Bonifacas Stundžia

Directory of Open Access Journals

Bonifacas STUNDŽIAVilnius UniversityDOMINANCE AS AN ACCENTUAL (PROSODIC)  PROPERTY OF MORPHEMES*The term dominance / domination (Fr. dominance / domination, Germ. Dominanz, Domination, Dominierung) has a relatively long tradition of   usage  in  linguistics.  It  has  been  and  is  still  used  in  various  meanings, sometimes lacking precision (cf. Gołąb et al. 1986, 130). The primary meaning of this term seems to be connected with the domination of one element  or  some  elements  as  compared  with  any  other  element(s)  in opposition, e.g.: vowels dominate consonants in syllables, X dominates Y in tree diagrams, left nodes are dominant in ‘left-dominant’ feet (see Knobloch 1986; Crystal 2008, 155f.), etc.It seems that Louis Hjelmslev was the first to introduce dominance to morphology, giving the term a narrower meaning. He considers dominance to  be  one  of  the  functions  of  morphemes  that  establish  correlations, the  members  of  which  are  in  relation  of  complementary  distribution (“Dominance = fonction qui établit une corrélation. Les membres d’une telle corrélation sont complémentaires”, Hjelmslev 1959[1938], 163), e.g. the Lith. nominal suffix -imas dominates the allomorph -ymas because the latter is added only to the nouns derived from -yti, -o, -ė verbs, cf. buvìmas (   bùvo,  bū́ti),  keliãvimas (   keliãvo,  keliáuti)  and  sãkymas   ( sãkė, sãko, sakýti). Jerzy Kuryłowicz interprets morphological dominance as a phenomenon characteristic  of  affixes  that  determine  the  phonetic  shape  of  the  root of  a  word,  causing  apophony  or  assimilation  in  it  (see  Kuryłowicz 1960[1938], 60ff.). The Lith. nominal ending -is causes apophony in the root  of  paradigmatic  derivatives,  cf.  šū̃k-is  and  šaũk-ti,  šaũk-ia,  šaũk-ė (cf. Urbutis 1978, 230f.;  22009, 272). In the North Žemaitian Telšiai BALTISTICA VII PrIeDAS 2011 255–262* I am obliged to Professor William R. Schmalstieg,  dr. Birutė Ryvitytė and Jayde Will for the corrections of this text.256  Bonifacas Stundžiasubdialect, the closed (narrow) or half-open character of high stem vowels /i/ and /u/ depends on the quality of the vocalism of endings (the so-called assimilation of vowels, or vowel harmony), cf. e.g. nom. sg. kìnis and gen. sg. kẹ̃·nẹ ‘nest’; acc. pl. mùsìs and nom.sg. mọ̀sẹ̀s ‘fly’ (Girdenis 1962). In this case, endings dominate roots. However in agglutinative languages, roots dominate suffixes because of the fact that the vocalism of the suffixes is determined by root vocalism (this phenomenon is called vowel harmony, cf. Bußmann 2008, 782; Gołąb et al. 1986, 132). Thus, Kuryłowicz interprets dominance as a phenomenon of morphonological influence of some  morphemes  upon  other  morphemes:  e.g.  suffixes  exert  influence on the roots of derivatives or derived forms causing alternations in them. Kuryłowicz’s morphonological dominance of affixes can be interpreted as a phenomenon parallel to valency, which is characteristic mostly of verbs determining the behaviour of subjects and objects in a sentence1.Paul Garde has introduced dominance to accentology as a term for the accentual power of suffixes (Garde 1976; 1980; in the earlier version of his theory, Garde used the term accentual power, Fr. force accentuelle [Garde 1968], in the meaning of the later term accentuation). Garde treats dominance as  an  accentual  property  of  derivational  suffixes,  which  neutralises  the accentual properties of base stems. Therefore, the placement of stress in derivatives is predetermined exclusively by dominant suffixes, which are classified into auto-accented, pre-accented and post-accented. Dominance is used by Andrej Zaliznjak (e.g. 1985, 35f.) and Werner Lehfeldt (e.g. 2003, 64ff.; 2006, 91ff.) in a similar way, while Dybo in this case uses the term categorical accent (kategorial’nyj akcent) (see Dybo 2000, 9), and interprets dominance as Garde’s accentuation (see footnote 1). Garde, Lehfeldt, Zaliznjak and other accentologists interpret dominance (or categorical accent in the case of Dybo) as a syntagmatic phenomenon which  determines  the  place  of  the  stress  of  derivatives,  while Aleksas Girdenis  (1985;  1994;  1997;  2005;  2006)  first  of  all  emphasizes  the paradigmatic character of dominance (relative accentual value according 1  Vladimir Dybo uses the term accentual valency (akcentnaja valentnost’) dis-tinguishing between dominant (+) vs. recessive (–) morphemes in the meaning of Garde’s accentuation covering accented vs. non-accented morphemes (see Dybo 