1. The Balto-Slavic Languages: History and Typology
J.T.E. Elms
California State University, Northridge
November 2007
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

2. © 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.
Balto-Slavic Origins
Balto-Slavic is a branch of the Indo-European language family.
Proposed family tree for Indo-European languages above is based on average rates of change for different word classes in the lexicon. The timeline at the bottom of the figure shows years before present.
Summary:
8500 BP – PIE splits into a Hittite-related group & Proto-Everything-Else (PEE).
7900 BP – Tocharian-related languages split off from the rest of PEE.
7300 BP – Proto-Greco-Armenian splits off from the rest of PEE.
7000 BP – Proto-Armenian splits away from Proto-Greek.
6900 BP – The PEE residue splits into southern & northern branches.
6500 BP – Southern PEE splits into Albanian and Indo-Iranian branches.
6500 BP – Proto-Balto-Slavic splits from northern PEE.
6100 BP – Celtic splits from Proto-Italo-Germanic.
5500 BP – Proto-Italic and Proto-Germanic split into separate groups.
3400 BP – Proto-Baltic splits from Proto-Slavic.
1300 BP – Proto-Slavic begins to differentiate into the various Slavic languages.
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

3. Lexical Distance Among European Languages
Prominent living languages of Europe are shown. Finno-Ugric is not a branch of Indo-European; all others are Indo-European.
Size of circle indicates number of speakers.
Line between circles indicates lexical distance (differences in vocabulary) Short, heavy, connected lines indicate fewer lexical differences - Long, thin, dotted lines indicate more lexical differences
Important points:
Similarity of vocabulary is a pretty good indicator of language relatedness. Eg. the Germanic languages are all more similar to each other than any of them is to any Celtic language.
But geographic proximity encourages borrowing & reduces lexical distance, even when languages are not related. Eg, English (Germanic) is as close to French (Romance) as Romanian (Romance) is, if you just look at the lexicon.
Lexical distance alone cannot say whether Baltic & Slavic languages are one branch of IE or two. Lexical distance between Slovenian (Slavic) & Albanian (Albanian) is actually less than that between Polish (Slavic) & Lithuanian (Baltic).
Bottom line: lexical distance is a good initial indicator of language relatedness, but you need to look at phonology, syntax, and history as well.
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

4. Balto-Slavic Cognates
Cognates have similar phonological form, syntactic form, & meaning
Common cognates suggest common origin:
Shared historical (“genetic”) ancestor, followed by isolation & drift
Contact & borrowing from unrelated contemporary source
“mother”
“hand, arm”
“king”
“ten”
“go”
Slavic
Russian (E)
matj, materinskij
rjka
korolj
desjatj
hoditj, idti
Ukrainian (E)
matu, matir
ruka
dεsjatj
xodutu, itu
Bulgarian (SE)
majka
kral
dεsεt
hodja
Slovenian (SW)
mati, matisa
roka
kralj
deset
hoditi, iti
Serbo-Croatian (SW)
majka, matεrinski
otijsi, ijsi
Czech (W)
matka, matεřski:
král
hodit sε, xod
Polish (W)
matka
rεka
krόl
ʤiεsiεʨ
ists
Baltic
Lithuanian
mote, motina
rankų
karalius
dæ∫imt
eiti
Latvian
mate
karalis
dεsmits
iet
The Balto-Slavic languages use one word to refer to both “hand” and “arm”.
No other IE branch as a group shares this characteristic, altho it shows up in a few individual languages of the Indo-Iranian branch.
Of 619 representative world languages (C.H. Brown, WALS, 2005):
- 228 (37%) have one word for both “hand” and “arm”
- 389 (63%) have two words, one for “hand” and another for ”arm”
Example of a semantic (not just lexical) reason for treating Balto-Slavic as one branch of IE.
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

5. Balto-Slavic Phonology: Satem (vs Centum) Velar Development
Centum (Kentum)
Palatalized velars ð sibilants: kj ð s, ʃ; gj ð z, ʒ
PIE *kjmtom-, “hundred” ð Lithuanian ʃimtas, “hundred” ð Russian sto, “hundred”
PIE *gjhel-to-, “golden” ð Lithuanian ʒeltas, “gold” ð Polish zloty, “gold piece, unit of currency”,
Plain, aspirated, & labialized velars ð plain velars: k, kw ð k; g, gh, gw, gwh ð g
PIE *kwos, “who” ð Lithuanian kàs, “who”
PIE *sneigwh-o-, “snow” ð Russian sneg, “snow”
PIE *gwerh-, “consume” ð Lithuanian geriù, “I drink”
Centum exceptions are numerous (e.g. Lithuanian geltas, “yellow”)
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

6. © 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.
Vowel Systems
Typically 5 or 6 basic vowel phonemes
51% of world languages fall in this range (World Atlas of Language Structures)
Slovenian is an exception with 8 vowels, Latvian with 7
Contrast Germanic family with up to 14 basic vowels, largest inventories in the world
Vowels have null allophones, eg Russian [djεn], “day” (NOM) vs [djn.a], “day” (GEN)
Tone or pitch accent present in many languages
Basic Inventory
Size
Meaningful Contrasts
Slavic
Russian (E)
/i, ε, a, o, u/ 5
Stressed/unstressed
With/without palatal onglide /ji, je, ja, jo, ju/
Ukrainian (E)
/i, ɪ, ε, ɑ, ɔ, u/ 6
With/without palatal onglide /ji, jɪ, jε, jɑ, jɔ, ju/
Bulgarian (SE)
/i, ε, ə, a, ɔ, u/
With/without palatal onglide for /ja, ju/
Slovenian (SW)
/i, e, ε, ə, a, ɔ, o, u/ 8
Stressed-long/unstressed-short
Rising/falling pitch accent in stressed syllables
Serbo-Croatian (SW)
/i, ε, a, ɔ, u/
Long/short duration
Czech (W)
/i, ɪ, ε, a, o, u/
Long/short duration (except tense/lax on /i:/ vs /ɪ/)
Polish (W)
/i, ɪ, ε, a, ɔ, u/
Nasalized/nonnasalized
Baltic
Lithuanian
/i, ε, æ, ɐ, o, u/
Long/short duration (except /e:/ always long)
Latvian
/i, e, ε, æ, a, o, u/ 7
3 tones on long vowels & dipthongs: high level (eg [luo˦ki], “chives”) falling (eg [lùoks], “arch, bow”) rising-creaky-falling (eg [luôgs], “window”)
Balto-Slavic vowel systems have two main features:
Simple partition of the vowel space into a handful of basic qualities
Complex, dynamic use of pitch and tone, stress, lengthening, and reduction (all the way to zero!) modifies the basic vowel qualities in production.
Contrast Germanic:
Complex partition of the vowel space into many basic qualities
Simple use of dynamic stress, lengthening, and reduction (to schwa or liquid, not zero) modifies these complex vowel qualities in production.
Tone:
Use of tone or tone-like pitch accent appears in both Baltic & Slavic groups
Pitch accent also appears in Norwegian & Swedish in Germanic branch
Tone or pitch accent is seen in nearly all branches of IE, suggesting that PIE was a tonal language.
Of 526 representative world languages (I. Maddiesson, WALS, 2005):
- 306 (58%) lack any tone system
- 132 (25%) have a simple tone system like Latvian or Norwegian
(17%) have a complex tone system like Mandarin Chinese
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

