The Circle That Won't Come Full: Two Potential Isoglosses in the Circum

Home , Baltic languages, Bornholm dialect, Danish dialects, East Danish, Elfdalian, Estonian language

8 The Circle That Won’t Come Full: Two Potential Isoglosses in the Circum-Baltic Area Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm

1The Circum-Baltic languages – a coastal contact-superposition zone in the European periphery

1.1 Introducing the Circum-Baltic languages Although humans have inhabited the region around the Baltic Sea at least since the end of the last glacial era, our knowledge about the languages spoken in the area covers a much shorter time span. In historical times, this area was mainly a meeting-place of languages from two linguistic stocks: Indo-European (Baltic, Germanic and Slavic languages) and Uralic/Finno-Ugric (Finnic and Saami). Archaeologists, geneticists and linguists claim to trace back the two language stocks in the area to at least the second millennium BC, and suggest various competing theories on which one was the first and where. In addition, there are three ‘exotic’ languages that have all been used in the area for a considerable time: the Indo-Aryan language(s) Romani, spoken all over the Circum-Baltic area in different varieties, and the Turkic languages Tatar and Karaim. Which languages should count as Circum-Baltic (CB) languages (the term launched in Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 1992, and further developed in Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2001) is, of course, open to discussion, for several reasons, the main one being the geographical delineation of the area. In Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001: xvi–xx), we include as CB languages those in Figure 8.1 (see also Map 8.1). The list in Figure 8.1 is simplified in several respects. First, it does not contain extinct languages – for example, Polabian (Slavic), Old Prussian, Jatvingian, Curonian and Galindian (Baltic). In addition, it more or less ignores dialectal variations, which in some cases make the distinction between languages and dialects particularly troublesome. Thus, Northern and Southern Estonian are sometimes considered to be two different

182 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Linguistic Areas © Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2006 Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 183 languages (Estonian language, eesti keel versus Võru language, võro kiil); the High Latvian dialect spoken in the eastern part of Latvia is sometimes referred to as the ‘Latgalian language’; and Norwegian has two written languages, Bokmål (based on Norwegianized Danish) and Nynorsk (based on Norwegian dialects). The list above, however, treats the different Saami

Indo-European Germanic West: High German, Low German, Yiddish North: Danish, Swedish, Dalecarlian, Norwegian Baltic: Latvian, Lithuanian Slavic West: Polish, Kashubian East: Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian Indo-Aryan: Romani Finno-Ugric Finnic: Estonian, Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Ludian, Olonetsian, Veps Saami: Southern S., Ume S., Pite S., Lule S., Northern S., Inari S., Skolt S. Turkic: Karaim, Tatar

Figure 8.1 Circum-Baltic languages

Northern Saami Inari Skolt Saami Saami Lule Saami

Pite Saami

Ume Saami Karelian Southern Saami Finnish Ludian Dalecarlian Olonetsian Veps Norwegian Swedish Ingrian Estonian Votian

Livonian Russian Latvian Danish Lithuanian Northern Karaim Frisian Kashubian Low Belarusian German Polish High German

Map 8.1 The Circum-Baltic languages [non-territorial languages (Romani, Yiddish, Tatar) not shown] 184 The Circum-Baltic Area varieties as distinct languages. ‘Dalecarlian’ (egentligt dalmål) refers to the highly conservative Scandinavian vernaculars that are spoken in the Swedish province of Dalarna (Dalecarlia) and are not comprehensible to speakers of Standard Swedish. We have chosen to treat these as a separate language (or, perhaps, even as a language chain), breaking with the tradition of counting them as the ‘highly deviating variants’ of the Eastern Swedish dialects. Both extinct varieties and dialectal variation are, of course, crucial for the study of areal phenomena. The ethnic groups and the languages in the CB area have been involved in various kinds of contact, from more local to those stretching over large territories. Since time immemorial, the area itself has been divided and re-divided constantly among different spheres of influence. Thus, the period AD 800–1000 meant expansive activities of the Scandinavian Vikings and the emergence of the Scandinavian, Polish and Russian states, each with its own sphere of dominance. The period AD 1100–1500 saw Denmark’s expansion, the crusades and the establishment of the Teutonic Order states in Northern Baltikum, dominance of the Hanseatic leagues, and expansion of the Polish and the Lithuanian states, later of the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth. After that the area went on to be shared and re-shared among powers such as Sweden, the Polish–Lithuanian Common- wealth, Prussia (later Germany) and Russia (later the Soviet Union). Each of the dominant powers brought with it a new prestige language (Danish, Low German, the Eastern Slavic variety used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Swedish, Polish, German and Russian), which expanded over a large area and influenced the local languages. Indirectly, the spread of prestige languages entailed convergence among the local vernaculars themselves. The CB zone has also been divided and re-divided among the three main religions in the area – Catholicism, Lutheranism and Greek Orthodoxy. The ‘deviating’ religions, Judaism and the ‘Old Faith’, have played a highly important role in the preservation of Karaim and Yiddish, as well as Russian ‘Old Believers’ dialects in the CB area. More or less local contacts among particular ethnic groups and languages or language groups in the area are numerous and diverse. One contact-intensive zone is, for example, the territory where Latvian, Livonian and Estonian are spoken (Stolz, 1991). Thus, a strong Finnish substratum is generally recognized in Latvian, especially in its north- eastern dialects (Tamian), covering the area originally inhabited by Livonians. Livonian itself is at present spoken by only a few dozen speakers and is largely influenced by Latvian. Northern Russian has a number of features generally attributed to the Finnic substratum and, primarily, to contacts with the smaller Finnic languages (Ingrian, Karelian, Ludian, Veps and Votian). These languages themselves are now on the verge of extinction or, in the case of Karelian, are mainly used as one part Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 185 of bilingual mixed codes (Sarhimaa, 1999). Swedish in Finland and Estonia is (or was) spoken in the Finnic area; there are various Slavic varieties spoken in the Baltic area. Given all this, it is justified to expect an abundance of contact phenomena in the CB languages. There is a relatively old tradition of studying linguistic contacts around the Baltic Sea by looking at loan words. The area was also among the first to receive the newly-coined label ‘Sprachbund’, applied to it by R. Jakobson (1931). Starting primarily from the 1970s, there has been an intensive hunt for isoglosses in the CB area, with the resulting rich flora of partly overlapping proposed Sprachbünde, primarily in the two above-mentioned main hotbeds of areal phenomena (Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001). Thus, the Latvian–Livonian–Estonian zone stretching in different directions over the Baltikum and further constitutes the core in what has been termed the ‘Peipus-Bund’ (Décsy, 1973), the ‘Baltischer Sprachbund’ (Haarmann, 1970, 1976) and the ‘Convergence zone in the Baltikum’ (Stolz, 1991; see also Falkenhahn, 1963). The Eastern Finnic– Northwestern Russian(–Baltic) zone forms the core in Matthiassen’s (1985a, 1985b) ‘Eastern Baltic Sprachbund’ and in Sarhimaa’s (1999) ‘Karelian Sprachbund’. In addition, the CB area partially overlaps with two other suggested convergence zones including Scandinavian–Celtic–Northern Finnic– Saami – the ‘Wikinger-Bund’ (Haarmann, 1976), and Polish–Kashubian– Belarusan–Ukrainian–Lithuanian – the ‘Rokytno-Bund’ (Haarmann, 1976), or the ‘Baltic–Slavic contact area’ (Wiemer, 2004; see also Falkenhahn, 1963). The latest, and probably most ambitious, contribution to the field are the two volumes by Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) that contain numerous papers on relations among the Circum-Baltic languages. In the concluding chapter in their book, Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli look at a large number of potential areal features in the CB area, at both the micro-level – by giving a nuanced and detailed analysis of these phenomena – and at the macro-level – by plotting the same phenomena against a general cross-linguistic background. In the latter, we differentiate between global and European perspectives. Several important conclusions follow from this analysis: (1) the highest concentration of typologically unusual areal properties is found in the eastern part of the CB; (2) the CB region forms a border zone between the Central Eurasian languages in the East and the Standard Average European languages in the West; and (3) the isoglosses pick up different subsets of the languages, in many cases also extending outside the CB area proper. In the next section we shall look at some examples illustrating these gener- alizations (see also Table 8.1). 186

Table 8.1 Some areal phenomena in the CB area

PhenomenonLanguagesPossible Typological status primarily source(s) involved Globally Europe

1. Case Finnic, In embryo Probably unusual, alternation for Baltic, attested in Indo- but not unique (cf. marking total Eastern European; Basque, French) versus partial and common objects/ Western innovation subjects Slavic in the CB area with several layers of influence (Baltic → Finnic → Russian) 2. Nominative Finnic, Various Probably unusual, object in Baltic, hypotheses; in but not unique (cf. various Northern Baltic and Nenets, Kamassian, constructions Russian Northern Southern Paiute, (imperatives, Russian; probably Yindjibarndi) infinitives a combination dependent on of inherited impersonal Indo-European verbs, etc.) models reinforced by contacts with Finnic 3. Case Finnic, Various Fairly infrequent, alternation in Saami, hypotheses but far from predicate Mordvin, unique. Occurs adjectives and Komi, mainly at the nominals Baltic, fringe of (Stassen, 2001) Eastern Indo-European and Slavic, is most probably Polish a non-Indo- European characteristic 4. Alternation Baltic, Expansion of the Very unusual, between case- Slavic, Indo-European probably not government Finnic, model in unique (cf. Arabic) and agreement Sami Baltic and within Slavic numeral Indo-European constructions (most probably Baltic) influence on Finnic and Sami Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 187

5. Evidential Baltic, A shared innovation, An areal property mood Southern probably starting of several well- Finnic from Finnic. established areas (Estonian, However, also some worldwide. Livonian) Indo-European ‘Fusing’ preconditions evidentiality with tense in the same marker is cross- linguistically rare 6. Reflexive Northern Various hypotheses Fairly unusual Only in postfixes as Germanic, the CB markers of Baltic, languages valence Eastern recession Slavic (Haspelmath, 1987)

1.2 The main isoglosses in the CB area As mentioned earlier, the most striking isoglosses cross-linguistically in the CB area are mainly found in its eastern part – that is, in the Baltic and Finnic languages and in Northern Russian, and include the following (for details see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001):

(1) The alternation between the accusative and the genitive (in Baltic and Slavic) or the partitive (Finnic) case1 between high transitivity and low transitivity objects, or ‘total’ versus ‘partial’ objects. The details and the relevance of this distinction is subject to a considerable cross-linguistic variation, where Finnic and Standard Russian show the most versus the least grammaticalized system, with some of the north-western Russian dialects sharing considerable properties with Finnic. The factors underlying this distinction include polarity of the clause (affirmative versus negative), as in example (1) below from Polish, aspect, affectedness of the object and so on.

