguistics is that which fascinated Coleridge when he contemplated the essence of beauty: "unity in variety." The historical approach to this problem, which dominated nineteenth-century linguistics, saw its main task in reducing the variety of genetically related languages to a hypothetical unity, or conversely, in tracing the unfolding of the original unity, of the "Ursprache," through its subsequent ramifications. Even when the reconstructions called for correctives of a geographic or cultural nature (e. g. the wave-theory, the theories of migration and diffusion), they were primarily time-oriented: unity and variety were temporal concepts. The typological approach to language has lent to the question a new dimension. The notions of "convergence" or "drift" (introduced by Meillet and Sapir) have focussed attention on the similarity of development due to similar structural conditions, regardless of genetic origin, geographic proximity or cultural diffusion. The history of the palatal consonants in the Slavic languages provides a typical example of convergence; but nowhere is the phenomenon so strikingly alike as in the Polish and Serbo-Croatian dialects. The palatals of both evolve along parallel phonological lines, although genetically they stem from different sources and phonetically they produce different results. But their phonetic discrepancy should not obscure the fact (often obscured in nonstructural descriptions) that the palatals were subject in both territories to similar phonemic treatment. The matter to be explored in this paper, however, transcends the purely phonological framework. What strictly phonological interpretations often overlook is the relationship of phonemic change to the morphological system, or more specifically, the morphophonemic effect of phonemic change. In the history of a language there are certain pho-

106

Slavic Languages

nemic changes which may have little or no effect on its morphology. Such were, for example, the changes of Czech long vowels into diphthongs, or of Polish long vowels into narrow ("pochylone") vowels. But other changes may profoundly modify the morphological pattern; e.g. the Common Slavic loss of the jers or the elimination of tone in Slovenian dialects and in modern standard Slovenian. Identical phonemic developments may, furthermore, produce different morphological results in different systems. When phonemic change is considered from the point of view of its impact on the morphological system, it in turn throws light on the direction of phonemic change. Within this enlarged framework of phonology and morphology in interdependence, convergence on one level presents itself as divergence on another level; "unity in variety" becomes a question of "variety in unity." 2. The phonemic system of contemporary standard Polish includes two sets of palatal phonemes; c, j , s, z and c, j , s, z. These phonemes are opposed to each other, in articulatory terms, as alveolar (or palato-alveolar) vs. medio-palatal (or dorsal), and in terms of distinctive features, as strident vs. mellow. The same sets of palatals are found in the northwestern Polish dialects, i.e. in Wielkopolska, Kujawy, southern Silesia, Chelmno-Dobrzyn, and in some areas of Pomorze. The mellow palatals originated in Polish around the twelfth century from older palatalized dental consonants t\ d\ s\ z'. One of the phonemic prerequisites for the existence of the mellow/strident opposition in the palatal series is, as a matter of fact, the absence of palatalized dentals. This incompatibility of mellow/strident palatals with palatalized dentals holds for all Slavic languages;1 it is partially violated only in standard Polish. However, the modern Polish "soft" dental consonants (t\ d\ c', s', z') appear only in "quotation-words" or as allophones, and are, therefore, outside the native phonemic system. The phonemic system of standard Serbo-Croatian has a similar correlation of strident/mellow palatals with the important difference that it involves only the palatal stops (palatal affricates) but not the palatal spirants. Thus, c, j are opposed to c, j (c, d in conventional spelling), but s, i have no mellow counterparts. Despite some dialectal differences in the phonetic articulation of c, j , the phonemic relation to c, j is the same in Serbo-Croatian as in Polish. The occurrence of this opposition does not depend, as some believe, on the existence of the strident dental stops (dental affricates) c, j ; as far as j is concerned, the reverse, rather, is true, whereas c is one of the most stable phonemes in all Slavic languages.

Polish Mazurzenie and the Serbo-Croatian Palatals

107

The lack of symmetry between the palatal stops and palatal spirants, which is found in standard Serbo-Croatian, is remedied in some of its dialects, i.e. in Eastern Hercegovina, in Zeta-Lovcen (e.g. Crmnica), and in some areas of Slavonia. The palatal phonemes s, z, in words like koza (< kozbja), klase (< klasbje) owe their origin to combinations of s, z plus j, to assimilation (iscerati< isterati), or to expressive usage (Misa< Miloslava). These Serbo-Croatian dialects share with standard Polish and the northwestern Polish dialects (as well as with some southwestern Ukrainian dialects adjacent to Polish ethnic territory) the possibility of employing four pairs of palatals opposed to each other as strident/mellow, stop/spirant and voiced/voiceless. This situation is in the Slavic languages exceptional, for the single most recurrent phenomenon in the history of Slavic phonemic systems has been, in fact, the tendency to eliminate the phonemic opposition between strident and mellow palatals. Its lack of stability has been felt since late Common Slavic. While *tj(kti), changed in the southwest Slavic territory to c, j ( i n cakavian and Slovenian j changed to j), it produced in Bulgarian the clusters *st\ *zd' (via jt',jdr) and later st, zd; in Northern Slavic c, j overlapped early with c, j / z (in the west) and with c, z (in the east). It is this early loss of c, j which created in the northern Slavic languages and in Bulgarian the conditions for the establishment of the palatalized/nonpalatalized opposition after the drop of the jers.2 The suppression of the strident/mellow opposition has, in later periods, taken place in all areas of the Slavic world; in Slovenian, in Upper Lusatian, in Slovak dialects, in Kashubian, and in the Polish and SerboCroatian dialects we are about to discuss. The very recurrence of this phenomenon, at various periods and territories, makes all attempts to explain it from external and nonphonemic positions (e.g. in terms of substrata or of foreign influences) supererogatory. The interesting question (besides that of chronology) remains, however, the different directions which the tendency to eliminate the strident/mellow opposition of palatals took in various Slavic areas. The Polish and Serbo-Croatian dialects illustrate this most clearly.3 The direction of change in the Serbo-Croatian dialects is uniform: the distinction between strident/mellow palatals is liquidated through the change of c, j into c, j . This change increases the functional load of c, and particularly of j , which otherwise occurs only in loanwords or as an allophone of c (before voiced consonants). This development takes place in a number of peripheral dialects: in western stokavian (Istria, southern Italy, northern Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Boka Kotorska), among

108

Slavic Languages

the Moslems of Bosnia and Hercegovina, among the Catholics of eastern and northern Slavonia, in some areas of Banat and in Timok-Luznik.4 In those areas where j is unknown (mostly in the vicinity of cakavian dialects), j changes to z, and the palatals are reduced to only three phonemes: c, s, z. While some peripheral stokavian dialects (like cakavian, southwestern kajkavian, and western Slovenian) preserve the strident/mellow opposition in the voiceless palatal stops c/c, others have moved even further in the direction of "cakavism," i. e. they have lost all palatal consonants. The latter development is no doubt due to foreign influence. Contrary to genetically and phonetically oriented comparisons, it finds no parallel on Polish territory. It should be noted that the phonetic quality of the Serbo-Croatian palatals deprived of their strident/mellow opposition is subject to fluctuations, but the optimal and widespread solution is for the stops to be redundantly mellow (c, j ) and for the spirants to be redundantly strident (f. f). 5 The elimination of the strident/mellow opposition in the Polish dialects has moved in two directions. The basic development was "mazurzenie" involving the change of the palatals c, j , s, z into dentals c, j , s, z. It has (perhaps gradually) covered the areas of Malopolska, northern Silesia and Mazovia (except for the extreme northeast).6 The other, more restricted development was the merger of the strident/mellow palatals into one series; this involved, generally, the change of c, 3, s, z into c, 5, s, z ("siakanie") or the opposite change. The "siakanie" dialects are peripheral : they are found in the northeastern regions of Poland (Malbork, Ostroda, Lubawa, eastern Warmia) and in the southernmost part of Silesia (bordering on Czechoslovakia). As in the Serbo-Croatian dialects without the strident/mellow opposition, the palatal stops of these dialects often manifest themselves as mellow and the palatal spirants as strident. The most important modification in the "mazurzenie" solution has been the re-establishment of the strident/mellow opposition for the spirants z: z, with the latter phoneme stemming from r (e. g. koze [dat.-loc.] from kora vs. koze [dat.-loc.] from koza). In some areas of central Malopolska the phonemes c, z, j have also been reintroduced under the influence of the literary language. These developments closely resemble those in the peripheral Serbo-Croatian dialects, which show varying degrees of utilization of the strident/mellow opposition (the introduction of z/z in most "mazurzenie" dialects has its equivalent in the preservation of c/c in Serbo-Croatian dialects, particularly in cakavian).

Polish Mazurzenie and the Serbo-Croatian Palatals

109

3. Polish "mazurzenie" and the Serbo-Croatian fusion of mellow/ strident palatals are, from a phonemic point of view, the same development. Morphophonemically, however, they yield different results, determined by the different functions which the palatals fulfill in both systems. Their respective functions can be illustrated on the basis of the standard languages, in which the opposition between strident/mellow palatals has been preserved. Among the Serbo-Croatian phonemes, the mellow palatals c, j have a very low frequency. Their occurrence in medial and initial positions is limited to a few lexical items (e.g. cud, cer), onomatopoeia, nursery words (e.g. cap, idea), and loanwords (dakon). 7 While they are more common at morpheme boundaries (e. g. not, mot, tud), their morphophonemic role is nil. Any alternation of t~c, d~j can in Serbo-Croatian be interpreted as t, d~tj, dj, since j is in all alternating forms a part of the suffix; e.g. cast~castju (phonemically /6ascu/), glad~gl&dju [instr.] (phonemically /gla^u/), like stvar~stvarju, rec~recju, etc.8 In some cases (as in the just quoted instr. sg. forms), there is a tendency to avoid the alternation altogether (e.g. casti, gladi, kosti, pameti). The phonemes t, j differ from c, j only in the feature of mellowness. Their overlap is the simplest phonemic solution and has no effect on the morphological structure, except for a slight increase of the morphological load of c and for the new, rather insignificant role of j i n the "play" of alternations. The Polish situation is entirely different. The phonemes t, j , s, z (and sc, zj) both have a high frequency of occurrence and play a fundamental role in the morphology of the language.9 They alternate with the phonemes t, d, s, z (and st, zd) both on the flexional (nominal and verbal) and derivational levels; e.g. nouns: chata~chacie(dat.-loc.), nos ~nosie (loc.), mecenas~mecenasi (nom. pi.), Szwed~Szwedzi (nom. pi.), wdz~ wozie (loc. sg.); verbs: niose~niesiesz, wioze~wieziesz, plote~pleciesz, wiode~wiedziesz;derivatives: wtos~wtosik(dimin.), but~bucik(dimin.) nic~nitka (dimin.), lodz~todka, wies~wioska (dimin.). In many verbal and nominal forms, the alternation of c, j , s, z with final stem consonants carries a distinctive function equal to that of grammatical desinences; cf. the adjectives skryty, bosy (nom. sg.) vs. skryci, bosi (nom. pi.) and the nouns ascety (gen. sg.), ludy (nom. pi.) vs. asceci(nom. pi.), Zydzi (nom. pi.). In the verb inflection, c, j and s, z alternate further with c, j ands, ¿(e.g. rzuce~rzucisz, chodze~chodzisz, nosze~nosisz, woze~wozisz). Thus the mellow palatals enter into a multiple nexus of alternations and fulfill a variety of functions. The role of the strident palatals is, by comparison with the mellow ones, more restricted. Their alternations

110

Slavic Languages

are mainly found on the level of derivation and in the conjugation. In the latter, s, z alternate not only with s, z but with s, z, g (e.g. pasac~ pasze, moge~mozesz) and c(zj) with k(zd). In derivatives c, (zj), s, zalternate with k, (zg), x, g (e.g. reka~raczka, strach~straszny, rozga~ rozdzka). But in the nominal declension alternations involving the strident palatals play an insignificant role. One of the morphophonemic tendencies of Polish has, in fact, been to increase the load of s, z at the expense of s, z (e. g. the plural nasi, piesi, duzi; Czesi, Wtosi) and to eliminate the alternation sk~sc(e. g. Polska~Polsce, instead of Polszcze). This tendency, which made its way in the standard language (around the seventeenth century), points up the greater functional significance assigned to the mellow over the strident palatals in Polish morphology. The merger of the strident palatals with c, j , s, z in the "mazurzenie" dialects liquidated altogether the c, j , s, z row, entailing the loss of certain morphophonemic distinctions (the nominal alternation of the type reka~rece was now introduced also into the verb inflexion, as in plakac~place< ptacze), and involving c, 3, s, z in derivational processes (e.g. reka~racka *dvu> dvii (corresponding to the Old Czech dvu, Mod. Czech dvou), which existed in Serbo-Croatian until the sixteenth century. This form of the numeral was subsequently replaced by dvdj'u (masc. and neut.) and dvij'u (fem.), i.e., by forms which contain compound endings whose first component represents the endings of the nom.-acc. dv-a/dv-ije(< dve) that have penetrated into the genitive-locative, and the second component, the ending of the older numeral. The ending -u appears in the literary language in the nouns ruk'ii, n ogit, which have retained the meaning of a dual. It is more common to some stokavian dialects where we find, in addition to ruk'ii and nogu, the forms petu, vrat'ii, krilu, jajii (Posavian); rog'u, slug1 it (Piva); red u (Gruza) which carry a dual or a collective meaning. The accentuation of the literary and dialectal forms presents a special problem. The genitive plural of nog'a: n'ogu exhibits a stress that had shifted from the long vowel of the ending to the stem, whereas the genitive plural forms of ruk'a, slug'a: ruk'u, slug'ii carry a desinence stress. Since the thematic (originally short neoacute) accent of n ogu was phonetically motivated, we must assume that the desinential stress and short thematic vowel of ruk'u and slug'ii are due to analogical levelling with the dative-instrumental-locative forms ruk'ama, slug'ama. The expected thematic accent is still found in some residual, dialectal items (r'ogu, r'uku, p'etu), whereas most dialects have generalized in these forms the desinential stress and long thematic vowel of the more productive genitive plural with the ending -a; e. g., nog'a, ruk'a, vrat'a (Madva, Posavian). 4. Among the Slavic languages, the genitive plural ending -a is a uniquely Serbo-Croatian phenomenon.8 The origin of this ending has been one of the major puzzles and controversial issues of Serbo-Croatian linguistics. The preferred interpretation of -a as a compound desinence -#-a explains not only some synchronic phenomena connected with this ending, but allows us a clearer insight into the question of its origin. Although the following discussion makes no claim to cover the historical and geographical vicissitudes of this ending, it puts forth a hypothesis that is not in contradiction with the available facts. It would, I think, be quite fruitless to subscribe to the view that a purely inductive approach provides a solution to linguistic problems, or to agree with Svane, who surveyed the literature on the subject, that "attempts to ex-

222

Slavic Languages

plain the ending -a are [for want of attested documentary data] doomed from the outset to failure."9 The synchronic interpretation of -a as -#-a is borne out by two correlated morphophonemic phenomena: the occurrence of the zero-vowel alternation in the stem before the zero of the desinence, and the mobility of the stress from the thematic long a, which results from the alternation with the zero. The zero-vowel alternation takes place in stems of all three genders, but it is in the masculine stems which have a zero ending both in the nom. sing, and in the gen. pi. that the alternation can be most clearly observed; e.g. (gen. sg.) psa, ocla, post a, vrapca vs. (nom. sg.) pas, otac, posao, vratfac and (gen. pi.) pasa, otacla (or otacd/o^eva) posata (or posala/poslova), Wabaca. The mobility of the stress in stems with a final thematic zero is due to the fact that the Serbo-Croatian stress is generally removed from the final long vowel of the stem, in our case from the long thematic vowel a which is in alternation with zero. Thus instead of the expected original forms *oMc, *vrabac, *staklal, *pis am, *sestlar, *ciglal (from the underlying forms (ot#c-\ vrab#c-1, stak#l-(o), pis#m-Co), sest#r-(a), cig#iCa))), we obtain forms which shift the accent to the grammatical ending if the vowel preceding the thematic zero is short, and to the vowel preceding the zero, if it is long; e.g. kosaca, stakald, jezgara (nom. sg. koslac, stakto, jezgr[a) vs. cligald, pisama, vi abaca (nom. sg. cigfa, pismo, vrab ac). This rule of stress is obligatory for all feminine and neuter disyllabic stems with a thematic short vowel (e.g. dasaka, ovacla, sestaia;jedaia, stakata, debata from daskla, dvca (ov#c-a);jedrlo, stakto, debto) and for all stems with a thematic long vowel which is followed by a zero, but does not apply to all masculine stems with a thematic short vowel, as shown by such variants as ]otaca, posala, 'osala, tovaca, besides the innovating and more common otacld, posata, osata, lovacla. The conservative character of the first set of variants is otherwise confirmed by the corresponding cakavian forms with the "leftward" shift of stress and with the preserved zero ending in the gen. pi.: otac, posal, kosac, kotal}0 The above analysis should prove beyond doubt that the genitive plural ending in question is, indeed, -#-a, and not -a. One may, nevertheless, raise the question whether such a form need be postulated also for stems which do not contain a final zero. An alternative and equally valid solution may be to posit the ending -a after stems with a final vowel, and -#-a after stems with a final zero.

The Inflection of Serbo-Croatian Substantives

223

If we now turn to the history of the ending -#-a, it becomes immediately apparent that the first component continues the gen. pi. zero ending of original vocalic and consonantal stems, an ending which is extant in some lexical items in various stokavian dialects (¿odin, st otin, diis, dlinar, t]ovar, slestar, dasak). The stokavian ending -a, which has gained predominance since the fifteenth century, appears thus to be a secondary accretion which has been taken over from another form of the plural. This form could have been none other than the ending of the loc. pi. -bx/-bx of the original -z. and -b stems. This assumption is confirmed by those Serbo-Croatian dialects in which the locative-genitive plural exhibits the ending -ah, albeit with various modifications due to the change of the final x to k, g or zero, and of the vowel a (from z> and b) to as or a; e.g. (eastern Hercegovina) gorst, zuti'sb, stelae", kamenjash, brdeeh; (Crmnica) glavl£e, ruksb, ovsecee;1otsbcsb, iivotee; (Yrc&n)) ¿odineek, kravzek; (Mrkovici) mfeseceek, vratxk, ¿ubovebk, p{utovsek. The syncretism of the cases goes hand in hand with the overlap of the declensions, especially of the -u, -i and -a declensions, as shown by the forms ruk[&, oveecet. In some dialects the ending -h is even attached to those genitive plural forms which have the ending -iju\ e. g. ust ijuk, vratHjuk; o&ijuk (Mrkovici; Prcanj). It is worth noticing that the transfer of the locative ending to the genitive plural is found not only in SerboCroatian territory (cf. the cakavian gen.-loc. forms kostlh, tazth, zubih, vtasih [Novi]; jofih, vodih or (gen.) joj, vW[Hvar]), but also in some other Slavic areas (e. g. Central Slovak, eastern Moravia and southern Poland).11 In the stokavian dialects where 9 changed to a the overlap of the genitive-locative ending -ah and -ah came about through regular phonetic change. The loss of the final h is similarly due, on the one hand, to the regular and widespread loss of this consonant in the Serbo-Croatian dialects, and, on the other hand (i. e. in the dialects which preserve the final h), to grammatical levelling with the other genitive plural endings which terminate in a vowel. The length of the vowel -a can, finally, be ascribed to analogical levelling with the endings -i and - u, or to an older lengthening of the locative plural endings, but, most likely, to both of these factors. It may be worth noticing that the existence of the two competing endings -#-a and -#-a/j is often matched (especially in Montenegro and in cakavian) by the pair of genitive-locative endings -/"and -ih. The oscillation between these endings and their eventual merger inevitably leads to the victory of the less marked (limitational) genitive over the more marked (limitational and peripheral) locative. The latter case has in the

224

Slavic Languages

modern stokavian dialects become identified either with the genitive (as in the dialects of Montenegro and Kosovo-Resava), or it has overlapped functionally with the dative-instrumental, but conferred its form to the ending of the genitive. This seeming discrepancy between form and function becomes more understandable if we remember that the ultimate fusion of the locative with the dative and instrumental must have been preceded by a stage of transition (which is still observed in some dialects) in which some forms of the locative plural coalesced with the genitive, and others with the dative-instrumental. This vacillation was ultimately resolved by identifying the locative plural either with the genitive plural (as in the southern dialects), or with the dative-instrumental (as in the other stokavian dialects). Having been grafted into the genitive plural, the ending -a(h) was assured survival for its parallelism with the ending -i, as well as for its structural value: it enabled the stems with an underlying desinential stress (and with an original neoacute on the last thematic vowel in the gen. plural) to maintain this stress throughout the plural, and to avoid the retraction of stress from the final long vowel of the stem that would have ensued had the genitive plural preserved the ending zero. The contemporary Serbo-Croatian forms of the genitive plural are thus, indeed, nokaia, sinov a, momaka; zenla, dubina, sestar'a; brda, jezera, vesata, and not *n]okat, *s]indv, *m]omak; *zlen, *ctubin, *s'estar; *blrd, *fezer, *v*esal. The only exceptions to this rule are, as we have seen, some masculine stems with a final zero (e.g. ot^ac, oslao, dotac), and the stems which contain a penultimate long vowel (e. g. vrablac, cigta, pismo). In the first case we have to do with the pressure of the nominative singular on the genitive plural, inasmuch as both forms exhibit a vocalized jer which was expected to carry the "same" stress, i. e. otlac: *otldca, but after the "leftward" stress shift, [otaca. This pressure of the nominative singular is, however, successfully counteracted by the stronger tendency to preserve throughout the desinential stress of the underlying form. In the case of the stems with a long penultimate vowel the rule of preserving the stress of the underlying form does not apply, for the preservation of the stress on the ending could have been accomplished only by shortening the thematic long vowel (yielding such forms as *vrabacla, *cigata, *pisam[a). In more general terms one may formulate the rule that when Serbo-Croatian is faced with a choice between a quantitative and stress alternation, it always suppresses the alternation of quantity in favor of the alternation of stress. The complex ending -ijii is a combination of the gen. pi. ending -i

The Inflection of Serbo-Croatian Substantives

225

with the original gen.-loc. dual ending -u. Such a conclusion might at first glance seem surprising, since Old Church Slavic had already employed the gen.-loc. dual forms ociju, usiju (instead of the expected ending -bju), which have to this day been preserved in Serbo-Croatian. The gen.-loc. dual endings -iju and the dat.-instr. ending -ima of the OCS duals oci, usi represented, as is known, an extension of the nom.-acc. ending -/to the oblique cases of the dual, comparable to the extension of the nom. pi. endings of dva, dvije in the S-Cr. gen. pi. dvdju, dviju that was discussed above. In modern Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, where the endings -i(j) and -u have autonomous status, the ending -iju is reinterpreted as a compound ending which has lost its dual meaning and the marginal status it had in Old Church Slavic. The shortening of the ending -/before -u is due to a phonetic rule which shortens a long vowel before an adjacent vowel (the same rule which explains the forms W Cuvo) from ]uho; dialectal du, dua from duh, duha; bir]d, (gen. sing.) biro a). This phonetic rule is, nevertheless, sometimes violated, so that the compound ending -iju comes to mirror exactly the structure of its constituents; e.g. (Srem) u&iju, va&iju, kostiju, prsiiju, nokiiju; (Macva) oc'iju, us'ijii; kokoi>iju, kost iju (the short final vowel is in the last two examples a late phonetic development). The complex, agglutinative character of the endings -#-a and - i + u shows the Serbo-Croatian predilection for such forms in the genitive plural, a predilection which is even more pronounced in the dialects. Some Posavian dialects, for example, use in addition to the endings -#-a and -iju, the endings -uva, -ija and -ova (r'ukuva, noguva; t'orbija, klup ija; vratldva, kritova) which represent, synchronically and diachronically, the combinations of the endings -u+-a, -i+ -a and -o + -a (the last being a sequence of the two locative plurals -oh + ah)}2 5. Of the four endings discussed above, the ending -#-a is semantically neutral or unmarked, as is the ending -fin combination with feminine nouns of the first and second declension. The endings -u and -i(j)-u are semantically marked, inasmuch as the genitive plural forms in which they appear convey a specific, more restricted type of plurality: the former carries the connotation of the dual, occurring with nouns that designate dual sets {ruku, riogu;{dial.) kritu, vratlu), while the latter expresses the quantitative connotation of collectives, i.e. of non-countable wholes (vahju, prstiju, gosiiju, koko&iju). A similar meaning seems to adhere to the genitive plural ending of masculine nouns that admit -iju as a stylistic variant (gostli, noktli, prsti/gostiju, nokiiju, prsiiju). Otherwise the ending -i conveys the meaning of a partitive, "countable" plurality and

226

Slavic Languages

is used with masculine nouns that are generally preceded by a direct numerical or adverbial quantifier. The masculine countable nouns which take this ending include not only words of native or Turkish origin (stepénli, meséci, hvàt% puti, sdtli) but also more recent loanwords (gradi, sekundi, éenti, v'olii). It is interesting to note that in some stokavian dialects the same function is expressed in masculine and feminine nouns by the residual genitive plural ending zero; e.g. (eastern Hercegovina) de set me tar, sto dinar, tovàr; devét godi», pét st^otin; (Resava) vise p]ut, deset komàd, trideset proceri1 àt. The quantifying function is, however, more frequently rendered by means of the ending -i, which in some dialects appears with substantives of any gender (e. g. Resava) pet mesèéì, zùbì (masc.); bànki, sekundi, iljadi (fem.); jàji, kóli (neut.) and at the expense of the other marked endings of the genitive plural. This phenomenon is most advanced in some northern cakavian dialects where the ending -i appears only after quantifiers in opposition to the genitive plural endings or -ov, which carry a neutral, non-quantifying meaning. In the dialects of Rijeka and Krasica the ending -¿"has such a function even with feminine nouns of the first declension (i.e. original -i stems), which in their unmarked, non-quantifying form have the ending zero; e.g. devet ruki, deli; toliko obruc'i, kokoh, reéivs. (gen. pi.) iiik, del, ob^ùc, kokós, r'ec.13 In conclusion it may be pointed out that the distinction between more or less specific types of quantification is found in a number of contemporary Slavic languages. These languages have lost the original Slavic dual, but have in its stead created such diverse categories of marked plurality as the "countable" plural (e. g. the "brojna forma" of Bulgarian and Macedonian), the "paucal" plural (after the numerals "two", "three" and "four" in Russian, Ukrainian and Serbo-Croatian), and the collective plural. Serbo-Croatian is the only Slavic language where similar distinctions have been introduced into the genitive plural, i.e. into that case of the declension which has to begin with a quantifying, limitational meaning. That the material trappings for such oppositions have been drawn largely from the older marked form of plurality, the dual, should not come as a surprise. But just as the new grammatical distinctions do not coincide with the old grammatical categories, so do the new forms not derive directly from the old ones, since language is known to resort to a variety of means in order to accomplish a given end. Originally published in Am. Contr. to the Eighth Inter. Congr. of Slav., Columbus, 1978,666-682.