7. Consonant Systems
Typically consonant phonemes; half ≥ 30, large to very large inventories
World average consonant inventory size is 22 phonemes (World Atlas of Language Structures)
Only 9% of world languages have ≥ 34 consonants (WALS)
Compare Germanic with consonants (32% of world languages fall in this range – WALS)
“Hard” (unpalatalized) vs “soft” (palatized) consonants are usually contrastive
Russian: мат /mat/, “checkmate” vs мать /matj/, “mother”; нос /nos/, “nose” vs нёс /njos/, “(he) carried”
But Latvian: noncontrastive allophonic palatalization of /k, g, l, n/, eg /n/ ð [ŋ]/_ {k,g} in [baŋka], “bank”
Size
Stops
Fricatives & Affricates
Approximants
Nasals
Slavic
Russian (E) 36
/p, b, t, d, k, g/ /pj, bj, tj, dj, ç/
/f, v, s, z, ʃ:, ʒ:, ts, ʧ, x/ /fj, vj, sj, zj, ʧj/; /ʂ, ʐ/ (retroflex)
/r, l, j/ /rj, ʎ /
/m, n/ /mj, ɲ/
Ukrainian (E) 33
/p, b, t, d, k, g/ /tj, dj/
/f, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz, ʧ, ʤ, x, ɦ/ /fj, sj, zj, tsj, dzj/
/ʋj, r, l, j/ /ʋj, rj, ʎ /
/m, n/ /ɲ/
Bulgarian (SE)
36 (39)
/p, b, t, d, k, g/ /pj, bj, tj, dj, ç, gj/
/f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, (dz), ʧ, ʤ, x/ /fj, vj, sj, zj, tsj, (dzj),(xj)/
/r, l, j/ /rj, ʎ /
Slovenian (SW) 22
/p, b, t, d, k, g/
/f, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz, ʧ, ʤ/
/ʋ, l, ɾ, j/
/m, n, ɲ/
Serbo-Croatian (SW) 24
/f, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, ʧ, ʤ/ /ʧj, ʤj/
/ʋ, l, r, j/ /ʎ/
Czech (W)
24 (27)
/p, b, t, d, k, g/ /ç, gj/
/(f), v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, (dz), ʧ, (ʤ), x, ɦ/
/l, r, j/ /r̝/ (fricative)
Polish (W) 32
/f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz, ʧ, ʤ, x/ /ʂ, ʐ, tʂ, dʐ/ (retroflex)
/w, l, r, j/ /ʎ/
Baltic
Lithuanian
39 (45)
/(f), s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz, ʧ, ʤ, (x), (ɣ)/ /(fj), sj, zj, ʃj, ʒj, tsj, dzj, ʧj, ʤj, (xj), (ɣj)/
/ʋ, l, r, j/ /ʋj, ʎ, rj/
/m, n/ /mj, ɲ/
Latvian
20 (22)
/(f), v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, ts, dz, ʧ, ʤ, (x)/
/ l, r, j/
/m, n/
Most distinctive feature is contrast between basic and palatalized consonants
Shared by both Baltic & Slavic language groups
Residual evidence of an IE contrast between basic and retroflex consonants also exists in the Slavic group, as well as in Indo-Iranian & some languages of the Germanic family, but not in the Baltic group
Comparing Russian vs English (Wright & Gildersleeve-Neumann, 2005):
42% of Russian consonants have complex articulations
17% of English consonants have complex articulations
Despite very large consonant inventories, all Balto-Slavic languages lack:
ð, θ (526 of 566 world languages, or 93%, lack these phonemes — WALS)
ŋ (234 of 468 world languages, or 50%, lack this phoneme — WALS)
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

