Transcript Variation in Mycenaean Greek

Variation in Mycenaean Greek
Jeroen Vis
University of Amsterdam / ACLC
Introduction
• Risch (1966): Discussion of variation in Mycenaean Greek
(Pylos and Cnossos) with respect to the features
– *mn > ma ~ mo
– dat. s.: -ei ~ -i
– word internal e ~ i
• Mycénien normal vs. Mycénien spécial
• Extended to Mycenae by Hajnal (1997)
• Variation of type du-wo ~ dwo, ka-ki-ja ~ ka-za ascribed to
orthography but no detailed discussion of possible other
parameters
Aims
• To discuss possible parameters that could lead to variation
of this type in Mycenaean Greek
–
–
–
–
–
Orthography
Siever’s law
Morphological / phonological context
Dialectal differentiation
Dynamic property of the grammar itself
• To formalize the attested alternations
• To explore the contribution of phonolgical theory to
Mycenaeology and v.v.
Structure
• Overview of the language and its orthographic system
• Discussion of the nature of alternations
• The formal analysis of variation
The language
Mycenaean is a Greek language spoken in the southern
Balkans. Its sources consist of ±7000 inscriptions on clay
tablets, which are dated at about 1250 b.C.
Orthography
• Syllabograms of the type
(C)V (Linear B)
• Conventional transcription
in Latin characters
• r=l
• Laryngeal features are not
distinct in orthography
• The onset of the syllable is
written in full: pe-re = pre
• Syllable codas are omitted:
a-to = artos
Alternations
Hiatus resolution by means of anaptyxis of [j] and segmental
fusion:
/khalkios/ > [khalkijos] ~ [khalkjos]
‘bronze’
/Ci1V2C/ > [Ci1jV2C] ~ [Cj1V2C]
Hiatus resolution by means of anaptyxis of [υ] and consonant
formation:
/perusinua/ > [perusinuυa] ~ [perusinυa]
‘yesterday’snom. pl.
/Cu1V2C/ > [Cu1υV2C] ~ [Cυ1V2CΣ]
Possible explanations:
• Orthography
• Siever’s law
• Morphological / phonological context
• Dialectal differentiation
• Dynamic property of the grammar itself
Orthography? -----> NO, because:
• Variation is very frequent and regular
• Variation is always of the same type
• Variation occurs systematically only in this phonological
context
• The same type of variation occurs in other languages, e.g.
Armenian, in which it is ascribed to phonological
processes (Vaux 1998)
Siever’s law? -----> NO, because:
• Heavy syllable + *ij / *uw, light syllable + *j / *w, e.g.
[kno:ssijos] (from Knossos) vs. [arjoha] (betternom. pl.)
• But:
[υorgjon]
[sphe:nυenta]
[korijandna]
[marathuυon]
‘cultivatepart.’
‘with wedgesnom. pl.’
‘coriander’
‘fennel’
• Variation occurs also with respect to the very same word:
[meletrija] ~ [meletrja]
[khalkijos] ~ [khalkjos]
[lauranthija] ~ [lauranthja]
[hikkwija] ~ [hikkja]
‘millerfem’
‘bronze’
‘placename’
‘charriot’
[perusinuυa] ~ [perusinυa]
[duυo:] ~ [dυo:]
[barakuυei] ~ [barakυei]
[enualijos] ~ [enυalijos]
‘yesterday’snom. pl.’
‘two’
‘smargd’
‘proper name’
Morphological / phonological context? -----> Partially?
• Preferred realization of certain affixes, e.g.:
[-υent-], [-ijos], [-ija]
• No occurrence of labial + [υ] (OCP)
-----> But not crucial:
• The above affixes may surface in both realizations
• Variation occurs also with respect to the very same word
Dialectal differentiation:
• Concept-based corpus linguistics: Measuring convergence
and divergence in a concept-based way, an approach for
charting distances between language varieties (Geeraerts
2004)
• Concept: hiatus solution of /Ci1V2C/ and /Cu1V2C/
• Corpora: All attested complete words on the inscriptions of
Pylos (Corpus 1) and Cnossos (Corpus 2)
Formula:
j ins.