The Inflection of Serbo-Croatian Substantives

227

Footnotes

1 The neo-stokavian tone is treated in this paper as stress in accordance with the older accentual system which is preserved in the southern stokavian dialects. A falling accent is marked as 1 before the first vowel of the word, and a rising accent as stress before the syllable following it. A neo-acute accent is transcribed as v, and the öakavian short falling as v. The graph e in the S-Cr. examples stands for etymological e. 2 Serbo-Croatian grammars have traditionally worked with three, four or even five declensional paradigms. A survey of these treatments is given by Ivic, 1972, ftn.4. For Russian it is customary to assume three declensions (which I did also in my book on the Russian declension (1968)), though IsaCenko (1954) introduced again four. Most Polish grammars (e. g. Szober and Doroszewski) skirt the issue by classifying the nouns according to gender. The existence of two declensions in Serbo-Croatian was first established by Ivic, 1972. A similar system of two declensions in the singular and one in the plural was posited by me for Polish, 1955. 3 It should be noted that the neutralization of the dative/locative opposition in animate nouns may apply in Ukrainian and in Serbo-Croatian to the entire system, i. e. to the substantives as well as adjectives, whereas in the other cited languages it applies only to substantives, but not to adjectives. 4 The neutralization of the plural paradigms is found primarily in those Slavic languages which neutralize in the plural the gender distinctions of the singular. Literary (but not colloquial) Slovenian resembles Serbo-Croatian in that it preserves in the plural the distinctions of genders, as well as the difference between two declensions. 5 The four endings of the genitive plural are treated as single morphemes even in recent structural descriptions of the Serbo-Croatian declension; see Ivic, 1972,110,118. 6 The ending -ijü might also be transcribed as ij+ü, for the Common Slavic gen. pi. -bjbyielded -iin word final position and -¿/before a vowel. The notation -i+ ü, however, gives a clearer idea of the actual Serbo-Croatian development and of the synchronic status of the ending. 7 See Vaillant, 1931,2,68; 1958,2,320. 8 The genitive plural ending -ä is also found with some Slovenian -a stems where it is, however, of different origin than the Serbo-Croatian ending. In all likelihood it is an extension of the initial -a of the dative, instrumental, locative endings to the genitive plural. 9 The original passage reads as follows: "Es dürfte aus dem angeführten Material hervorgehen, daß man von einer Lösung der Probleme noch weit entfernt ist, die sich an den Genitiv pluralis auf -ä im Serbo-Kroatischen knüpfen Alle Versuche, die neue Endung -¿zu erklären, müssen deshalb von vornherein als zum Scheitern verurteilt angesehen werden"; 1958, 80. The difficulty (though not insolubility) of the problem was also emphasized

228

10 11 12 13

Slavic Languages by Ivic: "Der Akzent ist genitivisch. Nur der Ursprung der Endung ist nicht ganz klar; eine Reihe hier bestehender, ungeklärter Fragen kompliziert das ohnehin schon außerordentlich schwierige Problem des stokavischen -ä im Gen. pl."; Ivic, 1958,215. For the original place of stress see Budmani (1867), p.31, note2; Leskien (1914), 222. Stanislav (1958), 201. Ivsic (1913), 140,242ff. Leskien (1914), 240.

The Inflection of Serbo-Croatian Substantives

229

References

Budmani, P., Grammatica delta lingua serbo-croata (illirica), Vienna, 1867. Isacenko, A. V., Grammaticeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim, Motfologija, 1, Bratislava, 1954. Ivic, P., Sistema padeznyx okonöanij susöestvitel'nyx v serbskoxorvatskom literaturnom jazyke, Russkoe i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, Moscow, 1972, 106-121.

-, Die serbokroatischen Dialekte, ihre Struktur und Entwicklung, 1, The Hague, 1958. Ivsic, S., Danasnji posavski govor, RadJAZU, 196, 1913, 124-254; 197, 1913, 9-138. Leskien, A., Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache, Heidelberg, 1914. Miletic, B., Crmniöki govor, SDZb, 9,1940, 209-663. Nikolic, B.M., Maövanski govor, SDZb, 16,1966,179-314. - , Sremski govor, SDZb, 14, 2,1964,201-412. Peco, A. and Milanovic, B., Resavski govor, SDZb, 17,1968,241-366. Ruziôic, G., Akcenatski sistem pljevaljskog govora, SDZb, 3,1927,115-176. Stanislav, J., Dejiny slovenského jazyka, 2, Tvaroslovie, Bratislava, 1958. Stankiewicz, E., The distribution of morphemic variants in the declension of Polish substantives, Slavic Word, 1955,11, 4, 554-574. -, Declension and Gradation of Russian Substantives, The Hague, 1968. Stevovic, I., Sumadijski govor u Gruzi s osobitom osvrtom na akcente, SDZb, 18,1969,401-635. Strohal, R., Osobine danasnjega rijeôkoga narjeôja, RadJAZU, 124, 1895, 103-188. Svane, G.O., Die Flexionen in stokavischen Texten aus dem Zeitraum 1350-1400, Aarhus, 1958. Vaillant, A., La langue de Dominko Zlataric, poète ragusain de la fin du XVI-e siècle, Paris, 1931,2. -, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, 2, Lyon - Paris, 1958. Vujovic, L., Mrkoviöki dijalekat, SDZb, 18,1969,73-400. Vukovic, J., Akcenat govora Pive i Drobnjaka, SDZb, 10,1940,187-417. Vusovic, D., Dijalekat istoène Hercegovine, SDZb, 3,1927,1-70.

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

1. Of the three functions of language, the cognitive, the appellative and the expressive,1 the last, which renders the attitude of the speaker toward the addressee or the referent, has generated much discussion in linguistic literature, but few results. The lack of clarity as to the formal manifestations of that function has even induced some linguists to question its very existence. Neoidealistic philologists and some followers of de Saussure have equated the expressive function with the individual creations of "parole", seeing in it the moving force, the "life" of language. According to Charles Bally, the "emotive" is diametrically opposed to the "intellectual," as the subjective is to the objective, the personal to the social, the dynamic to the static.2 Within such a conception, the linguistic problem could not but dissolve into a stylistics, incapable of distinguishing the expressive invariants of the code from the expressive variants of the message, the primary meaning of lexical items from their secondary emotive overtones, synonyms and free alternants from their stylistic and poetic usage. This approach has also magnified the role of the emotive factors in the historical development of a language, a role which was never demonstrated to be more than marginal. It should be noted that the imprint of this approach has, nevertheless, been felt in many interpretations of "expressive language" given by prominent linguists. Instead of disentangling the various issues of expressive form and function, they have often added to the confusion introduced by scholars of a more idealistic and metaphysical bent.3 While languages differ widely in the inventories of emotive elements, which may be drawn from various linguistic levels, the isolation and grouping of these elements should constitute only the first step in their analysis. It is only when they are studied with relation to the non-emotive elements that their position within the system as a whole becomes apparent; the expressive elements may, in turn, sharpen our awareness of the hierarchical organization and the complexity of the various levels of language.

232

Slavic Languages

This paper proposes to examine the morphological properties of emotive substantives in the Slavic languages. In traditional Slavic grammars the grammatical peculiarities of the expressive forms have been handled as a conglomeration of scattered, heterogeneous and haphazard facts. The lack of a systematic approach has made it appear that these forms constitute disturbing "deviants" in the Slavic morphological systems to be disposed of in lists of exceptions, appendices and footnotes. 2. An over-emphasis on the monolithic nature of language, the insistence on "symmetry" and "overall" patterning, the assumption that overdifferentiated sets are matched by homonymous under-differentiated sets, obscure the hierarchical structuring of language and its correlate, the asymmetry of linguistic relations.4 Asymmetry involves the neutralization or incompatibility of certain phonological and grammatical oppositions within some subsystems (paradigmatic neutralization) or in some components (derivational neutralization). With the emphasis placed on symmetry, which is often found within subsystems, linguists are sometimes prone to forget the asymmetrical relations that obtain between subsystems or between the members of oppositions. Yet, in approaching the phonology of an undescribed language, no one expects the vowels to pattern symmetrically with the consonants, or stop to be matched by an equal number of affricates. It is taken for granted that all phonemic systems "leak." One of the merits of recent phonemic theory has, in fact, been to show that the combinatory possibilities of the distinctive features, which form phonemic bundles, are not fortuitous, but follow a hierarchical order. While no theory of similar scope and simplicity is available (or even possible) on the morphological level, it is clear that restrictions of a similar type also pervade this level. Thus, it is known that the "marked", more specific, members of grammatical categories are, with respect to their "unmarked" counterparts, less complex, i. e. that they admit fewer combinations with other grammatical categories. For example, the plural of Slavic substantives admits fewer gender and/or case distinctions than does the singular; the preterite of the Russian verb excludes reference to person, which is carried by the present; the perfective aspect is incompatible with other marked aspects that are expressed in the imperfective. Conceptual asymmetry is often accompanied by formal asymmetry, although the form-function relation itself introduces interesting, so far insufficiently explored, asymmetries. Relations parallel to those on the flexional level also obtain on the level of derivation, where the derived forms tend to neutralize distinctions im-

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

233

plicit in their underlying simple forms. For example, most Russian derived adjectives preclude the opposition of short vs. long forms and of grading (i.e. of the positive/comparative/superlative opposition), which are carried by the simple stems; some Russian substantival derivatives do not admit the opposition of number, and most of them have no accentual alternations, the foremost formal, morphophonemic complexity of non-derivative substantives. The asymmetric relationship between primary, basic forms and secondary, "derived" forms thus cuts across flexion as well as derivation, although the types of neutralization are actualized differently on both axes. 3. Neutralization of grammatical and lexical5 distinctions is one of the outstanding features of Slavic emotive forms. The types and degrees of neutralization in the Slavic languages form a continuous scale which is correlated with the various degrees of emotive content rendered by expressive forms. Between the degrees of intensity of emotion and degrees of "grammaticalness" there is, in fact, an inverse relationship. The most expressive elements in language, the simple interjections (like the Russ. ax,jej,fu, t'fu), have the lowest degree of lexical specificity, and are morphologically the least characterized elements of the system. Syntactically they function as autonomous "phrases non-conceptuelles."6 The inteijectional verbs (e.g. Russ. pryg, folk, bux) or nouns (e.g. Russ. gospodi, mamon'ki, boze) contain, on the other hand, a lower expressive charge, but a higher degree of lexical and grammatical (morphological-syntactic) specificity. As is known, inteijections sometimes also differ phonemically from non-expressive forms: they include phonemes and phonemic sequences (such as the Russ. / / / in gospodi, or / t ' f / in t'fu), which are also found in quotation-words and onomatopoeia, and which can be interpreted as a peripheral subsystem or placed outside the "normal" phonemic system (the customary solution). Given the hierarchical and multi-class nature of morphological systems, even the most expressive forms can be viewed as being within rather than outside the system, exhibiting simply different degrees of grammatical complexity. 4. The morphological "irregularities" of the Slavic expressive substantives form a pattern, or patterns, which are to be treated both with relation to the grammatical structure of the non-expressive forms and in terms of the lexical structure of the expressive forms themselves. Before discussing the forms of grammatical neutralization in expressive substantives, we shall define the criteria for their identification and classification.

234

Slavic Languages

The Slavic expressive substantives can be grouped into three types according to the structure of their stems and to their expressive function. 4.1 The first type is that of substantive derivatives. They comprise substantive stems which are followed by diminutive/augmentative and/ or affectionate/pejorative suffixes. The class membership and lexical meaning of the basic forms remains intact in these derivatives, although their inventories and functions may vary in the individual languages. Examples of such forms are: Russ. syndk (syn 'son'), mätuska (mat' 'mother'), recen'ka (rekä 'river'), toporisce (topdr 'axe'), domisko (dom 'house'); Ukr. rücka (ruka 'hand'), didüs' (did 'grandfather'), babüsja (bäbka 'grandmother'), xlopysce (xlopec' 'boy'); Pol. kotek (kot 'cat'), dziewczgtko (dziewczyna 'girl'), babsko (baba 'woman'), kobiecina (kobieta 'woman'); Cz. veterek(vitr 'wind'), chvilecka (chvile 'moment'), psicek {pes 'dog'), chlapisko (chlap 'fellow'); S-Cr. brätac (brät 'brother'), stvärca (stvär 'thing'), jezicina (jezik 'tongue'), knjizürina (knfi'ga 'book'), etc.7 To this type also belong hypocoristic formations in which the emotive meaning is rendered through truncation of the stem with or without suffixation. Hypocoristica are especially common in proper names, which function not merely as emotive forms but also as phatic terms, i. e. as nicknames, but pattern formally like the expressive derivatives of common substantives; they are, like these, based on full underlying stems (the official forms of names), and are subject to grammatical neutralization. In some Slavic languages (e. g. S-Cr.), hypocoristic formation is also productive in common substantives, particularly in nursery words involving immediate, phatic contact; the hypocoristica may be used with or without expressive suffixes. Examples of hypocoristica (of proper names) are: Russ. Tanja (Tat'jäna), Süra (Aleksändr, Aleksändra); Cz. Pepa (Josef or Josefa); S-Cr. Rade (Rädoslav), Päjo (Pävao); Slk. Jano (Jan), Vlädo (Vladimir); Pol. Stefcio (Stefan), Jözio (Jözef); Ukr. Stepänko (Stepän), Bulg. Köl'o (Niköla);(of common substantives): S-Cr. zeko (zee 'rabbit'), bräle (brät 'brother'), priko or priso (prijatelj 'friend'); Slk. zajko (zajac 'rabbit'), byco (byk 'bull'). 4.2 The second type of expressive formations consists of substantivized derivatives. These are built almost exclusively on verbal and adjectival stems. They are found primarily in colloquial and substandard language and carry the meaning of irony, contempt, and less frequently of affection. The reification of attributes resulting from the transformation of a modifier into a substantive makes these forms particularly suitable

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

235

to function as highly emotive, "loaded" curse words or nicknames for human beings (Russ. klicki). Many of them attach derivational suffixes. Examples (without suffixes) are: Russ. neposeda 'fidget', obzora 'glutton', zaika 'stammerer', povesa 'rake'; Pol. niezdara 'clumsy', kaleka 'cripple'; S-Cr. coro 'one-eyed', celo 'bald-headed', santo 'lame', guro 'hunchback', goljo 'poor fellow'; Cz. necuda 'shameless person', nejapa 'fool', nezdara 'clumsy', dareba 'rogue', zamora 'weak, poor fellow', backora 'coward'; (with suffixes): Russ. gromila 'burglar', kutila 'rake', guljaka 'idler', lakomka 'gourmand', deljaga, rabotjaga 'industrious one', toropyga 'fidget', projdoxa 'cunning one', plaksa, xnyksa 'sniveller', propdjca, p'jancuga 'drunkard', tupica 'dumbbell'; Pol. jqkala 'stutterer', bazgrola 'scribbler', wioczpga 'vagabond', niedotpga 'clumsy', beksa, ptaksa 'blubberer', grubas 'fatso', brudas 'dirty', spioch 'sleepy-head', leniuch 'lazybones', gtupek'iooV, obdartus'ragged'; Ukr. zabud'ko 'forgetful person', neznajko 'ignoramus', harykalo 'grumbler', xval'ko 'braggart' ; S-Cr. blebetalo 'gossip', zadirkivalo 'tease', dremalo 'sleepy-head', pripovedulo 'chatter-box'; Bulg. gliipco 'fool', kradl'o 'thief, Iszl'o 'liar', babrivko 'chatterer'; Slk. trul'o 'blockhead', chmul'o 'gawk', chlipko 'drunkard', bojko 'timid fellow'; Mac. placko 'cry-baby', mrzlo 'lazybones', partalko 'beggar'. To this same group belong pejorative, ironical nickname-type compounds which are derivatives of elementary phrases (syntagms), consisting in most cases of verbal plus nominal constituents; e. g. Russ. lezeboka 'lazybones', pustomelja 'chatterer', derzimorda 'boor', sorvigolova 'mad-cap', krivosejka 'crooked-necked person'; Pol. zawalidroga 'lubber', moczymorda 'drunkard', wiercipifta 'giddy-head', pasibrzuch 'glutton', potglowek 'half-wit'; Slk. ludigros 'miser', prepidusa 'drunkard', potrimiska 'parasite'; S-Cr. raspikuca 'spendthrift', przibaba 'robber (abuser of women)', mdlibog 'monk' (ironical), placidrug 'friend' (in trouble, in tears); Bulg. nexranimajko 'rascal', variklecko 'miser', lapnimuxa 'a fool'; Mac. lapnikandilo 'glutton', zadripetle 'thief. 4.3 The third type of expressive forms consists of simple, non-derived stems. Their expressive meaning, affectionate or pejorative, is inherent in the root-morpheme. The affectionate forms belonging to this group are almost exclusively nursery appellations for kinship-terms, similar to the hypocoristica of type I, but with full stems which may or may not be followed by expressive suffixes. They have been characterized as intermediate between common and proper nouns (polunaricatelni; naricatelnosobstveni imema%). As opposed to the adult, more abstract and emotionally "neutral" kinship-terms, they carry intimate, endearing, child-

236

Slavic Languages

ishly tinged connotations; one of their characteristic morphological features is the nom. sg. -o desinence for masculine substantives, which functions simultaneously as an expressive device (cf. 6.1). Examples are: Ukr. dido (did 'grandfather'), tato 'father'; Pol. wujo (wuj 'uncle'), tato 'father; S-Cr. babo, cako 'father', dedo 'grandfather'; Bulg. bajo (baj) 'older brother, person'. The pejorative forms (contemptuous or ironical) may also be used as appellatives, just like the proper nouns; e. g. Russ. sel'ma 'rogue', kanal'ja 'rascal', skijaga 'miser', xanza 'hypocrite'; Pol. gbur, cham 'crude fellow', gach 'lover, seducer', dziad 'beggar' (homonym of dziad 'grandfather'). The criterion for setting these forms apart from other substantives that carry pejorative connotations lies in their grammatical treatment, i. e. in their being subject to neutralization, like the derivatives of types I and II. It is here suggested that these forms must be clearly distinguished from substantives in which the expressive function arises only secondarily, i.e. in metaphoric usage. Expressive metaphors owe their meaning to verbal or situational contexts, but are not systemically expressive. The lack of distinction between the former and the latter (i. e. between the message and the code) inevitably obscures the linguistic aspect of "expressiveness" and leads to its dissolution within an amorphous stylistics. The examples of "expressive forms" quoted in Russian works, such as baba, mokraja kiirica 'female, wet chicken', or sobaka 'dog' (a form of endearment used by Chekhov in letters to his wife), illustrate expressive possibilities of the message; however, outside the verbal or situational contexts or private metaphoric usage, these forms are not expressive. The same holds for emotive switching of gender, which has been observed in many languages; e.g. the Russ. dura 'fool' (f.) applied to a male, Ukr. syne 'son' to a daughter, French ma vieille with reference to a man, or mon petit applied to a wife.9 Placed within the proper context, almost any word can be given an expressive value, which does not prevent languages from conventionalizing some of them as metaphoric expressive devices par excellence. Favorite metaphoric, in particular pejorative appellatives are, for examples, names of animals, of plants, of parts of the body; e.g. Eng. pig, snake, louse, rat; Russ. zmeja 'snake', svin'ja 'pig', lisa 'fox', sobaka 'dog', etc.; items of clothing may also enjoy a favorite position, such as Russ. sljapa 'hat', trjapka 'rag', or even musical instruments, such as Pol. trgba 'trumpet', fujara 'fife', bpben 'drum' (figuratively they all mean 'clumsy person', 'fool'). The synchronic difference between contextually expressive variants

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

237

and expressive invariants by no means precludes their dynamic interaction. When the expressive meaning of the variants acquires an autonomous value, we are faced with a diachronic split, i. e. with homonyms, which differ from each other both lexically (in their primary, basic meanings) and grammatically. Such homonyms are, for example, the Russian sterva (f.) 'carrion' vs. sterva 'vile person', dubina (f.) 'heavy stick' vs. dubina 'stupid fellow', skotina (f.) 'cattle' vs. skotina 'crude fellow', balda (f.) 'heavy hammer' vs. balda 'useless fellow'. The first forms are of feminine gender, whereas the latter are so-called "epicoena" (of "common gender"). Similar homonyms are the Pol. galgan 'rag' vs. galgan 'rogue', cymbaly 'cymbals' vs. cymbal, pi. cymbaly 'simpleton', bydlak 'beast' vs. bydlak 'vulgar person'. The first members of the pairs are grammatically impersonal, whereas the second are animate-personal substantives. And like the other expressive substantives, they are subject to grammatical neutralization. 5. Grammatical neutralization in expressive substantives involves both the suppression of semantic oppositions (i. e. of number, gender and case) and/or of formal distinctions (of particular desinential suffixes and declensional paradigms). Some types of neutralization are conditioned by and correlated with the very structure of the expressive forms. Thus we may further distinguish paradigmatic neutralization, cutting across all three types of expressive substantives and derivational neutralization pertaining to substantives of type I which involves the suppression of grammatical distinctions inherent in the underlying neutral forms. We shall examine in turn the neutralization of the semantic and then of formal oppositions. 5.1 Expressive substantives exhibit in all Slavic languages neutralization of the opposition of number. This neutralization is the more common the higher the emotive charge of the expressive form. Thus it occurs primarily in derivatives with an augmentative-pejorative or with a strong affectionate meaning. For example, Russian augmentatives with the suffix -isce and affectionate diminutives with the complex suffix -iska, Macedonian diminutives with the suffixes -ec, -ence, Polish diminutives with the suffixes -inka, -ulek, -unko, -enko rarely admit the plural. 10 Only a small number of Russian augmentatives (e.g. druzisci 'friends', synisci 'sons', domisci 'houses') may occur in the plural, whereas a few derivatives (with a somewhat modified lexical meaning) occur exclusively in the plural (deliski 'business', kartiski 'cards', svjaziski 'connections'). Within the Slavic nominal systems, expressive derivatives thus behave in

238

Slavic Languages

contradistinction to their underlying non-expressive forms, like singularia tantum, and in limited instances, like pluralia tantum. 5.2 Far more complicated than neutralization of number is the neutralization of gender distinctions in expressive forms, inasmuch as the treatment of gender itself varies significantly from one Slavic language to another. The category of gender in the Slavic languages is correlated with the singular/plural opposition as stated above: the singular carries more and/or different gender distinctions than the plural. In the singular, which is in this respect homogeneous in all Slavic languages, substantives belong to the masculine animate or inanimate, feminine, or neuter gender. The grammatical genders cany differently marked meanings with respect to "natural gender", i. e. with respect to the sex of animate beings: the masculine gender may designate members of either sex, the feminine cannot designate a male, and the neuter cannot designate a male or female (in Russian it refers, with a few exceptions, to inanimate beings, in other Slavic languages it also includes the young of animals and of human beings).11 The plural of substantives expresses, on the other hand, in most Slavic languages (except Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and Standard Czech) the opposition between a masc. personal/impersonal gender (Polish, Slovak, Lusatian), or between an animate/inanimate gender (Russian and, with some variations, Ukrainian and Byelorussian), or altogether lacks gender (Bulgarian, Macedonian). The oppositions of gender in expressive forms thus ultimately depend, like those of non-expressive forms, on the dichotomy of number. Derivational neutralization of gender, i. e. the overlap of genders in derivatives from stems in which they are distinctive, operates in expressive substantives of type I, while paradigmatic neutralization, i. e. the complete suppression of gender, affects expressive substantives of the other types, including some hypocoristica of proper names (of type I). 5.21 Neutralization of the first kind occurs when substantives of masculine, feminine, or neuter gender exhibit in their expressive derivatives only one gender, specifically the neuter, and, less commonly, the feminine. Thus augmentative-pejorative derivatives in various Slavic languages are of neuter gender, whereas their underlying simple forms are of the masculine, feminine or neuter gender; e. g. Pol. chlop 'peasant, chap', kot 'cat' (m.), kobieta 'woman', krowa 'cow' (f.), cialo 'body' (n.) vs. chlopisko, kocisko, kobiecisko, krowsko, cielsko (n.); Slk. chlap 'man, fellow' (m.), kniha 'book' (f.), maso 'meat' (n.) vs. chlapisko, knizisko, masisko; Bulg. maz 'husband' (m.), zena 'wife' (f.), kuce 'dog' (n.) vs. msziste, zeniste, kucetiste (n.).