(1) Polish (a) Przya-p-em tvoj-a propozycj-e accept-PAST-1SG your(SG)-ACC.SG.F proposal-ACC ‘I accepted your proposal.’

(b) Nie przya-p-em tvoj-ej propozycj-i NEG accept-PAST-1SG your(SG)-GEN.SG.F proposal-GEN ‘I did not accept your proposal.’

The alternation between accusative-marked ‘total’ and genitive-marked ‘partial’ objects is well-known from some of the older Indo-European 188 The Circum-Baltic Area

languages, but not on a scale even slightly comparable with the modern situation in Baltic, Slavic and Finnic. From a typological point of view, even though differentiation of object marking depending on such factors as polarity, aspect and affectedness of the object are quite spread (Hopper and Thompson, 1980; Næss, 2003), the implementation of these factors in the systems found in the Baltic area seems to be fairly rare, to say the least. (2) Less canonical subjects – for example, subjects in existential clauses, can sometimes be marked with the genitive (in Baltic and Slavic) or the partitive (Finnic) case. Again, the most grammaticalized system is found in Finnic, where the partitive case consistently marks subjects in existential clauses, as in example (2) below from Finnish, and in seman- tically related clause types. The partitive case is particularly preferred if the clause is negated and the subject refers to a quantatively non-delimited entity. Roughly the same conditions govern the choice between the nominative and the genitive case marking on Baltic and Slavic existential subjects, but on a significantly more restricted scale, with the most grammaticalized distinction again being found in Northwestern Russian.

(2) Finnish (a) Kirj-at o-vat pöydä-lla book-NOM.PL be.PRES-3PL table-ILLAT ‘The books are on the table.’

(b) Pöydä-llä o-n kirj-oja table-ILLAT be.PRES-3SG book-PART.PL ‘There are (some) books on the table.’

Typologically it is even more difficult to find counterparts to this kind of alternation. It is also interesting that the case alternations cover both objects and ‘less subject-like’ subjects. One obvious alternative to account for these rules could be the unaccusative hypothesis, according to which intransitive verbs are split among those that take ‘good’ subjects and those that in fact take objects (under certain conditions ‘disguised’ as subjects). However, there are reasons to consider unaccus- ativity as being not particularly suitable for the situation under consideration. The best parallels to the Finnic–Baltic–Russian case alternations under examples (1) and (2) are provided by the alternation between the absolute and the partitive cases (or ‘zerik-case’) in Basque (for examples and discussion, see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 666) and by the rules governing the use of the partitive article in French. (3) In several constructions in Finnic, Baltic and Northern Russian (both Old Northern Russian and modern Northwestern dialects), the object appears in the nominative case and not in the accusative. One common context is provided by an infinitival clause functioning as the subject of a necessitive matrix predicate – see example (3) from Northwestern Russian dialects. Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 189

The Latvian correspondence to such clauses involves the so-called ‘debitive mood’, also with the object in the nominative. The set of nominative-object constructions differs greatly across the languages. Thus, while nominative objects in Northern Russian and Lithuanian are normally restricted to clauses with clearly non-finite predicates (infinitives and converbs), Finnic requires, in addition, nominative objects in imperative clauses and clauses with impersonal passives. It has been suggested that the common denominator of all these contexts is their systematic lack of an overt personal subject (Timberlake, 1974). (3) Northwestern Russian dialects (a) Topim peck-u heat.PRES.1PL oven-ACC ‘We are heating the oven.’

(b) Nado/Pora topit’ peck-a it-is-necessary/it-is-time heat.INF oven-NOM ‘It is necessary/It is time to heat the oven.’ The alternation between the nominative and the accusative cases for object marking is widely attested in Uralic, but is normally used for semantic reasons – that is, to distinguish between indefinite, mass or otherwise non-individuated objects, and others; this is also quite common cross-linguistically. Some Uralic languages (for example, the two Samoyedic languages, Nenets and Kamassian) have a syntactic rule by which objects to imperatives appear in the nominative case. A similar rule is attested elsewhere – for example, in the Pama-Nyungan Australian language Yindjibarndi. However, on the whole, the nominative-object constructions of the kind(s) found in Finnic, Baltic and Northern Russian seem to be very rare. (4) Finnic, Baltic and Slavic display double (or sometimes multiple) options in the case marking of predicate adjectives and nominals. The choice between the nominative and some oblique case, for example, the instrumental in example (4) below from Lithuanian, can be described as roughly correlating with the distinction between time- stable and temporary situations, respectively (Stassen, 2001), but the rules and their implementation differ considerable across languages. (4) Lithuanian (a) Jis yra mokytoj-as he.NOM is teacher-NOM ‘He is a teacher.’

(b) Jis buvo mokytoj-u he.NOM was.3SG teacher-INSTR ‘He was (working as) a teacher.’ 190 The Circum-Baltic Area

In Indo-European, the predicative instrumental is restricted to Baltic and Slavic; within the latter group its frequency is considerably higher in the northern languages (East-Slavic, Polish) than in the southern ones. Within Uralic, multiple encoding of non-verbal predicates is not restricted to Finnic, but is also found in Saami, Mordvin and Komi, which has been used as an argument for the Uralic origin of the East- Slavic and Polish pattern. Cross-linguistically, as shown in Stassen (2001), double encoding is fairly infrequent, but by no means unique: some variant of it occurs in at least four other areas. (5) In Finnic and most Slavic, most cardinal numerals higher than ‘one’ alternate between case-governing and agreeing with their complements under well-defined – and very similar – syntactic conditions. As example (5) below, from Russian, shows, when the numeral is in one of the direct cases (nominative or accusative), the complement appears in the genitive (or in the partitive in Finnic). Otherwise, both the numeral and the complement are in the same case (here in the dative). In Baltic, the two properties are associated primarily with different sets of numerals, which is more common both cross-linguistically and within Indo-European. (5) Russian (a) Ja vi}upjat’stakan-ov I.NOM see.PRES.1SG five.NOM/ACC glass-GEN.PL ‘I see five glasses.’

(b) Ja priš-l-a spjat’-justakan-ami I.NOM COME-PAST-F.SG WITH FIVE-DAT GLASS-DAT.PL ‘I came with five glasses.’ Within Indo-European, the Slavic situation is almost unique. Numerals agreeing with complements and those governing them are widely attested across Indo-European, but these properties are normally associated with different sets of numerals – agreement with lower and government with higher numerals – and this principle is carried out quite consistently in Lithuanian, while Latvian shows a more complicated situation. Within Uralic, the basic numeral construction involves a non-inflected numeral preceding its nominal complement, which carries case inflection of the whole construction. Only Saami shows some- thing remotely reminiscent of the Finnic pattern. Cross-linguistically, we do find both agreement of numerals with their complements, and government of complements by higher numerals in a number of languages, even though those are relatively infrequent phenomena. However, the complex Finnic and Slavic systems seem to lack any counterpart anywhere, and it is thus highly probable that the Finnic system is ‘borrowed’. Since there were no historical preconditions for such an extensive influence on Finnic from Slavic (at far as we know), Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 191

as opposed to that from Baltic, we can probably conclude that Baltic and Slavic had similar rules at an earlier stage, which were later simplified in Baltic. (6) Estonian, Livonian, Latvian and Lithuanian use special ‘evidential’ verb forms for marking that the speaker’s factual claims are based on indirect evidence, rather than on direct, or attested, evidence (evidential, quotative, relative or oblique mood). These are basically non-finite verb forms, primarily participles, sometimes ‘frozen’ in an oblique case: thus, -vat in example (6) below, from Estonian, is historically the partitive case form of the present participle. (6) Estonian Sina rääki-vat saksa keel-t you(SG).NOM speak-QUOT German language-PART ‘You are said to speak German; they say you can speak German.’ Evidentiality is an areal property of several well-established areas worldwide and is known to be susceptible to diffusion through intensive language contact (Aikhenvald, 2004). Although many (or even most) languages express evidentiality distinctions in one or another way, they tend to do this by special verbal affixes/clitics, or by various modals. The situation reported above is quite unusual in that the expression of evidentiality is ‘fused together’ with the expression of tense: in de Haan (2005)’s global sample, such languages constitute about 5 per cent (for example, Turkish and Georgian).2

There are also interesting isoglosses not restricted to the eastern part of the Baltic area. An isogloss connecting Scandinavian, Baltic and East Slavic languages is the expression of certain verbal voice functions (reflexive, reciprocal, anti-causative, passive) by means of verbal postfixes – that is, affixes in the last position of a word, following, for example, tense/aspect and agreement or infinitive markers (Russian obnima-l-i-s’ ‘hug-PAST-PL-RECIPR versus obnima-t’-sja ‘hug-INF-RECIPR’, or Swedish kyss-te-s ‘kiss-PAST-RECIPR’ versus kyss-a-s ‘kiss-INF-RECIPR’). These affixes have all developed because of coalescence between the main verb and permutable reflexive and reciprocal pronouns (-s/-st in Scandinavian, -s in Baltic and -s’/-sja in East Slavic). They manifest an extensive polysemy, largely following the cross-linguistically well-attested grammaticalization paths in the development of reflexive markers to markers of middle voice and, later, possibly, to passives (Geniušien<, 1987; Haspelmath, 1987; Kemmer, 1993), although the sets of meanings differ considerably across the languages. As shown by Haspelmath (1987), postfixes as markers of reflexivity and related meanings are limited cross-linguistically mainly to the languages of the Baltic Sea region. Thus, in this respect, Baltic, East Slavic and Scandinavian manifest a transition from the cross-linguistically second most frequent pattern of many other 192 The Circum-Baltic Area