1981, 260ff.; 2000, 11ff.).Dominance as an accentual (prosodic) property of morphemes  257to his terminology), distinguishing between strengthening and weakening suffixes in nominal derivation. Girdenis’ classification is based on the effect dominant suffixes have on the accentuation, i.e. the paradigmatic accentual property, of base stems. Antanas Pakerys (2008, 28), on the contrary, argues that “the classification of nominal suffixes into strengthening and weakening ones should be based on the effect these suffixes make on the stems of the derivatives rather than on the stems of the base words” (for more about different interpretations of dominance see  Rinkevičius 2010, 13–20). The strengthening suffixes are then classified into strong (accented), weak (non-accented) and neutral (their relation to stress depends on the accentuation of base stems) according to the place of stress, a syntagmatic accentual property (see Girdenis, op. cit.).The author of this paper (Stundžia 1995, 15f.) develops Kuryłowicz’s conception of dominance as a morphonological influence of suffixes over base stems by adding metatony to the phenomena, for which dominant affixes are responsible, thus distinguishing between metatonic and non-metatonic non-accented (weak) affixes. This  paper  is  an  attempt  to  show  that  by  understanding  prosodic dominance as a morphonological property of affixes, which influences all prosodic properties of base stems (i.e. place of stress, tone, and accentua- tion) and thus determines the prosodic shape of derivatives, and by taking into account both syntagmatic and paradigmatic aspects of dominance, a scholar is able to carry out a more thorough investigation of the history of accentuation systems.All  languages  with  free  stress  and  a  paradigmatic  accentual  system possess two accentual properties that are characteristic of all morphemes, i.e. place of stress and accentuation. As far as Lithuanian is concerned, we need tone as a property of stem morphemes with a long stressed syllable. The place of stress and tone are syntagmatic accentual properties, while in the case of root or stem accentuation is a paradigmatic accentual property. Dominant affixes exert influence upon all accentual properties, i.e. place of stress, tone and accentuation. The influence on place of stress and tone of a base stem can be illustrated by the Lith. paradigmatic derivatives2 vasãris 2 2  Or inflectional derivatives (Lith. galūnių vediniai) according to Lithuanian lin-guistic tradition (see Urbutis 1978, 283ff.; 22009, 333ff.).258  Bonifacas Stundžia‘February’    vãsara  1  ‘summer’  and  puõdžius  2  ‘potter’    púodas 1  ‘pot’. In these cases the influence of dominant affixes has been realised on a syntagmatic level: the first derivative is characterised by the shift of stress one syllable further, i.e. to the penultimate syllable, with the second derivative having undergone circumflex metatony, while accented roots of base words remain accented also in derivatives. There are also derivatives with double dominance, i.e. including the change of accentuation of the base  stem  as  well,  e.g.  piemẽnė  2  ‘shepherdess’    píemenį  (acc.sg.), piemuõ 3a ‘shepherd’ (the stress has shifted one syllable further, i.e. to the penultimate syllable, and the non-accented base stem has become accented in the derivative), vìlkė 1 ‘she-wolf’  vil̃kas 4 ‘wolf’ (acute metatony and change of non-accented base stem to the accented one in the derivative).The influence of dominant affixes upon accentuation, a paradigmatic property of base stems, is realised in two ways.1.  Non-accented base stems are substituted for accented ones in deri  v    - atives (a), while accented base stems do not change their property (b), e.g.: a) bérnas 3  bérniškas, -a 1, vil̃kas 4  vil̃kiškas, -a 1;   b) výras 1  výriškas, -a 1, miẽstas 2  miẽstiškas, -a 1. The place of stress and tone of base stems are preserved in the derivatives, while non-accented base stems of bérnas and vil̃kas have become accented in the derivatives in question. 2.  