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

239

A similar neutralization is bound up in Polish with the affectionate suffix -atko, in Slovak with -atko, in Bulgarian with the suffixes -ceZ-ice, -enceZ-cence, and -le. Overlapping of the masculine with the feminine gender is limited to derivatives with the suffix -ina (and its compound extensions, such as SCr. -èt-ina, -ùr-ina, -ùs-ina, -c-ina, -ùst-inà); in various Slavic languages the suffix has an affectionate or pejorative-augmentative meaning, e. g. Pol. pies 'dog' (m.) noga 'leg' (f.), drzewo 'tree' (n.) vs. psina, nozyna, drzewina (f.); Slk. dub (m.) 'oak', vrba (f.) 'willow' vs. dubirta, vrbina (f.); SCr. òrao lea.g\e\jùnàk 'brave man, hero', oga/y'fire' (m.) ruka 'hand', ièna 'wife, woman', vàtra 'fire' (f.) vs. òrlina (or orlètinaZorlùstina), junàcina ognjùstina, rùcina (or rucètinaZrucùrìnà), zenètina, vatrùstina (f.). Masculine substantives attaching the suffix -ina become feminine in Russian only when they are inanimate; e.g. xvost 'tail', gólos 'voice' vs. xvostina, golosina, while animate substantives retain the gender of the basic form, e.g. starik 'old man', kupéc 'merchant', zver"animal' (m.) vs. staricina, kupcina, zverina (m.). Within one and the same system there is sometimes oscillation between neutralization and preservation of the inherent gender. Thus animate masculine substantives with the suffixes -isko and -ina in Polish are mainly neuter or feminine respectively, but they may also retain the gender of the basic forms; e.g. czteczysko, chlopaczysko, kocisko, konisko; psina (derived from czlek 'man', chlopak 'boy', kot 'cat', kon 'horse', pies 'dog'). Russian presents free variation in a few derivatives of animate substantives in -ina;e.g. volcina, psina, idiótina(derived from vo/fc'wolf, pes 'dog', idiot 'idiot'). The "free variants" within one system can also appear as different solutions across various systems, particularly across dialects. In Standard Slovak (which is based on the central dialect) gender is neutralized in derivatives with -iskoZ-sko; e. g. chlapiskojazycisko, medvedisko - from chlap 'fellow', jazyk 'tongue, language,' medved' 'bear' (m.); in eastern and western Slovak the basic stem gender remains.12 5.22 Suppression of all gender distinctions in the singular is found in expressive substantives of types II and III and in some hypocoristica. Traditional grammar calls these forms without gender "epicoena." But the gender category called "epicoena" (i. e. of common gender) is a contradictio in adjecto, because the distinctive property of substantives as opposed to adjectives with their variable gender is in the Slavic languages (as in some other languages) their invariant, inherent gender.13 Since all "epicoena" designate human beings, their "variable", mascu-

240

Slavic Languages

line or feminine gender is determined extra-linguistically, i. e. through the sex of the referent which is either "male" or "female". In the languages which have a case system, the "epicoena" belong to the so-called -a declension, which encompasses both masculine and feminine substantives; it is only in the plural that the animate or personal gender of the "epicoena" is expressed grammatically. All Slavic languages offer examples of expressive substantives of the "common gender." They vary merely as to the degree of productivity of this category, which includes substantivized derivatives, inherently expressive words, and many hypocoristica of proper names. Examples are: Russ. kutila 'rake', nevéza 'illmannered person', sónja 'sleepy-head', bednjàga 'poor fellow', slastèna 'sweet tooth', derzimórda 'boor', skotina 'brute', lapsà 'muddled person', balda 'blockhead'; Pol. wtóczfga 'vagabond', beksa 'sniveller', gderala 'grumbler', wiercipigta 'giddy-head'; Cz. dareba 'rogue', chudera (or chudéra) 'poor creature', zàmora 'weakling' ; S-Cr. konjòmora 'reckless rider', pàlikuca 'arsonist'; Bulg. pijànica 'drunkard', ubijca 'murderer'; Mac. partalka 'beggar', placko 'crybaby' (for additional examples, cf. 4.2); examples of proper names are: Rùss. Pólja{Apollónij, Polikàrp and Polirla, Pelagéja), Tólja (Anatólij and Kapetolina), Lelja (Lev and Eléna); Pol. Leszuchna (Leszek and Leszka); Cz. Tona (Antonin and Antonina), Pepa, Pepicka (Josef and Josefa, Joseflna), Mila (Miloslav and Miloslava, Milena). Not all expressive derivatives of type II are genderless. In some languages they are rather of masculine gender, this gender permitting reference to both males and females. Such, for instance, are the Pol. leniuch 'lazybones', brudas 'slob' ; Cz. mìlàcek 'sweetheart', morous 'grumbler', chudàk 'poor fellow' ; Bulg. variklecko 'miser', lapnimuxa 'fool'. Some expressive substantives, on the other hand, oscillate between the masculine gender and the absence of gender; e.g. Russ. podlipàlo (m.) or podlipàla (m. or f.) 'flatterer' ; Bulg. nexranimajko (m.) nexranimajka (m. or f.) 'rascal', podlizurko (m.) or podlizurka (m. or f.) 'flatterer' ; Mac. mrzlo (m.) or mrzla (m. or f.) 'lazybones', partalko (m.) or partalka (m. or f.) 'beggar'. 5.23 As opposed to the singular, the plural of expressive substantives (if it is used at all) admits at best only partial neutralization of gender. This seeming limitation on the occurrence of neutralization is, however, understandable if we remember that in most Slavic languages the plural of nonexpressive substantives has only the opposition animate/inanimate or personal/impersonal, or has no gender at all. The animate or personal gender of the hypocoristica and expressive forms of types II

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

241

and III (which refer to human beings and some animals) is expressed in the accusative in the languages with case systems, and also in the nominative plural in some of them. Partial neutralization of the personal/ impersonal gender is found in the plural of two Slavic languages - Slovak and Polish. In Slovak it is limited to a few terms for animals, which are of personal gender in the simple forms, but are depersonalized in the derived forms. Thus the neutral forms vtaci, byci, vlci, psi are personal (from vtak 'bird', byk 'bull', vlk 'wolf, pes 'dog'), but their diminutives vtaciky, bycky, vlcky, psiky are impersonal.14 In Polish, where non-expressive forms render the personal/impersonal opposition both in the accusative and in the nominative plural (cf. nom. pi. koledzy, doktorzy, panowie, acc. pi. of personal nouns kolegow, doktorow, panow, vs. the nom.-acc. pi. of impersonal nouns koty, stoty, kobiety, okna), the expressive forms of types II and III neutralize the gender opposition in the nominative plural; e.g. wtoczggi (wloczgga 'vagabond'), mtodziaki (mlodziak 'youngster'), brudasy (brudas 'sloven'), zarloki, pasibrzuchy (zarlok, pasibrzuch 'glutton'), moczymordy (moczymorda 'drunkard'), gbury (gbur 'boor'), chamy (cham 'peasant, churl'), galgany (galgan 'rogue'), but the acc. pi. is wtoczfgow, mlodziakow, etc. The personal/nonpersonal opposition is likewise eliminated in the nominative plural of Polish derivatives in -isko or -ina; e. g. chlopczyska, czleczyny (but acc. pi. chlopczyskow, czleczyn). The connection between grammatical neutralization of gender and expressive language is most clearly illustrated by Bulgarian and Macedonian, where it has, however, received a different solution. In these two Slavic languages, which have no gender oppositions in the plural, the difference between an emotive vs. nonemotive attitude is itself grammaticalized in the plural of nonexpressive substantives. Thus Bulgarian simple masculine substantives can be opposed in the plural as "neutral" vs. expressive (pejorative) forms; e.g. drumove vs. drumista (from drum 'road'), gospoda vs. gospodinovci (from gospodin 'mister, man'), while some neuter substantives are opposed in Macedonian as "neutral" vs. emotive (affectionate) forms; e. g. srca vs. srcifta (from srce 'heart'). A similar opposition between expressive vs. non-expressive pejorative forms is also available in the nominative plural of Polish masculine nonexpressive substantives; e.g. doktorzy vs. doktory (doktor 'doctor'), Zydzi vs. Zydy (¿yd 'Jew'), rzeznicy vs. rzezniki (rzeznik 'butcher').15 The grammaticalization of emotive attitudes in a morphological category which lacks or has only a few gender distinctions is but the reverse side of the degrammaticalization of gender distinctions in lexical forms

242

Slavic Languages

(primarily derivative) which carry emotive meanings. Both phenomena point up the close correlation between the grammatical and emotive functions of language.16 5.3 Neutralization of case distinctions is found only in the most expressive forms, in the hypocoristica. As it is connected with the elimination of formal distinctions and with the liquidation of declension, it will be discussed below (cf. § 6.2). 6. Neutralization of formal distinctions refers to discrepancies between expressive and non-expressive substantives in their desinential suffixes and declension. These discrepancies are found in the singular, particularly in the nominative and in the vocative singular (the latter, as a form of address, is outside the case system). In order to discuss the phenomena of formal neutralization, it is necessary to consider first the relationship of Slavic declensional paradigms to gender and the capacity of the substantive suffixes to specify gender. The following facts are pertinent to our problem. In the Slavic languages, the so-called "-a declension" is non-neuter, whereas the socalled "-o declension" is non-feminine. The latter declension includes masculine substantives which have in the nominative (-accusative) a zero desinence, and neuters which have in the same cases an -o desinence. In some Slavic languages the two genders are set apart through different suffixes of the oblique cases as well; e. g. Pol. (gen. n.) miasta 'city', serca 'heart' vs. (gen. m.) ogrodu 'garden', stoiu 'table'; (dat. n.) miastu, sercu vs. (dat. m.) ogrodowi, stotowi. Some languages, furthermore, show a tendency to differentiate the animate and inanimate genders in cases other than the accusative singular; e.g. Cz. (gen. anim.) bratra 'brother', studenta 'student' vs. (gen. inanim.) stolu 'table', zvonu 'bell'; (dat.-loc. anim.) bratrovi, studentovi vs. (dat. inanim.) stolu, zvonu (loc. inanim.) stole, zvonu. 6.1 The declension of expressive substantives exhibits forms which contradict the above rules. Specifically, masculine expressive substantives appear in the nominative singular with the ending -o. This ending (which is otherwise a marker of neuter substantives) obliterates the formal distinction between neuter and masculine substantives completely or only partially, depending on the lack or presence of desinential differences in the oblique cases (including the difference between animate/ inanimate substantives in the accusative singular). The suppression of formal distinctions in the nominative and in the vocative is the more important in that expressive words are primarily used in these two forms, of naming and address, and less commonly in the oblique cases. Thus

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

243

even if the masculine or neuter gender of expressive substantives remains intact, they are not distinguished morphologically (as are the nonexpressive forms), but, at best, syntactically. The extent of this neutralization varies from one Slavic language to another, and according to expressive type. In eastern Serbia (especially around Belgrade) and in Czech, it is limited in all three types. In Russian it occurs only in masculine derivatives of type I with the suffixes -isce, -isko (with the latter only in inanimate substantives); e.g. synisce, gorodisce; rotisko, domisko (from syn 'son', görod 'city', rot 'mouth', dom 'house'). In the other Slavic languages (or dialects), it is found in all types: e. g. (I) Ukr. synko, vujko, Marko, didysce/didün 'o/didon 'ko/didüsen 'ko, baranysce, bäbysce, sokolön 'ko (from syn 'son', vw/''uncle', did 'grandfather', barän 'ram', bäba 'woman', sokil'falcon'); Pol. ojcunio, dziadunio, wujcio, syncio, Jözio, Wladzio (from ojciec 'father', dziad 'grandfather', wuj 'uncle', syn 'son', Jözef, Wladyslaw); Slk. zajo, byco, otecko, oco, stryko, Jano, Emo (from zajac 'rabbit', byk 'bull', otec 'father', Jan, Emit)\ S-Cr. (south and west) bräco, pöbro, cigo, Bözo, Täde (from brät 'brother', pdbratim 'sworn brother', ciganin 'gypsy', Bözidar, Tädija); Bulg. sinko, tätko, Kol'o (sin 'son', tato 'father', Nikola); Cz. Jirko, Mirko (Jiri, Miroslav). (II) S-Cr. zadirkivalo 'joker', blebetalo 'chatterer', goljo 'poor wretch', drenjo 'lazybones', güro 'hunchback'; Ukr. zdorovylo 'healthy fellow', neznäjko 'ignoramus' ; Pol. jfkajto (or jpkata) 'stammerer'; Slovak chlipko 'drunkard', bojko 'timid fellow'; Bulg. glüpco 'fool', dripl'o 'tramp', nexranimajko 'scoundrel'; Mac. placko 'cry-baby', mrzlo 'lazybones', partalko 'beggar'. (Ill) Pol. tato 'father', wujo 'uncle'; Slk. tato 'father', dedo 'grandfather' ; Ukr. dido, tato/täten 'ko/tatün 'o; S-Cr. (south and west) bäbo, cäko 'father', dedo 'grandfather', Bulg. täto/tätko 'father', bäjo/bäjko/ bäjco 'older brother or person'. As noted above, forms in -o (of the nonfeminine declension) alternate with forms with -a (of the nonneuter declension) either along dialectal lines (cf. the eastern vs. the southwestern Serbo-Croatian varieties), or according to type. On the whole, masculine expressive forms in -o prevail in the South Slavic languages and in Ukrainian, whereas in the North Slavic languages, particularly in standard Russian, Czech, and Polish, they are matched by "epicoena" in -a or by forms of the masculine declension with a zero ending in the nom. sing. The expressive substantives in -o also show another peculiarity: they employ -o and -e, which in nonexpressive forms are in complementary distribution or in free variation, or they generalize one variant independently of the quality of the final stem consonant; e.g. Mac. tatko or täte

244

Slavic Languages

'father'; S-Cr. Mäto or Mate and priso, üjo, bräjo (Mätija, prijatelj 'friend', iijak 'uncle', brät 'brother'), side by side with käle, bräle, Rade (käluder 'monk', brät, Rädosav); Bulg. brätko or brate, bäjo or bäe (brat 'brother', baj 'older brother or person'). This phenomenon is most conspicuous in the vocative. 6.2 Formal distinctions are maximally neutralized when the difference between feminine and masculine-neuter endings is eliminated. This takes place when feminine substantives also take the -o/-e ending in the nominative singular, even though they are otherwise declined according to the -a declension. When the masculine forms, too, fall into this declension, as they do in eastern Serbo-Croatian dialects, the overlap of their flexion is complete: e.g. S-Cr. (m.) bräle {brät 'brother'), täle (täta 'father'), eile (cidäs 'horse'), Knie (Krsta), Ive (Ivan), and on the other hand (f.) püne (pünica 'mother-in-law'), neve (nevesta 'bride'), bäbe (bäba 'grandmother'), sele (sestra 'sister'), Märe (Marija). But in actuality these hypocoristica are rarely declined, since they are primarily used as "appellatives", i. e. in the vocative (where they have a falling accent, as opposed to the other forms, whose outstanding prosodic feature is the rising accent). Neutralization of formal distinctions is also found in masculine and feminine derivatives which take on a zero ending; e.g. the Polish derivatives of masculine and feminine proper names, such as Janek, Janus (Jan), Julis (Juliusz or Julian); Zosik (Zofia), Jadzik (Jadwiga). These hypocoristica lose not only the gender of their underlying forms, but also their flexion. In a Polish phrase such as nie bierzcie moje Hanus na pochdw, the derivative Hanus, which in its base form is feminine, is of neuter gender and is treated as an indeclinable.17 This example also illustrates that the function of such forms is not necessarily limited to that of a subject or a form of address; in the latter functions they merely exhibit the highest frequency of occurrence. 7. Complete neutralization of grammatical and formal distinctions is the rule in the vocative, in which the combination of the appellative and emotive functions coincides with the suppression of all grammatical oppositions characteristic of the substantive. Gender distinctions are obliterated through the use of only one ending for masculine and feminine nouns, or through the complete elimination of the desinence and the reduction of the expressive form to a bare stem. The latter solution involves the neutralization of all grammatical distinctions. The generalization of one desinence, including that of the variants of one desinence, is found in the vocative of various expressive forms, but

Grammatical Neutralization in Slavic Expressive Forms

245

especially in the highly emotive nursery words and proper names. The vocative ending preferred in Polish and Ukrainian expressive substantives is -u; e. g. Pol. (m.) tatulu (tatulo 'father'), dziadziu (dziad/dziadzio 'grandfather'), Wtadziu (Wladzio), bobasu (bobas 'infant'), brudasu (brudas 'slob') (besides the regular bobasie, brudasie), (f.) matusiu (matus 'mother'), Zochu (Zocha), Tolusiu (Tolus); Ukr. (m.) didünju/didüsju (did 'grandfather'), bäten'ku (bät'ko 'father'), tätu (tato 'father'), (f.) babünju/ babtisju (babka 'grandmother'), mamünju, Marusju (mama 'mother'). In Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian the generalized ending is -o or -e: Bulg. (m.) sine or sino (sin 'son'), cice (cico 'uncle'), drugär'o or drugär'u (drugär 'comrade'), (f.) Marijke (Marija), möme (mdma 'girl'); Mac. (m.) täte (tatko 'father'), (f.) majke (majka 'mother'), tetke (tetka 'aunt'); S-Cr. examples have been quoted above (6.2). Also numerous are forms with a zero ending; e.g. Russ. mam (mama 'mother'), tet'(tetja 'aunt') djad' (djädja 'uncle'), mätus(k) (mätuska 'mother'), dev(k) (devka 'girl, wench'), Van' (Vänja), Pet' (Petja), Son'k (Son'ka)n. Polish examples have been listed (6.2). 8. The phenomenon of grammatical neutralization in expressive substantives allows us to draw some conclusions which are of a general linguistic, typological and historical relevance. The obliteration of grammatical, functional and formal distinctions is a typical feature of expressive forms. It can be viewed as a special, extreme case of the phenomenon of neutralization, which serves to sharpen the difference between various categories and form classes. In addition to the prevailing grammatical structure of a language, it enables us to postulate a marked, "expressive grammar," the main feature of which is its grammatical under-differentiation compared to the more highly differentiated system of non-expressive forms. The various types and degrees of neutralization can be predicted and derived from that "broader" grammar by a set of subtraction rules. The rules vary according to the lexical-derivativational structure of the expressive forms, which determines their emotive content. The general phenomenon of "expressive grammar" does not obviate the necessity of describing in detail its implementation in various linguistic systems. The Slavic languages, with their complex "synthetic" structures and rich inventories of emotive devices, provide a suitable framework for its discussion, but the phenomenon is by no means confined to Slavic. Other languages provide their own examples; cf. the gender of German diminutives das Tischlein, Mütterlein, Häuschen, from der Tisch ('table'), die Mutter ('mother'), das Haus ('house'), or of

246

Slavic Languages

Modern Greek diminutives td CRX, -bx, as in Russ. vetxij "old, decrepit", ol'xa "alder tree" (OCS ve/tx£;ORuss. olbxa), or is the result of regular phonetic development, as in Russ. verx "top" ( < CSI. *vbrs-). 2 Meillet, 23-24 3 Bajec, 97 4 Grammatika russkogo jazyka, 231,235, 248 5 Trävniöek, 290 6 Polish descriptive and historical grammars fail to state the different conditions under which the suffixes -uch, -och are permissible. 7 None of the Polish expressive forms can be rendered precisely into English. The translated forms are the closest approximations. 8 Words like biatocha "chicken", pstroch "ox" quoted by Szober and Doroszewski (125-26), are not felt any longer as expressive derivatives. 9 Taszycki, 76 10 Trävniöek, 162ff., Baecklund, 77, Selisöev, 189 11 In addition to hypocoristics with the -x- formant, Szober also lists the backformations baja, faja, fujara, parob, wysit, which are derived from bajka, fajka,fujarka,parobek, wysitek{ op. cit., 127). However, most of these forms are not in use. Nochal (from nos "nose") is omitted in the above list of examples because -x- is followed by a secondary suffix -al. 12 To judge from Briickner's note (677), kicha is a neologism. 13 Cukovskij, 154 14 Machek, 161-218 15 This phenomenon of expressive derivation is often obscured by attempts of etymologists to treat as expressive words which are obviously of non-expressive origin. Thus Brückner (op. cit.) relates Pol. brzechac, strach to bredzic and CSI. *strastb; Liewehr correlates OCS. gluxb, R. morox with CSI. glupb and R. morozgä/morös'.

The Expressive Suffix -x- in Polish

265

References

Baecklund, A., Personal Names in Medieval Velikij Novgorod, 1, Stockholm, 1959. Bajec, A., Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana, 1959. Brückner, A., Slownik etymologiczny jezyka polskiego, Cracow, 1927. tukovskij, K., Ot dvux do pjati, Moscow, 1960. Gramatika russkogojazyka, ed. V.Vinogradov et al., 1-2, Moscow, 1952/54. Liewehr, F., Einiges über slawische Flexionsendungen, ZfSl, 1, Berlin, 1956, 10-21. Machek, V., Untersuchungen zum Problem des anlautenden ch im Slawischen, Slavia, 16, Prague, 1938-39,161-219. -, Etymologicky slovnikjazyka ceskeho a slovenskeho, Prague, 1957. Meillet, A., Le slave commun, Paris, 1934. Selisöev, A. M., Staroslavjanskijjazyk, 1, Moscow, 1951. Szober, St. and Doroszewski, W., Gramatyka jezyka polskiego, Warsaw, 19533. Taszycki, W., Rozprawy istudiapolonistyczne, 1, Onomastyka, Wroclaw, 1953. Trävniöek, F., Mluvnice spisovne cestiny, Prague, 1951.

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological and Diachronic Aspects

1. The development of modern linguistics is largely a history of oscillation between two complementary approaches to the comparison of languages, known respectively as the "genetic" or "reconstructive," and the "typological," or "general linguistic" approach. Both are based on the assumption that languages are not unique and closed configurations and that the seemingly endless variety of languages can be reduced to common features and comprehended by general principles.1 By the end of the last century, "comparative grammar" became identified with the genetic approach, which gained almost exclusive monopoly among linguists. Typological studies, which were launched at the beginning of that century on an equal footing with genealogical investigations, fell into ill repute and were considered, in the words of Meillet, as having "neither scientific import, nor practical utility."2 Meillet himself, an outstanding practitioner of the genetic method, was aware both of the confining nature of purely genealogical studies and of the need for a broader comparative framework, which he called "general linguistics." Genetic affinity (parenté), he admitted, "occupies in the theory of linguists a position which by far surpasses its real importance."3 But the conviction had by then taken hold that any comparison of languages presupposes a knowledge of their history. "La linguistique générale," says Meillet, "qu'on obtient en faisant abstraction de l'histoire est encore une science peu faite, difficile à faire, et qui pour se faire suppose du reste qu'on ait déjà décrit aussi complètement que possible l'histoire du plus grand nombre de langues possible."4 The goal of the genetic method, which is "limited mainly to phonology and to morphology as applied phonology,"5 is to specify the genealogical relationship of languages by means of correspondences which convert the synchronic diversity into a hypothetical, original unity. The method depends neither on a full description of synchronic states, nor on an analysis of phonological or grammatical relations. Its focus of interest lies in the material aspect of linguistic forms, irrespective of their functions within the system. It is not by chance that genetic linguistics has from the very beginning acquired

268

Slavic Languages

an atomistic character. When H. Paul indicted his predecessors for their attempts to compare descriptive grammars and to state similarities between languages in terms of abstract relationships, he defined the task of the comparative program as "die Wirksamkeit der einzelnen Faktoren isoliert zu behandeln"; causal relations, he says, exist only between "real objects" and not between abstractions.6 In the hands of Schleicher and of the Neogrammarians, historical linguistics became more and more a science of reconstruction of the ever receding "Ursprache," relinquishing the synchronic analysis of languages and the study of their internal evolution. A change of attitude came with a new interest in dialect geography and in linguistic interference. The emphasis on neglected linguistic levels, such as vocabulary and syntax, and the notions of "mixed languages" (propounded by H. Schuchhardt and Baudouin de Courtenay) forced a revision of the linear schematism of the genealogical classification of languages and led to a broadening of the comparative horizon. Spatial linguistics, championed simultaneously by the Italian Neo-linguists and the Prague structuralists, added a typological dimension to the dominant genealogical outlook. Saussurian structuralism did not break with the genetic orientation; it introduced instead an uneasy antinomy in the study of language. Synchrony and diachrony were declared to be incompatible domains, to be handled by different methods: synchrony was supposed to be interpreted structurally, "statically," and diachrony atomistically, "dynamically." "Time," wrote de Saussure, "creates difficulties peculiar to linguists and opens to their science two completely divergent paths."7 De Saussure, like many others, could not shake off the conviction that historical linguistics is synonymous with genetic linguistics and failed to see that the structural comparison of languages can be viewed as an extension of the structural analysis of a single language. His hypostatization of time prevented him from seeing time, and change, as a synchronic problem, which presents itself in any speech community as a choice between coexisting archaic and innovating elements.8 The view that historical linguistics is primarily a study of transition has even affected the work of those structuralists who rejected the Saussurian antinomy of synchrony and diachrony. The principles of diachronic phonology formulated by the Prague linguists of the late twenties (notably by Jakobson and Trubetzkoy) pertain primarily to transitions from state to state and to the functional transformations between successive stages.9 The dominance of the genetic approach is largely due to the convic-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

269

tion that, as W. Lehmann put it, "the only explanation for a linguistic form is an older form."10 But modern science has divested itself of the one-sided genetic outlook. "The experience of science accumulated in her own history has led to the recognition," writes H. Weyl, "that evolution is far from being the basic principle of world understanding; it is the end rather than the beginning of an analysis of nature. Explanation of a phenomenon is to be sought not in its origin, but in its immanent laws. Knowledge must be far advanced before one may hope to understand ... their genesis. For want of this knowledge the speculations on pedigrees and phylogeny let loose by Darwinism in the last decades of the nineteenth century were mostly premature."11 A structural comparison of languages presupposes a theory of what is relevant in language and a thorough internal analysis of the languages to be compared in terms of the established criteria of relevance. Only the enrichment of linguistic theory can secure the fruitfulness of typological comparisons and taxonomies. The aim of typology is the formulation and verification of generalizations about language, arrived at on the basis of empirical investigations of the languages of the world. But typological comparisons can also be fruitfully applied to genetically related languages. The typological and genetic viewpoints are not mutually exclusive, but complementary approaches to the study of the twofold, i. e., structural and genealogical affinity of languages. The recent revival of typological interests has not, however, always led to a clarity about the goals and subject matter of typology. Thus an expert typologist such as Greenberg writes: "as opposed to genetic classification, [typological classification] has no specific historical implication and is arbitrary, i. e. will lead to different results depending on the criterion or combination of criteria selected."12 But as witnessed by the nineteenth-century controversies concerning the classification of Indo-European languages and dialects, criteria are not given once and for all, whether they concern genealogical or typological taxonomies. The choice of criteria is dictated both by the prevailing linguistic theories and by the levels of comparison. That is why a typology based on the narrow and aprioristic morphological schemes of the nineteenth-century typologists would be a patent anachronism. The belief, expressed in some recent studies, that criteria drawn from one level (e. g., from phonology) are less appropriate for typological comparisons than those drawn from other levels,13 harks back to an antiquated bias. Typological comparisons may, furthermore, cany diachronic implications if they are applied to languages whose genealogical affinity has

270

Slavic Languages

been ascertained by the genetic method. The inferences drawn from both methods are quite different, and their improper application can misfire, as demonstrated by Trubetzkoy's attempt to reconstruct and identify Indo-European in terms of typological criteria.14 But a structural comparison of various synchronic states of a language or a group of related languages posits the all-important question of the stability and continuity of linguistic patterns in time, as well as in space. If the genetic approach is intended to trace the historical transformations of concrete linguistic elements, the typological investigation focuses its attention on the equivalence of structural relations despite and through the transformations of the material trappings. If nineteenth-century linguistics was mainly concerned with change and variation, twentieth-century linguistics can look for the permanent structure, for regularities in time and space. Within such a framework, the range of variation itself can be interpreted as another aspect of the stability of the system, inasmuch as the immanent laws of linguistic stratification limit the possibilities of fortuitous change. The phenomena of "drift," or "convergence," which, in the words of Meillet, posed a "fundamental difficulty" for genetic linguistics,15 are merely a corollary of the parallel development of systems endowed with similar structural properties. The investigation of the stability and variation in linguistic patterns frees us from the requirement to give a step-by-step account of each transition in space or in time, i.e. of all successive stages or dialects. Such an account would be both impractical and impossible, particularly in the case of some linguistic phenomena (e. g., the accentual alternations of all Slavic dialects) or of the more poorly attested stages of linguistic history.16 But the value of diachronic, as well as of synchronic descriptions, is to be measured not by the wealth of accumulated examples, but by the depth of insight into the linguistic system. Evolution itself must be viewed not merely as an object of observation, but as an object of explanation. 2. In his "Gedanken iiber Morphonologie" Trubetzkoy expressed the belief that morphophonemics could provide the basis for a "rational typological classification of the languages of the world."17 But despite the great attention devoted to morphophonemics from the earliest days of structuralism (notably in the works of Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski18), it had by no means attained the high level of generalization, as had phonology, to justify such a belief. Trubetzkoy's own pioneering description of Russian morphophonemics19 contains many penetrating observations, but it betrays a blunt descriptivism, which lim-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

271

its itself to an enumeration of alternants in their various environments, without any attempt to give exhaustive and predictive rules of various types of alternation. It suffers, furthermore, from a mechanical application of phonemic notions to morphophonemics. Thus, instead of abstracting the features which are relevant on the morphophonemic level (e. g., the feature of stress) Trubetzkoy describes alternations in terms of vocalic segments, failing to set apart the automatic alternations of vowel quality from the non-automatic alternations of stress, foregoing the benefits of economy which obtain from a consistent separation of the automatic and non-automatic alternations, which he otherwise emphasizes. He also takes the trouble of listing all minimal or almost minimal pairs, such as /volas/(nom. sg.) 'hair' vs. /valos/(gen. pi.), /p'isit'i/{ 2 p. pi. present) 'you write' vs. /p 'isit'i/ (imper.), /ton'it/ (3. p. sg. present) 'he drowns' vs. /tanul/{past tense), which to him demonstrate the functional, or "rational" character of Russian stress alternations. Since such pairs make up a trifling minority in the morphophonemic system of Russian, he arrives at the conclusion that most alternations of Russian are "irrational" or "quite senseless" (ganz sinnlos).20 The assumption of the random character of morphophonemic patterning could not be conducive to a search for the deeper, underlying relations which govern the types and distribution of morphophonemic alternations. The purely descriptive approach which is found in the work of Trubetzkoy and which has marked morphophonemic analyses since Baudouin de Courtenay does not differ profoundly from that of other linguists. For Hockett, for example, "the morphophonemic system of a language i s . . . the ways in which the morphemes of a given language are variously represented by phonemic shapes."21 In this interpretation "system" amounts to little more than a catalogue of morphemic alternants. The theoretical promulgation of the Item and Arrangement model22 could not but lend sanction to an oversimplified conception of grammatical structure; to describe the morphological system of a language was to provide a full list of its morphemes and their alternants, and to state their distribution within the word, for, according to Bloomfield, "one must observe, above all, the principle of immediate constituents."23 Thanks to this narrowing of the theoretical framework, the focus of description shifted primarily to questions of segmentation, in which the morphemic makeup of items such as cranberry occupied all too prominent a place. The forced conversion of morphophonemic processes into items or "replacives," accompanied by an unwieldy proliferation of ze-

272

Slavic Languages

roes for the sake of an illusory pattern congruity, could not but further obscure the diversity and hierarchy of grammatical processes which underlie linguistic systems. An important contribution to morphophonemic theory is Bloomfield's requirement to set up a basic form: "The process of description leads us to set up each morphological element in a theoretical basic form, and then to state the deviations which appear when the element is combined with other elements."24 The choice of a basic form which provides the maximal amount of information can be regarded as the first but indispensable step in a morphophonemic description, since it permits us to separate the phonemically conditioned from the morphologically relevant alternations, and to state the latter in the simplest possible way. It is of historical interest that the questions of a basic form and or morphophonemic "change" or transformations were seriously considered in the writings of Baudouin de Courtenay and of de Saussure; but they were discarded on the grounds that any reference to "processes" or "transformations" evoked for these founders of structuralism the diachronic spirit which they tried to exorcise from synchrony.25 A new approach to morphophonemics, making full use of basic forms and introducing ordered rules, has been advanced by generative phonologists. Although the dearth of studies dealing with morphophonemics proper (in Halle's term, with "morpheme structure" rules) may make it premature to evaluate the full import of this approach, some of its propositions can be examined on the basis of Halle's study, "On the Rules of Russian Conjugation."26 The aim of the description is to obtain maximal simplicity of the morphophonemic rules. But we may question whether the principle of parsimony is indeed satisfied, if Halle, on the one hand, fails to account for some morphophonemic phenomena (e.g., the accentual alternations of verbs of the type pisat', pisu, pises' 'to write' (368) and, on the other hand, gives rules of alternation for verbs (of the type stojat'1 to stand') which can be more simply treated as nonalternating. The latter solution would also eliminate the need for ordering the rules of vowel-truncation with respect to accentual alternations (Halle's rules C and D).27 The separation of phonemically and morphologically conditioned rules would likewise make the ordering of some rules superfluous (e. g., the first two rules concerning the distribution of unaccented i and a with respect to the following rules). However, one of the innovations of Halle's approach lies in defining morphophonemic rules as much as possible with reference to phonological environment and in avoiding reference to morphological conditions. Thus "palatal muta-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

273

tion" of stem-final consonants is stated not with reference to the types of stem and grammatical forms in which it occurs, but by a general phonological rule: "palatal mutation occurs before an unrounded vowel followed by a rounded vowel" (Rule E). For this rule to operate, we have to know, however, the immediate constituent structure of the verbal stems and the order of its application with respect to the rule of vowel truncation (rule C). The price paid for simplification of one kind results thus in complexity of another kind. Rule E is, according to Halle, also valid for the comparative Russian adjectives of the type bogace from bogat 'rich'. The phonologically correct form of the comparative is generated if we rewrite bogace as bogat+A + o, where A is the alleged abstract represfentation of an unrounded vowel. The unstressed suffix of the comparative bogace, which is phonemically / i / , can, however, be interpreted synchronically not as the suffix -o, but as a variant of the stressed comparative suffix -ej(i), which occurs in such forms as sil'nee, slabee from sil'nyj 'strong', slabyj 'weak'. Such an interpretation simplifies the overall analysis of the Russian comparative and allows us to dispense with the fictitious entity A and with the sequence of vowels which is characteristic of the Russian verbal system, but alien to the nominal system. It should be noticed that even if there is any gain in simplicity in these ordered rules, it is offset by a loss of typological and diachronic generality, since the rules are applicable only to Standard Russian. (Rule E applies, in effect, only to one variety of Standard Russian, in that it yields the third person plural form /bros'at/, but not its variant form /bros'ut/.) The rules which make explicit reference to morphological environment (as defined, for example, in Jakobson's article on the Russian conjugation28) have, on the other hand, a bearing on almost all Slavic languages. Thus Slavic verbal stems terminating in a- exhibit palatal mutation in all forms of the present tense, whereas verbal i- stems may admit palatal mutation only in the first person of the present. Similarly, we find short and long variant suffixes not only in the comparative of Russian, but also in other Slavic languages (e.g., S-Cr. susi, sladiws. slabiji, cistiji, from suh 'dry', sladak 'sweet,' slab 'weak,' cist 'clean'). The revamping of morphologically conditioned into phonologically conditioned rules has, in addition, the disadvantage of obscuring the role of morphophonemic alternations in the grammatical system of a language, a role which was so emphatically pointed out almost a hundred years ago by Baudouin de Courtenay. It also appears that so long as the rules are designed to account simply for "the ways in which morphemes are put together into utterances,"29 they cannot transcend the level of descriptive simplicity in

274

Slavic Languages

order to attain explanatory, or what Popper calls "epistemological" simplicity.30 But if morphophonemic alternations as complex as those which we find in the Slavic languages do, in fact, form a system or some deeper kind of patterning, it should be possible to arrive at generalizations concerning the interrelation of various types of alternations and to predict not only the phonological realization of alternants in morphemic sequences, but also the structural restrictions which preclude the admission or co-occurrence of certain types of alternations within the paradigmatic and derivational patterns of a language. This line of investigation was actually envisaged by Sapir when he wrote that languages "evince a curious instinct for the development of one or more particular grammatical processes at the expense of others," and when he also pointed the way to a structural interpretation of the diachronic aspect of morphophonemics. "The feeling for form as such," wrote Sapir, "freely expanding along predetermined lines and greatly inhibited in certain other directions ... should be more clearly understood than it seems to be."31 Despite the age-old attempts to interpret the phenomena of the so-called "analogical levelling", these processes have, indeed, been little understood. For the Neogrammarians, "analogical levelling" was either a kind of disturbance which obscures the regularity of the phonetic laws or a grammatical corrective to the destructive force of the "blind" phonetic laws. The traditional, as well as some recent attempts to explain the role of grammatical analogy, were mainly atomistic or ad hoc solutions, ranging from phonetic and statistical to psychological and sociological interpretations. If Wundt tried to explain analogy through the long-distance attraction of sounds (associative "Fernwirkung der Laute"), Alf Sommerfelt raises the question of a possible "connection between the extensive use of morphophonemic devices and the particular kind of societies in which the Celtic tribes were living when this phenomenon took place."32 The helplessness of the older explanatory attempts was perhaps best expressed by H.Paul, who wrote: "To show why analogy works in one language in one way and in another in another way, we would have to be omniscient."33 3. What follows is a survey of the morphophonemic alternations of the modern Slavic nominal and verbal inflections and of the main lines of their development from late Common Slavic. I shall essentially limit myself to those Slavic languages which exhibit the most complex morphophonemic systems, i.e. to the East and South Slavic languages which employ accentual alternations.34 The accentual systems present a special problem for Slavic linguists.

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

275

Slavic accentology, in both its phonemic and morphophonemic aspects, is notably that branch of Slavic linguistics which has bedevilled generations of scholars without yielding any generally accepted and tangible solutions. Despite the wealth of accumulated, though scattered, material concerning individual Slavic languages, Slavists of many countries and persuasions somehow always seem to agree that the time for a synthesis has not yet arrived. This pessimistic view has not been disspelled by a number of recent works in Slavic accentology which suffer from an atomistic approach or which are encumbered by complex and unverifiable hypotheses. In his review of these works, H. Lunt summarized what is sometimes dubbed the "crisis" of Slavic accentology: "One hopes that the combined view through three complementary prisms - IE, Balto-Slavic, and Slavic - will reveal the tangled problems in such a new light as to make at least some of the final solutions obvious. It is a vain hope."35 It should be observed that the problems of Common Slavic and of the modern prosodic features in their phonological aspect have been greatly clarified thanks to the work of Kurylowicz, Jakobson, Ivic and others. The solution of the accentual morphophonemic problems has, on the other hand, been hampered by piecemeal or speculative interpretations. Comparative Slavic accentology, which has been almost totally reconstructive, with a heavy emphasis on its Indo-European or Balto-Slavic provenance, is consequently in the peculiar position of having neither a diachronic nor a synchronic perspective. In order to gain this perspective, we shall reverse the direction of the comparative approach, and begin with an analysis of the modern Slavic systems which provide the fullest factual material and the foundation for generalizations which are subject to empirical verification. The terminal point of our comparison is late Common Slavic, the period directly preceding the emergence of the neoacute or the new rising accent, which took place before the loss of the jers. The Indo-European predecessors of the Common Slavic acute and circumflex accents, which have been the focal point of many traditional investigations, need not concern us in this study, for it is by now clear (mostly thanks to the work of Kurytowicz) that their phonemic status and distribution were, to begin with, internal Slavic developments, resulting, on the one hand, from the monophthongization of the Indo-European diphthongs and, on the other hand, from certain derivational processes. Thus a falling, or circumflex, accent could appear in derivatives based on stems with a rising accent (e. g., *rezati vs. *razi), and a

276

Slavic Languages

rising accent in derivatives based on stems with a falling accent (e.g., (adj.) *ddrg- vs. (compar.) *dorg-j-e). But what is of particular importance for the accentuation of the late Common Slavic inflection (before the appearance of the neo-acute) is the fact that an absolutely initial falling (circumflex) accent could alternate only with a desinential rising (acute) accent, and vice versa. This alternation will be considered as the point of departure for the subsequent accentual developments in the Slavic nominal and verbal inflections. Slavic accentual alternations have generally been treated apart from other types of alternations. But the coexistence of various types of alternation within a given linguistic system compels us to treat them in relation to each other. The two types which are most productive and most clearly correlated in the Slavic languages are the accentual and consonantal alternations. Other types of alternation play a less significant role in the Slavic systems of inflection, where they are phonologically conditioned or unproductive. In this paper I shall also ignore the alternations of quantity which play an important role in Slovenian and in SerboCroatian. The requirement to study morphophonemic alternations in their interrelation is implicit in our goal to discover their hierarchical relations and to define the limits of their occurrence within various grammatical forms. The comparison of single alternating forms, such as S-Cr. dat. sing, ruci 'hand' vs. nom. sing, ruka, does not permit us to state the relationship between the desinences, accentual alternations and consonantal alternations in modern S-Cr. The hierarchy of the three formal "devices" involved in these forms can be established only in the framework of the whole system, which imposes different restrictions on the two types of alternation and on the desinences. While grammatical affixes are in the Slavic inflections subject to fewer restrictions than the alternations, it would be an oversimplification to claim that grammatical meaning is carried only by the grammatical endings. In the case of homonymous endings (which abound, for example, in the declension of S-Cr. definite and indefinite adjectives), the grammatical distinction is carried almost entirely by morphophonemic (in this case accentual) alternations. The formal devices, or in Sapir's terms "grammatical processes" of a language, can be viewed, just like the "grammatical categories," as sets of hierarchically ordered alternatives which are subject to different constraints, such that the choice of any one device involves the co-occurrence of, or incompatibility with, other devices. The sets of formal devices may be regarded as the meaning-carrying features of a morpho-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

277

phonemic system. It would, consequently, be misleading to regard the morphophonemic alternations which accompany different grammatical endings as "irrelevant" to the functioning of such a system. The historical processes of restriction and of expansion of various alternations, for which the Slavic languages provide ample exemplification, would in such a view indeed appear to be "quite senseless." But morphophonemic alternations, whether they accompany distinct or homonymous grammatical affixes, participate in the expression of grammatical distinctions and enter into a hierarchical relation with each other, reflecting at the same time the relations of the grammatical categories and wordclasses which they serve to express. The ultimate purpose of a morphophonemic description should, then, be the formulation of predictive rules which specify the interrelation of various types of alternations and their functions within a grammatical system. What follows is an attempt to formulate such rules with respect to the two productive types of alternation in the systems of Slavic substantive and verbal inflection. 4. An economical description of morphophonemics, like that of any linguistic level, is predicated on the maximal extraction of its redundancies. In some modern Slavic languages, morphophonemic alternations of one kind are concomitant with alternations of another kind, whereas some alternations are automatic, i. e., phonemically conditioned and devoid of morphological function. Concomitant alternations occur, for example, in literary Serbo-Croatian, where pitch alternations, i. e., the alternation of a falling-rising or rising-falling accent, are in polysyllabic words accompanied by a shift of the place of accent, which we shall call a positional, or simply a stress alternation; e.g. dogadaj: dogadaju 'event,' golub: golubdvima 'pigeon'. Disyllabic words admit pitch alternations, but exclude positional alternations, inasmuch as the last syllable of a S-Cr. word cannot be accented. Since polysyllabic words exhibit simultaneously pitch and positional alternations, we may treat one of them as redundant. We extract pitch as the redundant feature and transcode any rising accent as an accent on the following syllable. Thus we rewrite ruka 'hand' as ruk]a, dogadaju as dogadafu, golubdvima as golubovHma. The choice of the positional accent as the distinctive feature seems to have phonetic justification,36 but more important, it establishes the accentual identity of literary S-Cr. with some S-Cr. dialects and with an older stage of S-Cr., which lacked phonemic pitch, as well as with other Slavic languages without pitch, such as Russian, Byelorussian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian. Concomitant

278

Slavic Languages

alternations are also found in Slovenian, where the situation is somewhat more complicated, since pitch alternations may occur here without positional alternations; e. g. (nom. sg.) kopito 'hoof: nom. pi.) kopita; and vice versa; e.g., (gen. sg.) moza 'man'; (dat. sg.) mpzu;(inst. sg.) duhom 'spirit': (nom. pi.) duhovi. But in many Slovenian forms the alternation of a falling accent occurs concomitantly with a positional alternation; e.g., (gen. sg.) kosti, 'bone': (dat.-loc. sg.) kosti; (acc. sg.) goro 'mountain': (nom. sg.) gora. If we transcribe words containing a rising accent on a penultimate open vowel /e, o / as carrying a final accent, we dispense with the positional alternation and obtain the forms of older Slovenian and of some of its peripheral dialects that are distinguished only by pitch, i.e. kosti: kosti;goro:gora. The actual phonetic forms of modern Standard Slovenian and of its central dialects are obtained by a rule which requires the shift of stress from a final short vowel to a preceding syllable and which yields a rising accent.37 If we, in addition, interpret the falling accent on the endings (kosti, goro) as one which has shifted phonetically from a long or inherently short vowel /e, o / of the stem (kosti, goro> kosti, goro), we obtain a further simplification in the description of the prosodic alternants, reducing the accentual alternations of Slovenian, (just as we did in Serbo-Croatian) to one of stress instead of one of pitch. It is easy to see that the extraction of redundant or phonetically conditioned alternations unravels the similarities in the morphophonemic patterns of various languages, which have been obscured by their diverse phonemic developments. The occurrence of concomitant or automatic alternations may vary according to different grammatical categories or parts of speech. For example, some Slovenian nouns and adjectives exhibit a stress alternation together with the falling-rising alternation, while similar verbal forms exhibit the pitch alternation without the historically expected alternation of stress; thus we find, on the one hand (gen. sg.) reci: (dat. sg.) reci 'word'; (nom. sg. neut.) mlado: (nom. sg. fern.) mlada 'young', but, on the other hand, the past tense of the verbs (neut.) dalo, pilo and (fem.) data 'gave', pila 'drank.' One of the most common automatic alternations in the declension of Slavic nouns is the zero-vowel alternation which occurs before a zero desinence; in the verbal inflection this alternation is sometimes automatic (e.g., in the Rus. imperatives moj, brej . It may be observed that the different utilization of distinctive and au-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

279

tomatic alternations in the grammatical subsystems of a language is parallel to the interplay of distinctive and redundant features in the phonological subsystems of a given language; e.g., the distinctive function of voicing in consonants and its redundant function in vowels; the presence of redundant length in accented vowels and its absence in unaccented vowels; the redundant function of stridency in spirants and its absence in stops. The presence of redundant features secures the continuity of phonological systems, as such features are historically known to switch functions with the distinctive features. An example of such a "redundant" feature transforming into a distinctive feature on the morphophonemic level is provided by the innovating variety of Slovenian, which has lost phonemic pitch, and, consequently, the pitch alternations. In this system, the forms of the verb, which lacked concomitant stress alternations, lose their accentual distinctions, whereas the nouns convert their stress alternations into grammatically relevant alternations. The different utilization of automatic alternations is one of the basic features which distinguishes the inflectional systems of the Slavic verb from those of the noun. The presence of interconnected automatic alternations in the verb and their absence in the noun is a direct consequence of the different morphemic make-up of the Slavic verbal and nominal stems. Inflected nominal stems terminate in all Slavic languages in a consonant, whereas their desinences begin with, or consist of, a vowel or zero. The latter ending is found not only in the nom. sing, of masculine and feminine nouns (e.g., Rus. stol]kost'*#), but also in the instr. sing, of III decl. feminine stems, and in the plural of some masculine stems (e.g. Rus. cast'-#ju, l'ub#v'- #ju; kam'#n'-£j-a). The Slavic verbal stems, on the other hand, terminate in a vowel or consonant, yielding two types of stems; i. e., open and closed stems. The verbal desinences similarly begin with a vowel, a consonant, or a zero: the endings of the present, imperative and aorist begin with a vowel or zero, while the desinences of the past tense (the -/- or "past active participle") and of the infinitive begin with a consonant; the past passive participle begins with a vowel or consonant (-en-/-on-; -t-, -n-). The sequence of two successive vowels or, more precisely, of a final stem-vowel and of an initial desinence vowel, is inadmissible in the Slavic languages. The full form of an open stem can, therefore, appear only before a consonantal desinence, whereas the final vowel of an open stem undergoes truncation before a desinence with an initial vowel (except in the aorist, in which the initial vowel of the desinence is truncated). The rule of truncation, which was formulat-

280

Slavic Languages

ed by Jakobson for the Russian verb,38 applies to all contemporary Slavic languages. The rule of truncation entails, in turn, an automatic stress alternation which has so far gone unnoticed. When open stems with final stress undergo truncation, the stress shifts automatically to the preceding vowel. This alternation is no less automatic than the one found in unaccented nominal stems which are followed by a zero desinence; e. g., the Rus. (gen. sg.) stola, korolja: (nom. sg.) stol 'table,' korol' 'king'; (nom. sg.) zetia 'wife': (gen. pi.) zen;{gen. sg.) ljubvi< l'ub#v-i> 'love': (inst. sg.) Ijubov'ju< l'ub#v'-#ju>. Truncated open stems of Slavic verbs which carry a final accent (referred to henceforth as a\) are thus kept distinct from truncated unaccented stems (i. e., stems with a desinential or f ) accent), since the former shift the stress to the radical, or predesinential, syllable, while the latter retain it on the desinence. The two types of accents are neutralized in the full form of open stems which appears in the infinitive and in the past tense (in -/-) and in the truncated form of the open stem in the imperative and first pers. sing., in which the accent shifts, in some Slavic languages, to the desinence (cf. below). The following examples illustrate the opposition between verbs with an a.\ accent and verbs with a fi accent. The base forms of the open stems are, except for Bulgarian, those which appear in the infinitive, and the truncated forms are given in the first person plural. Open stems with an at stress; Rus. prosi- 'beg,' moloti- 'thresh,' pisd'write,' derza- 'hold,' torn- 'drown,' formirova- 'form': prosim, molotim, pisem, derzim, tonem, formirujem; Ukr. rody- 'give birth,' kupy- 'buy,' skaka- 'jump,' tonu- 'drown,' daruva- 'offer a gift': rodymo, kupymo, skacemo, tonemo, darujemo; Bulg. xodi- 'walk,' nosi- 'carry,' vid'e- 'see,' pisa- 'write,' digna- 'move': xodim, nosim, vidim, pisem, dignem39; S-Cr. pros i- 'beg,' slomH- 'break up,' ugosti- 'treat,' mlatH- 'thresh,' jednac'i'equate,' pisa- 'write': prosimo, slomimo, ug]ostimo, mtatimo, jednlacimo, p isemo. Open stems with a /?stress: Rus. rodi- 'give birth,' gosti- 'treat,' krica'shout,' lete- 'fly,' vernu- 'return,' pleva- 'spit,' uznava- 'recognize': rodim, gostim, kricim, letim, vernem, pljuem, uznaem ;S-Cr. gosti- 'treat,' lomi- 'break,' svedoci- 'testify,' trubi- 'blow the horn,' vrte'turn': gostim o, lomim'o, svedocim o, triib imo, vrt imo. In those Slavic languages in which the late Common Slavic neoacute

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

281

has been preserved as a high pitch (in the conservative variety of Standard Slovenian and in some peripheral S-Cr. dialects), the «1 yields a rising accent if it retracts to a preceding long or lengthened vowel; e.g., Slov. mlatH- 'thresh,' pis1 a- 'write,' ljubi- 'love'; or1 a- 'plough,' lomi'break,' prosi- 'beg': mlatimo, pisemo, ljubimo; prjemo, Ipmimo, prpsimo; Posavian mlatH- 'thresh,' okren u-, 'turn'; pros i- 'beg': mlatimo, okrenemo; prosimo. Internal and comparative evidence permits us to assume that the retraction of the a,\ stress in the truncated forms of the stems goes back to Common Slavic and that this retraction gave rise to the appearance of the neo-acute in verbal stems with an original thematic (aj) accent. However, the trigger effect for the "leftward" shift of the stress might have been provided by the same phonemic change which was responsible for the very emergence of the neo-acute as a distinctive prosodic feature. For, as is generally agreed, the neo-acute must have originated at first from the retraction of the stress from a final or internal weak jer. The inability of the weak jers to carry the stress yielded, in consequence, forms with a long or short neo-acute such as (loc. pi.) *gdrdixb, *nosexb (adj.) *moldbjb, *novbjb; (2nd pers. sg. pres.) *trgsetb, *susTtb, *gostTtb\ (neut.) *listbje, *sndpbje; (adj.) *belbjb, *gdlbjb; (3rd pers. sg. pres.) *pdjbmetb, *pdjbdetb. Although various hypotheses have been advanced to explain the occurrence of the neo-acute in the present tense of the verb, none of them seems to account adequately for the facts. Stang attempted to explain the neo-acute in the present tense of verbs of the type *moltitb, *xvalitb by positing an accentual shift from an original long thematic vowel *moliitb, *jcvatitb.40 This hypotheses is fundamentally correct, but it does not explain the appearance of the neo-acute in the verbal forms with a thematic -je-, such as *pisetb and *tdnetb. Kurytowicz's theory, according to which the accent of the cited forms goes back to an initial accent which at a certain point became reinterpreted as a neo-acute, is highly strained, for there is no evidence that the verbal forms in question ever carried an initial accent nor is it clear why such a reinterpretation should have taken place.41 We shall rather assume that the appearance of the neo-acute in the present tense was the result of an interplay of phonological and morphological factors. More specifically, we may assume that the shift of stress from the final jer in unaccented (ft) stems of the type *susitb, *topitb, *trgsetb provided the basic impulse for the shift of stress in the verbs of the type *mdtfitb, *nosHtb, *ces'etb > *mdltitb, *ndsitb, *cesetb, with the subseqeunt generalization of the same accent

282

Slavic Languages

in all forms of the present, except the first person singular (e.g., in *moltite, *tdnete). A similar solution suggests itself in the interpretation of the neo-acute in the definite forms of adjectives such as (masc.) *belbjb, *gdh>jb, (neut.) *beloje, *gdloje, that were based on the oxytonic stems *betb, *gofh; *beto, *goto. Here, too, the shift of the stress in the finally stressed forms, such as *mdldbfb, *novbfb; *mdldofe; *novofe > *moldbjb, *nov]bjb, *mdldoje, *nov]oje, triggered the corresponding shift in the oxytonic stems, with the initial impulse for the retraction coming in either type from the shift of the stress from the weak jers. (The originally identical stress in the feminine ending -aja of both types must have been an additional factor for their polarization.) 5. The foregoing discussion invites some remarks on the relationship between phonemic and morphophonemic processes in the history of a language. It is clear that the traditional approach which attempted to explain morphophonemic processes, among others the distribution of the Slavic accents, in phonetic terms was based on a one-sided view. While many such processes do, indeed, have a phonological source, factors of so-called "grammatical levelling" constantly interfere to rearrange the distribution of original phonemic alternants and to endow them with grammatical functions, or to eliminate them. The stability and productivity of the Slavic consonantal and accentual alternations was no doubt achieved at the expense of other types of alternations which could have come about through phonemic change, yet never gained a hold in the Slavic systems of inflection. Consider, for example, the lack of alternants such as Rus bereza/*bereze, nesem/*nesete, or Pol. zona/*zenie, dziato/*dziele, biafy/(p\.) *bieli, in which the phonetically expected vowel alternations were suppressed through analogical levelling. The basic types of alternation, on the other hand, which might have disappeared as a result of phonemic change, were either left intact or were reestablished to maintain the consistency of some patterns. Thus, in modern Slovenian we find accentual alternations between the direct and oblique cases of the plural even in forms in which phonetic change should have led to their elimination; e.g. in the dat. and loc. pi. of -a stems: zenam, zenah; glavam, glavah, instead of *zenam, *glavam. Phonemic change itself is not as "blind" as we were led to believe by our Neogrammarian predecessors, but has, as it were, one eye open on the morphological processes of a language. For example, the loss of phonemic stress in Polish and Macedonian is apparently due not only to phonological change, but also to grammatical levelling. We have seen that a combination of phonological and morphological factors also ac-

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

283

counts for the distribution of the Common Slavic neo-acute. The inventory of phonemes and the types of alternants can likewise be affected by morphological factors. The Slavic languages furnish examples of phonemes which occur in some grammatical forms and which were introduced by the side door of morphology, as, for example, the Russian palatalized velars /k\ g'/(cf. the 1st pers. pi. tkem 'weave,' zgem 'burn' and dial, pekem, beregem), or the consonantal alternants x~s, z~z in the Polish forms (Wloch:Wtosi, chyzy:chyzi). It is therefore fitting to forego the position held by some linguists that "neither new phonemes nor new combinations of phonemes can ever come into existence by the agency of morphological analogy."42 It should be apparent that, far from being isolated, not to say antagonistic provinces, morphophonemics and phonology are two interacting, though autonomous levels of language. Although it has long been recognized (at least since the pioneering works of Kruszewski and Baudouin de Courtenay) that morphological alternations have their origin in phonetically conditioned alternants, the opposite phenomenon (i.e., the demorphologization of alternations) must also be acknowledged. A case in point is the accentual shift in the present tense of verbal stems with an a\ stress discussed above. In Common Slavic this shift (with the resulting neo-acute) was, as I argued, the result of a morphological process of polarization of the thematically stressed (a,) stems from the desinentially stressed (ft) stems, whereas in the modern Slavic languages the shift of stress to the radical vowel is phonetically conditioned by an automatic rule which requires the truncation of a final stressed vowel before a vocalic desinence. This demorphologization of the accentual shift is, however, achieved through the morphological emancipation of the palatal mutation from its phonetic environment (before a thematic vowel with initial j) and through the reinterpretation of the Common Slavic thematic units -i-, -je- as grammatical endings, which follow the stem of the infinitive; i.e., through the reinterpretation of the Common Slavic sequence *nos -i-th, *pis-je-ti> as (nosli-t-tb, pisla-e-tb) (with a concomitant s~s alternation). A similar process of de-morphologization takes place when an alternation becomes an inherent feature of a grammatical form, as, for example, the Slovenian plural ending -QV-(i), which must be stressed regardless of the stress of its underlying form. We see then that neither underlying morphophonemic forms nor the alternations have an immutable linguistic status, but are subject to similar transformations of functions that are familiar to us from historical phonology (i. e., the phenomena of phonologization and dephonologization of phonetic features).

284

Slavic Languages

6. The restrictive laws which govern the Slavic consonantal and accentual alternations can best be formulated if we examine them separately within the nominal and verbal inflections. 6.1. The South and East Slavic nominal systems, which employ accentual alternations, limit the types and productivity of consonantal alternations. These restrictions appear more prominently if we compare the consonantal alternations of these languages with those of the West Slavic languages, which lack accentual alternations.43 The West Slavic declensions employ two types of consonantal alternations: in the first type, which is historically the result of the so-called second palatalization, velar consonants k, g(h), x alternate with c, z / j , s/s (symbolized as K~C); in the second type, non-velar consonants alternate with corresponding palatalized or palatal consonants (symbolized as D ~D'). In West Slavic the two types of alternations occur both with substantives and with adjectives. They can be illustrated by Polish, which presents the richest Slavic system of consonantal alternations. Alternations of velars in the declension of substantives occur, for example, in fizyka 'physics,' fizyk 'physicist,' noga 'leg,' mucha 'fly,' mnich 'monk': (dat.-loc. sg.) fizyce, (nom. pi.) fizycy, (dat.-loc. sg.) nodze, musze, (nom. pi.) mnisi; and in the declension of adjectives in: wielki 'big,' drogi 'dear,' suchy 'dry,': (nom. pi. of the virile gender) wielcy, drodzy, susi; alternations of nonvelars in the declension of substantives occur in biskup 'bishop,' snob 'snob,' doktor 'doctor,' idiota 'idiot': (nom. pi.) biskupi, snobi, doktorzy, idioci; and in the declension of adjectives in slaby 'weak,' mlody 'young,' swiety 'holy,' maly 'small,' pieszy 'pedestrian': (nom. pi. of the personal gender) slabi, mlodzi, swieci, mali, piesi, (the pertinent alternations in the above examples are k~c, g~3, x~s/s;p~p\ b~b\ t~c, d~j, r~z, w~l, s~s). In the South and East Slavic declensions the consonantal alternations are greatly reduced. For one thing, they do not occur in the declension of adjectives, and second, there is no alternation of non-velar with palatalized consonants, with the exception of isolated Russian and Bulgarian lexical items, e. g. Rus. koleno 'knee': (n. pi.) koleni, sosed 'neighbor': (n. pi.) sosedi. The alternation of the first type, i.e. of velars with dental consonants also has limitations in the declension of substantives. It is absent in Russian and Slovenian (with a few exceptions, such as Rus. drug 'friend': (n. pi.) druz'ja; Slov. otrdk 'child': (n. pi.) otroci), and in the western S-Cr. dialects, as well as in the plural declension of Ukrainian and BR. It is subject to various restrictions in Bulgarian and S-Cr., in which monosyllabic stems, certain types of derivatives, stems with a final cluster, and stems terminating in x (and sometimes in g) do not, as

Slavic Morphophonemics in its Typological

285

a rule, undergo alternations (cf. the absence of alternations in the plural of Bulg. orex 'nut' uspex 'success,' mag 'magician': orexi, uspexi, magi, or in the dat. sg. of S-Cr. niacka 'cat,' gluska 'goose,' sek]a 'sister,' liga 'league': macki, guski, sekH, ligH. Alternations of velar consonants with palatals', i.e. with c, z, s (symbolized as K ~C) are found in the vocative of a few Slavic languages which have preserved this form; e. g. Ukr. colovik 'man,' rih 'horn,' horix 'nut': colovice, roze, horise; S-Cr. junak 'hero,' drug 'friend,' duh 'spirit': junace, druze, ditse.44 6.2 A different picture emerges when we consider the consonantal alternations of the verbal systems. Final velar consonants k, g, x of open and closed verbal stems may alternate with the palatals c, s, z (symbolically K~C) while non-velar consonants undergo "palatal mutation" and, in East Slavic and Bulgarian, also palatalization (symbolically D ~D'). The palatal and palatalized alternants of the non-velar series are clearly in complementary distribution; the sonorants /r, 1, n/, and non-velar consonants of closed stems are subject to palatalization in Russian, Byelorussian, and in Bulgarian; in Bulgarian (as in West Slavic), palatalization also involves final labial consonants (e.g., the 1st pers. sg. klepja 'hammer,' dremja 'slumber,' morphophonemically ; (p. p. pple.) -oju. For when the stress alternation in the inst. sing, was, in turn, eliminated from polysyllabic stems (as it is completely or partially eliminated also in the loc. sg. in Ukr., in S-Cr. dialects, or in Rus., where only losad' and ploscad' admit the stress alternation in the Ioc2), the stress on the ending -#ju became automatically indistinguishable from the stress on the stem, as shown by such examples as the Ukr. puttju and Russju (with a desinence stress) and niccju, kistju (with a stemstress). The stress on the last vowel of the ending -#ju is, by contrast with the substantives, well preserved in the inst. of the numerals pjat', sest', devjat', desjat', which carry an initial stress in the nom.-acc. (cf. above), and which have, as in most Slavic languages, imparted this stress to the originally oxytonic stems sent', vdsem' (cf. the Slov. sedam, Qsam). Thanks to the syncretism of the gen.-dat. with the loc. case (a syncretism which is more advanced in the Russian dialects and in the numerals sto, sorok, which admit only two case forms 6 ) the numerals have acquired a clear-cut accentual opposition between the direct and oblique cases. The original distribution of stress in the declension of III decl. substantives and numerals has thus in Russian been abandoned in favor of a stress pattern which deepened the distinction between the class of substantives and the class of numerals. 5. The inst. pi. ending -#m'i is used in Russian only with a small number of substantives, e.g. det'mi, ljud'mi, and also zver'mi, docer'mi, losad'mi, dver'mi, kost'mi, plet'mi. If the ending appears to be inherently stressed, it is only because it happens to occur only in stems with an alternating, historically circumflex accent. In historically oxytonic stems we should expect the morphological stress to fall on the zero of the ending -ifcm'iand to shift automatically to the stem. This is precisely the situation which we find in some, albeit residual and dialectal S-Cr. forms; e.g. konma (Vuk), dial, kojmi/kdnma as opposed to ljudma, zubmi; crvma, gosma (from gost).7 The phonological stem stress must be interpreted as falling on the zero of the ending also in the Ukr. sl'iz'my

The Place and Function of Stress

333

(sl'oz'-£my), Ukr. dial, zûnmi,8 which carry a desinence stress in the oblique cases of the pl. (sl'ozâm, sl'ozàx; zonâm, zonâx, and the inst. pl. variant zonâmï). In other Ukr. forms with the unstressed ending -#my, the stress falls, instead, on the stem, since the other cases of the pi. exhibit a stem stress, though some of them were historically oxytonic or alternating (circumflex) stems ; e. g. kryla, krylam, kryl'my; vorôta, vorit, vorôtam, vorit'my. The stressed ending -#my occurs otherwise, as in Rus., in stems with an alternating stress (e.g. Ijûdy, Ijudéj, ljud'my;kôsti, kostjâm, kist'my; kûry, kuréj, kurmy), although in certain forms the stressed and unstressed endings are now in free variation; e.g. dit'my/dit'my, sin'my/ sin'my; vorit'my/vorit'my, sl'iz'my/sl'iz'my. 6. The nom.- (acc.) ending -#j-a, together with the other cases of the plural, contains a pre-desinential suffix -#j- (from original collective derivatives), and a terminal ending. In literary Russian the stress is distributed according to the subgender of the substantives with which it is used: animate masc. substantives (mostly kinship terms) stress the terminal ending -#j-â, and inanimate (masc. and neut.) substantives stress the zero of the ending, which shifts automatically to the last syllable of the stem; e.g. muz'jâ, synov'jâ, druz'jâ, zjat'jâ; kamén'ja, korén'ja, povôd'ja, kolôs'ja, derév'ja, kryl'ja, pér'ja, dôn'ja. Some historically acute stems (brât'ja, ûgol'ja) retain the stress on the stem, although in the originally acute stems kolén'ja, polén'ja, the place of stress is, from a synchronic point of view, ambiguous. This semantically motivated distribution of stress enables us to forego any reference to the stress of the basic form from which these plural forms are derived. Plural formations with the suffix -#/- are widespread in thé Rus. dialects, where they may occur, in addition to masc. and neut. substantives, in fem. substantives, mostly of the III decl. (docer'jâ, losad'jâ, ploscad'jâ, kos'jâ[=St. Rus. kôsti], mater'jâ), or where they are used only with masc. animate substantives (mostly kinship terms, muz'jâ, zjat'jâ, sur'jâ, djad'jâ).9 The perusal of stress of the pi. forms in -#j-a in some Rus. dialects, however, affords us, a glimpse of a different, and obviously older stress distribution: the terminal ending is, in these dialects, stressed if the base forms carry an initial (circumflex) stress, and the non-terminal suffix is stressed if the base forms carry a desinential (oxytonic) stress; e.g. volos'jâ, borov'jâ, greben'jâ, muz'jâ, druz'jâ vs. prùt'ji, kryl'ji, dvôr'ji, ruzji.w Traces of such a stress distribution are also found in Ukr. and in S-Cr. dialects, where collective (denominal) forms exhibit a desinence stress if the underlying forms have an initial stress (Ukr. dub'jâ, zvir'jâ, voronn'jâ [from vôron], zoluddjâ;dial. S-Cr. klasjè) and desinentially stressed stems maintain the

334

Slavic Languages

stress on the derivational suffix (Ukr. brussja, pruttja, laxmittja, kopyllja; dial. S-Cr. perje, sndpje),n although in most of these derivatives the stress now falls in both languages on the stem (Ukr. zub'ja, volossja, kaminnja; S-Cr. cvijece, klasje, grmlje). The original stress distribution is thus best preserved in some Russian dialects, whereas literary Russian has utilized the accentual distinction to sharpen the grammatical opposition between animate and inanimate substantives and to signal this opposition in all cases of the plural declension. The foregoing remarks were intended to show (a) that the stress of grammatical forms can be identified only with reference to other grammatical forms which define its place within the system, (b) that the description of the stress pattern of Russian nouns is simplified by positing a zero in the grammatical endings that begin phonologically with a sonorant, and (c) that the original distribution of stress has in some Russian forms been rearranged for the purpose of sharpening grammatical oppositions (between substantives and numerals, between the animate and inanimate gender). Translated version of article originally published in Russkoe i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. K 70-letiju clena-korrespondenta AN SSSR R. I. Avanesova. Moscow, 1972, 235-243.

The Place and Function of Stress

335

Footnotes

1 Some linguists have indeed advanced the view that the Russian numerals carry "a fixed final stress," with a "regressive shift in the nom. and acc." But a regressive shift to the initial syllable of the stem contradicts the rules of Russian stress alternation, and a stress on the ending in the cardinal numerals cannot explain the presence of a desinential stress in the ordinal numerals pjatój (dial.), sestój, sed'mój, vos'mój. For such a view, and the inconclusiveness of its results, see Worth, 1968b, 281,284,285. 2 Such an analysis couched in the form of ordered rules which posits arbitrarily double ("deeper and lowest level") shifts of stress in nominal forms (e.g. volk —*• [nom. pi.] volki —• vólki; ovcá —- [gen. pi.] óvec —• ovéc) is forwarded by Worth, 1968a. 3 Karaulov, 1902,35; Avanesov, 1949,205; Beljavskij, 1903,309. 4 The stokavian examples are from Ivsic, 191,148, and the óakavian examples from Miléetic, 1895,123 and Belie, 1902,230. 5 Zovtobrjux, 1958,116; Karskij, 1903,5, 36. 6 For the loss of the case system and change of stress in the numeral sórok see Bulaxovskij, 1958,201, and for the reduction of three cases to two in Russian dialects see Matveeva, 1961, 97-98. Notice the same syncretism in the contemporary Polish numerals 5-10 which generalize the form pieciu, szesciu in all oblique cases. Stang ignores the phenomenon of syncretism in the numerals and his reconstruction of their accentual pattern (1957,83) bears no relation to the synchronic facts. 7 Miléetió, 1895,119; Ivsic, 1907,121-123. 8 Brox, 1906,81. 9 Karaulov, 1902,23; Baxilina, 1957,250; Kuznecov, 1959,54-55. 10 Avanesov, 1949,207,211. 11 Ivsic, 1912,243.

336

Slavic Languages

References

Avanesov, R.I., Oöerki dialektologii Rjazanskoj mesöery, MIRD, 1, 1949, 135-236. Baxilina, N. B., Mesöerskie govory na territorii Penzenskoj oblasti, Trudy I Ja, 7, 1957, 220-90. Belie, A., Zametki po öakavskim govoram, IORJaS, 14,1909,181-266. Beljavskij, B., Narodnyj govor uezdnogo gor. Gluxova (Cernigovskoj gub.), RFV, 50,1903, 298-323. Brox, O., Ugrorusskoe narecie sela Ubli, St. Petersburg, ( = IssledRJa, 2,1), 1906. Bulaxovskij, L.A., Istoriceskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku, Kiev, 1958. Iv§ic, S., Saptinovafcko naijeöje, RadJAZU, 168,1907,113-62. Danasnji posavski govor, RadJAZU, 196,1913,124-254; 197,1913,9-138. Karaulov, M.A., Materialy dlja etnografii Terskoj oblasti SborORJaS, 71, 7, 1902,1-112. Karskij, E. F., Materialy dlja izuöenija sevemo-malorusskix govorov, SborORJaS, 75,6,1903. Kuznecov, P. S., Ocerki istoriceskoj morfologii russkogojazyka, Moscow, 1959. Matveeva, G.I., Dialektnye osobennosti öislitel'nyx pjat', desjat', MIRD, NovSerl, 1961, 97-102. Milöetic, J., Cakavstina kvarnerskih otoka, RadJAZU, 121,47,1895,92-131. Stang, C., Slavonic Accentuation, Oslo, 1959. Worth, D., Grammatical Function and Russian Stress, Language, 44, 4,1968", 784-91. - , Notes on Russian Stress, 2, Studies in Slavic Linguistics and Poetics in Honor of Boris O. Unbegaun, New York, 1968", 279-87. ¿ovtobijux, M. A., Morfologiceskie osobennosti zaural'skix govorov russkogo jazyka, NZapCerkasPI, 12 (Serija ist.-filol. nauk'4), 1958,113-57.

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

1. Despite the recent advances in Slavic accentology, the problems of the Bulgarian nominal accentuation and of its historical development have remained insufficiently understood. The situation is not much different from that which prevailed forty years ago, when Stefan Mladenov complained that "so far there is no comprehensive study of the accentuation of the Bulgarian literary language."1 Mladenov himself tried to explain the evolution of the Bulgarian accentuation by positing, like his predecessor Conev, certain questionable phonetic developments and analogical levellings. His attempts were, by his own admission, tentative and incomplete. A step forward in the treatment of the Bulgarian nominal accentuation was the book by Kodov,2 which examined the stress of Bulgarian substantives on the basis of a wide variety of data drawn from historical sources and Bulgarian dialects. Although Kodov's book also reflects a traditional bias in favor of phonetic explanations, it has the merit of pinpointing the role of the article in affecting a forward shift of stress in circumflex stems: "pri narastvaneto na dumata s edna ili povece srifiki udarenieto ot kratka ili ot dalga cirkumflektova se e prexvarljalo na slednata sriSka."3 As Kodov remarks, the connection between the shift of stress and the article was already fully grasped a century earlier (in 1835) by Neofit Rilski in the Introduction to his Grammar, where he writes: "Nekoi paki govoratb glava, noga, roka, nebo, uxo, oko, dirvo, kogato gi proiznosatfc bezi> 61enove, a koga gi proiznosatb sost Slenovete, togava smestatb oksiite na krajnytb slogi: glavata, nogata, rgkata, neboto, mesoto, uxoto, okoto, dbrvoto."4 Kodov's assumption that the stress shifted to the following syllable is not, however, correct. In addition, he failed to grasp the full implications of the movement of the circumflex stress, resorting to haphazard phonetic and analogical explanations. Thus, he hypothesized that the stem in such dialectal forms as glava, roka, voda might be due to either a shift of stress from the final (open) syllable, or to analogical levelling with the acc. sing, (the "general case"), whereas the shift of stress to the article in the dialectal and older

338

Slavic Languages

Bulgarian plural forms zvézdy, dáski was, according to him, due to analogy with the circumflex masculine and neuter stems of the type brégove: bregovéte, óci: ocíte.5 A deeper analysis of the development of the Bulgarian accents was provided by the outstanding comparativist and accentologist, Leonid Bulaxovskij.6 He, too, regarded the shift of stress in circumflex stems with the article as a phonetic change, although, unlike Kodov, he believed that the stress had shifted to the syllable before the article ("prinjatyj nami foneticeskij perenos udarenija s cirkumflektirovannyx v proslom dolgot na glasnye pered prisoedinjavsimisja k imenam suscestvitel'nym formami artiklja (clena)"),7 except in the original -i- stems where the stress shifted to the article itself, as in nóst: nost-tá, sól: sol-tá. He furthermore assumed that the final stress in the plural of neuter and masculine substantives of the type moré, mesó and bregové, nosové required a different explanation than the stress of the plural of fem. substantives, such as glaví, bradi. While the former was for him the result of analogy with the corresponding forms with the article, the latter represented to him the result of analogy with the sing, forms without the article: bradá, glavá. On the basis of the evidence of nineteenth-century Russian literary texts, Bulaxovskij was also prompted to posit an original final stress in the plural of such dialectal Bulgarian forms as séstri, zéni, kózi, attributing the modern place of stress to analogy with either the vocative or with the "general case" of forms such as póta, mógla, which in some dialects (e. g. in Ropkata) carry the stress on the stem.8 Bulaxovskij's work abounds in many subtle observations regarding the history of the Bulgarian accents, and especially the position of stress in individual lexical items, but like the work of his predecessors, it suffers from a lack of emphasis on the role of stress within the morphological system, from a comparison of scattered dialectal facts, and from a lack of clarity concerning the original accentual pattern of Common Slavic. 2. The historical development of the Bulgarian nominal accents can best be understood when we compare it with the accentual patterns of other Slavic languages (especially Russian and Serbo-Croatian, which have preserved many archaic accentual features), and when we treat it in conjunction with the grammatical categories which are characteristic of the Bulgarian nominal declensions, both in its literary and dialectal varieties. Such a comparative and structural investigation of the Bulgarian accents involves some difficulties, however, inasmuch as ample and systematized accentual data are more or less available for the literary language, whereas they remain sketchy and incomplete in the case of the

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

339

dialects (even though problems of stress have been treated in Bulgarian dialectology far more thoroughly than in the dialect studies of most other Slavic languages). Even the most thorough and up-to-date studies of Bulgarian dialects reveal factual and methodological shortcomings: they often gloss over the accent of certain forms (e.g. of the plurals with article), and they tend to classify the accents mechanically, according to the place of stress on the various syllables of a word, rather than according to gender, types of stem (simple or derived) and grammatical category. The lack of information about the stress of entire paradigms (e.g. the sing, and pi. with and without article) also reduces the usefulness of the otherwise remarkable modern Atlas of the Bulgarian Dialects. This study is based primarily on 36 dialectal studies which cover a broad spectrum of Bulgarian dialects, including some that are spoken in the USSR.9 Most of them are fairly exhaustive, and some of them provide, in addition to the description, dialect texts from which important accentual facts can be culled. While these studies do not enable one to pin down all existing dialectal possibilities, or to account for the stress of individual lexical items, they are quite sufficient for the task set forth in this paper: to provide a typology of the accentual systems of the modern Bulgarian noun which would indicate the common and distinctive features of these systems, and to project their development against the reconstructed accentual system of the corresponding nouns of Common Slavic. 3. We shall limit our discussion to the feature of stress since Bulgarian has relinquished the quantity and tone distinctions, which, we hypothesize, were of secondary importance in the morphophonemic alternations of late Common Slavic, and in particular of Old Bulgarian.10 Common Slavic substantives distinguished in their base forms three types of accents: (1) a fixed accent on the stem, or the acute, (2) a fixed accent on the desinence, or the oxytonon, and (3) a mobile, or circumflex accent which was limited to stems with original, Indo-European short vowels or diphthongs and which could move from the first syllable of the stem to the desinence. Let us now examine more closely the distribution and mobility of the Common Slavic accents in those grammatical categories of the noun which are relevant for modern Bulgarian. Since Bulgarian has lost the Common Slavic case system, acquiring instead a postpositive article (or articles), it will be sufficient for our purposes to examine the role of stress in the following grammatical oppositions: (a) the sing. vs. the pi., (b) forms without vs. forms with article, and (c) the case of the subject

340

Slavic Languages

(nominative) vs. the case of the object (accusative). The last opposition has a bearing only on the accentuation of the -a stems. The original acute and oxytonic accents may be illustrated by the following examples (except for the place of stress, all examples will henceforth be cited in their modern Bulgarian form):

Acute

Oxytona

-a stems

Masc.

Neut.

Sg-

räna, -ta

svàt, -at

blàto-, -to

PI.

rani, -te

svàtove, -te

bläta, -ta

Sg-

metlà, -ta

nóz, -at

vino, -to

PI.

metli, -te

nozóve, -te

vinä, -ta

Substantives of the -i declension (which in modern Bulgarian includes only fem. nouns) were rarely of the oxytonic type, and had subsequently generalized the alternating accent which was predominant in most -i declension stems. The place of stress in the sing, of masc. oxytona with article noz-st, pop-at, deserves some comment, for we might have expected these stems to carry a desinential stress *noz6t, *pop6t, as they do in the pi. forms nozdve, popove or otci, orli. Such a stress may indeed be postulated for an earlier period of Common Slavic, when the final jers could still be stressed. However, when the circumflex stems with article, such as *nosi>-ti>, *medi-tb shifted their final, "marginal" stress to the preceding jer (which after the drop of the final jer became interpreted as a part of the article: *nos-6t, med-6t), a corresponding shift of stress took place in the oxytonic stems as well. Such an interplay between the oxytonic and "marginal" accents can also be assumed for other Slavic grammatical forms with a similar structure (cf. the stress of the Russian long adjectives ostryj vs. prostoj, which are based on the older forms *ostr^jb, *prostifb).n The Common Slavic substantives which carried an initial circumflex accent shifted the accent to various grammatical endings of the inflection, as well as to the article, which was treated like an enclitic or derivational suffix. The mobility of stress in the two types of forms was thus connected with two different grammatical processes: with the process of inflection in the first case, and the process of derivation in the second case.

341

The Accent Patterns o f Bulgarian Substantives

The accentual alternations in the pertinent forms of the declension can be illustrated by the following examples (given here in the form in which they actually appear in some modern Bulgarian dialects):

-a stems Sing. PI.

Subject Object

glavá gláva glávi

balxá balxá bálxi

-i stems

M

N

kóst

záb

meso

kósti

zóbi

mesá

The accentual alternations of the circumflex -a stems deserve some clarification, since their original pattern has been partially blurred in the modern Slavic languages, where it has given rise to considerable discrepancies. A s it transpires from some modern Slavic languages and dialects, the stress could fall on the initial syllable of the stem only in the acc. sing, of inanimate substantives, whereas the animate, as well as some inanimate (mostly derived) substantives, carried a desinential stress throughout the singular. The different accentual treatment of the two types of -a stems can be seen from the example of Serbo-Croatian inanimate substantives, which have a falling accent in the acc. sing.: ndgu, goru, glavu, ruku, bradu in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o t h e a n i m a t e a n d s o m e

inanimate substantives, which have a rising accent in all cases of the s i n g : buhu, kdzu,pcelu;svecu,

travu.

As has been shown by Miletii, 12 some Bulgarian dialects have, like the literary language, generalized in the singular the -a ending of the nom., while other dialects have generalized the -s ending of the acc. Either one o f these solutions was preceded by an older pattern, which is preserved in some dialects, in which animate (later only personal) substantives opposed the case of the subject (nom. -a) to the case of the object (acc. -3), whereas the inanimate (or non-personal) substantives generalized the -9 ending of the accusative for both the subject and the object. Still other dialects established a direct correlation between the choice of desinence and type of stress* such that the -a ending was associated with the fixed desinential stress of the originally animate (or personal) substantives, whereas the -9 ending (regardless of its various dialectal reflexes) was linked with the initial (circumflex) stress, or with the initial stress, which at a later stage became fixed on the ending. The former type occurs in such areas as Nova Nadezda and Sumen, and the latter type in Erkec, Teteven, Momfiilovci, Smoljan and KriniSnoe.

342

Slavic Languages

The "derivational" forms with article required a shift of the circumflex accent from the first syllable of the stem to the article. Such a shift of the circumflex accent took place in a number of grammatical forms that attached a suffix, particle or enclitic, as, for example, in the long forms of adjectives (e.g. Rus. molodój, suxój, prostój; èak. novi, brzi, tvrdi; lit. S-Cr. svèti, cèsti); in the reflexive forms of the past act. participle (e.g. Rus. podnjalsjà, podnjalós', podnjalis'), or in forms with enclitics (e.g., dial. Bulg. dever mi, na srcé mu, sinà si). Various Slavic languages offer, in addition, examples of adverbialized nominal forms with an original article, such as Bulg. esenés(ka), zimàs(ka), nostés(ka); dial. Rus. nocés', zimus', vecerus'; S-Cr. jesènas, zìmus, vecèras. The distribution of stress in the forms with articles should have been as follows: -a stems Subject Object

M

N

glavä-ta, balxa-ta kost-tä

Sing. PI.

-i stems

*glav3-tó, balxó-ta *glavi-té, *balxi-té *kosti-té

zab-at

meso-tó

*zabi-té

mesä-ta

* The forms marked with an asterisk are hypothetical.

Modern Bulgarian allows a shift of stress to the article only in substantives with a zero ending: zab-at, kost-ta, but not in substantives with a vowel ending: zabi-te, glavi-te, meso-to (from dial, glavi, meso). In some dialects, however, the stress is found to shift to the article also in the sing. neut. and pi. fem. substantives; e.g. (Banat): nebeto, ssrcito (alongside mestdtu, darvotu), racete. There is no reason to doubt the original status of this shift. The circumflex stress could move to the article in all stems followed by an originally (IE) short grammatical ending, for such an ending permitted the stress to skip over to the last, "marginal" syllable of the word (as shown, for example, by the comparison of the S-Cr. acc. sing, zimu with its derivative zimus, from an original *zimgsb). The shift of the accent from the enclitic to the preceding vowel of the desinence was not only a Bulgarian, but a general Slavic development, and the original position of the stress can be inferred from its oscillation between the particle and the zero-desinence in the masc. past active participles of Russian reflexive forms such as podnjalsja vs. (the older) podnjalsja, bralsja vs. (the older) bralsja.

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

343

4. The above posited system of Common Slavic nominal accentuation has been preserved almost intact in a number of modern Bulgarian dialects, whereas other dialects have substantially rearranged and simplified this system. First of all it may be noted that the fixed stem-accent (the "acute") need not concern us any further, for it has undergone no significant modifications except for the transfer of individual lexical items to other accentual types (e.g. izba from original izba vs. muxa from original muxa). The desinential (oxytonic) accent has likewise been preserved, although it has been limited in certain forms, and acquired a new alternation in some -o and -a stems, mostly as a result of the reinterpretation of the mobile circumflex accent (see below). Of primary interest to us is the fate of the mobile accent, which has undergone a number of changes in its distribution and functions. It will be convenient to begin our discussion with the fate of the original circumflex accent in the grammatical categories of the singular and plural. 4.1 The stress alternation between the stem and the article in the singular is best preserved in the masc. and fem. substantives with a zero ending. As mentioned above, the fem. substantives of the -i declension have introduced the shift of stress to the article in all stems without regard to their original accent: sol, radost, pecal, propoved: solta, radostta, pecalta, propovedta. The masc. substantives exhibit the stress alternation in historically circumflex stems and in some non-circumflex stems (e.g., the literary bikat [or bikat], kljucst [or kljucat], grexat, dazdst), but have generally confined it to monosyllabic stems, although in some dialects it may also occur in disyllabic stems; e.g., Nevrokop v'atera; Dobroslavci koren'o; Raduil meseco; Ixtiman dever'a; Sumen vecero; Ropkata pepelon; Krinicnoe svekoro. The inanimate (or non-personal) substantives of the -a declension have lost the stress alternation in the literary language and in some eastern and Thracian dialects, where the original stem stress has been generalized on the desinence; e.g., (lit. Bulg.) dusa, gora, brada, rska, zemja, voda, rosa. This generalization of the desinence stress is due, in the first place, to the influence of the forms with article (dusata, bradata), and in the second place to the influence of the stems with a fixed desinential stress in the singular (the circumflex stems of the animate bdlxa type) or in the sing, as well as in the pi. (the oxytonic stems, such as igla). The

344

Slavic Languages

original stress alternation is fully productive in the western, Rhodopian and in some eastern dialects, even though in some of them (Erkec, Teteven, Sumen) it involves only a small number of words, or is stylistically confined to the speech of the older generation (in Tvardica). The mobility of stress is again far more consistent in monosyllabic stems than in initially stressed or even medially stressed polysyllabic stems such as rabota, planina: rabotata, planinata or (Dobroslavci) rabota: rabotata. There are, finally, some dialects (e.g., Banat, Thracia, KriniSnoe, Kirsovo, Ol'sane) in which the shift of stress from the stem to the article may occur only in the plural because the sing, stress of inanimate circumflex stems in these dialects has been levelled with the desinence stress of the animate and inanimate (mostly derived) stems of the same circumflex type. The alternation between the desinential singular stress and the plural stem stress in forms without article should, however, in these substantives be interpreted synchronically as a shift of stress from the ending of the singular (the basic form) to the stem of the plural (cf. below 4.2.). The stress alternation between the stem and the article in the sing, of neuter substantives is absent in the literary language and in some eastern dialects, where the circumflex stems have, apparently, been levelled with the originally acute stems. In other dialects (Nevrokop) the circumflex stems exerted, on the contrary, an influence on the acute stems, and even on some oxytonic stems, so that they all show the same shift of the accent to the article (cf. the forms maslo, stado, zito, vino, selo: masloto, stadoto, zitoto, vinoto, seloto). The stress alternation in the singular is less common in polysyllabic neuter stems and even in those monosyllabic stems which form the pi. by means of the formants -en-, -es- or -et-, and with a shift of stress (imena, cudesa, moreta). Forms such as imeto, vremeto are attested only sporadically in some dialect areas (e.g. in Kjustendil, Gorno Pole, Dobroslavci, Tixomir, Kirsovo). 4.2 The stress alternation from the stem to the ending in the plural with article involves only masc. and fem. substantives which stressed the stem in the plural without the article, whereas neuter substantives with a circumflex accent required the shift of stress to the ending in the plural without the article as well. Masculine substantives exhibit this stress alternation in almost all western and Rhodopian dialects. But even in these dialects, in which some stems have, as in the literary language, acquired a desinential stress in the plural without article (by analogy to the forms with article), there are other stems which retain the stress on the stem in the plural without article, but shift it to the ending in the plural with article. In such

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

345

dialects (as Gabare, Govedarci, Raduil, G o r n o Pole, Ixtiman, Strandza) we thus find, on the one hand, plural forms such as darove, sinove, redove, ledove, and on the other hand, plural forms such as snjagove, denove, darove, but snegovete, denovete, darovete. In certain dialects (Orxane, Teteven, Strandza, Tixomir and Banat) the stem stress and desinential stress are in free variation in the forms without, as well as with article; e. g., sinove(te) or sinove(te), redove(te) or redove(te). It may further be noted that plurals formed with the ending -i preserve the stem-stress more consistently than plurals formed with the ending -ove; e. g., vslci, zabi: vdlcite, zsbite. Examples are found in Sliven, Tvardica and in Banat. The plural forms of polysyllabic stems, on the whole, carry a stem stress, like their corresponding singular forms. Stress alternations in the plural with article are sporadically found in the western dialects (cf. the forms korene: korenete, devere: deverete in the dialects of Nevrokop, Raduil and Ixtiman). The generalization of the stem stress in the plural with and without article seems, on the other hand, to be rare (it is recorded in Cesnegir and N o v a Nadezda). Monosyllabic masc. stems thus exhibit two principal types of stress alternation: an archaic alternation which opposes the stem stress of forms without article to the desinence stress of forms with article, and an innovating alternation which opposes the stem stress of the singular without article to the desinence stress of the plural with or without article. Fem. substantives of the -i declension have generally eliminated the shift of stress in the plural with article. There are only a few dialects (Gorno Pole, Raduil, Teteven) in which the shift may occur (e.g. kosti: kostite, pesni: pesnite, bolesti: bolestite or bolestite), and some other dialects (Banat and Old Krim) in which the desinence stress is generalized in the plural without article (kosti, nosti; sveste). Substantives of the -a declension have in most dialects preserved the two types of stress alternation which characterized the original circumflex stems: one with a stress alternation between the form without article and the form with article in both the singular and plural (voda, vodi: vod6ta, vodite), and another with an alternation o f stress from the stem of the plural without article to the plural desinence with article (koza, kozata: kdzi, kozite). The alternation in the last pair, koza: kozi, which resembles the stem ~ desinence alternation in animate feminine substantives, is reinterpreted synchronically as a desinence ~ stem alternation between the singular and plural without article, made more complex by the supplementary stress alternation from the stem to the desinence in the plural with article. These two basic types of stress alternation in the

346

Slavic Languages

-a stems are well represented in the western and in the Rhodopian dialects, although the less productive and semantically marked (inanimate) first type (voda: vodata) has in some dialects (in Banat, Kirsovo, Krinicnoe, Thracia) been eliminated in favor of the second (voda: vodi) type. Some Bulgarian dialects offer modifications of the two basic types of stress alternation which may coexist within one and the same area. One modification (which is actually a variant of the first type) involves the generalization of the stress on the stem in the sing, (without and with article), but on the desinence in the plural with the article; e.g., snaxa, snaxata; (pi.) snaxi, snaxite, or sometimes even in the plural without the article; e.g., voda, vddata;(p\.) vodi, vodite. The other modification (which is a variant of the second type) maintains the desinence stress in the sing, (with or without article), but generalizes the stem stress in the plural with or without article; e.g., bhxa, bhxata; (pi.) blaxi, blaxite. The first variant is restricted to a few lexical items in such dialects as Kjustendil, Nevrokop and Teteven, while the second, far more productive variant is found in the dialects of Vidin, Erke6, Sumen, Smoljan, Momcilovci, Old Krim and Gorno Pole (the last dialect has also preserved the type kozi: kozite). Thus, it is apparent that the fem. substantives with an -a ending exhibit, even though to a lesser extent, the same tendency which we have found in the masc. substantives to replace the stress alternation between the forms without article and the forms with article by a stress alternation between the singular and the plural. It should be noted that a similar tendency to oppose the sing, and the plural can be detected in the history of the stress of other Slavic languages as well. Another solution in the accentual development of -a declension substantives was, finally, the complete elimination of stress alternations by means of generalizing the originally alternating stress on the desinence; e. g., gora, raka, zemja, koza, pcela, snaxa. This solution was the one chosen by the literary language, and it represents the path taken by most eastern Bulgarian dialects. 4.3 The stress alternation between the stem of the singular (without article) and the desinence of the plural, which marked the neuter circumflex stems, is attested in all modern Bulgarian dialects, including the literary language, where it has undergone one important innovation: while the original alternation was from the first syllable of the stem to the ending, the modern alternation is primarily from the last syllable of the stem (or the penultimate syllable of the word) to the ending, as in apparent from such polysyllabic stems as zeljazo: zeleza, pecivo: peciva, tocilo: tocila, ogledalo: ogledala. The original alternation is perserved

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

347

only in stems which attach the -en -or -es- suffix in the plural: e.g., (lit. Bulg.) ime: imenâ, brème: bremenâ, cùdo: cudesâ, nébo (or nebè) : nebesà, and in a few other stems such as ézero: ezerà, sirene: sirenâ. The new pattern of stress alternation must have originated at first through the elimination of the alternation from most polysyllabic stems and its restriction to monosyllabic stems which are accentually ambiguous, since the stress of such stems can be interpreted as falling either on the initial or on the final syllable of the stem. With the subsequent expansion of the stem ~ desinence alternation to all stressed monosyllabic stems, including the original acute stems, such as (lit. Bulg.) blâto, Ijâto, prâvo, gsrlo, mâslo, sito, many disyllabic stems with a final, acute accent (such as koljâno, zeljâzo) became analogically involved in the stem ~ desinence alternations. This system presents only one, though most productive, type in the accentual evolution of neuter stems. Some western dialects (Vidin, Tran, Kjustendil, Gabare, Nevrokop) are more conservative: they have preserved the stress alternation between the sing, and pi. in the original circumflex stems, but have expanded the stress alternation between the forms without article and those with article in originally acute and in some oxytonic stems; e.g., léto, léta: letóto, letâta; plâtno, plâtna: platnóto, platnâta. Most Rhodopian and Thracian dialects and some dialects outside the boundaries of Bulgaria (Banat and Kriniènoe) show, in addition to the alternation in the original circumflex stems, a stress alternation between the forms of the sg. and those of the pi. in the non-circumflex stems; e.g., gârlo, górloto: (pl.) garlâ, gsrlâta, blâto, blâtoto: (pl.) blatâ, blatâta. Another, less common accentual development took place in those dialects where the stress may shift to the ending only in the sg. with article (as in the Kjustendil forms séno, sèna, sénata: senóto), or only in the pi. with article (as in the Erkeè forms slóvo, slóvoto, slóva: slovàtà). 5. In addition to the stem ~ desinence alternation of original circumflex stems of any gender, and the desinence ~ stem alternation of -a declension stems which resulted from the reinterpretation of an original circumflex accentuation (and which has in the dialects absorbed many historically oxytonic stems, such as zvezdâ, iglâ, igrâ, metlà, pcelà), a new desinence ~ stem alternation has also penetrated into a number of neuter substantives. This alternation affected mostly neuter oxytonic stems and some circumflex stems which had at an earlier time become oxytonized, such as (Ol'sane) okó, uxó (from óko, ûxo): (pl.) óci, usi. This alternation is, nevertheless, limited lexically and geographically: it occurs only in sim-

348

Slavic Languages

pie, non-derived stems (such as vedrò, res(e)tó, jajcó, seló, kriló, lieo), or in a limited number of lexical items, and it is scattered in disparate areas, such as Vidin, Kjustendil, Gorno Pole, Ixtiman and Ternovka. 6. The original oxytonic masc. stems have shown a tendency to eliminate the stress from the various endings of the pi. and to generalize the stem stress. Thus, the literary language offers almost no stressed -i endings with monosyllabic stems, although it admits the stressed -('in vowel plus zero stems; e.g., kotli, orli, ovni, dvorci, otci. The less productive stressed endings -e and -ove may occur with monosyllabic, as well as with vowel plus zero stems; e.g., care, kralé, koné, knjazé; dvoróve, stolóve, popóve, smokóve, volóve, and ogn 'óve. There are only a dozen or so substantives (all of which contain the vowel o) which take the stressed ending -óve, and even these admit (with a few exceptions) the unstressed variant -ove, while most original oxytonic stems (including some with the stem-vowel o, such as snop, slon, skot) have altogether eliminated the desinential stress. This restriction on the occurrence of stress on the -óve ending is even more common in the Bulgarian dialects, many of which have limited the stressed -óve ending to a few lexical items (Ropkata, Smoljan, Old Krim), while in other dialects the stressed -óve ending is in free variation with the unstressed -ove ending (Kjustendil), or lost without a trace (Erkec, Sumen, Tixomir, Momcilovci, Nova Nadezda, Ol'sane, Krinicnoe). The modern Bulgarian dialects limit, furthermore, the occurrence of the stressed ending 4 in various types of polysyllabic stems, although none of them has entirely relinquished the stressed ending after vowel plus zero stems, as they so often do after the monosyllabic stems. 7. Having thus briefly surveyed the nominal accentuation of the Bulgarian literary language and dialects, we may state that all of them have maintained the three basic types of accents which they inherited from Common Slavic: a fixed accent on the stem corresponding to the original acute; a fixed accent on the desinence corresponding to the oxytonon, and an alternating accent continuing, to a greater or lesser extent, the original circumflex. The last type has undergone the greatest modifications, although in some dialects it has preserved intact the two basic subtypes which emerged in Bulgarian from the original, Common Slavic circumflex accentuation; i.e., a progressive shift of stress from the first syllable of the stem to the desinence, and a regressive shift of stress from the desinence to the stem. The first type, which continued without change the original alternation, could occur with substantives of any gender, whereas the

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

349

second type of alternation represented a reinterpretation of the stem ~ desinence alternation, and was originally limited to animate substantives of the -a declension. Although the latter alternation has in some Bulgarian dialects been extended to encompass some neuter substantives, the main line of development has been to limit the occurrence of both types of alternations. This development can be seen clearly in the literary language, which has lost the second type of alternation, and has restricted the first type of alternation to masculine, neuter and feminine substantives of the original third declension. In the masc. substantives, this alternation may now occur only in monosyllabic stems, and in the neuter substantives mainly in stems which carry the stress on the last thematic syllable. The stress alternations originally served the two-fold function of opposing the forms without article to the forms with article, and the singular to the plural. The first opposition could be expressed accentually in substantives of any gender, whereas the second opposition could be expressed only in the neuter and in the -a declension substantives with the desinence ~ stem alternation. Although most Bulgarian dialects, including the literary language, have preserved the stress alternations in both of these functions, the principal developmental tendency has been to increase the role of the second function at the expense of the first function. Thus, the literary language has, like many Bulgarian dialects, eliminated the stress alternation between the forms without and the forms with article in the -a declension substantives and in the neuter substantives, preserving this function only in fem. substantives with a zero ending and in masc. substantives. It has, on the other hand, maintained the stress alternation between the singular and the plural in neuter substantives, and has extended it, in addition, to masculine substantives. It is thus in the grammatically unmarked masculine substantives that the stress alternation may perform a double function, opposing the form without article to the form with article in the singular and the singular without article to the forms with or without article in the plural. The role of stress in the marked feminine and neuter substantives is, on the other hand, complementary: in the former, it serves to oppose the singular without article to the singular with article, and in the latter, the singular to the plural. Abridged and slightly modified version of article originally published in Issle-

dovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju. Sbornik v ¿est' sestidesjatiletija prof. S. B. Bernstejna, Moscow, 1971, 251-266.

350

Slavic Languages

Footnotes

1 Mladenov, 1929,161. 2 Kodov, 1929. 3 Ibid., 37. 4 Ibid., 18. 5 Ibid., 37.

6 Bulaxovskij, 1959. 7 /¿>k/.,10. 8 Ibid., 19.

9 For the list of dialects see the attached References. 10 On the grammatical role of the various prosodic features cf. the article on p.OOff. 11 For other examples cf.pp.281-2. 12 MiletiS, 1903,104-105.

The Accent Patterns of Bulgarian Substantives

351

References

Angelov, R., Selo Raduil, Samokovsko, IzvSSF, 8-9,1948,301-410. Bulaxovskij, L.A., Sravnitel'no-istoriöeskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju, UcenZapInstSlav, 17,1959,3-72. - Udarenie starokrymskogo govora, Sbor.. .Balan, 1955,134-44. Bunina, J. K., Zvukovoj sostav i grammatiöeskij stroj govora ol'sanskix bolgar, SMBD, 3,1953,1-123. Georgiev, G. A., Erkeöanite i texnijat govor, IzvSSF, 2,1907a, 133-200. - Po govora v s. Cesnegir - Nova Maxala (Stanimasko), IzvSSF, 2, 1907b, 411-70. Gorov, G., Strandzanskijat govor, BalgDial, 1,1962,13-164. Gospodinkin, D. J., Trenöanite i trenskijat govor, IzvSSF, 4,1921,148-210. Gabjov, P. K., Po govora v gr. Vidin, SborNU, 19,1903,1-29. Kabasanov, S., Edin starinen balgarski govor, Tixomirskijot govor, BAN, Sofia, 1963. Klepikova, G. P., K istorii nekotoryx immenyx i glagol'nyx form v bolgarskom jazyke (po materialam govora Tixomir, okrug Kyrdzali), KSISl, 38, 1963, 46-54. Kodov, X., Podviznoto bslgarsko udarenie i negovoto otnosenie kam praslavjanskoto udarenie, 1. Sastestvitelni imena, Sofia, 1929. Kotova, N. V., Govor sela Tvardicy Moldavskoj SSR, UcenZapInstSlav, 2,1950, 250-302. - Sistema udarenija v govore rajona Gorno Pole, SMBD, 10,1963,45-90. Miletiö, L., Das Ostbulgarische, Vienna, 1903, ( = Schriften BKLA 2). - Die Rhodopemundarten der bulgarischen Sprache, Vienna, 1912. ( = Schriften BKLA 6). Miröev, K., Nevrokopskijat govor, GodSU, 32,1936,3-134. Mladenov, M.S., Ixtimanskijatgovor, Sofia, 1966, ( = Trudove BD2). Mladenov, S., Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin-Leipzig, 1929. Panajotov, P., Slivenskijat govor, SborNU, 18,1901, 507-74. Petriöev, D.X., Prinos kam izuövane na Transkija govor, IzvSSF, 7,1931,37-78. Poltoradneva, E. I., Zametki o jazyke bolgarskogo sela Kirsova Komratskogo rajona MSSR, SMBD, 3,1953, 85-109. Popivanov (pop Ivanov), G., Orxaniskijat govor, SborNU, 38,1938,1-150. - Osobenosti na Sumenskija govor, Dopalnenie kam opisanieto mu v Das Ostbulgarischem. prof. L. Miletiö, SborBAN, 34,1940a, 333-468. - Sofijskijat govor, SborBAN, 34,1940b, 209-326. Popov, K., Govorat na s. Gabare, Beloslatinsko, IzvIBE, 4,1956,103-76. Stoilov, X. P., Gorno-dzumajskijat govor, SborNU, 20,1904,1-33. Stojöev, K.S., Tetevenski govor, Sofia, 1915, (SborNU 31). Stojkov, S., Govor sela Tvyrdicy (Slivenskoj okolii v Bolgarii) i sela Tvardicy (Moldavskoj SSR), SMBD, 8,1958, 3-63. - Banatskijat govor, Sofia, 1967, ( = TrudoveBD 3).

352

Slavic Languages

Stojkov, S., Kostov, K., et. al., Govorat na s. Govedarci, Samokovsko, IzvIBE, 4, 1956,255-338. Siskov, S., Belezki kam udarenie v centralnija (Axar-Celebijskija) rodopski govor, RodNapr, 4,1897,145 ff. Umlenski, I., Kjustendilskijat govor, Sofia, 1965, ( = TrudoveBD 1). Xristov, G., Govorat na s. Nova Nadezda, Xaskovsko, IzvIBE, 4,1956,177-255. Zelenina, E. I., Ot6et o dialektologiieskoj poezdke v bolgarskoe selo Ternovku Nikolaevskoj oblasti v ijune 1954g., SMBD, 7,1955,115-31. Zuravlev, V. K., Govor sela Krini6noe (Cesma-Varuita), SMBD, 7,1955,18-62.

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

1. The purpose of this paper is a systematic comparison of the accentuation of the CSR verb with that of the modern Russian dialects. The literary language will be used as the standard against which the dialectal phenomena will be described as archaic or innovative. Our discussion will also touch upon the accentual variations within the literary language, inasmuch as the latter presents a historically evolving, dynamic system. The use of the literary language as a frame of reference is understandable : the literary language presents us with a large body of easily available and verifiable facts, whereas the data from the dialects is far more problematic. Most dialectal studies were written from a "comparative-historical" point of view which emphasized the questions of phonetic change and paid only superficial attention to the problems of stress and its role in the morphology.1 The more recent synchronic descriptions of the Russian dialects are in this respect far more advanced, but they, too, suffer from shortcomings in method and from disturbing lacunae. The study of the dialects is, however, indispensable precisely for the reason that they present us with accentual phenomena which are often on the margin of the literary system, or which do not appear in that system at all. The latter phenomena include both archaisms and innovations, which provide us an insight into the "drift" of the Russian accentual system. A consideration of these phenomena helps us, moreover, to avoid the arbitrary interpretations which often mark analyses with a narrowly conceived, "descriptive" bent. A truly systematic synchronic description must not be confined to a mere "coverage of the facts"; it must be comparable with related facts of other languages and carry implications of a historical and typological nature. A proper and many-sided analysis of the Russian stress is capable of throwing light on some basic accentual problems of other Slavic languages, not only because - as it is often said - Russian has preserved some of the oldest accentual features of Common Slavic, but even more so because it has undergone innovations which are matched by parallel developments in the other Slavic languages. A study of the latter can, in turn, enrich the study of Russian accentuation, yielding a clearer picture

354

Slavic Languages

of the contemporary Slavic systems of accentuation and of their historical development. The state of contemporary Slavic accentology is, however, such that these two interrelated problems are generally treated as if they belonged to separate, and incompatible, domains. This is largely due to the existence of the two distinct approaches which still dominate Slavic accentual studies. The so-called comparative-historical approach has never transcended its "archeological" orientation, which aims at the reconstruction of the Common Slavic system of accentuation. Because of the genuine problems with which it is beset (lack of historical records, profound discrepancies between the IE and Slavic systems of accentuation) it has never become a fully historical discipline, i. e. it has not arrived at a point where it can define the direction and limits of accentual change in the individual Slavic languages and chart the common and divergent paths of their historical evolution. The descriptive and language-specific approach has, on the other hand, remained content with a low level of generalization, failing to match the historical and comparative findings with the synchronic description of the accentual types and alternations. Consequently, it has suffered from a piecemeal methodology, from a confusion of central and marginal (lexical or idiosyncratic) phenomena, and from far-fetched hypotheses in its attempts to define the "tendencies" in the accentuation of a given language or family of languages. 2 The following exposition is intended to surmount this dualistic approach to Slavic accentology by placing the accentuation of CSR and of the Russian dialects in a historical framework and by emphasizing the phenomena of convergence and divergence which the verbal accentuation of CSR shares with that of the Russian dialects and of other Slavic languages. The present study offers at the same time an expansion and deepening of the problems raised in my article "The Accent Patterns of the Slavic Verb" (in Studies, 72-87), which deals primarily with the accentual alternations in the contemporary Slavic literary languages. 2. The verbal classes and their accentual types. The accentual behavior of any Russian verb is defined by the stress of its underlying stem (its basic form) and by the verbal class to which it belongs. The underlying verbal stems fall into three accentual types which admit different stress alternations in the inflection of the verb forms: (1) a ("acute") with a fixed stress on the stem, (2) a\ ("mobile") with the stress on the final syllable of the stem, shifting to the ending in the 1 pers. sing.

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

355

and in the imperative (the progressive or at ~ p alternation), (3) P ("oxytonic") with a desinential stress which may shift to the stem or the verbal prefix in the non-fem. forms of the past tense (the regressive or p ~ a alternation). 3 . The verbal stems yield, in addition, two major classes which differ in their accentual properties: (1) primary stems which belong to type a/a\ or p, a and a^ being in complementary distribution. These stems admit the progressive ( a\ ~ P) as well as the regressive (P ~ a) alternation ; (2) secondary stems which belong to type a, a\ or p and which admit only the progressive (a^ ~ p) alternation. One verb (rodit')also admits the regressive alternation. 2.1 The primary stems form, in turn, several sub-classes which exhibit the following accentual features : (a) obstruent stems which belong to type a or /?; e.g. (a) léz-, séd-: pres. t. lézu, sjâduvs. (P) cv'ot-, m'ot-, br'od-, v'oz-, tr'as-, rast-, b'ir'og-: pres. t. cvetu, metû, bredu, vezû, trjasù, rastû, beregû. The a/fi distinction is maintained in the past tense and in the infinitive except in the stems terminating in a velar, which neutralize the distinction in the infinitive; e.g. péc', beréc'like sést', lézt'.4 One obstruent stem, mog-, belongs to the a\ type in the pres. t. (mogii, môzes'J; the a stems griz-, str'ig-, sék-; krâd-, klâd-, pâd-, pr'âd-,jéd- shift to the p type in the pres. t. and in the imper, (kradu, gryzû; edjât), while the P stem I'og- carries an a stress in the pres. t. and imper, l'âg- (Ijâgu, Ijâzes'). (b) sonorant and vocalic stems which belong to the types a / a ^ or /?; e.g. (a) br'éj-, m£j-, b'&j-, z4n-; s+là, p+ré/(p.t.)p'or-, t+ré/(pA.)t'or-: pres. t. bréju, môju;b'jû, znû;sljû,prit, trûvs. (p)gn'#j-,p'#j-, ziv-, kl'#n-; b'#ra-, r+ va, s+pa-;pres. t. gnijû, p'jû, zivû, kljanu; berû, rvû, spljû. While the stems which vocalize the zero in the pres. t. differ accentually both in the pres. and past t. (bril, brila vs. gnil, gnilâ), the stems which do not vocalize the zero in the pres. t. (the asyllabic roots) 5 differ accentually only in the past t. (bila, zâla, slâla, tërla vs. pilâ, kljalâ, zralâ, spalâ). The stress is a variant of the a stress, for it occurs only with the polnoglasie stems (borô-, kolô-,porô-, molô-;borju, bores', meljû, mêles')and the stem st'#lâ- (stelju, stèles'). Several stems show accentual peculiarities. Thus the stem m '#re- is of the a type in its simple form, and of the p type in its prefixed forms (mër, mërla, but timer, umerlâ); the P stress of g#na- (gnâl, gnalâ) alternates with the a-i stress in the suppletive pres. t. form (gonju, gônis'), as does the P stress of -j#m-/n'#m(pônjal, ponjalâ), which carries an a^ stress

356

Slavic Languages

in the pres. t. in some of its prefixed forms (primu, primes', podnimu, podnimes'); the stem t+ ka- oscillates between the a and /? stress in the past t. (tkala or tkala). (c) Accentual peculiarities also characterize the suppletive stems da/dad-, bi-Zbud- and j#d-/i-. In the first the ft type (dadiit; dal, dala) admits a nonalternating variant in the past t. neuter (dalo or dald); the ft stress of bi- (byl, byla) alternates with the a stress of bud- (budu, budes'), and the /? stress ofj#d-Zi- (i(d)ti; idu) has an archaic or colloquial a \ variant in the pres. t. (idet; idut). 2.2 The secondary stems end in the vowels or sequences -e-/(C)-a-, -/-, -a-Zova-, -nu-, -aj- and are represented by all three accentual types. The productivity of each type varies according to verbal class. The a stress occurs with all secondary stems (e.g. obidet', slysat'; audit', mucit'; rezat', plakat'; soxnut', pljunut'; delat', obescat'), but it is unproductive with the -e-Z-a- stems. This class admits only a few verbs with an a stress (obidet', slysat', videt', zaviset') and several (mostly transitive) verbs with an at stress (derzat', smotret', terpet', vertet'; dysat'). The stem xote- alternates in the sing, of the pres. t. with the stressed stem xota- (xocu, xdces'but xotim, xotjat). The a \ stress is unproductive with the -e-Z-a- and -nu- classes and it is precluded from the -aj- and from the derived -ova- stems. The -nu- class admits only six verbs with an ax stress (minut', obmanut', pomjanut', tjanut', tonut', vzgljanut'), while the derived -ova- stems switch to the a type in the pres. t. (celovat', nocevat': celuju, nocuju). A similar switch is observed in the verbs alkat', kolebat', kolyxat'. The p stress is productive with the -e-Z-a- and -nu- classes (pugniit', tolknut') as well as with the -i- class, where it often oscillates, however, with the a] stress. It does not occur with the -aj- stems and it is found only in ten (simple) stems ending in (v)a-: dava-, stava-, uznava-; kova-, snova-, sova-, bl'ova-, kl'ova-, pi'ova-, zova-: pres. t. daju, kuju, kljuju etc. 3. The Russian accentuation has been claimed to represent one of the most conservative systems among the Slavic languages, and this claim is partially supported by a comparison of the Russian accentuation with that of the other East Slavic languages. But a comparison of the Russian literary system with those of the Russian dialects shows that Russian, no less than the other Slavic languages with a free and mobile stress, has, on the one hand, accentual features traceable back to Common Slavic and, on the other hand, innovations of a more or less recent origin. Some of these innovations are still in the process of evolution

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

357

and they are partially shared by CSR; other innovations are typical of the dialects alone. In what follows I shall compare the accentual system of the CSR verb with the accentuation of the verb in the modern Russian dialects in terms of the specific grammatical categories in which they occur. 6 4. The present tense The accentual diversity in the present tense is the result of a series of developments which cannot be reduced to a common denominator, since some of them concern the survival of residues which are haphazardly recorded in disparate Russian dialects, while others are the consequence of broad tendencies which have affected wide and compact dialectal areas. The correlation of these tendencies with questions of dialectal diffusion, migrations and even of a foreign substratum or adstratum, which has often been touched upon in Russian linguistic literature, is not to be easily dismissed, but it is of secondary importance in a study which aims at defining the typological and diachronic invariants and variations in the accentuation of the Russian verb. The fact that some of these tendencies find their counterpart in other Slavic languages which are not adjacent to Russian (such as Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian) does, nevertheless, suggest that the developments in question are the result of immanent possibilities of the accentual systems and that the explanation of their change is to be sought in the systems themselves, rather than in external, socio-linguistic facts. We shall consider first the minor differences which have been recorded (albeit sparsely) in the accentuation of the unproductive, although frequently used primary stems, and then the more general dialectal differences which have affected the accentuation of the secondary stems. 4.1 The primary stems The accentuation of the obstruent stems is subject to variations in the small group of stems which have a particular accentuation in CSR; i.e. in the a stressed stems krad-, pad-, klad- which carry a ft stress in the pres. t., and the ft stressed stem mog- which carries an ai stress in the pres. t. The former stems generalize the a stress primarily in the Southern dialects (ukradu; ukradet, upadet) and adopt the a^ stress in some disparate areas (e.g. nakladu, nakladem, Carelia; [kradut\ Kaluga). The a\ stress of the stem mog- presents a number of alternative patterns: (1) a /? stress in all forms of the present tense: mogu, [mog'ds/mogos] - in a number of southern and northern dialects, (2) a p stress in the 1 pers. sing, and 3 pers. pi.: mogu, mogut vs. mozes - in the south-west-

358

Slavic Languages

ern and central dialects, (3) an a stress throughout: mógu, mózes', mógut in various discontinuous areas (but mostly in the dialects of the Mescerà). In view of the existence of these diverse patterns, the question of whether the a\ stress represents the original pres. t. accent of this verb, as it has generally been assumed on the basis of the contemporary Slavic literary languages, cannot be shunned. The evidence of the Russian and of some other Slavic dialects (e.g. the Dubrovnik and Sinj 3rd pers. pi. form mògù), would seem to suggest that the a^ stress which is unique among the obstruent stems represents a convergent development of the Slavic languages which is due to the modal function of this verb and which is matched by the similarly idiosyncratic accent of the modal verb xotét'. The CSR asyllabic stems neutralize, as we have seen, the difference between the a^ and f} types. The a\ stress which shifts automatically from the zero to the prefix appears only in the present tense of some prefixed forms of the stem, -j#m-/-n'#m- (snimet, otnimet/otymet, primet), and in the archaic and colloquial forms of the stem j#d-. The a\ stress of these stems appears with various prefixes in all dialectal areas (e.g. pridet, vzójdet, nàjdet, pójdet, podójdet; podymet, obnimet, primet, vóz'met), although most dialects tend, like the literary language, to neutralize this stress by eliminating it from certain prefixes. Thus we find such variants as nàjdet, pridet/najdèt, pridet (in Tot'ma, Carelia, Kalinin), pr'id'it/padajd'és, pajd'és (in Kursk and Rjazan'), obnimes/obojmès (in Kalinin), vóz'mut/voz'mut (in Carelia), vózmut/zajmèm (in Kostroma). The stress on the prefix, i. e. on the zero of the stem, was, as is known, a feature of all Old Russian prefixed asyllabic stems regardless of the stress of their underlying form. 7 The levelling of the stress on the ending, which must be due to analogy with the non-prefixed stems, is a tendency which has affected not only the literary language. Residues of the a\ stress in the prefixed asyllabic stems are found in the northern as well as in the southern dialects, often side by side with a levelled desinential stress, e.g. [razób'je, ub'je, pósl'e, otól'jem, umrut, nàzmut, zàzgut/ nab'jóm, zab'jé, nal'jóm, umr'ós, zazgùt] (Ladva, Carelia); [dózdessa; pómrut] (Kostroma; Kalinin), razórves', otógnes, zàsnes, né s'jet{Gor'kij, Leningrad, Ladva, Kalinin), [prislit, zasl'ùt] (Kaluga). 4.2 The secondary stems The secondary stems present us in the present tense with two independent accentual innovations: one concerns the shift of the secondary stems (mostly of the -i- class) from the type fi to au and the other involves the levelling of the stress on the stem in the 1 pers. sing, of the a i

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

359

stems. The first development increases in strength as one moves from the northern to the southern Russian dialects, though it has also left its mark on CSR, while the second phenomenon is more restricted in scope and is most characteristic of the dialects known as the Mescera. The original p stress of the -i- stems is best preserved in the accentually archaic dialects of the north, and least of all, in the dialects of the south. Since no dialect has completely eliminated the p stress in favor of a thematic stress, it is misleading to interpret this phenomenon as a tendency of the Russian language to generalize the stress on the verbal stem. The desinential stress is well preserved in at least three classes of verbs: in the obstruent stems, in the -nu- stems and in the -e-/-a- (historically -e-) stems. The P stress prevails in many Russian dialects (in Pskov, Kaluga and, above all, in the North) even in the few transitive -e-/-a- verbs which carry an a\ stress in CSR (3 pers. sg. derzit, terpit, vertit, smotrit, dysit). The accentual membership of the -/- stems presents not only a geographic dimension, but also a problem which impinges on the history of the Russian literary language, though one may wonder whether the latter is directly related to the former. The tendency to relinquish the P stress in favor of the stress is more pervasive in the dictionary by R. Avanesov than in that by D. N. Usakov, and it is more consistently implemented in the latter than in the excellent late nineteenth-century descriptions by J. K. Grot. Thus the last records a p stress in the verbs cedit', delit', dusit', javit', kleit', krestit', krosit', mesit', sadit', susit', svetit', travit', tupit', tusiV which now have an a\ stress, whereas Avanesov allows free variation in the verbs belit', cenit', darit', doit, druzit', krutit', kruzit, mutit', poit', prudit', selit', solit', strocit', sucit', sevelit, tocit', udit', valit', zubrit', which by no means exhaust the list. The difference in stress is in some cases correlated with the transitive/intransitive opposition (kosit 'mows'/ kosit 'looks askance,' valit 'knocks over'/ valit 'throngs,' certit 'draws'/ certit 'acts up'), and in other cases with the distinction between prefixed and simple stems (delit/raspredelit, budit/vozbudit, krestit/skrestit, razit/porazit; rastvorit 'opensV rastvorit 'dissolves'). Although there is no simple rule which would enable one to predict the shift of a p verb to the a\ type, it is clear that intransitive verbs and verbs with a transparent denominal derivation (e.g. grustit', cestit', dolzit', grafit', gvozdit', jagnit'sja, korenit', pylit', veselit', tormozW) are most resistent to this shift, a phenomenon which finds its parallel in other Slavic languages (especially in S-Cr.). Another factor which must have weakened the p stress in the pres. t. of the -/- verbs is the loss of their stress alternation in the past tense. The preservation of the latter (in the northern

360

Slavic Languages

Russian dialects and in Slovenian) has clearly favored the preservation of the former. The switch from a desinential to a thematic stress in the dialects also affects the unproductive simple stems ending in ava-/ova-. The first (davat', stavat', uznavat') acquire the stress by shifting to the class of -ajstems, while the second (kovat', klevat', plevat, sovat', snovat') adopt this stress by falling into the class of the -ova- stems (kuet, kljuet like torguet, nocuet). Occasionally the ova- stems acquire an a\ stress: kljuju, kuju, pljuju; kljuet, kuet, pljuet (in Kaluga). The levelling of the stem stress in the present tense is a phenomenon which is best known from South Slavic, although it is also widespread in East Slavic, particularly in the western areas of Ukrainian and Belorussian. In CSR this phenomenon has affected several -a- stems (alkat', kolebat', kolyxat': alcu, koleblju, kolysu), although many -a- stems have lost their stress alternation by switching to the productive class in -aj(cf. the predominance of the -aj- class in the verbs glodat', stonat', maxat', poloskat', scepat', xromat'). The tendency to generalize the -(V)jclass at the expense of the unproductive verbal classes is more pronounced in the dialects where even the polnoglasie stems such as kolo-, polo-, poro- have lost the alternation in the 1st pers. sing, by switching to the -(V)j- stems (e. g. the pres. t. forms koldju, poldju, poroju). The scope of the accentual levelling in the pres. tense is thus difficult to assess, since it is connected with the broader morphological tendency to restrict or to eliminate the unproductive types of verbs. The most reliable evidence for the levelling of the stress in the pres. t. concerns, for the same reason, the -i- stems, which are not susceptible to a change of class. Copious examples of the accentual levelling in the -/- stems are given in Avanesov's study on Kidrusovo (north of Rjazan'). Here we find such forms as skazu, vjazu, bresu, iscufissuj, sluzu, dysu;gonju, ljubju[Vub'u], kupju, zastrelju; tonu, tjanu in place of the literary forms with a p stress in the 1st pers. sing. The dialectal material permits one to state that the levelling of the a\ has taken place in the southwestern and southern dialects (Smolensk, Kaluga, Brjansk; Orel, Kursk, Belgorod) and in the various Russian dialects of the Mescera (northwest of Penza, the northeastern regions of Rjazan', the area south of Vladimir). In at least one dialect (Kujbysev) the levelling seems to have taken place in -i- stems whose roots end in an acute consonant; e.g. xozu, poxozu, vozu, prosu; skazu, naskazu, but kuplju, dremljit [dr'am w], masu. A correlation between the phonemic shape of the root and the position of the stress is hard to conceive. It is more likely that the data are incomplete.

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

361

4.3 The position of the stress in the 2 person plural The 2 pers. pi. ending -ete/-ite (which appears in the dialects in a variety of phonemic forms that need not concern us here) is the only ending of the present tense which consists of two syllables, thereby presenting two possibilities for the place of the desinential stress. CSR carries the p stress on the initial syllable of the ending, as it does in the other disyllabic endings of the nominal and verbal inflection and in opposition to those of the pronominal inflections (e.g. nesete, molcite, rukoju, prostogo, prostomu vs. svoego, tvoemu, odnogo). The fixation of the desinential stress on the initial syllable is an accentual innovation which the CSR verb shares with many of its dialects in contradistinction to other Slavic languages (especially S-Cr. and Ukrainian) and to some Russian dialects in the north, center and the southwest. The terminal position of the stress is attested by such forms as nesete, beregete, zivete; letite, xotite [n'is'it'o, b'ir'igit'o, zyv'it'o, I'it'it'o, xat'it'o] (in Gor'kij) and beregite, stoite, idite, kladite, vernites'{in Arxangel'sk and Tot'ma). 8 According to Avanesov and Orlova some dialects vary the position of the stress according to the type of grammatical ending, assigning the initial stress to the ending -i(te) and the final stress to the ending -e(te): xotite, letite, but nesete, zivete? The published studies on the Russian dialects do not confirm their claim, although such a distribution of the stress is, indeed, known from various Ukrainian dialects; it seems rather that the position of stress oscillates in some dialects regardless of the type of ending. A terminal stress in the 2 pers. pi. is known to occur, in the northern dialects, also in stems which carry an a or a \ stress in the other forms of the present tense; e.g. znaete, pokupaete, moetes', dumaete, igraete, slusaete, citaete([znait'e/dumait'o] - in Vologda and Perm'); kolete, xodite, vjazete, kormite, smotrite ([kol'it'o, xod'it'd/v'ezyt'e] - in Kirov and Sverdlovsk). As this stress often appears in free variation with the thematic stress, or side by side with stems which retain the thematic stress; e.g. [kol'it'o, krosyt'o/kol'it'o, krosyt'o and slysyt'o, placit'o, xrdml'it'o, p'isyt'o] (cf. Okatovo and Varony in the Kirov region), it is possible that the fluctuation is related to the unstable position of the stress in the corresponding/?stems. But why it should be only the ending of the 2nd pers. pi. that attracts the stress is a problem for which an explanation is still to be found. 10 5. The past tense: the active forms 5.1 The past tense of CSR admits stress alternations in the primary stressless stems which end in a sonorant or a vowel (including the suppletive stems da-, bi-) and in the perfective of the secondary stem rodi-.

362

Slavic Languages

The accentual alternation is from the ending of the base form to the prefix or to the root of the non-fem. forms. In the suppletive and sonorant stems the stress shifts to the first syllable of a simple prefix, and in the case of a compound prefix, to that of the final (pre-radical) prefix (peredal, pribyl, perenjal, nacal, prokljal; pripodnjal, predprinjal; dozil, zaper, otlil, propil). In the -a- stems the stress shifts to the root (nabral, oborval, nazval, dozdal) and in the perf. rodit'to the last syllable of the stem (rodil, rodilovs. fem. rodila). This overall rule of stress is subject to some variations: (a) In the suppletive and sonorant stems the stress may vacillate between the prefix and the root depending on the prefix or specific stem. In the case of a compound prefix and the prefixes raz-, iz- the stress generally falls on the root of dat':peredal, pereizdal, vossozdal, razdal, while byt' carries the preradical stress only on the prefixes iz-, «-: izbyl, ubyl. Otherwise the stress is in free variation, and in the colloquial language it tends to fall on the root: prodal, sozdal, pridal, pribyl, probyl, dobyl. Among the sonorant stems, nacal, prokljal, umer, zaper, otper and forms with the prefix roz- carry a prefixal stress, whereas the other stems (especially the stems ending in j ) and prefixed forms admit the stress on the root as a stylistic variant; e.g. pocal, dtzil, perezil, zazil, zapil, dtpil, dolil; razvil, razlil, dovil, izzil, otgnil, op'er, proslyl, otplyl. The neut. sing, of dacarries a ft stress (dalo) in impersonal constructions. (b) The a- stems z#va-, r+ va- admit a prefixal stress as an archaic variant (pozval, sozval; sorval). The fem./non-fem. alternation is absent in vozzval/vozzvala and optional in the stem t#ka- (tkala, protkala, zatkala) and, in the substandard language, also in the stressed stems la-, st#la- (slala, stlala). In impersonal constructions some neut. sing, forms of the a- stems carry a /? stress: rvald (vsju noc'), probrald, prorvald, prodrald. The Russian dialects exhibit a wide gamut of accentual differences in the past tense ranging from an archaic alternation which is best preserved in the north to the complete loss of the alternation, which has taken place primarily in the south. Although the various alternations do often co-occur, they allow us to distinguish a few basic types which reflect different stages of development or alternative ways of accentual levelling. The non-fem. form of the past tense presents the following possibilities: (1) an archaic ("peripheral") shift of stress from the ending (of the base form) to the initial syllable of the word. This alternation is typical of the north, and it takes place not only in the stressless monosyllabic

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

363

(sonorant and vocalic) stems, but also in the stressless polysyllabic stems ending in (ov)a- and -/-;e. g. dostrelil, pristroil(Xolmogory, Arxangel'sk), polozil, pustil, prostil (Vladimir), koval, pleval (Kalinin, Novgorod); podozdal, postal (Senkursk; Arxangel'sk), narval, ubral, sobral, pognal, pozval (Yjatka; Murmansk), rdzorvalo, sobral, sovrali, ne zvali (Tot'ma), otpustil (Leka). (2) a shift of stress to the initial syllable of the root, which is due to the levelling of the stress with the non-prefixed verbal forms. This type is found only sporadically, for it either co-occurs with the older alternation (1), or it is confined to the monosyllabic stems in which it cannot be distinguished from the alternation of type (3); e.g. pristroil (Xolmogory), perestrelil (Vladimir), otpustili (Kidrusovo), porodili (Leka); poldzila (Xolmogory; the stress of the fem. can be due only to the non-fem. forms). (3) a shift of stress to the final syllable of the stem, which is due to levelling of the stress with that of the infinitive or, in the monosyllabic stems, also with that of the simple forms. This alternation is, like (2), rare in the polysyllabic stems (cf. the CSR rodil, rodila; dial, pustil, pustila), but it is generalized in the sonorant stems as well as the vocalic stems. It occurs irregularly in the northern dialects (e.g. sobral, dozdali(Vjatka); izorval, ubrali (Gor'kij); prodal, prinjali, zaperli (Xolmogory)), but prevails in the southern and in some other dialectal areas; e.g. razdal, propil, obvil, nazil(Kaluga); sobral, nazval, zaper, propil, prozil(Kursk); prodal, prozil, nacali, pomerli (Voronez); probyli, peredali, prinjal, prozili, (Orel); razdal(sja), obnjal, nazval (Leka); prodali, podnjali, nacal, zazili (Irkutsk). The fem. sing, of the past tense tends to retain the p stress in all but the southern dialects, which fix the stress on the last syllable of the stem; e. g. brala, spala, gnala, rozdala, pobrala, prinjala, obvila, probyla, pomerla (Kaluga); brala, zvala, spala, prorvala (Kursk); prorvala, probyla, peredala (Penza), zdala, sorvala, zabrala (Egorovka, Moldavia). The fixation of the stress on the final vowel of the stressless stems in all forms of the past tense marks in these dialects the final stage in the elimination of the regressive (P~a) alternation, for the position of the stress in the past tense is here defined, as in the infinitive, by an automatic rule that precludes the stress from the ending if the ending follows a thematic vowel and begins in a consonant {-t or -I). The generalization of the initial nonfem. stress in the fem. (probyla, ne pustila, nacala, nalila, prodala, prozila), or of the desinential fem. stress in the plural (prozili, pomerli, nadplyli) are exceptional phenomena which affect individual stems and are

364

Slavic Languages

recorded only in the northern and in some northwestern dialects (Leningrad, Pskov).11 Far more widespread is the occurrence of the desinential stress in the neuter of such verbs as bylo, pribylo, razobralo, otorvalo, nacalo. Since these forms appear primarily in impersonal constructions (cf. the similar forms of cq. Russian cited above), we may assume that they owe their desinential stress to the corresponding reflexive forms with which they share the same syntactic function. 6. The past tense: the reflexive forms 6.1 The non-fem. reflexive forms of the alternating stressless stems neutralize in the past tense the /3~a alternation of the active forms from which they are derived. The neutralization of the alternation is accomplished by (1) a shift of the stress from the stem to the reflexive suffix -sja,12 (2) by a shift of the stress to the grammatical endings (-#, -o, -i), or by (3) retaining the radical stress of the underlying active forms. CSR combines all three types of neutralization, but it distributes them differently according to the type of stem. The first type is archaic and limited mostly to sonorant stems; e.g. nanjalsja, nacalsja, otpersja; oblilsja, privilsja, nazilsja, vobralsja, izorvalsja; rodilsja (all but the first three are labeled "arch." by Avanesov). Most sonorant and the suppletive stems employ type (2): podnjalsja, kljalsja, upilsja, razvilsja, sbylsja, razdalsja and kljalos', pilds', vilos', vzjalds', zilds'; sbylos', razdalos', and, only colloquially, type (3), whereas the a- stems oscillate between types (2) and (3): dorvalsja, probralsja, otozvalsja;probralos', prodralds', otozvalos';or generalize type (3): dorvalos', prognalos', dovilos', otospalos'. The available Russian dialect studies show large gaps in the description of the reflexive forms. They hardly ever confront the forms of the reflexives with those of the active forms and do not list all forms of the sing, and plur., making it difficult to identify the above mentioned types, which are, as in the literary language, in a state of considerable fluctuation. The first type (with the stress on -sja) seems to prevail in the northeast, although instances of the type are also found in other Russian dialects; e.g. podnjalsja, napilsja, otpersja, obodralsja, pokljalsja, nazralsja (Kirov); napilsja, napilis', dralis', nazralsja, nazvalis'(Tot'ma); dozdalsja, nanjalsja, dralsja, otorvalds', sobralds', lilds', nanjalos' {n. of Rjazan'); ostalsja (Kaluga). Examples of -/- stems with the stressed suffix -sja are scattered in various areas, but they generally involve the idiomatized neuter sing, forms which are used in impersonal constructions; e.g. slucilds' (Irkutsk), slucilos', godilos', ostalos' (Kaluga, Orel), slucilos' (Kursk). In the dialects outside the northeast the prevailing number of

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

365

examples points to types (2) and (3). The existence of the second type is attested by such forms as zalilsja, podnjalsja and zacalos', nanjalis', (Murmansk; Brjansk). The southern dialects (Orel, Kaluga, Kursk) offer mostly examples of type (3): sobralsja, vzjalsja, zaperlis'. A fourth, strictly dialectal type is found sporadically in some prefixed forms which reiterate in the reflexive the initial stress of the active forms; e.g. dobralos', udalos', podnjalis', prospalsja, sobralsja, sobralis'(Gor'kij); nanjalos', but prinjalsja, napilsja (Kalinin); propilis'(Pskov). 7. The past passive participle The ppple is formed by means of the suffixes (1) -on-(from obstruent, -/'- and -e- (< -e-) stems), (2) -n- (from a-, -aj- and (C)-a- stems), and (3) -t(from -nu-, (R)-o- and sonorant stems). The principal feature of the ppple is its tendency to neutralize the accentual distinctions which appear in the other grammatical categories of the verb. Thus the ppple of primary (-a- and sonorant) stems tends to restrict the stress alternation which is characteristic of their past tense forms, while the ppple in -n-/-t- of polysyllabic stems neutralizes the /?/ ay opposition of its underlying forms. A similar tendency affects the ppples in -on- of the -/- and -e- stems. (1) The rule of stress for the ppple in -on- is basically the same as that for the pres. tense: vocalic a\ stems truncate the final vowel before the vowel of the suffix, shifting the stress to the preceding syllable, while stressless (J3) stems keep the stress on the grammatical ending. The suffix -on- is inherently unstressed, except when it attracts the stress automatically from the zero ending in the masc. sing.; e. g., oceplen, zaxvalen, porucen, zastrelen, zadusen vs. rozden, pobelen, ubezden, perekrescen, zaprescen; zaprescennyj, (za-presc-on-£n-#j-#). Vocalic and consonantal a- stems retain the stress on the stem; e.g. postroen, zakoncen, proslavlen; obizen, perelezen, ukraden, zagryzen, s"eden, postrizen. The a stress is also retained in the ppple of those a stems which shift the stress to the ending in the present tense.13 Asyllabic roots retain the stress on the ending as in the pres. tense: otomscen, razozlen, pol'scen, (vo)nzen. The above stated rule has a number of exceptions, all of which point up the tendency to generalize the stress on the stem. Among the consonantal stems we find the stem-stress in the forms najden, projden which reflect, in fact, the original position of the stress, whereas the variants projden, -a, -o and najden, -o/-a (cited by Usakov) are the result of later levellings (with the pres. tense), even though these forms are now perceived as being more archaic. The shift of stress is otherwise found in

366

Slavic Languages

the -e- stems (which admit a ppple) and in a number of -i- stems: prolécen, peresízen, otlézen; odólzen, razdróblen, ukorócen, proslézen, razdvóen, pritorócen, osnézen, pozolócen, navíncen. In some -i- stems the stress is in free variation, and it is generally the variants with the p stress which carry the more abstract meaning or a "learned" stylistic nuance that is connected with their Church Slavic origin; e.g. nagrúzén, zasórén, pritúplén, zarónén, zatjázen, zamánén, zaskóblén; otlucén, nasazén, osvescén, probuzdén, pogloscén, prelomlén, obsuzdén vs. polúcen, posázen, zasvécen; razbüzen, proglócen, zalómlen, rassúzen. The shift of stress to the stem in the ppple of the stressless -i- stems is in a way a repetition of the same historical process to which these stems have been exposed in the present tense. In the ppple this process is, however, far more advanced, and it parallels the accentual development of the pples in -n- and -t-. The tendency to generalize the stress on the penult syllable of the ppple is ultimately due to a process of polarization which enables the ppple (with the shifted stress) to remain distinct from the original ppples (with desinential stress), which have now the function of adjectives (e.g. the forms naúcennyj, sólennyj, posázennyj, ugásennyj, pílennyj, súsennyj, raspolózennyj, zaslúzennyj vs. ucényj, solenyj, posazényj, gasényj, pilényj, susenyj; raspolozénnyj, zaslúzennyj). (2) The ppple in -n- carries the stress on the penultimate syllable of the stem (including the prefix) regardless of the stress of the underlying form; e.g. (/? stems) otstójan, prosméjan, sósan, osnóvan, naplévan; (a^ stems) dérzan, napísan, pricésan, narisóvan; ( a stems) úznan, nápxan. Only the suppletive stem da- and the primary a- stems exhibit some features which resemble the stress pattern of the past tense. Thus the non-fem. forms of dat', péredan, pródan, sózdan, carry, like the past tense (péredal, pródal), the stress on the initial syllable, and the fem. sing, of most a- stems admits an optional, archaic stress on the ending: peredaná, razobraná, zvaná, tkaná; ízdaná, náddaná, dóbraná, nádraná, zágnaná. The desinence stress also occurs in the fem. sing, of the stressed stems poslaná, razostlaná (vs. past t. poslála, razostlála), while dát' and peresdát' carry a desinential stress in all forms of the ppple: dañó, -y; peresdanó, -y. The "long" forms of the ppple follow the rule of the short forms: péredannyj;peresózdannyj, ízbrannyj, nálgannyj, perérvannyj, razótkannyj. The stress of the ppple of the a- stems is thus, in effect, distinct from that of the past tense: in the latter it alternates between the fem. and non-fem. forms, whereas in the former it tends to be bound to the penultimate vowel of the stem. The stress of the ppple is, furthermore, opposed to that of the "long" adjectives which are historically de-

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

367

rived from the ppple and which have preserved the original position of the stress (e. g. nazvannyj, postojannyj; neskazannyj). (3) The ppple in -t- admits three types of stress which depend on the type of underlying stem: (a) a fixed stress on the penult syllable of the stem in the -nu- and -0R0- stems; (b) a fixed stress on the root of the stressed (a) sonorant stems, and (c) an alternating stress in the stressless (P) sonorant stems. Examples of (a): peregnut, propnut, razvernut, raspaxnut, zastegnut; (ai) obmanut, potjanut; zakolot, peremolot. A few monosyllabic -nustems, however, admit an archaic (or regional) final stress: peregnut (the only form cited by Usakov), somknut, pritknut, zamknut. Examples of (b): raspjat, pomjat, nazat, pokryt, zasit, probit. The participles of type (c) share the stress pattern of the past tense: prinjal, zanjal, nacal, prokljal; pocal, perezil, otzil; unjal, raznjal and prinjat, zanjat, nacat, prokljat; pocat, perezit; otzit; unjat, raznjat. Minor discrepancies concern the admissibility of accentual variants: otnjal, obnjal, perenjal, prinanjal, obvil, but otnjat, dbnjat, perenjat, prinanjat, obvit; dobyl, prolil, nalil, dozil, but dobyt, prolit, nalit, dozit. The major difference between the past t. and the ppple lies, however, in the fact that the latter tends to stabilize the stress on the stem. This tendency affects in the first place the forms which in the non-fem. carry a radical stress (ispita, otpita; dolita, perezita, perevita), and in colloquial speech also the forms which carry a prefixal stress (podnjata, prinjata, zanjata, nacata, zaperta, prokljata; cf. the expression "bud' ty prokljata"). A few ppples admit variants with an a or /? stress: otzito, izzito, privito, perevito. The long forms of all three types repeat the stress pattern of their underlying short forms. It is only type (c), where the long forms admit in addition a variant desinential stress, which is now generally treated as an archaism.14 The prefixal or radical stress of the ppple is also in opposition here to those adjectives or nouns which stem from historical participles (zanjatoj, ponjatoj, nalitoj, vitoj, litoj, razvitoj, spitoj; perezitoe). The paucity of dialectal evidence bearing on the accentuation of the ppple will allow us to make only the most general observations. The ppple of dat'in the dialects is often daden. The stem-stress is obviously based on the analogy with such forms as kraden, kladen. By contrast, the forms ujdeno, prideno reflect the original stress. The stress of the p stems in some -on- ppples is shifted from the desinence to the suffix, no doubt under the influence of the "long" ppple forms: prostrizenos', zakorenenos', razojdenos' (Kirov), otojdeno (Jaroslavl'), pletena

368

Slavic Languages

(Gor'kij), privedena, prinesena, iskljuceny (Kirov). This phenomenon seems to occur everywhere (similar examples are recorded in Rjazan', Krasnojar, Pskov). The tendency to shift the desinential stress to the stem is found in many dialects in which the p stress prevails; e.g. prinesena, privezena, besides dovedena, obnesen (Kalinin). In at least one southern dialect (Kaluga) the stem stress prevails in the consonantal stems: raspletena, berezena, snesena, ispecen, but also specen [sp'acon], istolcen. The stress alternation between the fem. and non-fem. forms in the -n-/-t- ppples of primary stems is well preserved in the northern and central dialects; e. g. porvat, otodrat, ubrat, prignat, nacato, prokljato/nagnata, porvata, ubrana, sobrana (Kirov; Kalinin, Gor'kij, Tomsk, Moscow). The southern dialects lose the alternation by fixing the stress on the prefix or, more often, on the root. The fixation of the stress is frequently concomitant with the replacement of the suffix -n- by -t- in the primary stems, e.g. prognat, otodrat, sotkat, ubrata, zagnata. Even in central and northern dialects it is common to find the alternating or initial stress in the forms with -n- and the radical stress in the forms with -t-; e.g. ubran, ubrana, but ubrata, nagnata (Parfenki), zabrana/zabrata (Kirov), perervany/porvata (Irkutsk), nazvannaja, otdannaja/nazvataja, otdataja (Stavropol'). The fixed radical stress is found in many other stems with the suffix -t-; zaperto, prizyto (Kaluga), zaperta, otperta (Kursk) smolota, kolotyj (Penza, Orel), smolotyj, iskolotyj (Leka), slomatyj, pomjatyj, zavjazatyj, spaxata, iskopat (Parfenki, Smolensk, Orel, W.Penza); sognutyj(Moldavia). A final radical stress is also common in the ppple of secondary stems with the suffix -n-; e.g. motanaja, napisana, podkovan, nazvanaja, sloman, nametana, molona. Examples with this stress are common in the south and in the southwest (in Kaluga, Orel, Tula, Brjansk, but also in Rjazan', Penza, Irkutsk). 8. The infinitive The infinitive renders the opposition between stressed and stressless stems only in obstruent stems which preserve a consonant before the infinitive ending; e.g. krast', prjast', sest', lezt'vs. gresti, vesti, nesti, ttjasti. A comparison of the CSR forms meret', nacat', kljast' with the S-Cr. mretH, pocetH, kletH and of the forms berec', sterec', pec', /¿¿'with the older and dialectal Russian bereci, stereci, peci, leci shows that CSR has eliminated the stress from the inf. ending in all stems which terminate in a vowel in the inf. {kljast'is an innovation from the older and dial, kljat' (kl'#n-)). CSR, in fact, occupies an intermediary position between the northern Russian dialects, which have preserved the desinence stress in

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

369

the infinitive of all obstruent f) stems, and the southern Russian dialects, which have fixed the stress on the stem. This compromise solution was established in Russian in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the custom of admitting variant forms (berec'/bereci and nest'/nesti) gave way to a unified accentual norm. The innovative tendency to fix the stress on the infinitive stem runs geographically from the north to the south. The northern Russian dialects retain the desinence stress in the infinitive of all stressless obstruent stems; they also preserve traces of the unaccented inf. ending -ti, e.g. trjasti, vesti; leci, bereci, zecivs. est'(i), sest'(i), klast'(i), upast'(i). The shift of the p stress to the stem occurs here only in isolated verbs. The forms lec, pec', berec'; prines'(t'), prives'(t'), prjas'(t'), ples'(t') occur with greater frequency in the southern and southwestern parts of the northern dialects (Gor'kij, Vladimir, Kostroma, Jaroslavl'). The desinential stress is in these dialects more consistently preserved in the obstruent stems which end in a velar, since the velar (which is regularly dropped before the ending -c) is frequently restored here (as a A: or c) before the infinitive ending, lending support to the desinential stress; e.g.pekci, sekci, strikci, volokci;pecci, lecci, berecci, volocci; sterecti, tecti. Infinitive forms with a thematic and desinential stress appear more or less equally in the central dialects, with the latter being in retreat south of Moscow, and disappearing completely as one moves further to the south (in Voronez, Rjazan', Pskov, Tula, Rostov). 9. The imperative The imperative endings -/and -# (which are followed in the plural by the particle -te) differ in their distribution according to the stress and phonemic structure of their underlying stems. The stressed ending -i occurs with stressless and finally stressed stems (including such stems as klad-, pad- and the asyllabic stems which end in a cluster). The endings or -i occur with non-finally stressed stems (a) and with stressless stems which exhibit in the imperative a final j; e.g. idi, beri, nesi, kladi, verni, molci, govori; steli, nosi,pisi, tjani;zni, raspnivs. sjdd',pldc', iron', delaj, citaj;pej, pdj, daj, kuj, smejsja; krikni, cisti. This overall distribution of the imperative endings is characteristic of Russian as a whole, even though the colloquial language and the Russian dialects often admit the replacement of the ending -i by zero. That this replacement is, however, a stylistic and lexical phenomenon and not the result of an accentual development (as generally assumed in the linguistic literature) is shown by the fact that the zero appears in the colloquial language with a small number of verbs which convey in the imperative a marked, expressive nuance (e.g. pojdior podivs. pod'; tasci

370

Slavic Languages

vs. tasc';polozivs. poloz'). The use of the zero is not associated with any particular dialectal area, and it is limited mostly to polysyllabic stems (e.g. posol' but soli; napojbxA poi;poloz,

stanovr). The immunity of the

imperative to accentual change is, finally, shown by the fact that the Russian dialects which level the thematic stress in the 1st pers. sing, retain intact the stressed ending -i of the imperative.15. 10. In conclusion we may survey the basic innovations which have produced the accentual pattern of the modern Russian verb and confront them with similar developments in other Slavic languages. These innovations fall into two major types: (a) innovations which have affected Russian as a whole and which set it apart from some other Slavic languages and from Old Russian (in its attested or reconstructed form) and (b) innovations which distinguish the northern from the southern dialects, and each of them from CSR. The first type of innovation includes the following: (1) the pres. tense has eliminated the stress from the prefix (actually from the thematic zero) of asyllabic roots. The prefixal stress is preserved sporadically in the Russian dialects; it is regularly preserved in Ukr. and in S-Cr. (2) the inf. has shifted the stress to the stem in the primary vocalic and sonorant stems. The original /? stress is attested in S-Cr. (3) the ppples in -(a)n and -t have shifted the stress from the final to the penult syllable in polysyllabic stems and tend to generalize this stress also in the primary stems. Traces of the original stress are found in the Russian dialects. Similar innovations have taken place in the other Slavic languages, except in Bulgarian (cf. the forms mectan, izigran)', in S-Cr. and Slov. the position of the stress has been redefined with relation to quantitative distinctions. The second type of innovation involves more verbal categories and splits the Russian linguistic territory into two major areas, with CSR sharing the features of both. (1) the present tense has shifted the /? stress from the last to the initial syllable of the ending. The old and innovative types of stress are both represented in all Slavic languages. (2) certain categories of the stressless stems have switched to the class of finally stressed (a j) stems. This development is shared by several Slavic languages, in particular by Ukr. and S-Cr., where it is more advanced or more clearly defined. (3) The 1st pers. sing, of the present tense of finally stressed stems (a;) tends to fix the stress on the stem by analogy with the other forms of

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

371

the pres. t. This development is pervasive in South Slavic and in the western dialects of Ukr. and BR. (4) the past tense has lost the stress alternation in the stressless polysyllabic stems and, in the south, in the monosyllabic and asyllabic stems as well. This alternation has also been lost in Ukr., BR. and Bulgarian. (5) the reflexive past tense of the stressless stems shows a tendency to adopt the thematic stress of the active forms. The stem stress is also the rule in Ukr. and BR. (6) the inf. tends to fix the stress on the stem. The same tendency is typical of western Ukrainian and of a number of S-Cr. dialects. As the above list demonstrates, none of the accentual innovations is unique to Russian alone, but it is the range and the combination of the various innovations which has yielded the accentual pattern of the modern Russian verb, and particularly of the CSR system. The overall result of these innovations has been a simplification of the original accentual alternations of the verb, a simplification which is, as it were, compensated by the more complex alternations in the Russian noun. Originally published in Studies ... 185-205.

372

Slavic Languages

Footnotes

1 I ignore here, of course, the studies on Russian historical accentology which used the dialects as illustrative material of particular problems. 2 The recent work on the Russian dialects by Bromlej and Bulatova (1972) is a case in point. Although this book strives at a synthesis of all the morphological phenomena of the Russian dialects and provides valuable new descriptions of some northern and southern dialects, the accentual types and alternations of the verb are often presented in an atomistic and confused way, while some types of alternation are completely ignored. The piecemeal presentation is only in part due to the unwieldy classification of the verbal stems. The "accentual tendencies" of the Russian verb are specifically discussed by Pirogova (1959), whose study includes a great deal of precious material drawn from the archives of the Russian Dialect Atlas. The author's sweeping conclusion on the overall tendency of the Russian dialects to remove the stress from the ending to the stem (120, esp. ftn.23) is patently false. 3 The "oxytonic" accent of the verb does not match historically the oxytonic accent of the noun, since it characterizes some basic stems of the verb, whereas in the noun such an accent is generally a marker of derived stems. 4 In this paper I shall use the following notation : morphophonemically transcribed forms are italicized and followed by a hyphen; a zero ending and a radical zero which is vocalized in the pres. t. or inf. is marked as # ; a radical zero which is not vocalized in these forms is marked as 4=. The Russian dialectal examples are, except for the place of stress, cited in the corresponding CSR forms or according to the literary system of transliteration; the actual phonetic realizations of the dialect forms are cited in square brackets. 5 I ignore here the asyllabic roots of the -i- and -nu- class which do not undergo accentual alternations. 6 In the following exposition I shall ignore the accentuation of the present pples and of the gerund. 7 See "The Asyllabic Verbal Stems in Slavic and Their Accentuation", p. 302 ff. of this volume. 8 The occurrence of the final vowels o/e in the pres. t. desinence depends on the phonetic development of a given dialect, whereas the "thematic" vowel i may occur not only as a result of "ikanie", but also as the result of analogy with the other -i- stems; cf. Bromlej and Bulatova (1972), 249. 9 Avanesov and Orlova (1965), 160. 10 See also the remarks by Bromlej and Bulatova (1972), 248, ftn.71. 11 The grammatical levelling in the fem. sing, is not to be confused with the generalization of the initial stress, which is due to linguistic interference (as in Zaonez'e, Carelia). 12 The suffix -sja exhibits the terminal stress only in the masc. sing. The neuter and plural forms with the variant suffix -s' shift the stress automatically to

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

373

the preceding endings -(l)-o, -i; the fem. sing, retains the P stress on the ending -a. 13 The only exception is prjast', prjadu; doprjaden which also admits a variant ft stress in the past tense. 14 Usakov designates some of the forms with a desinential stress as "archaic" or "cq." (pocatoj, roznjatoj, ponjatdj, otpertoj, prokljatdj, raspitdj, perevitoj, prozitoj, prolitoj), but treats as literary some of the forms which Avanesov does not list at all or treats as archaic (vitoj, litdj, raspitdj, otpertoj; obvitoj, prizitoj, prokljatoj, razvitdj). 15 This is not the case in the dialect of Pustosi (Moscow) where the stress is generalized on the thematic vowel not only in the pres. tense, but also in the imperative (e.g. upadi, pokladi, lovi, pogodi, skaci, zaplati). But a shift of stress from the ending to the stem is also found here in other forms of the conjugation; cf. xodil, zaplatil, derzal. An initial stress in the imper. also occurs in the Russian dialects of Carelia, cf. ftn. 11.

374

Slavic Languages

References

Ageeva, Z.S., Osobennosti v formax glagolov v akajusöix govorax Krasnoufimskogo rajona Sverdlovskoj oblasti, UcenZapSverdlPI, 16,1958,189-200. Ardentov, B.P., K izuöeniju zaonezskogo dialekta, UcenZapKisinevU, 15,1955, 73-89. Avanesov, R.I., Oöerki dialektologii Rjazanskoj mesöery. 1. Opisanie odnogo govora po teéeniju reki Pry, MIRD1,1949,135-236. -, and Orlova, V.G. (eds.), Russkaja dialektologija, Moscow, 1965. -, and Ozegov, S. I., Russkoe literaturnoeproiznosenie i udarenie, Moscow, 1960. -, and Sidorov, V.N., Govoty verxnego Povetluz'ja. Fonetika i dialekticeskie gruppy, Niznij-Novgorod, 1931 ( = TrudyNizAntropEks, 1, Supplement). Baxilina, N. B., Mesöerskie govory na territorii Penzenskoj oblasti, TrudyIJa, 7, 1957,220-90. Brök, O., Opisanie odnogo govora iz jugozapadnoj casti Totemskogo uezda (= SborORJaS, 83,4), 1907. -, Govory k zapadu ot Mosal'ka, Petrograd, 1916. Bromlej, S. V. and Bulatova, L. N., Ocerki motfologii russkix govorov, Moscow, 1972. Bubrix, D.V., Fonetióeskie osobennosti govora s. Pustosej, IORJaS, 18, 4, 1913. Buznik, L.F., Nabljudenija nad govorami russkix sel Lipeckogo rajona Xar'kovskoj oblasti, NaukZapXarkU, 99, Trudy filol.fak, 6,1958,179-90. Cagiseva, V. I., O Bijanskix govorax (Po materialam ékspedicij LGPI im. Gercena 1951-1953 gg.), UcenZapLGPI, 130,1957,175-212. Cernysev, V. I., Svedenija o govorax Jur'evskogo, Suzdal'skogo i Vladimirskogo uezdov, SborORJAS, 71, 5,1901,1-39. -, Materialy dlja izuöenija govorov i byta Meséovskogo uezda, SborORJaS, 70, 7,1902,16+ 216 pp. -, Svedenija o nekotoryx govorax Tverskogo, Klinskogo i Moskovskogo uezdov, (= SborORJaS, 75, 2), 1903. -, Govory juznoj öasti b. Nizegorodskoj gub. (Nizegorodskogo ili Gor'kovskogo kraja), LudStow, 3,1933, A 56-90. Durnovo, N.N., Opisanie govora derevni Patfénok, Ruzskogo uezda, Moskovskoj gub., Warsaw, 1903 ( = RFV, 44-50; verb 49 (1902), 297-321). Eremin, S. A., Opisanie Ulomskogo i Vaucskogo govorov Cerepoveckogo uezda Novgorodskoj gubernii (= SborORJaS, 99,1923, 5), 1922. Grandilevskij, A., Rodina Mixaila Vasil'eviöa Lomonosova, Oblastnoj krest'janskij govor, SborORJaS, 83, 5,1907. Grot, Ja.K., Filologiceskie razyskanija, St. Petersburg, 18994. Karaulov, M.A., Materialy dlja étnografii Terskoj oblasti. Govor grebenskix kazakov, SborORJaS, 71, 7,1902,1-112. Karinskij, N. M., O nekotoryx govorax po teóeniju rek Lugi i Oredeza, RFV, 40, 1898,92-124.

The Accentuation of the Russian Verb

375

Komsilova, A., Itogi dialektologiceskix èkspedicij Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogiceskogo instituta v 1957 i 1958 godax, UcenZapMosGPI, 134, 9,1959, 249-68. Koporskij, S.A., Arxaióeskie govory Ostaskovskogo rajona Kalininskoj oblasti, UcenZapKalinGPI 10, 3,1945 (1946), 3-163. Kotkov, S. I., Govory Orlovskoj oblasti. (Fonetika i morfologija), AKD, Orel, 1952, (IJaz AN SSR). Listrova, Ju.T., O juznovelikorusskix govorax na territorii Moldavii, MatSovesc, Voronez, 1959, 51-53. Mansikka, V. P., O govore Senkurskogo uezda Arxangel'skoj gubernii, IORJaS, 17, 2,1912, 86-144. Merkur'ev, I.S., Ob osobennostjax udarenija v Murmanskom govore, UcenZapLGPI, 248,1963, 325-29. Mixeeva, M.S., Russkij starozil'óeskij govor sela Serëgova Zeleznodoroznogo rajona Komi ASSR, AKD, Moscow, 1960. Nikol'skij, A., Narodnye govory ¿izdrinskogo uezda Kaluzskoj gubernii, RFV, 49,1-2,1903,322-35. Orlova, V.G., O govore sela Permas Nikol'skogo rajona Vologodskoj oblasti, MIRD, 1,1949,45-70. Paskovskij, A. M., O morfologiôeskix èertax russkix govorov zapadnyx rajonov Sverdlovskoj oblasti, UcenZapKazan'U, 119, 5,1959 (1961), 280-93. Pirogova, L. I., O glagole v govore Xolmogorskogo rajona Arxangel'skoj oblasti, UcenZapMosGPI, 134, 9,1959,227-49. -, O nekotoryx tendencijax v razvitii tipov glagol'nogo udarenija, Vestnik MGU, 3,1959,113-39. Rezanova, E. I., Nabljudenija nad govorom krest'jan dereven' Maslovki i Xitrovki Sudzanskogo uezda Kurskoj gub., IORJaS, 17,1,1912,215-63. Samojlova, I.D., Sistema glagol'nyx form v govore gorodeckogo rajona Gor'kovskoj oblasti, UcenZapMosGPI, 34,9,1959,141-77. Skitova, F. L., Verxneviserskie govory Permskoj oblasti na sovremennom étape razvitija, AKD, Leningrad (LGU), 1961. Smirnov, I. T., Kasinskij govor, SborORJaS, 77,9,1904,20 + 192 pp. Sobinnikova, V. I., Govor sela Petina Gremjacenskogo rajona Voronezskoj oblasti, Trudy VoronezU, 25,1954, 72-100. Stankiewicz, E. (éd.), A Structural Description of the Russian Dialects. 1. The Prosodie Features 93-99, The University of Chicago, 1971. Saxmatov, A. A., Opisanie Lekinskogo govora Egor'evskogo uezda Rjazanskoj gubernii, IORJaS, 18,4,1913,173-220. -, Zelenin, D.K., Karinskij, N., and Durnovo, N.N. (eds.), Materialy dlja izucenija velikorusskix govorov, 5. IORJaS 3,1, supplement, 1-129; XI. SborORJaS, 99, 3,1898,1922,1-133. Titovskaja, V. V., Formy glagolov v govorax jugozapadnoj casti Voronezskoj oblasti, AKD, Voronez, 1955. Tos'jan, S. B., Formy glagola v russkix govorax Armjanskoj SSR, SborArmZPI, 6, 2,1960,205-22. Usakov, D.N. (ed.), Tolkovyjslovar'russkogojazyka, Moscow, 1935-39. Vasjukova, G. P., Formy nastojasèego vremeni glagolov v sovremennyx juznorusskix govorax, AKD, Moscow (MosGPI), 1956.

376

Slavic Languages

Vinogradov, G.S. and Cernyx, P.Ja., Russkie govory central'noj casti TUlunskogo uezda Irkutskoj gubernii, Irkutsk, 1924. Vinogradov, N. N., O narodnom govore Sungenskoj volosti Kostromskogo uezda, 1. Fonetika, SborORJaS, 77,8,1904,2+ 100 pp. Zovtobrjux, M.A., MorfologiCeskie osobennosti zaural'skix govorov russkogo jazyka, NZapCerkasPI, 12 ( = Serija ist.-filol. naukA), 1958,113-57.

The Accentuation of the -I- Participle in Serbo-Croatian

The accentuation of the Serbo-Croatian past perfect or -/- participle (henceforth called the -/- pple) presents a peculiar and historically puzzling phenomenon: the position of the stress differs here not only from that of all other Slavic languages, but also among the various S-Cr. dialects and among the various types of verbal stems. The accentual peculiarity of the -/- pple concerns primarily the diand polysyllabic stems with the infinitive ending in lati, such as kov^ati, kupoVati; bez'ati, stofati; cit]ati, racun ati, and it is the accentuation of these stems (henceforth referred to as 'a- stems) which will be at the center of this paper.1 The underlying stems of the cited verbs fall into three distinct classes: (1) stems in ova-/-ov-a- with the ov~u alternation and the present tense suffix -je- (2 pers. sg. k ujes, kup ujes) (2) stems in (C-)a (historically -e-) with the present tense suffix -i- (bo/is, bez'is), and (3) stems in -aj- with the present tense suffix -e-. The underlying sequence -aje- is in the latter stems contracted into -a- in all persons of the present tense, except the 3rd person plural (ciMs, racun]as, but 3rd pers. pi. ciiaju, racun'aju).2 The accentuation of the 'a- stems varies within the literary language itself: in some of them the stress shifts in the -/- pple to the initial syllable (aO, while in others it remains on the final thematic vowel; e.g. (masc.) l orao, k ovao, kupovao, blezao, dlrzao, 'oruzao; (fem.) 1orala, kovala, klupovala, b ezala, ctrzala, loruzala vs. (masc.) isk'ao, venc{ao, cit ao, blebet'ao;(fem.) isk}ala, venc'ala, cit ala, blebeiala. The position of the stress is in the literary language determined not only by the lexico-morphological structure of a given stem, but also by the number of its syllables. Thus the disyllabic forms of the stems isk'ati, lagati, ciiati retain the stress on the final thematic syllable: iskao, lagao, citao, whereas their prefixed, polysyllabic forms shift the stress to the initial syllable: poiskao, rfalagao, piocitao. The contemporary literary language, with its tolerance for regional variants, admits, furthermore, an initial stress in such forms as c'esao, cfrhtao, btebetao, ¡>aputao, tr'epetao, which in the Vuk and Danicic system carry the stress on the final vowel.

378

Slavic Languages

The picture becomes even more complex when we turn from the literary language to the S-Cr. dialects, for here we find forms whose accent seems to be in direct contradiction with that of the literary language. In the dialect of Ozrinici, for example, the stress is retracted to the initial syllable in the -/- pple of some disyllabic stems, but it remains on the final syllable in their polysyllablic (prefixed) derivatives; e.g. drza, b]oja, bfeza, stoja (with a from ao) vs. zadr^a, pobofa, dobje^a, postoj'a. The typology of the Serbo-Croatian -/- pple stress is largely unexplored, and its position within the Slavic systems of accentuation incompletely understood. Attempts to deal with these questions have not been lacking, and they have been made both from the vantage point of comparative Slavic and S-Cr. accentology. N. van Wijk treated the accent of the -/- pple in conjunction with that of the aorist, for he believed that the initial stress of the former was influenced by the initial stress of the latter which, according to him, prevailed in all verbal stems already in Common Slavic.3 Van Wijk is noncommittal as to which stems carried an original initial stress in the -/- pple, and he offers no explanation for the analogical expansion of the stress in the -I- pple, or for its difference from the aorist. "C'est la," he writes, "une question difficile, mais qu'il n'y a pas lieu de resoudre ici."4 The origin of the -I- pple stress presented Ch. Stang with no less perplexity. The chapter of his book devoted to the stress of the Slavic -/pple opens with the characteristic statement that "this is a complicated chapter, as the stress of the -I- participle is linked up partly with the infinitive, partly with the present and partly with the aorist."5 He concedes that "the verbs in -ati had originally the same stress in the -I- participle as the verbs in -iti," and he is inclined to ascribe the initial stress in the verbs in -ovati (cak. kiipoval, stok. kupovao) to the initial stress of the aorist (kiipova) which he projects, like v. Wijk, into Common Slavic. The diverse treatment of the -/- pple stress in the modern S-Cr. dialects is not discussed. A somewhat deeper analysis of the -/- pple stress is offered by A. Vaillant in the third volume of his Comparative Grammar.6 Vaillant points out the resemblance of the initial -/- pple stress to that of the past passive participle (in such forms as glodao, izglodao and glodan, izglodah), and argues - convincingly - that the initial stress is in most 'a- stems a stokavian innovation. However, the existence of the cakavian past passive participle forms raskopan, zadrzan leads him to question the existence of a correlation between the stress of the active and passive forms of the

Accentuation of the -I- Participle in Serbo-Croatian

379

past participle, while the presence of an initial stress in some ¿akavian aorist and -/- pple forms (e.g. Susak z{akopa; Novi zlakopal) prompts him to conclude that the stress of both forms goes back to Common Slavic. The view that the -I- pple stress in *kopal, *okopal was of Common Slavic origin was, it seems, formulated for the first time by A. Belie, and has become something of an axiom in Serbo-Croatian linguistics.7 The occurrence of a final thematic accent in such forms as kop^ao, citao is thus generally interpreted in S-Cr. accentual and dialect studies as the result of levelling with the stress of the infinitive, whereas the initial stress in other -/- pple forms is usually treated as an accentual archaism.8 Such a position is also taken by M. Stevanovic in a study devoted especially to the stress of the -/- pple.9 According to Stevanovic, the initial stress is of Common Slavic provenance not only in the aorist and in the -/- pple of the a- stems, but even in that of the masc. sing, of consonantal stems (in p^ekao, tr esao), although the existence of such a stress is not confirmed by the prefixed forms of these stems (zap]ekao, potr'esao), nor attested in any of the Slavic languages (except in Slovincian, where it is clearly of internal origin). In spite of its questionable historical reconstructions, Stevanovic's study has the merit of having pointed out some of the major differences between the accentuation of the aorist and of the -/- pple. In view of the persistent historical connection which has been made between the stress of these forms, we may pause for a while to consider the matter more closely. In the literary language the initial stress of the -/- pple coincides with the initial stress of the 2nd and 3rd person singular in di- and polysyllabic (prefixed) sonorant stems and in some a- stems with a radical short vowel; e. g. (-/- pple) pr'okleo, p'ozvao; }orao, bezao, k'upovao, and (aor.) prokle, plozva; ora, b[eza, kupova. Some disyllabic 'a- stems retain the stress on the final thematic vowel in the -/- pple (cit]ao, iskao) but not in the aorist (