Indo-European languages, in which marking is accomplished by means of a reflexive pronoun/pronominal clitic, to the cross-linguistically most frequent pattern of the Finno-Ugric languages, which use suffixation for similar purposes. Lithuanian and some Latvian dialects are particularly interesting here, since the position of the reflexive element varies: it is placed between the prefix and the stem in prefixed verbs, otherwise word- finally, for example, moky-ti-s ‘teach-INF-REFL’ (= ‘to learn’) versus ne-si-moly-ti ‘NEG-REFL-teach-INF’ (= ‘not to learn’). Whatever the proportion between possible contact-induced changes (Ureland, 1982) and the universal grammaticalization may be in this case, the use of postfixes for transitivity- reducing verbal alternations is a peculiar CB phenomenon. As mentioned in section 1.1, the CB region forms a border zone between the Central Eurasian languages in the East and the Standard Average European (SAE) languages in the West. The following example will illustrate this point. Stolz (2001) shows that the European, or, primarily, SAE-languages show a cross-linguistically very high predilection to use the same marker for the expression of typical comitative (Peter is eating soup with his friend) and instrumental functions (Peter is eating soup with a spoon). Most languages in Stolz’ (2001) global sample separate the two constructions: in Russian, for example, the instrumental function is normally expressed by the instrumental case, whereas the comitative function requires in addition the preposition s ‘with’ (lo}k-oj ‘spoon-INSTR’ versus s drug-om ‘with friend-INSTR’). In this respect, the CB languages show interesting diversity: some languages use the same marker (Germanic, Latvian, Estonian, Saami and Livonian), and others strictly separate the two (Finnish, Russian, Polish), wheras Lithuanian is a mixture – while it normally separate the two functions, it can optionally use the same preposition for both. Stolz concludes that the complete merger of comitative and instrumental functions in Estonian, Livonian, Sami and Latvian is likely to be the result of the Germanic (super- stratal) influence on these languages, even though the Latvian situation could in principle be explained for by internal factors. Some other examples include the expression of comparison, sentential possession, polarity questions (Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001). Western CB languages often behave like SAE languages, and eastern CB languages often follow the Central Eurasian pattern. There is, however, no bundle of isoglosses cutting the CB area neatly in two parts. Finally, as should be clear from the examples and from Table 8.1, the isoglosses pick up different subsets of the languages, in many cases also extending outside the CB area proper. The most general conclusion in Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli (2001) is that convergence in the CB area works primarily on a micro-level, reflecting language contacts of, maximally, two or three languages. One particularly beautiful example illustrating this point is discussed by Nau (1996). She considers verbal prefixes and particles that in various ways modify the Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 193 meaning expressed by the verb, primarily making it telic (bounders), for example, ‘up’ in ‘eat up’. Prepositional verbs are often quoted as an areal phenomenon in the CB area (Campbell, 1996). Nau analyses the similarities among CB bounders at three different layers – material similarities; semantic, functional and lexical convergence, and morphosyntactic similarities – and demonstrates that languages may group themselves differently at different layers. It seems, therefore, that convergence comprising more than two or three languages in the CB area – and, most probably, in many other parts of the world – is always the result of the overlapping and superposition of different language contacts. This is particularly true for an area such as the Circum- Baltic region that has never been economically, politically, culturally or linguistically united. Therefore, in Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli (2001) we have suggested the term ‘contact superposition zone’ as a better refec- tion of the complex linguistic situation in the CB area (and, most probably, in many other places) than the vaguely defined and often misused term ‘Sprachbund’. Now, the important issue that has not yet been touched upon is whether there are any isoglosses at all covering all the CB languages. In the rest of the chapter, I shall focus on two properties that at first sight do seem to unite languages spoken in both the eastern and western parts of the CB area, and thus appear to be potential ‘Circum-Balticisms’. The first one, polytonicity, has been known for many years; the second one, the word order in possessive NPs, has been suggested as a potential CB feature in recent years, as a result of large-scale typological research on word order. As far as I know, these are the two most promising cases for being Circum-Balticisms, but, somewhat disappointingly, neither of the properties will stand the proof of coming full circle around the Baltic Sea. However, each of them bears witness to extremely interesting and to a certain extent underestimated linguistic contacts.

2Polytonicity and initial stress

Polytonicity, i.e. the existence of tonal suprasegmental oppositions in a language, was the original impetus for talking about a Sprachbund in the circum-Baltic area. Jakobson (1931 (1971) (a), (b)) suggested that several languages spoken around the Baltic sea together built a ‘phonetic’ Sprach- bund. These included Norwegian (except for an area in the west), most Danish dialects, Swedish (apart from most of the dialects in Finland and in the neighbouring areas and in Estonia), some Low German dialects, Northern Kashubian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Livonian and Estonian. Jakobson’s ideas were further elaborated by Lehiste (1983, 1988, 1997) and by Wiik (1995, 1997) who uses the term ‘The Baltic Sea Prosodic Area’. 194 The Circum-Baltic Area

Tonal phenomena in the CB languages are of the ‘word accent’, ‘lexical accent’ or ‘pitch accent’ type, as opposed to word tones in such languages as Mandarin. That is, here the choice between the accents is made only once in each word, whereas in tone languages (almost) every syllable has its own tone. However, there are (at least) three different groups of word-accent phenomena in the CB region:

(1) a clearly archaic opposition of tone contours in long (bimoraic) syllable cores – found in the Baltic languages (see section 2.1); (2) word tones whose relatively recent phonologization goes back to the distinction between former mono- and bisyllabic words, or to that between words with one or two stresses – found in most Swedish, Norwegian and Danish dialects (see section 2.2); and (3) ‘overlength’, a relatively recent compensatory lengthening of erstwhile long initial syllables through loss or reduction of non-initial ones – found in Estonian, Livonian and Low Latvian (see section 2.3).

The relevance of Northern Kashubian and Low German for the Circum- Baltic prosodic features is disputable and will be discussed in section 2.4 below.

2.1 Baltic languages Baltic polytonicity is part of a wider phenomenon once covering large parts of the Indo-European dialect area. It is related genetically to polytonicity in Slavic languages (which still exists in certain varities of Slovene and Serbo-Croat) and in Classical Greek. This is one of the best-studied areas in Baltic linguistics (for a recent overview, see Dogil, 1999; also Balode and Holvoet 2001a, 2001b). In the Baltic languages tone oppositions apply to bimoraic syllable cores – long vowels, diphthongs and diphthongoid sequences of short vowels and tautosyllabic sonorants. The Baltic varieties differ, however, in how many tones they have, how these are realized phonetically, and in which contexts they apply. Lithuanian has two tones (called acute and circumflex, see Table 8.1) in stressed syllables, both in the Standard variety and in the two main dialect groups – \emaitian, spoken in the north-western part of Lithuania, and Aukštaitian. Acoustically, however, the tones in the \emaitian dialects differ significantly from those in the Aukštaitian dialects and in the Standard language, with the acute tone being replaced by a broken tone (with a glottal closure inside the syllable core), reminiscent of the third Latvian tone (see below). Since Lithuanian has a mobile and free word accent, tone distinctions are not restricted to the same place in a word. Tone differences are most pronounced in the case of diphthongs and diphthongoid sequences, and there is also a general tendency in Standard Lithuanian and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 195

Aukštaitian to restrain tonal oppositions to only these contexts. Interest- ingly, pitch is not the primary correlate of the modern Lithuanian accent (for details, see Dogil, 1999: 886). The Latvian dialects are traditionally classified into three groups: the most conservative Central dialects, Tamian (spoken in the north-western part of Latvia), and High Latvian (Latgalian, spoken in the eastern part of Latvia); the Central and Tamian dialects are sometimes referred to as ‘Low Latvian’. The traditional Latvian system, retained in some Central dialects, has three tones – see Table 8.2. The third tone, called ‘broken tone’ (Stoßton), has resulted from a retraction of stress to an originally acute syllable – and is thus ultimately connected to the stress fixation on the initial syllable in Latvian (which, in turn, has most probably arisen as a result of contact with Finnic – see section 2.5 below). The broken tone involves a glottal closure as a part of its realization, and has parallels in one of the \emaitian (Lithua- nian) tones, in Livonian and in Danish (see sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.6). The tonal opposition in Latvian is most pronounced in the initial (stressed) syllable, but even in unstressed long syllables there is sometimes an opposition between long vowels and diphtongs with and without glottal closure (see Table 8.2). Most Latvian dialects have reduced the original three-tone

Table 8.2 Word accents in most Baltic varieties

Lithuanian:\emaitian Latvian: Standard Tamian Latgalian Standard Latvian and some and (High Lithuanian Central dialects some Latvian) and Central Aukštaitian StressedUnstresseddialects

Circumflex laukas lãuks luõks labas[laba:s] luõks/ lùks* (rising or ‘field’ ‘field’ ‘onion ‘good’ ‘onion (1) ‘onion even, leaf’ (NOM/ leaf’ leaf’ drawn) ACC.PL.FEM. (2) ‘bow, tone DEF) arch’ Acute d< ti ‘put: lùoks luôks (falling) tone INF’ ‘bow, ‘bow, arch’ arch’ luôgs ‘window’ Broken tone/ – dîet0 ‘put: luôgs labas lûgs glottal INF’ ‘window’ [laba/as] ‘window’ closure ‘good’ within the (LOC.PL.FEM. syllable INDEF)

Note:*Neutralization of the circumflex–acute opposition in Latgalian is realized as the falling accent. 196 The Circum-Baltic Area system to a two-tone opposition, differing by which two of the three tones have been merged together.

2.2 Mainland Scandinavian languages3 Scandinavian polytonicity is considered to be a relatively recent phenomenon found in most dialects of Norwegian, Swedish (apart from the dialects in contact with Finnish, Saami and Estonian), including Dalecarlian, and in Danish – but not in Icelandic or Faroese. Word accents par excellence (that is, tonal accents) are found across Norwegian and Swedish, while Danish has an opposition between syllables with and without a glottal closure, stød. It is widely agreed that the phonemic opposition itself arose in the span around 1000–1200 BC, after the syncope period (ending about 800), but that the pitch differences underlying it had been around for a considerable time. Earlier attempts to relate the Scandinavian word accents to the older Indo-European phenomena have been rejected by subsequent research. The literature on the Scandinavian word accents is extensive (see Riad 1998, 2003, 2005 for recent overview of the different subsystems, and of the various theories regarding their origins). Swedish, Dalecarlian and Norwegian have a tonal opposition in non- monosyllabic words.4 The exact phonetic realization differs considerably across the different varieties, with the principal division between Accent 2 having one or two pitch peaks. The basic distributional rule normally makes appeal to the etymology of the word (before 1000–1200):

• originally (that is, after syncope/apocope) monosyllabic words now have Accent 1; and • originally (that is, after syncope/apocope) bi- and polysyllabic words now have Accent 2.

