On the relative chronology of Slavic accentual developments

Last year Georg Holzer proposed a relative chronology of accentual developments in Slavic (2005). Here I shall compare his chronology with the one I put forward earlier (1975, 1989a, 2003) and discuss the differences. For the sake of convenience, I first reproduce the relevant parts of my chronology, omitting asterisks before pre-historic Slavic forms. 1. Proto-Indo-European. 2. Dialectal Indo-European. 3. Early Balto-Slavic. During this period the characteristic lateral mobility of Balto-Slavic accent patterns came into existence. 4. Late Balto-Slavic. During this period the Balto-Slavic accent patterns obtained their final shape

From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic

A correct evaluation of the Slavic evidence for the reconstruction of the Indo- European proto-language requires an extensive knowledge of a considerable body of data. While the segmental features of the Slavic material are generally of corroborative value only, the prosodic evidence is crucial for the reconstruction of PIE. phonology. Due to the complicated nature of Slavic historical accentology, this has come to be realized quite recently.1 As a result, much of the earlier literature has become obsolete to the extent that it is based upon an interpretation which does not take the multifarious accentual developments into account. I shall give one example

Rise and development of Slavic accentual paradigms

It appears that the complexity of Slavic historical accentology is prohibitive for most non-specialists in the field. It may therefore be useful to approach the subject from a number of different angles in order to render it more accessible to a wider audience. In the following I shall discuss the separate accent paradigms and their development from the Late Balto-Slavic system, which is structurally similar to that of modern Lithuanian, up to the end of the Proto-Slavic period, when the system resembled what we find in modern Serbo-Croatian. The numbering of the stages 1.0 through 10.12 is the same as in my earlier publications (1989, 2003, 2005, 2006a, 2008b). For the rise and development of the accentual system up to the end of the Balto-Slavic period I may refer to my discussion (2006b, 2008a) of Olander’s dissertation (2006). It resulted in a system of four major and two minor accent types

From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European

The history of Slavic accentuation is complex. As a result, the significance of the Slavic accentual evidence is not immediately obvious to the average Indo-Europeanist. In this contribution I intend to render the material more easily accessible to the non-specialist. I shall focus on the Serbo-Croatian dialectal area, where the Proto-Slavic accentual system is better preserved than elsewhere. The main point of reference will be the neo-Štokavian system which was codified in the 19th century as a basis for the standard languages

Review of Strength and Weakness at the Interface: Positional Neutralization in Phonetics and Phonology

Linguistic

West Slavic accentuation

At the time of the earliest reconstructible dialectal divergences, which belong to the Late Middle Slavic period of my chronology (stages 7.0 - 8.0 of Kortlandt 1989a, 2003, 2008), the West Slavic languages represented the most conservative part of the Slavic dialects (cf. Kortlandt 1982b: 191 and 2003: 231)

Typology, chronology, and phonetic mechanisms of Finnic secondary gemination in the light of Soikkola Ingrian acoustic data

Secondary gemination is a remarkable but little-known phonological process of singleton consonant lengthening into geminates in certain prosodic positions in Finnic languages. Its phonetic premises, typology, and chronology are still understudied. The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it summarises the main facts about secondary gemination and its place within general prosodic tendencies observed in Finnic languages. Second, it uses acoustic data from Soikkola Ingrian, which manifests one of the most developed Finnic systems of secondary gemination, to argue about the relative chronology and phonetic mechanisms of this gemination. The conclusion is that the phonetic duration of phonologised secondary geminates cannot be used as an argument for their age, because, as our acoustic data in [1] showed, their duration is regulated by compensatory stress-induced shortening as a function of the foot structure. On the other hand, the atypical prosodic positions of trisyllabic secondary gemination in Soikkola Ingrian can indeed suggest the younger age of this particular type of gemination

Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology

Much recent work concentrates on the role of sonority in the phenomenon of vowel reduction, capitalizing on the two facts that reduction involves raising and/or shortening and that higher vowels and schwa are normally interpreted as having low sonority. This paper presents a different approach to vowel reduction in Standard Russian. It is proposed that the apparent sonority-driven effects in Russian are epiphenomenal. In particular, reduction to schwa is outside of the domain of phonological computation in Russian, being an artifact of reduced duration. Other types of neutralization arising in vowel reduction are potentially amenable to a sonority-based analysis, but I argue that current approaches to sonority-driven reduction suffer from representational shortcomings. When these shortcomings are rectified, however, sonority is unnecessary as an explicit factor in vowel reduction: standard markedness mechanisms are enough to explain the data