Accented  base  stems  are  substituted  for  non-accented  ones  in derivatives (a), while non-accented base stems do not change their property (b), e.g.: a) ámžius 1  ámžinas, -à 3a, šiùkšlė 2  šiùkšlinas, -à 3b; b) mė́šlas 3  mė́šlinas, - à 3a, laĩkas 4  laĩkinas, -à 3b. The place of stress and tone of the base stem have been preserved in the derivatives, while accented base stems of ámžius and šiùkšlė have become non-accented in the derivatives in question. Besides, there are derivatives with double dominance, i.e. including the change of tone as well, e.g. ántis 1 ‘duck’  añtinas 3b ‘drake’. As stated above, the influence of the suffix -iškas, -a is realised by substituting non-accented base stems for accented base stems in derivatives in standard Lithuanian. On the basis of data taken from old writings and dialects, it is evident that the dominant character of suffix -iškas, -a is an innovation, cf. Old and dialectal Lith. výriškas, -a 1  výras 1, miẽstiš- Dominance as an accentual (prosodic) property of morphemes  259kas, -a 1  miẽstas 2 (accented stems both in base words and derivatives) and bérniškas, -à 3a  bérnas 3, vil̃kiškas, -à 3b  vil̃kas 4 (non-accented stems both in base words and derivatives). On the syntagmatic level, the accentuation of derivatives follows the basic accentuation rule, i.e. stress falls on the first accented morpheme. When all morphemes are non-accented, stress falls on the first (i.e. root) morpheme. On the paradigmatic level, or, as far as the accentual property accentuation, or accentual power, of stems is concerned, it seems that the accentuation of derivatives has been based on the accentuation of base words (cf. Girdenis 1971). According to Aleksas Girdenis, suffixes did not receive stress in Old Lithuanian (and most probably in Baltic) nominal accentuation, and it was de Saussure’s Law that  shifted stress from circumflex or short stems to the adjacent acute suffixes3, e.g. Old Lith. *׀lapúotas, -ā́   1 ( *׀lapas 1) → *la׀púotas,  -ā́  1  →  modern  Lith.  lapúotas,  -a  1.  Contrary  to  Girdenis, Vladimir Dybo reconstructs two classes of suffixes, characteristic of Proto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic and Baltic accentuation. The behaviour of the suffixes of the first class corresponds to the reconstruction by Girdenis, while the suffixes of the second class receive stress in cases when base stems are non-accented, cf. Old Lith. tė́viškė 1  tė́vas 1, dvãriškis  dvãras 2 (accented stems both in base words and derivatives) and bernìškė 2  bérnas 3, namìškis, -ė 2  namaĩ 4 (accented stems in derivatives vs. non-accented stems  in  base  words).  On  the  syntagmatic  level,  the  accentuation  of derivatives with the second class suffixes (according to Dybo’s terminology) follows the basic accentuation rule, i.e. stress falls on the first accented morpheme, while on the paradigmatic level, non-accented base stems are in contrast with accented stems of derivatives. The accented character of stems of derivatives is predetermined by the suffix -iškis, -ė, the dominance of which is manifested on the paradigmatic level. The dominance in this case seems to be an innovation as well, and it has a connection with the development of accentuation of -ii̯o, -ē stem derivatives in general. As far as pairs of suffixes ending in hard and soft consonants are concerned (cf. -iškas, -a and -iškis, -ė, -inas, -a and -inis, -ė, etc.), it has to be said that the ‘hard’ suffixes are more archaic than the ‘soft’ ones. The origin 3 A more correct formulation would be as follows: the stress shifted from circum-flex or short stem syllable to the adjacent acute syllable of the suffix.260  Bonifacas Stundžiaand development of the two types of dominance, i.e. paradigmatic and syntagmatic dominance, will be the topic of my next article. This time I wanted to draw attention to different interpretations of dominance as an accentual (prosodic) property of morphemes, as well as to the importance of distinguishing between syntagmatic and paradigmatic aspects of dominance both from the synchronic and diachronic point of view.DOMINACIJA KAIP AKCENTINĖ (PROZODINĖ) MORFEMŲ SAVYBĖSantraukaTerminas dominacija kalbotyroje vartojamas iš seno įvairiomis reikšmėmis ir ne visada preciziškai. P. Garde’as, įvedęs šį terminą į akcentologiją, dominaciją supranta kaip  afiksų  (paprastai  priesagų)  sintagminę  akcentinę  savybę,  neutralizuojančią pamatinio kamieno akcentines savybes ir sąlygojančią vedinio kirčio vietą, tuo tarpu A. Girdenis, vartojantis platesnės reikšmės terminą santykinė akcentologinė vertė, pirmiausia pabrėžia paradigminį dominacijos pobūdį (plg. jo skiriamas stiprinančiąsias ir  silpninančiąsias  vardažodžių  darybos  priesagas,  keičiančias  pamatinio  kamieno akcentinę vertę).