In modern languages, there are a number of polysyllabic words with Accent 1 that have arisen because of a later vowel epenthesis, contain a later suffixation of the definite article, or are later borrowings (see Table 8.3). The Danish correspondence to the Norwegian–Swedish–Dalecarlian distinction between Accents 1 and 2 is not tonal, but involves an opposition between

Table 8.3 Tone distribution in Swedish, Dalecarlian and Norwegian (Swedish examples)

Now one syllable (article Now two syllables (article not not counted) counted)

Originally one syllable 1and-en (< and hinn) ‘the 1segel (< segl) ‘sail’ mallard’ Originally two syllables 2ande-n ‘the spirit’ Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 197 syllables with and without a glottal closure, stød respectively (lit. ‘thrust, push’; cf. Stoß). There have been several theories attempting to account for the rise of word accents (for overviews, see Oftedal, 1952; Riad, 1998; Lahiri et al., 1999). The latest – and, in my opinion, the most consistent – is elaborated by Riad (1998), who suggests that the rise of Accent 2 is a result of the resolution of a word internal stress clash. Frequent internal stress clash was, in turn, a result of syncope and other process in late Proto-Nordic, whereby stresses within a single word often occurred on adjacent syllables. Its resolution involved de-stressing the second syllable, but retaining the stress-related pitch contour. ‘Accent 2 becomes distinctive in late PN [Proto-Nordic] as a consequence of the phonological loss of secondary stress in many inflectional morphemes, whereby the tonal behaviour becomes partially divorced from stress’ (Riad, 1998). Most researchers agree that the Danish opposition between syllables with and without stød has replaced the older tonal opposition (see section 2.5).

2.3 Estonian and Livonian Estonian–Livonian polytonicity is, again, a different phenomenon, related to the reduction of non-initial syllables (and ultimately with the fixed initial stress) and a compensatory secondary lengthening of the initial syllable, or overlength. Most Finnic languages have a two-term phonemic quantity system, with both consonants and vowels being either short (Quantity 1) or long (Quantity 2). In Estonian and Livonian this system was knocked off balance some 500 years ago, because of a massive apocope and syncope – the deletion or shortening of non-initial syllables (apocope and syncope in Estonian have tentatively been put in the thirteenth century, and between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, respectively). Apocope in Estonian was compensated for by lengthening of the initial syllable, thus creating over-long syllables (Quantity 3) out of the erstwhile long ones (see Table 8.4). Quantity 3 is often (but, not always) accompanied by a characteristic falling contour, and there have been long and hot debates in the recent decades on the status of Quantity 3 (Lehiste, 1983; 1988; 2003; Lehiste and

Table 8.4 Quantity in Estonian

Quantity 1 Quantity 2 Quantity 3

Consonants lina linna linna ‘line: NOM.SG’‘town: GEN.SG’ ‘town: ILL.SG’ (cf. Fi liina) (cf. Fi linnan [Hrt] (cf. Fi linnaan ‘palace: ‘palace: GEN.SG’) GEN.SG’) Vowels sada saada saada ‘hundred’‘send: IMP’ ‘get: INF2’ 198 The Circum-Baltic Area

Roos, 1997). The issue at stake is whether its tonal contour should count merely as a concomitant feature of the primarily quantitative distinctions, or as a distinctive tone of its own. Most linguists, however, seem to agree that Estonian might be developing tonal oppositions on the basis of an earlier quantity system. Thus the ongoing changes in the placement of secondary stress in words with Quantity 3 syllables, and in their assignment to inflectional paradigms show that ‘overlength’ no longer has a special quantitative status, compared to Quantity 2. Interestingly, experimental studies have shown that the falling fundamental frequency contour may contain a period of reduced intensity, similar to the Danish, Latvian and Livonian stød (Lehiste, 1988). Lehiste (1988, 2003) suggests that the characteristic pitch contour in Quantity 3 syllables might have arisen because of spontaneous tonogenesis – the overlong syllable retained both the approximate duration and the pitch contour of the original disyllabic sequence (step-down). On the other hand, she does not exclude areal influence completely. Livonian has an even more extended secondary lengthening, which also combines with the opposition between syllables containing a glottal closure and those without it. The interpretation of the Livonian situation differs considerably among different researchers. Finally, Low Latvian also shows compensatory secondary lengthening because of the reduction or loss of non-initial syllables, which combines with the original Baltic tone contour opposition in long syllable cores (for details on Livonian and Low Latvian, see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 643–4).

2.4 Other languages The Germanic dialects spoken in the Cologne–Trier area (Western Germany, Eastern Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) have a tonal distinction between Push-tone (Germ Stoßton, Schärfung, Dutch valtoon, stoottoon) and Drag-tone (Schleifton, sleeptoon). These varieties include the Central Franconian (Mosel-Franconian and Ripuarian) dialects of German and the Limburgian dialects of Dutch, and the phenomenon is known as ‘the Rhineland Accen- tuation (Rheinische Akzentuierung)’. The literature is extensive; for some of the latest overviews, both synchronic and diachronic, see Gussenhoven and Bruce (1999), Lahiri et al. (1999) and Gussenhoven (2000). The relevant German dialects are divided into two broad groups, Rule A dialects and Rule B dialects, which show opposite conditions on the distribution of the tones. The ‘marked’ tone developed in syllables with bimoraic cores that contained Middle High German non-high vowels. The Dutch Limburgian dialects appear to have undergone a development similar to that of the German Rule A dialects. There are also some additional (and different for the different dialects) requirements on schwa-apocope in the following syllable. Rhenish West Germanic varieties differ crucially from Scandinavian in Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 199 having tonal oppositions in monosyllables. In any case, they are spoken relatively far away from the Baltic coastline, in an area that is not adjacent to any of the Circum-Baltic word-accent languages. Jakobson’s understanding of Northern Kashubian (its northernmost dialect Slovincian, now defunct) as a language showing tonal oppositions is based on an old description by Lorentz (1903). It is, however, unclear whether the tones were distinctive or whether they simply correlated with vowel length – Stankiewicz (1993: 292) reinterprets Lorentz in favour of the latter option. This is far from being a unique situation. For example, the Limburgian dialect spoken in the Dutch town of Weert in the north-western periphery of the Rhineland Accentuation area has been described previously as having a tonal opposition. Heijmans (2003), however, shows that the only contrastive feature in alleged pairs is vowel length. Significantly, the distribution of the vowel length in Weert corresponds to a large extent to the distribution of the word accents in the neighbouring Baexem dialect, which are also accompanied by certain quantitative differences. The interesting question, asked but not yet answered in Heijmans (2003: 35) is whether ‘the Weert vowel quantity opposition could have arisen by reana- lyzing a prior lexical tone contrast (a longer vowel duration has often been claimed to cooccur with Accent II) or by merely imitating these durational differences that come with the word tones’.

2.5 Polytonicity in the CB area and language contacts 2.5.1 The eastern semicircle Now, to what extent can polytonicity in the CB area count as a ‘real’ isogloss for the purposes of areal linguistics and a quest for Sprachbünde or linguistic areas? The question is complicated, since there are no obvious connections among the three groups of polytonicity phenomena found in the CB area and considered in this section. Let us first consider the relevant languages at the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. There are numerous examples of mutual contact-induced phenomena among the two Finnic languages, Livonian and Estonian, on the one hand, and Latvian on the other, and the similarities in the prosodic systems of all the three languages do not come as a surprise. Thus it is reasonable to believe that the complicated suprasegmental system in Livonian, including the presence of glottal closure, has arisen, at least partly, because of intensive language contact with Latvian. Conversely, the presence of secondary lengthening in Low Latvian, superimposed over the original Baltic tonal system, can also be ascribed to intensive contacts with Livonian. All three languages have initial stress. Remember that in both Latvian and Estonian (as well as in Livonian), reduction in non-initial, unstressed syllables is responsible for the important developments within the suprasegmental systems – for the rise of the Broken tone in Latvian and for the rise of the 200 The Circum-Baltic Area

Quantity 3 in Estonian. Both the initial stress and apocope, in turn, are also plausible candidates for contact phenomena in the region, but, again, not in a straightforward way.

(1) Thus it is widely accepted that the initial stress in Latvian is related to Finnic influence. However, partial stress reduction is attested even in some north-western dialects of Lithuanian, where the Finnic influence is doubtful. And certain facts within the Latvian system point to a gradual accent shift in the history of Latvian, which might easily be explained by language-internal factors. (2) Turning to the weakening of non-initial syllables in Latvian, this process was even stronger in Low Latvian – that is, in the area with the strongest Livonian and Estonian influence. Also within the Finnic, apocope is most pronounced in Livonian and, within Estonian, in the dialects of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa, all of which form a contiguous area with Low Latvian. However, apocope is known also in Veps and in southern dialects of Finnish, and might probably also be explained by language-internal factors.

