Transcript Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological

Vowel-Zero Alternations in
Albanian and
Morphophonological Contact
Andrew Dombrowski
Introduction
• Slavic + Geg Albanian both have vowelzero 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
prrallz
Original
Gloss
përrallës
kpuc
këpucë
shnre
*shëndre
fairy talegen.sg.def.
shoenom.sg.indef.
Decembernom.sg.indef.
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg
• Schwa preservation in Luznia e Dibrës
• See handout; key examples below
Luznia e Dibrës Original
Gloss
e kërmashme
e kërmashme
përjashta
përjashta
red and white (of
sheep)fem.sg.indef.
outdoors
i vokël
i vogël
small-masc.indef.
pullën
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 vowelzero 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.
vetull ‘eyebrow’
Nom.sg.def.
vetulla
kumull ‘plum’
hekur ‘iron’
kumulla
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, Vilae-Kalisit të Lumës.
– Data from Hasi dialect
Nom.sg.indef.
vetëll ‘eyebrow’
kumëll ‘plum’
Nom.pl.def.
vetlla
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.
vetull ‘eyebrow’
kumull ‘plum’
hekur ‘iron’
Nom.sg.def.
vetlla
kumlla
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
• Actually, in Opoja, [ə] > [o]…
• Nominal declension:
Opoja
Standard
Albanian
Indef
Def.
Indef.
Def.
Nom
(ni) motor
motra
(një) motër
motra
Acc
(ni) motor
motron
(një) motër
motrën
Gen
(i, e ni)
motros
(i, e) motros (i, e një)
motre
(i, e) motrës
Dat
(ni) motros
motros
(një) motre
motrës
Alb
(pi(j) ni)
motros
(pi(j))
motros
(prej një)
motre
(prej) motrës
Opoja
• Adjectival declension compared to general Geg:
Opoja
General Geg
Masc.Sg.
Fem.Sg.
Masc.Sg.
Fem.Sg.
‘clothed’
i veshom
e veshme
i veshun
e veshun
‘dried’
i terom
e terme
i terun
e terun
‘slow’
i kadalshom
e kadalshme
i ngadalshëm e
ngadalshme
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.
Class A
Class B
Fem.(Indef).
Sg.
Opoja
Macedonian
Opoja
Macedonian
i 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’
i 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 PrizrenTimok 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: <o~Ø>[+Slavic], <ə~Ø>[+Albanian]
change: <o~Ø>[+Slavic]  [+Albanian]
stage B: <o~Ø>[+Slavic, +Albanian]
• Elements in stage A reflect generalizations made
by speakers of Albanian, and elements in
[brackets] are metadata.
• Key point: a generalization <G>[+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: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][-alternations]>[+D1]
<[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]
change: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]  [+D1]
stage B: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+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: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][-alternations]>[+D1]
<[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]
<[-ull, -ur, -urr][+ u > ə]>[+D2]
change: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]  [+D1]
stage B: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D1, +D2]
<[-ull, -ur, -urr][+ u > 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?