Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBridget Armstrong Modified over 9 years ago
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.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.