Here we have a textbook example of the classical dilemma in historical linguistics – that is, whether there are any reasons for resorting to external (language-contact) factors in order to explain cross-linguistic similarities based on linguistic changes that could be accounted for by language- internal factors. And, as in quite a few other cases, it seems reasonable to assume that both types of factor could have contributed to the final result. In other words, an incipient, internally motivated linguistic change in a language may be reinforced by contacts with another language that either shows the ‘target’ characteristics of such a change or is moving in the same direction. The former case might have been relevant for the development of the initial stress in Latvian, and the latter for the weakening of non-initial syllables in Latvian, Estonian and Livonian. In the same way, even though spontaneous tonogenesis can explain the specific pitch contour of Quantity 3 syllable in Estonian and the gradual reinterpretation of its status as tonal rather than quantitative, it could have largely profited from the presence of other polytonic languages in its immediate vicinity – primarily, Latvian. Prosodic properties are per se quite contagious, even when they are not necessarily distinctive within a language. And when the people all around you are, in addition, used to distinguishing among different tones, you might gradually learn to do the same thing in your own language. In short, the polytonicity phenomena and, more generally, the suprasegmental systems in Lithuanian, Latvian, Livonian and Estonian, demonstrate important similarities, which to a high degree seem to be based on a complicated network of mutual areal influences. Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 201

2.5.2 The western semicircle The Continental Scandinavian word accents, on the other hand, do not appear to be related to the polytonicity phenomena on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea in an obvious way. They do, however, demonstrate a number of interesting contact-induced phenomena. Thus the lack of word accents in most Swedish dialects spoken in Estonia, Finland and in Överkalix in Norrbotten (the former Finnish territory in North-Eastern Sweden) is considered traditionally as their loss because of the language contacts with the Finnic-speaking people.5 A similar case is assumed for the city of Bergen in western Norway, which has the accent distinction, differs from the surrounding countryside, which lacks any accents. The local Norwegian variety spoken in Bergen was once heavily influenced by Low German because of the presence of a Hanseatic office. It is believed that the accent loss began as an innovation in the city of Bergen, under Low German influence, then spread to the countryside, but was later re-introduced in the city itself (Lorentz, 1995: 42). The history of the spread of word accents across Scandinavian is still very little understood. As Riad (2003: 91) formulates it, there are three famous questions involved in the diachrony of Scandinavian tone accents: (1) the origin of lexical tones; (2) the development of a phonological distinction; and (3) the relationship between the tonal accent system of Swedish and Norwegian dialects, on the one hand, and the stød system of Danish, on the other. Researchers coming from different traditions seem to agree on the existence of different pitch contours in Proto-Scandinavian (or Common Nordic) for quite a long period. These were phonologically predictable from the number of syllables in a word. The crucial point occurred when the association between the different pitch contours and the number of syllables became looser – that is, when the pitch contour normally associated with monosyllables could be used with ‘new’ bisyllabic words, created by vowel epenthesis and by suffigating definite articles to nouns. According to the traditional way of interpreting this change (as well as other pan-Scandinavian innovations in the period AD 600–1200), it ‘applied to a basically uniform language – ‘Proto-Nordic’ – and yield another, which, however, either immediately (partly via those changes themselves) or shortly afterwards split up in two dialects: ‘West Nordic’ (Norwegian, Icelandic) and ‘East Nordic’ (Danish, Swedish) (Dahl, 2001: 226). As Dahl argues, neither the assumption that the Scandinavians preserved a common language over many centuries nor – and even more importantly – that they also changed their language all at the same time and in the same fashion, is particularly plausible. He suggests instead a different scenario. What looks like a uniform language across Scandinavia 202 The Circum-Baltic Area is the result of a gradual language shift, and more specifically, the spread of a ‘prestige dialect’:

Thus, the explanation of the uniform language that we find in the runic inscriptions from the eleventh century onwards, in written documents from the thirteenth century onwards and indirectly in later spoken and written Scandinavian dialects is that at least the ruling classes in the central parts of the Scandinavian countries were using a common language which had spread very recently. The final result of this spread was the obliteration of the dialects or languages spoken earlier in the peripheral parts of the area. Consequently, instead of increasing linguistic diversity (by giving rise to the split between West and East Nordic) as suggested by the traditional account, the outcome was a decrease in diversity, a unifi- cation of the languages spoken in Scandinavia. (Dahl, 2001: 227)

Given the role of Denmark as the dominating power in Scandinavia during the centuries before the Viking Age (at least from the eighth century onwards), it is natural to look for the cradle of the prestigious Scandinavian variety there. Dahl talks about two important commercial and political centres in Scandinavia during the centuries before the Viking Age, both founded in the eighth century AD. These were Hedeby, close to the present-day city of Schleswig on the east coast of Jutland (nowadays Germany, but a traditional Danish-speaking territory), and Birka in the Mälar provinces (Uppland) in Central Sweden. Both were, most certainly, parts of the same network, but the Mälar provinces were most probably a peripheral part of the Danish sphere of influence. Certain linguistic and archaeological facts may suggest that a relatively early prestigious Scandinavian variety originated in Hedeby and spread relatively quickly to Birka. The Hedeby–Birka language then gradually spread over a large area in what are now Sweden and Denmark. Also, Norway had some urban settlements in the ninth century with strong connections to Hedeby, and Denmark ruled over at least some parts of it. The spread of the prestige language was undoubtedly connected to various modifications in its local varieties, and to a development of significant dialect variation among them. There are many historical questions on the relations between the populations of what are now Denmark, Sweden and Norway that have to be worked out. Thus, for example, one possible hypothesis is that there might have been earlier waves of immigration from Denmark to the Mälar provinces in Sweden. However, even later, right after the beginning of the second millennium AD and at the end of the Viking Age, there was an intensive period when Denmark exerted a considerable political and cultural influence over the Mälar provinces in Sweden, with the new centre in Sigtuna. This was the period of common innovations, mainly phonological ones, in what is now East Nordic (Danish, Swedish, Dalecarlian), and, as Dahl (2001: 230) notes, ‘even the traditional accounts describe this change as a spread, starting in Denmark Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 203 and later continuing to Sweden’. Denmark was the most expansive power in the Baltic and in Scandinavia during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and around AD 1200, with a population twice as large as that of Sweden and Norway combined. It continued to be the leading state in Scandinavia during the whole of the Middle Ages. Much research has been devoted to describing the different versions of polytonicity across the Continental Scandinavian varieties (a much quoted source is Gårding, 1977), and the distribution of these patterns may bear witness to the complex linguistic contacts among them. In a number of publications, Riad (1998, 2000, 2003) addresses a question that has not received much attention, namely ‘the diachronic developments of the tone accent system into a finer typology of tonal grammars’. He makes several concrete suggestions as to how to interpret the relative ‘linguistic’ distance among the Scandinavian tone accent systems in terms of geographic (and temporal) spreads. As noted in section 2.2, the main parameter here is the realization of Accent 2 as involving one versus two pitch peaks, but there are also additional distinctions in each of the main types. Here I shall leave out the details of the typology itself, but will concentrate instead on the emerging diachronic picture. As mentioned in section 2.2, Riad suggests that tonal accents originate from stress clash (which, in turn, resulted from syncope and other prosodic developments) and argues that one of the ‘two-peaked’ realizations of Accent 2 is the most conservative one. In this variety, the same Accent 2 pattern applies both to simple and to complex stems, for example nunna ‘nun’ and mellanmålet ‘snack between meals’ (< mellan ‘between’ and målet ‘the meal’) – the latter ones demonstrate a particular clear case of two stress- bearing units combined in a single word. All the other accent patterns can be linked to each other and to the most conservative one(s) by a series of linguistic changes, or minimal steps. The most conservative variety (in several subtypes) is found

• in Swedish spoken in central Sweden (around Stockholm); • in the Swedish varieties spoken on the Baltic coast – in Luleå in the North of Sweden, around Halland in the South of Sweden and in Snäppertuna in Nyland (Finland); • in some varieties spoken in the Swedish (formerly Danish) province of Halland on the eastern coast of Kattegatt; • in Dalecarlian (most significantly in its most archaic Elfdalian vernacular); and • and in the south-eastern Norwegian variety spoken in Stavanger, on the north-eastern coast of the North Sea.

There is also some indirect evidence that stød in Danish seems to have developed from a similar tonal system, with the centre in Zealand. The linguistic ‘distance’ between a pair of accent types normally reflects their 204 The Circum-Baltic Area geographic proximity, but not always in a straightforward way. This can be explained by taking into consideration the partition of Scandinavia into different spheres of influence at the end of the Viking Age and in the Middle Ages, with the two important political centres – Zealand in Denmark and Uppland (the Mälar provinces) in Sweden. Thus, for example, the accent patterns in Southern Sweden and in Southern Norway are much closer to the conservative ‘Central Swedish’ accent type than to those used in geographically adjacent areas. This can be explained by the southern (Danish) influence with a starting point in the use of the conservative type in Zealand. During the spread, or after it, there was a tone shift into what is known as the ‘Dala accent type’ in Southern Sweden (in the provinces of Skåne and Blekinge, which both were parts of Denmark until the seventeenth century), while Zealand itself developed stød and lost its tones. Riad (in particular, 2000, and 2003) shows that even the latter development can be linked easily to the Central Swedish accent type. A transitional type is found in the dialects of the Western Mälardalen (Eskilstuna), which do have tonal distinctions, but in addition show certain phonetic similarities with stød (the so-called ‘curl’, ‘creak’ and sometimes stød), as well as similarities with Danish in the distribution of these features. Riad does not discuss the question of where the Scandinavian tone accents, or rather, the lexical distinctions expressed by them, were born. Neither does he ask the obvious question of why Zealand and Uppland used the same accent type to start with. I believe that his analysis is very much in line with Dahl’s picture of the language spread in Scandinavia. In other words, it would be reasonable to assume that the lexical distinctions expressed by tone accents originated somewhere in Denmark and spread from there by means of the prestige language, with one of the first ‘landing sites’ being the political and cultural centre in the Mälar provinces (Uppland) in Sweden. It is not quite clear to me whether it was from Zealand that Uppland got its accent type, or from Jutland. The predominant opinion seems to learn towards Zealand (and Fyn) – that is, Central Danish – rather than Jutish, as the innovation centre for the development of stød (see Riad, 2000: 293). However, this does not exclude the possibility that the accent type itself underlying this development could have originated in Jutland. The modern distributional peculiarities of stød on Jutland might perhaps be accounted for by a later apocope affecting the existing stød system in various ways (this latter explanation is also suggested in Riad, 2000: 293). The presumed date for the phonologization of word accents, 1000–1200, is based partly on the fact that neither Icelandic nor Faroese shows any similar distinctions. The simplest hypothesis is that the word accents were not yet present in the language of the West Norwegians who colonized these islands. This is, however, problematic, given the fact that both languages have suffixed definite articles that played a crucial role in the Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 205 phonologization of word accents across Scandinavia (see section 2.2.). The situation is, in fact, similar to that in the Swedish varieties spoken in the Finnish and Estonian environment, which also have suffixed articles, but no word accents. The standard explanation, applied there, might perhaps also apply to Icelandic and Faroese: the word accents might have been lost in a contact situation. This sounds somewhat unexpected, given the reputation of Icelandic as a very conservative Scandinavian variety retained in geographic isolation. However, recent genetic research on Icelandic women (based on comparisons of their mitochondrial DNA with other European populations) shows that they are most similar to the Welsh and British, and that as many as 50 per cent of them may have Celtic origins. Other DNA traces suggest that Icelandic women share DNA also with the Saami, Finns, Russians, Germans, Austrians, Turks and others. The results of this research are not final and are open to criticism from various quarters. However, they do prove that the Icelandic population is far from being homogeneously Scandinavian, and imply that the Icelandic language might have been subject to various contact-induced changes. If the word accents were gradually lost in Icelandic, they must have originated before AD 1000, since Iceland was settled mainly in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. An alternative hypothesis is that the varieties spoken by the first settlers in Iceland lacked both word accents and suffixed articles, but that they were later introduced in Icelandic through fairly regular contact with Norwegians.

2.5.3 Two semicircles or one circle? Now back to the main problem: is there any evidence that the polytonicity in the Scandinavian languages is related to any of the polytonicity phenomena on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea? A simple answer would be – ‘no’ or at least ‘not that we know of’. The distance is too great – in both geographical and historical terms. There is, however, enough room for further speculation. Wiik (1995, 1997) suggests that the prosodic features of the Circum-Baltic languages all result from close contact between the Finno-Ugric (FU) (or Uralic) and Indo-European (IE) peoples. His main thesis, based on the models by the archaeologists Nuñez and Dolukhanov, is that the periglacial zone of the latest glacial period in Europe (roughly equivalent to the Baltic sea basin, but also stretching southwards to the Rhine) was inhabited by a population speaking Uralic. Their languages were later partly replaced by expanding Indo-European, with the linguistic influences going in two opposite directions: from Finno-Ugric to Indo-European, and vice versa. According to Wiik, a shift from Finno-Ugric to Indo-European could have taken place in the vicinity of the language boundary that moved gradually from northern Germany and Poland to northern Scandinavia and the southern border of Estonia, and could have left a Finno-Ugric substratum in Indo-European. A shift from Indo-European to Finno-Ugric could have taken place in the coastal areas of Finland, Estonia and Latvia, where the 206 The Circum-Baltic Area

Indo-European settlers would have assimilated with the local indigenous Finno-Ugric people and left an Indo-European substratum in Finno-Ugric. In Wiik’s view, the different Indo-European varieties in Northern Europe originated on the basis of the different Finno-Ugric substratum features left in the previously homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage of Northern Europe.6 The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the various Finno-Ugric languages:

According to this contention, many of the dialect boundaries of the Scandinavian, Russian, and Baltic languages reflect the movement of the FU–IE language boundary through Scandinavia, north-western Russia, and southern Balticum during the last millennium. The further north an area is situated, the more recently it was taken over by the IE language and the stronger its FU substratum. The same process took place on the northern and eastern coasts of the Baltic Sea in that the IE settlers when assimilating themselves with the FU population (the majority population of the area) left their IE substratum in the local FU language, in many cases causing the FU language to split into separate dialects (and later, perhaps, independent languages). The general tendency is that the closer a FU dialect is to the coast, the stronger and of younger layer its IE substratum. (Wiik, 1997: 77)

Wiik suggests that one of the Finno-Ugric substratum features in Indo– European is the generalised initial stress in Germanic (as well as in Latvian (see section 2.3) and in the north-western Russian dialects, known for a number of Finnic-substratum phenomena). This ‘main event in the split of Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Germanic and the other IE languages’ had dramatical consequences within Germanic, known as Verner’s law, which was later introduced into Finnic in the form of consonant gradation. Wiik also proposes a few other FU-substratum features in Germanic – for example, umlaut as a reflex of vowel harmony. Some of Wiik’s suggestions have met with a considerable amount of scepticism and criticism on the part of historical linguists. The accent shift in the Germanic is probably the most plausible candidate for a contact-induced change. Here, Wiik follows Salmons (1992) who suggests a shared Germanic–Celtic accent shift talking place in prehistoric north-western Europe on the basis of early and profound contact with a Finno-Ugric language. This is based on the generally accepted view that Proto-Finno-Ugric had an initial stress – a view that might be disputed (Viitso, 1997: 224–5). There are also additional considerations that cast some doubt on the Salmons–Wiik suggestion (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 640). Tones, on the other hand, or rather, the existence of the grave tone (a tonal peak occurring outside the stressed syllable) are regarded by Wiik as a typical Proto-Indo-European phenomenon. In his opinion, the Scandinavian tonal opposition derives from Proto-Indo-European, and the Estonian tonal Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 207 opposition between Quantity 2 and Quantity 3 can be associated with the Germanic difference between presence and the absence of the grave tone. As Wiik (1997: 79) puts it, ‘if there is no grave tone in a language, the tonal peak always occurs on the stressed syllable, and the tone and stress go hand in hand’. From this perspective, the Baltic and Scandinavian tones are both relics of Indo-European, which could be characterized by ‘singing’ speech. The assumption is that tones had been around in the Germanic languages for quite a long time, presumably for a longer time than was normally believed in Scandinavian studies before they became phonologized in the Scandinavian languages. This hypothesis has a certain degree of attraction, given that even other Germanic languages have tones. On the other hand, as mentioned above, earlier attempts to relate Scandinavian tones to archaic Indo-European systems have been rejected by later research. So what remains here is territory where things cannot be proved or disproved – recognizing non-distinctive tones (‘singing intonation’) in the distant past of languages is not that simple. Finally, a few words on the prosodic phenomena found in the CB area from a typological perspective. Tone languages – languages, in which more or less each syllable may have a lexically significant pitch – are very frequent. ‘Pitch-accent’ systems, in which stress co-occurs with tone, are not unheard of at other places as well – for example, in the Daghestanian languages, Avar and Godoberi (Kodzasov, 1999); in Serbo-Croat (as a relic of the Indo-European system); and in Japanese. However, it seems that the class of languages that have been identified under this and similar labels is not coherent (Larry Hyman, personal communication). Also, we lack sufficient information about the distribution of similar phenomena across the world. To conclude: it is remarkable that lexical accents are found in three different groups of Circum-Baltic languages – undoubtedly, a very high concentration in Europe, and probably also globally. However, there is no evidence for any real diachronic connections here, primarily among between the languages to the west of the Baltic Sea (Scandinavian) and those to the east (Baltic, as well as Estonian and Livonian). The conclusion is thus quite disappointing. But stress, pitch, vowel quantity and secondary features of the glottal-closure type are intimately connected, and there is reason to believe that the historical developments that have led to the rise (and fall) of lexical accents in the Circum-Baltic and Rhenish Germanic varieties should also have parallels elsewhere.

3 Rigid GenN word order combined with the (flexible) SVO basic order

Most of the CB languages combine the (flexible) SVO basic order on clause level with GenN (the possessor preceding the possessee) as the only possible, or by far most frequent, word order in noun phrases. This is true for Baltic, 208 The Circum-Baltic Area

Finnic, Northern/Eastern Saami,7 Standard Swedish, Danish and to a certain degree Norwegian; see example (7):

(7) (a) Lithuanian broli-o brother-GEN.SG ‘a/the brother’s chair’

(b) Estonian stala-s tüdruk-u koer table-NOM.SG girl-GEN.SG dog-NOM.SG ‘a/the girl’s dog’

(d) Swedish viessu flicka-n-s hund house:NOM.SG girl-DEF.COM.SG-GEN dog ‘the girl’s dog’

Slavic dialects in the Balticum (Russian, Belarusian and Polish; see Cekmonas, 2001: 122) frequently prepose their genitives, as opposed to the more frequent NG order across Slavic (for example, }any otec ‘father-in-law’, lit. ‘wife: GEN.SG. father’ in the Baltic Russian Rural dialects, as opposed to otec }eny in Standard Russian).8 The same is true for Russian in Finland, in particular, for the Kyyrölä Russian – for example, Russian spoken by the former inhabitants of Kyyrölä village on the Karelian Isthmus, evacuated to safer places in Finland because of the Winter War of 1939–40 (Leisiö, 2001: 98–114). Gen corresponds to the possessor in the morphological genitive case for Finnic, Baltic and Slavic, and to the possessor with the s-marker (s-genitives) for the Scandinavian languages. In the global perspective, there is nothing strange in the SVO/GenN combination: both GenN and NGen are equally common among the SVO languages of the world (Dryer, 1992, 1997). Here, however, Europe differs from the world on the whole in that the consistent GenN order in combination with SVO is found only in the Circum-Baltic languages and in the two Finno-Ugric languages, Komi and Mordvin. It also seems to be a general tendency on a worldwide scale that SVO/GenN languages often occur in geographical clusters and tend to be adjacent to OV languages with GenN order (Dryer, 1999, 2005). Thus, if an SVO language is spoken in the geographic proximity to SVO/GenN languages, there is a high chance that it Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 209 will also manifest the GenN order. In other words, if several languages in the same area show the SVO/GenN properties, there is a high chance that this might be a result of language contacts. Thus, against both the European and the global background, the rigid GenN word order combined with the (flexible) SVO basic word order appears as a potential Circum-Baltic isogloss. The ensuing sections will show that this is not so. However, also in this case, there are numerous interesting language contact phenomena, worth being taken seriously.

3.1 The eastern semicircle: Finnic, Baltic and Slavic The GenN order is on the whole characteristic for Uralic languages, which often have SOV as their basic word order (apart from the above-mentioned languages). The Uralic SOV languages are fairly good representatives for the Eurasian language type, with its word order properties of SOV/NumN/DemN/ AdjN/GenN/RelN. Note that, contrary to what had previously been assumed, in the general case neither the order of adjectives with respect to nouns, nor the order of demonstratives correlates significantly with the basic word order. Thus, independently of the basic word order, adjectives normally follow nouns, while demonstratives and numerals normally precede nouns (Dryer, 1992, 1997). Dryer (1997) suggests that the European VO languages (that is, both SOV and VSO languages) form the following hierarchy from most heavily ‘Noun+ Modifier’ to most heavily ‘Modifier+Noun’:

Celtic < Albanian, Romance < Greek, Slavic < Baltic, Finnic

In Celtic, all nominal modifiers follow their heads, while in Baltic and Finnic9 all nominal modifiers, apart from relative clauses and prepositional phrases, precede the head. Dryer’s point is that the extreme positions of Celtic and Finnic/Baltic cannot be accounted for by appealing to any global cross-linguistic correlations, but might be explained in terms of their relative geographical and chronological distance from the dominant Eurasian OV type. Thus Finnic languages (together with Komi, Mordvin and Northern and Eastern Saami) are apparently recent members of the VO area in Europe and are geographically close to the area of the dominant Eurasian OV type. As mentioned above, most of their eastern relatives conform to the Eurasian type – whereas VO order is the only deviation from it found in Finnic, Northern and Eastern Sami, Komi and Mordvin. The Celtic languages, on the other hand, are both geographically furthest away from the area of the dominant Eurasian OV languages, and have been separated from them for a considerable period of time. All the other Indo-European groups in Europe are either later migrations from the east and/or migrations that have not gone that far. Dryer’s explanation stops here. So what about the other OV/GenN languages in the CB area? 210 The Circum-Baltic Area

Starting with Baltic (which shares with Finnic the same place in Dryer’s hierarchy), it is difficult to justify the difference between its predominant GenN order and the Slavic NGen order in terms of geographical and chronological distance from the Eurasian OV type. Chronologically, they are probably the same, while geographically Slavic, in particular eastern Slavic, is probably closer. A hypothesis compatible with Dryer’s account would thus have to seek at least some reasons for the Baltic GenN order in Finno-Ugric influence (Matthew Dryer, personal communication). Lithuanian and Latvian differ significantly in obligatoriness of GenN order. Modern Lithuanian allows for both GenN and NG word orders, even though the former is used significantly more frequently. In Latvian, GenN is as fixed as in Finnic. Not surprisingly – as in many other cases – Latvian is closer to Finnic than to Lithuanian, and it is therefore reasonable to attribute this difference to a massive Finnic influence, as this is normally assumed. The Lithuanian case is more complicated. In several investigations on word order in selected Old Lithuanian texts, Vasiliauskien< (1994, 2003) shows that the majority of the sixteenth–nineteenth-century texts on the whole show a predominance of NGen occurrences (see also Schmalstieg, 2003: 149–50, for discussion). The frequency of GenN/NG word order varies considerably, however, from text to text. Since Old Indo-European languages such as Latin, Greek and Vedic had both order types GenN and NG, the relative mobility of genitive attributes in Lithuanian seems to be an old feature. Old Lithuanian and some Lithuanian dialects would thus reflect a state of affairs similar to that found in other old Indo-European languages, with both GenN and NGen. Why Lithuanian has moved towards the predominance of GenN structures is not completely clear – as far as I know, no one has ever suggested any Finnic influence here (for one scenario, see Say, 2004). The frequent GenN order in the Slavic dialects spoken in the Baltic and Finnish linguistic surrounding, as opposed to the normal NG order otherwise, is most probably a result of influence from the Baltic languages.

3.2 Scandinavian languages: a western semicircle? 3.2.1 Types of possessive NPs The Germanic languages outside the CB area either have both GenN/NG orders, or simply prefer NG order. Moreover, the rigid GenN word order in possessive NPs with s-genitives in Standard Mainland Scandinavian is a relatively recent phenomenon. The natural question is, thus, whether there is any connection between the GenN in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, on the one hand, and in Baltic/Finnic? Hardly any, as I will try to show below. First, compared to Finnic, Baltic and Slavic, with their fairly homogeneous possessive NPs, Mainland Scandinavian varieties on the whole show an impressive diversity in their possessive NPs, probably the highest structural diversity found across any other group of genetically closely related varieties Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 211 in Europe. In addition, a large portion of these constructions manifests NGen word order (for details, see Delsing, 1996, 2003a, 2003b); also Koptjevskaja- Tamm, 2003a). The main construction types include the following:

(1) ‘Standard’ S-genitive constructions, illustrated in example (7d), and several groups of S-genitive-related constructions that will be considered in the next section. (2) ‘The father his book’-constructions (‘constructions with resumptive possessive pronouns’ in Norde (1997); ‘a pronominal auxiliary construction’ in Delsing (1993); ‘constructions with linking pronouns’ in Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003(a); ‘garpe-genitiv’ in the Norwegian tradition); see example (8) below. (3) Constructions with prepositional possessors and the order NGen; see example (9) below. (4) Constructions with dative-marked possessors; see example (10) below. (5) ‘The house his Per’-constructions (‘h-genitives’ in Delsing, 2003a); see example (11) below.

Examples:

(8) Constructions with resumptive pronouns (a) Norwegian (‘garpe-genitives’) Olav si-n hest Olav REFL.POSS-N.SG horse ‘Olav’s horse’

(b) Western Jutish (Danish) æmand si-n/ hans hatt the man REFL.POSS-COM.SG /his hat ‘the man’s hat’ (Delsing, 1993:153)

(9) Prepositional possessors hest-en til Olav horse-DEF.SG.COM to Olav ‘Olav’s horse (Standard Norwegian)

(10) Dative-marked possessors bo: k-a prest-um book-DEF.F.SG.NOM priest-DEF.M.SG.DAT ‘the priest’s house’ (Västerbotten, Swedish (Larsson, 1929: 125))

(11) ‘H-genitives’ (a) häns Viktor hesst PRART.M.GEN/his Viktor horse ‘Viktor’s horse’ 212 The Circum-Baltic Area

(b) ba: t-ohänsLejonflickt boat-DEF.SG PRART.M.GEN/hisLejonflyckt ‘Lejonflyckt’s boat’ (Överkalix, Swedish, Källskog (1992: 152–3))

The properties and the distribution of s-genitive constructions and their relatives will be considered in section 3.2.2. ‘The father his book’-constructions (with the GenN-order) in various versions are well attested across Germanic (for details, see Koptjevskaja- Tamm, 2003a). One variant, known as ‘garpe-genitiv’ in the Norwegian tradition, constitutes one of the standard constructions in Nynorsk and is making its way into Bokmål; it is also used in many western and northern varieties of Norwegian. ‘Garpe’ was the pejorative name for Hanseatic merchants used in Bergen, and the ‘garpe-genitive’ construction was itself borrowed from Low German (and re-analysed) in the Hanseatic city of Bergen, from where it spread to other Norwegian varieties (for details, see Torp, 1990). A similar construction is used in the Southern and Western Jutish dialects of Danish. Swedish varieties are normally held to lack a counterpart to ‘the father his book’-construction – a view that might be in need of revaluation, given some of the Dalecarlian facts (see section 3.2.2 below). Constructions with prepositional possessors and the order NG are, of course, well known from all the non-Scandinavian Germanic varieties (and modern Romance), where the standard possessive prepositions have originated from prepositions with the ablative/separative meaning (von in German, of in English, de in French). Standard Norwegian and most Norwegian dialects have standard ‘possessive’ prepositions – curiously, this time their original meaning is most often ‘goal, direction’: compare til ‘to’ in Standard Norwegian and til or åt ‘to’ in dialects. Av ‘of’ is used in a restricted area in Southern Norway (Telemark and Agder; see Torp, 1973). In many cases, such constructions coexist with other possessive constructions in the same variety. In Swedish, the corresponding constructions with at/åt are also attested in some Northern varieties (for example, in Medelpad and Värmland – Delsing, 1996: 54). Constructions with dative-marked possessors in Germanic are found primarily in the northern Swedish dialects (the provinces of Norrbotten, Västerbotten), and in Dalecarlian. At least, in the Norrbotten dialects the word order may vary; in Dalecarlian the dative possessor is always postposed (NGen), and this seems to be the case in Västerbotten too. ‘The house his Per’-constructions (‘h-genitives’ in Delsing, 2003a) are, as far as I can judge, mainly a Scandinavian speciality (for some parallels, see Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2003a: 629–32). These periphrastic constructions are restricted to proper names and some kin terms as possessors and, thus coexist with other possessive NPs for all the other possessors. Possessive pronouns look very much like preproprial articles (that is, articles pertaining to proper names), typical in many Scandinavian varieties, and this construction Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 213 and preproprial articles show a high degree of geographical overlapping. However, as pointed out by Delsing (2003a), there are certain discrepancies here (for details and analysis, see also Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2003a: 630–2). In Mainland Scandinavian, this construction, with varying properties, is attested in most of Norway (excluding a few areas in the south) and in two non-contiguous northern areas in Sweden – an inland zone comprising parts of Jämtland and Medelpad, Härjedalen, Västerdalarna, and parts of Värmland, and a coastal zone, comprising the provinces of Västerbotten and Norrbotten (but excluding Lapland). Its most elaborate form is found in Colloquial Icelandic. The word order is normally NGen, but some varieties allow for GenN as well. This list already shows that the clustering of SVO/GenN languages in the Circum-Baltic languages is partly an illusion, to a certain extent characteristic of the clash between the methods of large-scale typological research (including areal typology), on the one hand, and those of more fine-grained areal linguistics. Large-scale typology is, of necessity, selective in the number and types of varieties included in the sample. Non-standard varieties are often invisible in large-scale typological research, and what looks like two languages spoken in the immediate vicinity of each other may turn out to be separated by a number of others. In our concrete case, not only is there a number of Scandinavian varieties with the SVO/NG word order, but these are also often spoken in territories relatively close to those inhabited by a Finno- Ugric population (Finns and Saami). These considerations cast doubts on any attempts to link the SVO/GenN word order in those Scandinavian varieties where it occurs with a similar phenomena in Finno-Ugric. However, the Scandinavian possessive constructions themselves, and in particular, s-genitives, do bear witness to important and interesting language contacts, similar to the lexical accents considered in section 2 above.