8. Syllable Structures Very complex syllable structures
Only a third (31%) of world languages allow syllables more complex than (C)(C)V(C) — WALS
Balto-Slavic allows up to four segments in syllable onset, eg Russian встретить ['fstrjetj.ɪtj], “to encounter”
Balto-Slavic allows up to five segments in syllable coda, eg Polish [skɔmpstf], “stinginesses” (GEN PL)
Sonority hierarchy weakly enforced, mostly in largest consonant clusters & in onsets
Russian one-syllable examples: взгляд /vzgliad/, “look”; монстр /monstr/, “monster”
Syllables without vowels
Syllable nuclei allow approximants, liquids, and nasals as well as vowels, eg Czech [zmrz.lɪ.na], “ice cream”
Null allophones for vowels means entire words may be vowelless, eg Russian [v], “in”; [s], “with”; [k], “to”
Exceptions: Polish, Lithuanian require a vowel in every syllable
Compare Germanic (C)(C)(C)(V)(C)(C)(C)(C), eg English “strengths” [strεŋ{k}θs], “bottle” ['bɑt.l̩ ]
Syllable Structure
Example Consonant Clusters
Consonantal Nuclei
Slavic
Russian (E)
(C)(C)(C)(C)(V)(C)(C)(C)(C)
fspr-, fspl-, fstr-, fskr-, fsxl-, vzbr-, vskr-, vzbl-, vzdr-, vzgr- vzgl-, spr-, spl-, str-, stl-, stv-, skr-, skl-, smr-, fkr-, fkl-, zbr-, zbl-, zdr-, zgr-, zgl-, zgn-, vgl-, vzb-, vzv-, vbr-, vsk-, sxv-, ..., -bsk, -nstr
/j,r,l,m,n/
Czech (W)
(C)(C)(C)(C)(V)(C)(C)(C)
tʃtv-, smr-, sml-, xtʃ-, vʒd-, zvl-, prʃ- ...
/r,l,m,n/
Polish (W)
(C)(C)(C)(C)V(C)(C)(C)(C)(C)
zjbjdw-, zskl-, ptʃl-, pstr-, dsk-, tsk-, tʃst-, tʃʃts’-, vrjb-, vrjx-, sml-, ʃrp-, vln-, klb-, xlm-, mgl-, ..., -lʃtʃ, -rʃtʃ, -rstf, -mstf, -pstf, -mpstf
None
Baltic
Lithuanian
(C)(C)(C)V(C)(C)(C)(C)
skr-, ksl-, ..., -rbk, -rbs, -kʃt, -nkst
Comparing Russian to English (Wright & Gildersleeve-Neumann, 2005):
38% of Russian words are monosyllabic
60% of English words are monosyllabic
Balto-Slavic & Germanic branches both allow complex syllable structures. But:
For any given number of segments in a consonant cluster, Balto-Slavic allows more combinations than Germanic. A three-segment cluster in Russian is therefore more complex to process than a three-segment cluster in German.
In the nucleus of the syllable, where Germanic requires a vowel or a vowel- like liquid, most Balto-Slavic languages allow nothing at all – ie a “null” allophone for the vowel – which can place two complex consonant clusters side-by-side in the same syllable.
In production, function words can consist solely of a syllabic fricative or stop! (Eg Russian [s], “with”, or [k], “to”.) These are created by reducing the lexical vowel phoneme all the way to zero.
Complex phonological processes work to reduce this articulation complexity within the syllable. Eg, there are syllable-level consonant harmony rules for voicing and vowel-consonant harmony rules for palatalization. But because these rules are context-dependent, they place heavy real-time processing demands on speakers and hearers.
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

9. Morphosyntactic Categories
Russian (Slavic)
Lithuanian (Baltic)
German (Germanic)
Parts of Speech
Noun, pronoun, number, verb, preposition, adjective, adverb, conjunction, particle, interjection; no article
Noun, pronoun, number, verb, preposition, adjective, adverb, conjunction, particle, interjection; no article
Noun, pronoun, number, verb, preposition, adjective, adverb, conjunction, particle, interjection, article
Person
First, second, third
Number
Singular, (dual), plural
Singular, (dual), plural, (indefinite)
Singular, plural
Politeness
Formal, familiar
Gender
Masculine, feminine, neuter; animate, inanimate
Masculine, feminine, neuter, common
Masculine, feminine, neuter; no common gender, no animate/inanimate
Case
Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, prepositional
Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, locative, vocative, (illative)
Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive
Definiteness
Definite, indefinite
Degree
Positive, comparative, superlative
Positive, comparative, superlative, attenuated
Unmarked, comparative, superlative
Tense
Past, non-past
Present, past, future
Aspect
Completive/perfective, progressive/imperfective, iterative/probabilistic, unary
Completive/perfective, progressive/imperfective, iterative/probabilistic
Completive/perfective, progressive/imperfective
Voice
Active, passive, reflexive
Active, passive, necessitative
Mood
Indicative, imperative, interrogative, infinitive
Indicative, subjunctive, imperative, interrogative, infinitive, indirect evidentiality
Indicative, subjunctive, imperative, interrogative, infinitive
Polarity
Positive, negative
Balto-Slavic languages make a large number of explicit linguistic distinctions concerning person, number, politeness, gender/animacy, case, definiteness, degree, tense, aspect, mood, voice, polarity, & more.
Categories are explicitly marked in word morphology
Primarily marked by suffixes, altho other affixes & vowel sound changes also used
One affix may signal multiple categories of meaning – such as number and gender and definiteness – in a single form.
- Russian: 4-5 categories synthesized per verb (like 36% of world languages – WALS)
- German: 2-3 categories synthesized per verb (like 17% of world languages – WALS)
Balto-Slavic languagues are therefore highly inflected
Most Balto-Slavic languages lack articles (eg “the”, “a”, “an”)
188 of 566 representative world languages, or 33%, lack articles
Definiteness signalled in Balto-Slavic by affix instead
Bulgarian & Macedonian are exceptions in Slavic group, have distinct articles
Latvian is partial exception in Baltic group, uses demonstrative (that) & number (one) as articles
Vestiges of morphosyntactic features assumed to derive from PIE:
Dual number, as well as singular & plural
Animacy/inanimacy distinction, with male/female gender applying only to animate nouns
Complex mood system, including markers for reliability of evidence and hearsay
Complex case system, explicitly marking 6-8 verb argument types on nouns & adjectives
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

10. Morphosyntactic Features Per Case
Source: Pirkola & Kittunen, 2007
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

11. © 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.
Index of Synthesis
Analytic
Synthetic
Source: Pirkola & Kittunen, 2007
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

12. Balto-Slavic Syntax Main Clause (Statement) Rel Clause & Noun
Adposition & Noun
Genitive & Noun
Polar Question Marking
Slavic
Russian (E)
SVO
N-Rel
Prepositional
N-Gen P2
Ukrainian (E) ? P1
Bulgarian (SE)
Gen-N
Slovenian (SW)
SOV
Free
Serbo-Croatian (SW)
P1 or P2
Czech (W)
S/V Inversion
Polish (W)
Baltic
Lithuanian
Latvian
Germanic
German
SVO(V)
English
S – Subject
V – Verb
O – Object
N – Noun
P – Particle
1 – First Position
2 – Second Position
F – Final Position
Sub – Subordinate Clause
Rel – Relative Clause
Gen – Genitive Case Marker
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.

13. © 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.
References
B. Comrie (1989), Language Universals & Linguistic Typology.
M. Haspelmath, M.S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (eds.), (2005), The World Atlas of Language Structures.
A. Pirkola & K. Kittunen (2007), “Methods in Cross-Language Information Retrieval,” online course notes viewed 11/18/2007 (
M. Rochon (2000), Optimality in Complexity: The Case of Polish Consonant Clusters.
A. Timberlake (2004), A Reference Grammar of Russian.
K. Tyshchenko (1999), Metatheory of Linguistics. (In Russian.)
UCLA Language Materials Project, viewed 11/20/2007 (
University of Texas Linguistics Research Center, “Baltic Online” — online resources on Lithuanian & Latvian, viewed 11/17/2007 (
Wiktionary, “Swadesh List” (
K. Wright & C. Gildersleeve-Neumann (2005), “English Speech Sound Development: Effects of a Russian-English Bilingual Environment”, poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) convention, viewed online 11/30/2007 (
Word2Word online dictionaries (
V. Zinkevičius, V. Daudauravičius, & E. Rimkute, “The Morphologically Annotated Lithuanian Corpus.” Viewed online 11/23/2007 (
© 2007, J.T.E. Elms. All rights reserved.