Šio straipsnio autorius, plėtodamas J. Kuryłowicziaus idėjas, anksčiau yra išdėstęs platesnį požiūrį į akcentinę, tiksliau – prozodinę, dominaciją kaip morfonologinę afiksų savybę daryti įtaką visoms pamatinio kamieno prozodinėms savybėms, t. y. kirčio vietai, priegaidei ir akcentuacijai. Dominacijos įtaką pamatinio kamieno kirčio vietai ir priegaidei rodo tokie lietuvių kalbos galūnių vediniai kaip vasãris 2  vãsara 1   ir puõdžius 2  púodas 1 (pirmo vedinio kirtis yra pasislinkęs iš pradinio skiemens į penultimą, o antras vedinys yra patyręs cirkumfleksinę metatoniją). Dominacinių afiksų  poveikis  pamatinio  kamieno  akcentuacijai ( akcentinei  vertei  /  galiai)  yra dvejopas: 1) nekirčiuoti (silpnieji) pamatiniai kamienai vediniuose tampa kirčiuoti (stiprieji), o 2) kirčiuoti pamatiniai kamienai, atvirkščiai, vediniuose tampa nekirčiuoti, plg.: vil̃kas 4 (nekirčiuotas kamienas) ir vil̃kiškas, -a 1 (kirčiuotas kamienas), ámžius 1 (kirčiuotas kamienas) ir ámžinas, -à 3a (nekirčiuotas kamienas). Priesagos -iškas, -a dominacinis pobūdis laikytinas inovacija, plg. sen. ir tarm. lie. vil̃kas 4  ir vil̃kiškas, -à 3 b  (ir  pamatinis,  ir  išvestinis  kamienai  yra  nekirčiuoti).    Vediniai  šiuo  atveju kirčiuojami  pagal  pagrindinę  kirčiavimo  taisyklę:  kirtį  gauna  pirmoji  (kirčiuota  / stiprioji) morfema (sintagminis aspektas), tuo tarpu paradigminiu lygmeniu vedinių kirčiavimas greičiausiai yra buvęs grindžiamas pamatinių žodžių kirčiavimu. Kreipiant  dėmesį  ne  tik  į  sintagminį,  bet  ir  paradigminį  afiksų  prozodinės dominacijos vaidmenį galima visapusiškiau išnagrinėti kirčiavimo sistemų raidą.Dominance as an accentual (prosodic) property of morphemes  261SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYBußmann, Hadumod (Hrsg.) 2008, Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 4. Auflage unter Mitarbeit von Hartmut Lauffer, Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.Crystal, David 2008, A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 6th ed., Oxford: Blackwell.Dybo, Vladimir Antonovič 1981, Slavjanskaja akcentologija. Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnych paradigm v praslavjanskom, Moskva: Nauka.Dybo, Vladimir Antonovič 2000, Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcen-tnye sistemy. Tipologija i genezis 1, Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Garde, Paul 1968, L’accent, Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Garde, Paul 1976, Histoire de l’accentuation slave, Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Garde, Paul 1980, Grammaire russe l: Phonologie. Morphologie, Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Girdenis, Aleksas 1962, Balsių asimiliacijos reiškiniai Tirkšlių tarmėje, Kalboty-ra 4, 141–150.Girdenis, Aleksas 1971, Lietuvių kalbos vardažodžio priesagų kirčio susiformavi-mas, Baltistica 1 priedas, 66–72.Girdenis, Aleksas 1985, Akcentuacija, in Vytautas Ambrazas (red.), Grammatika litovskogo jazyka, Vilnjus: Mokslas, 61–68 (= Girdenis 1994; 42005; 1997; 22006).Girdenis,  Aleksas  1994,  42005,  Kirčiavimas,  in  Vytautas  Ambrazas  (red.), Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: MEL(I), 49–53.Girdenis,  Aleksas  1997,  22006,  Accentuation,  in  Vytautas  Ambrazas  (ed.), Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 77–83.Gołąb, Zbigniew, Adam Heinz, Kazimierz Polański 1968, Słownik terminologii językoznawczej, Warszawa: PAN.Hjelmslev, Louis 1959[1938], Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes, in Idem, essais linguistiques, Copenhague: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag, 153–164.Knobloch, Johann (Hrsg.) 1986, Sprachwissenschaftliches Wörterbuch, Heidel-berg: Winter.Kuryłowicz,  Jerzy  1960[1938],  Struktura  morfemu,  in  Idem,  esquisses  lin-guistiques, Wrocław, Kraków: Wydawnictwo PAN, 51–65.Lefel’dt,  Verner  2006,  Akcent  i  udarenie  v  russkom  jazyke,  Moskva:  Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury (translation of Lehfeldt 2003).Lehfeldt, Werner 2003, Akzent und Betonung im russischen, München: Verlag Otto Sagner (Russian translation: Lefel’dt 2006).Pakerys,  Antanas  2008,  Dėl  akcentinės  lietuvių  kalbos  vardažodžių  priesagų galios, Baltistica 43(1), 17–29. 262  Bonifacas StundžiaRinkevičius, Vytautas 2010, Kai kurie teoriniai morfologinės akcentologijos kon-cep  cijos aspektai, Baltistica 45(1), 9–43.Stundžia, Bonifacas, 1995, Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas.Urbutis, Vincas 1978, 22009, Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas, 2MELI.Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evič  1985,  Ot  praslavjanskoj  akcentuacii  k  russkoj, Moskva: Nauka.Bonifacas STUNDŽIADepartment of Baltic LinguisticsVilnius UniversityUniversiteto 5LT-01513 VilniusLithuania[bonifacas.stundzia@flf.vu.lt]

Dominance as an accentual (prosodic) property of morphemes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals