Presentation on theme: "Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological Contact Andrew Dombrowski."— Presentation transcript:
Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological Contact Andrew Dombrowski
Introduction Slavic + Geg Albanian both have vowel- zero alternations in inflection, due to independent processes of syncope. Some Geg dialects in contact with Slavic extend vowel-zero alternations to include nouns ending in –ull, -ur, -urr. In some instances, the alternating vowel in Geg is shifted to match corresponding Slavic jer reflex.
Introduction Goals of this paper: –argue that the extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg is due to Slavic influence –demonstrate that this cannot be accounted for in terms of direct Slavic > Albanian grammatical transfer –explore ramifications of this for modeling phonological contact
Introduction Outline: –Vowel-zero alternations in Geg –Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic –Extension of alternations in Geg –Analysis –Repercussions
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg /ə/ > Ø except when conflicts with phonotactics –note: schwa is always unstressed Can be accounted for phonologically Sample and sketch account taken from Luznia e Dibrës, a central Geg dialect near Debar along Albania-Macedonia border
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg Schwa deleted in Luznia e Dibrës See handout; key examples below Luznia e Dibrës OriginalGloss prrallzpërrallësfairy tale- gen.sg.def. kpuckëpucëshoe- nom.sg.indef. shnre*shëndreDecember- nom.sg.indef.
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg Schwa preservation in Luznia e Dibrës See handout; key examples below Luznia e DibrësOriginalGloss e kërmashme red and white (of sheep)- fem.sg.indef. përjashta outdoors i vokëli vogël small-masc.indef. pullën button-acc.def.
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg Descriptive generalizations –Complex onsets are tolerated except for CRCV syllables; CNCV is permitted. –Rising sonority codas are not permitted. –Codas of two sonorants are not permitted. Sketch OT account –Constraints: Sonority, OCP-son, *CrC, *ə –See handout for details
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg Sketch OT account is not complete –Luznia e Dibrës dialect description does not have a complete lexicon; above account is consistent with the lexicon given. Vowel-zero alternations in Luznia e Dibrës can be captured straightforwardly in an OT model. –With the exception of morphemes like për, the OT model is agnostic as to whether schwa is present in the UR.
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic Slavic vowel-zero alternations are older and much more complicated than Geg. See handout for outline of standard Macedonian vowel-zero alternations. Fairly representative of Slavic dialects with which Geg is in contact. Much lexical variation.
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic Key examples from standard Macedonian: Adjectives in –en: –gladen ‘hungry’ ~ gladniot ~ gladna –zelen ‘green’ ~ zeleniot ~ zelena Nouns in -ok: –dobitok ‘livestock’ ~ dobici –početok ‘start’ ~ početoci Nouns in –ol: –jazol ‘knot’ ~ jazli –sokol ‘falcon’ ~ sokoli / sokli
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic Analysis of Geg does not extend. Several possible approaches (cf. study of vowel- zero alternations in Russian): –Abstract jer vowels with rules for deletion (Lightner 1965, Rubach 1986); requires lexical specifcation –Government Phonology ‘translation’ of this (Scheer 2005) –Treat as synchronic vowel insertion with morphological conditioning of resulting alternations (Darden 1989) –Treat jer vowels as morphological constituents (Chew 2000)
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic Cannot be treated in terms of ‘pure’ phonology Reference must be made to the lexicon –Classical generative approach involves lexical specification (/dobit+ъk-ъ/ vs. /počet+ok-ъ/; /jazъl-ъ/ vs. /sokol-ъ/) –Alternative approaches involve morphological specification
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg Extension to nouns ending in (idiosyncratically) unstressed –ull, -ur, -urr Patterns of behavior: (1) Preservation without alternation (2) /u/ > /ə/; introduction of alternation in paradigms (3) Preservation of /u/, introduction of alternation in paradigms
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg (1) - /u/ preserved, no alternations –Plava and Gucia in Montenegro, Kastrati, Hoti, Kelmendi, Peshteri in the Sandžak region of southern Serbia, and Reç-e-Dardhës e Dibrës near Debar. –Data from Kastrati dialect Nom.sg.indef.Nom.sg.def. vetull ‘eyebrow’vetulla kumull ‘plum’kumulla hekur ‘iron’hekuri
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg (2) - /u/ > /ə/; introduction of alternation in paradigms –Hasi, Qyteza e Kaçanikut, Shala e Bajgorës, Gjakova, Tuhini i Kërçovës, Morava e Epërme, Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës. –Data from Hasi dialect Nom.sg.indef.Nom.pl.def. vetëll ‘eyebrow’vetlla kumëll ‘plum’kumlla hekër ‘iron’Hekra
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg (3) - /u/ preserved, introduction of alternation in paradigms –Mirdita, in Gryka e Madhe e Dibrës, Ana e Malit, the Debar city dialect, Luznia e Dibrës, Karadak, and Puka –Data from Puka dialect Nom.sg.indef.Nom.sg.def. vetull ‘eyebrow’vetlla kumull ‘plum’kumlla hekur ‘iron’hekri
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg Fourth pattern: in Opoja, /u/ > /o/ in these nouns, mirroring jer reflexes in neighboring Gora. Nom.sg.indef.Nom.pl.def. vetoll ‘eyebrow’vetlla kumoll ‘plum’kumlla grumoll ‘pile’grumlla
Opoja Changes in adjectival declension compared to other Geg dialects: –(1) /o/ corresponding to /u/ Possible intermediate stage: /u/ > /ə/ > /o/, but this implies intermediate forms like *i terën, which are not attested –(2) generalization of feminine ending –e Result: similar to template in Macedonian
Opoja Adjectival declension in Opoja compared to Macedonian Masc.(Indef). Sg. Fem.(Indef). Sg. OpojaMacedonianOpojaMacedonian Class Ai vesh-om ‘clothed’ slad-ok ‘sweet’ e vesh-me ‘clothed’ slat-ka ‘sweet’ i kadal-sh-om ‘slow’ mrt-ov ‘dead’ e kadal-sh-me ‘slow’ mrt-va ‘dead’ Class Bi ble-m ‘bought’ rod-en ‘born’ e ble-m-e ‘bought’ rod-en-a ‘born’ i shti-m ‘added’ zelen ‘green’ e shti-m-e ‘added’ zelen-a ‘green’
Analysis Degree of isomorphism between Opoja and neighboring Slavic strongly suggests contact-driven explanation On u > ə dialects: All in Kosovo or vicinity (Hasi is between Kukës and Kosovo; Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës is in vicinity of Kukës, but economic ties have historically been with Kosovo) This correlates strongly with Slavic dialects where ъ, ь > ə, suggesting that this pattern is structurally very similar to Opoja
Analysis On dialects with preserved /u/ and innovated alternations: –Geographical position: on periphery of /u/ > /ə/ zones, ranging from Montenegro in the NW (Ana e Malit) to Debar in the south to Karadaku in the E. –Suggests that this is not under Slavic influence, but instead is diffusion within Albanian
Analysis Stages: –(1) Albanian dialects in and around southern Kosovo shift /u/ in endings –ull, -ur, -urr to ə under influence from neighboring Prizren- Timok dialects of Serbian where jers > ə. –(2) Opoja developments (can be seen as subset of stage (1) with subsequent shift due to neighboring Gora, except for participles). –(3) Spread of vowel-zero alternations to neighboring dialects without /u/ > /ə/ shift
Analysis Things to account for… –(1) equation of (one) Slavic alternating vowel with Albanian alternating vowel. Opoja is clearest example of this as an overt change, but is arguably implicit in u > ə dialects. –(2) extension of alternations to nouns ending in –ull, -ur, -urr. –(3) subsequent spread of alternations in neighboring Albanian dialects without u > ə shift
Analysis Can (1) and (2) be analyzed as direct borrowing of Slavic grammar by Albanian? –(1): probably not. If Slavic alternating vowels are underlying, specification of quality is nowhere in the grammar. –(2): also probably not. Slavic vowel-zero alternations involve lexical specification, and the relevant lexemes + morphemes are not borrowed.
Analysis Suggestion: –Some reorganization seems to be happening at an intermediate interface stage between the two languages An interlanguage? Similar on first glance, but an interlanguage analysis might make overly strong claims re: sociolinguistic particulars. Also, this would only account for reanalysis of Slavic, not its impact in Albanian. –Interface-based approach might be an interesting prism to look at questions structural compatibility in borrowing.
Analysis Sample implementation 1: the Opoja shift (ə > o) stage A: [+Slavic], [+Albanian] change: [+Slavic] [+Albanian] stage B: [+Slavic, +Albanian] Elements in stage A reflect generalizations made by speakers of Albanian, and elements in [brackets] are metadata. Key point: a generalization [+Slavic] does not have to actually be completely true of Slavic; it should be deducible from the Slavic evidence but can be a reanalysis.
Analysis Sample implementation 2: spread of alternations without u > ə between dialects D1 and D2 –possibility (a): reanalysis of D1 stage A: [+D1] [+D2] change: [+D2] [+D1] stage B: [+D1, +D2] –In this analysis, D1 speakers reanalyze D2 such that the only salient feature of D2 is the presence of alternations in the marked nouns.
Analysis Sample implementation 2: spread of alternations without u > ə between dialects D1 and D2 –possibility (b): partial implementation stage A: [+D1] [+D2] ə]>[+D2] change: [+D2] [+D1] stage B: [+D1, +D2] ə]>[+D2] –D1 only partially reassign tags from D2
Analysis The distinction made in sample implementation 2 between reanalysis and partial implementation of shift might be useful in other instances. How to characterize the mechanism of tag reassignment, and what constraints might be involved? Can the concept of grammatical interface be productively applied to other situations?