PY
counts
PY
% of row
KN
counts
KN
% of row
total counts
overlap
j fusion
651
78,6%
644
76,9%
1.296
w ins.
PY
counts
PY
% of row
KN
counts
KN
% of row
total counts
overlap
82
19,8%
73
24,5%
155
177
21,4%
193
23,1%
370
w form.
333
80,2%
225
75,5%
558
total
828
100,0%
837
100,0%
1.666
98,3%
total
415
100,0%
298
100,0%
713
95,3%
• Concluding, no language external parameter (geography,
orthography) or structural parameter (Siever’s law,
morpho-phonological context) can adequately account for
the attested variation
• As a result, the variation should be considered as a
dynamic property of the language itself
Formalizing variation
OT approaches:
• Unranked constraints (Anttila 1997)
• Parallel grammars (Tzakosta 2004)
• Stochastic constraints (Boersma & Hayes 2001)
Unranked constraints:
• Two (or more) constraints are unranked with respect to
each other. During the evaluation of the hierarchy, a
violation mark is assigned to both constraints, resulting in
surface variation.
/khalkia/
a) khalkia
b)  khalkja
c)  khalkija
/duo:/
a) duo:
b)  duυo:
c)  dυo:
No Hiatus
Integrity
(No Anaptyxis)
Uniformity
(No Fusion)
*
*
*
No Hiatus
Integrity
(No Anaptyxis)
Id. [son.]
(No Consonant
Formation)
*
*
*
• However, this would predict a distribution of 50% - 50%
of both surface forms, which is not the case in Mycenaean
Greek:
j-anap. vs. fusion
80% vs. 20%
υ-anap. vs. υ-form.
20% vs. 80%
• Solution: adding more constraints (up to 3 per context)
• But then we would need 10 constraints to account for the
distribution of variation, whereas the phenomenon itself
can be analyzed by means of 4
• What in the case of 99% vs. 1%?
Parallel grammars:
• Two different, but fully ranked grammars are activated by
the speaker:
Grammar A: Integrity >> Uniformity
/khalkia/ > [khalkja]
Grammar B: Uniformity >> Integrity
/khalkia/ > [khalkija]
• No account of the distribution of variation
• Stochastic constraints:
• Constraints have an evaluation range instead of an
evaluation point
• Evaluation ranges can overlap partially, thus resulting
in surface variation:
C1
C2
Uniformity
Integrity
60
40
60
Integrity
khalkija (80%) vs.
khalkja (20%)
Identity IO [son]
60
40
60
dυo: (80%) vs.
duυo: (20%)
Conclusions
• The above discussed type of variation -uυV- ~ -υV- / -ijV~ -jV- cannot be ascribed to orthography,
morphophonological parameters, Siever’s law or
geographic divergence
• As a result, it should be interpreted as a dynamic property
of the language itself
• Stochastic OT can adequately account for the variation and
its unequal distribution
• Contribution of linguistic theory to the interpretation of
Mycenaean Greek and v.v.:
– Concept based corpus-linguistics can define in more detail the
nature of variation with respect to geographic distribution
– Mycenaean data provide arguments in favour of stochastic OT as a
tool of formalizing variation
Thank You
Selected references
Tzakosta, M. (2004). Multiple parallel grammars in the acquisition of stress in
Greek L1, diss. Universiteit Leiden
Boersma, P. & B. Hayes (2001). “Empirical tests in the gradual learning
algorithm” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45-86
Vaux, B. (1998). The phonology of Armenian, Oxford: Clarendon press
Geeraerts, D. (2004). Corpus-based sociolectometry, Classnotes at LOT
Summerschool, Universiteit Utrecht
Anttila, A. (1997). “Deriving variation from grammar: a study of Finnish
genitives” Hinskens, F. et al. (eds.) Variation, change and phonological
theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35-86
Risch, E. (1966). “Les différences dialectales dans le Mycénien” Palmer, L. & J.
Chadwick (eds.) Proceedings of the Cambridge colloquium on Mycenaean
studies, Cambridge: University press, 150-157
Hajnal, I. (1997). Sprachgeschichte des mykenischen Griechisch. Zur Frage der
Differenzierung zwischen ‘Mycénien normal’ und ‘Mycénien spécial, suppl. ad
Minos 14