3.2.2 S-genitives and related phenomena: distribution, typology and language contacts The structure of possessive NPs across Standard Mainland Scandinavian (for Norwegian, mainly in Bokmål, see below) is very simple: non-pronominal possessors are marked with the genitive marker -s, while pronouns have a special possessive form. The marker -s does not only have the same form as the English Saxon genitive (’s), but also behaves in roughly the same way or at least a very similar way:

(1) it attaches to all kinds of non-pronominal possessors, not necessarily to proper names and to kin terms. Here, the Scandinavian languages are even more consistent than English, where the Norman of-genitive may be preferred for possessors that are very low in animacy; (2) it appears always at the very end of a noun, after all suffixes; compare Swedish en pojke-s ‘a boy-GEN’, pojke-n-s ‘BOY-DEF.COM.SG-GEN’, pojk-ar-s ‘BOY-PL-GEN’, pojk-ar-na-s ‘BOY-PL-DEF-GEN’; 214 The Circum-Baltic Area

(3) it also shows the tendency to attach to the final word of a NP resulting in what is traditionally called ‘group genitives’, as in [mannen på gatans] åsikter – lit. ‘the man in the street’s opinions’ (that is, an ordinary person’s opinion); (4) its form is even more consistent than the form of -’s in English, in that it is always pronounced in the same way; (5) the possessor always precedes the possessee; and (6) preposed possessors (both pronominal and lexical) are incompatible with definite and indefinite articles pertaining to the host nominal, compare examples (12) and (13) below.

The description given above is somewhat simplified: thus, some nouns have special possessive forms, group genitives are severely restricted, there are special cases where s-genitives co-occur with indefinite articles and so on (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2003b and, in particular, Börjars, 2003, for details).

(12) (a) en hund (b) hund-en INDEF:COM dog dog-DEF.COM.SG ‘a dog’ ‘the dog’ (c) den stor-a hund-en DEF:COM.SG big-DEF dog-DEF.COM.SG ‘the big dog’

(13) (a) *flicka-n-s en hund/ en girl-DEF.COM.SG-GEN INDEF:COM dog INDEF:COM flicka-n-s hund girl-DEF.COM. dog SG-GEN ‘*the girl’s a dog/a the girl’s dog’

(b) *flicka-n-s hund-en / *den flicka-n-s hund / girl-DEF.COM.SG-GEN dog-DEF.COM. girl-DEF.COM.SG-GEN dog/ SG / DEF. COM.SG *flicka-n-s den hund girl-DEF.COM.SG-GEN DEF.COM.SG dog ‘*the girl’s the dog / the girl’s dog’

The ‘s-genitive’-construction exemplified above is found, first of all, in Standard Danish and in Standard Swedish, which lack any competing standard ‘possessive’ preposition, analogous to the English of. In Standard Norwegian, s-genitives are much more frequent in Bokmål than in Nynorsk and are often considered to be a Danish leftover in the language. As mentioned above, English uses a very similar construction. Turning to dialects (the most comprehensive sources here are Delsing, 1996, 2003b), s-genitives are found in most Danish dialects, apart from Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 215

Western Jutish. In Norwegian, they are restricted mainly to the southern- most dialects in Telemark and Agder. In Swedish, s-genitives are quite widespread in southern, western and eastern dialects – that is, in the gram- matically least ‘spectacular’ dialects. They are absent from most of the northern dialects (see below) and from Dalecarlian; the Swedish dialects in Finland and Estonia use s-genitives in a different construction, as will be shown below. It has been proposed that the properties (2)–(4) – and, less directly, (1) – of the marker -s can be attributed to its status as a clitic, a right-edge marker (phrasal affix) or as a marker that at least sometimes has right-edge marking properties (the literature is extensive; some examples are Carstairs, 1987; Johannesen, 1989; Delsing, 1993. For a principled account of the conflicting properties of the s-marker, see especially Börjars, 2003). The rigid GenN word order, property (5) in Standard Mainland Scandinavian is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating in Swedish from 1250–53; before that, genitives could both precede and follow their head. Stabilization of GenN order in Mainland Scandinavian is described as going hand-in-hand with the transition from the morphological genitive case to the phrase-final s-genitive and with its reanalysis as a determiner, incompatible with other articles; that is, property (6) (see (Delsing, 1991; Norde, 1997). Curiously, as far as I can judge, the evident parallels both in the synchronic behaviour of s-genitives in English, Danish and Swedish and in their historical development, although often acknowledged, have not yet been taken seriously.10 The development of s-genitives in each of the languages is normally considered as being triggered by language-internal factors, where the key process is taken to be ‘degrammaticalization’ of one of the several morphological genitive endings (-s) and its victory over all the others (see Börjars, 2003, for the arguments against applying this term to the Swedish s-marker). For English and Norwegian, a competing account suggests that the s-genitive arose because of the contamination of two different constructions – constructions with genuine morphological genitives and constructions with resumptive pronouns (‘the father his book’-constructions), in which the weak form of the resumptive pronoun was phonetically similar to the genitive ending -s. For Swedish, Norde (1997: 91) rejects this account, because -s was not homonymous with any possessive pronoun. She also adds that ‘there are no indications that RPP-constructions [resumptive possessive pronouns] were ever relevant in Swedish. In modern standard Swedish, they do not occur and I found no evidence of RPP-constructions in the Old and Middle Swedish texts I examined’. Now, not only are the s-genitives in Standard Mainland Scandinavian (and English) very similar to each other, but the above-mentioned properties make them cross-linguistically very unusual, not to say unique, in several respects. First, it is difficult to find real counterparts to the s-marker with properties (1)–(4); that is, a short uniform marker attaching to the edge of the 216 The Circum-Baltic Area possessor-NP. In the many years I have been involved in cross-linguistic research on possessive NPs, I have not come across any other languages where a possessor is marked with a comparable marker. This does not, of course, rule out such a possibility in principle, but still suggests that it cannot be a frequent option cross-linguistically. One possible parallel would be group-inflecting case markers in languages such as Basque, but these normally build a paradigm that involves more distinctions than the one between unmarked versus genitive case (see Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2005, for some reflections on case hierarchies, in particular in relation to Scandinavian vernaculars). S-genitives share, of course, a number of similarities with postpositions, but then it should be borne in mind that they occur in typically prepositional languages. This problem has a diachronic counterpart. As mentioned above, the emergence of s-genitives is nowadays often described as ‘degrammaticalization’, which, in turn, has been used in some quarters as an important (not to say the chief) argument against the notion of ‘grammaticalization’. While proponents of grammaticalization constantly come up with new examples, its opponents similarly are constantly quoting the same few examples, with s-genitives in the first place. ‘Degrammaticalization’, even in the broad understanding of this term, is thus very unusual. Incompatibility of possessors with articles pertaining to the whole possessive NP is attested in a number of languages and is, on the whole, more typical of possessors preceding possessees (GenN) (for details, see Haspelmath, 1999). However, it is, on the whole, not very frequent cross-linguistically. Thus the s-genitive constructions in Standard Mainland Scandinavian and in English share several very unusual properties cross-linguistically. In addition, it is, of course, striking that the possessive markers in all these languages have exactly the same form. All this contributes to the impression that language contacts must have played an important part here. I assume that a standard explanation for the emergence of these similarities would be to invoke the close genetic relationship and the inherited similarities among the varieties under consideration that would underlie parallel developments springing from one and the same source. In this case, for example, the shared morphological genitive ending -s must have been particularly salient, judging from its later career across Germanic. Possessor–article complementarity might possibly be explained by more general grammaticalization processes that are connected with the chronological relations between the rise of the possessive construction and the rise of obligatory definiteness markers (the former pre-dating the latter), as suggested by Haspelmath (1999). This explanation is not convincing. As we have already seen, the Mainland Scandinavian varieties – and in particular, the less levelled varieties – abound in structurally different possessive NPs that are not related at all to the older Germanic genitive constructions. But even those that are do not necessarily show the same properties as the ‘standard s-genitive construction’, as will be Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 217 shown here. The s-genitive-related constructions in Mainland Scandinavian (in Swedish and Dalecarlian) include at least the following variants:

(1) Unrestricted s-genitives with definite possessees: in the Swedish varieties in Finland and Estonia, all non-pronominal possessors attach s-markers and precede head nouns with suffixed definite articles. (2) ‘Generalized’ genitives with proper names and definite possessees are found over large parts of western Norrland in Sweden. The generalized marker is sometimes -s, but not necessarily (for example -a, -ses, -sa are attested). The word order is normally NG, but even GenN occurs. (3) ‘Generalized’ genitives with proper names and bare possessees are reported in a few varieties. (4) Dative-marked possessors with the clitical es marker are found in a few archaic Dalecarlian vernaculars (for example, in Elfdalian).

We see that the properties associated with the s-marker do not have to cluster. Thus all these variants have a ‘generalized’ marker associated with the possessor. However, the first three involve a straightforward morpholog- ically bound marker and lack group genitives. The older salient genitive marker is sometimes only generalized to proper names and kin terms – similarly to the situation in German and Dutch; interestingly, the generalized marker is not necessarily based on -s. Possessors do not have to be in complementary distribution with the article. The Dalecarlian variant involves, most probably, a reduced form of the third-person enclitic masculine singular genitive pronoun os (< Old Scand. hans) and may, thus, basically be a construction with a resumptive pronoun (‘the father his book’-construction). The development of this construction may also have been pushed forward by contamination with the old genitive construction, in the same way as this has been suggested for English and Norwegian (for details, see Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2005). If this hypothesis is true, it slightly weakens Norde’s (1997: 91) assumption that constructions with resumptive pronouns have never been relevant for the history of Swedish: even if they are not attested in the written texts, they may have been around in less formal varieties. To summarize this long discussion: several groups of facts make it improbable that the standard s-genitive constructions in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian could have arisen independently of each other. The relevant facts include:

• their cross-linguistically unusual (or even unique) properties; • their geographic distribution (standard languages and the strongly levelled varieties); • the enormous diversity in possessive NPs across Scandinavian; among other things, the existence of several groups of related constructions that lack some of the key properties of the standard s-genitives. 218 The Circum-Baltic Area

Mutatis mutandi, it is difficult to imagine a parallel and completely independent emergence of s-genitives in English, on the one hand, and in Mainland Scandinavian, on the other. Östen Dahl and I are currently considering various scenarios for these developments. Given the dominant role of Denmark in Scandinavia over a long period and in view of the hypothesis that various innovations spread from the Danish territory together with the prestige language, considered in section 2.5, it is natural to suspect that the emergence of s-genitives in both Swedish and Norwegian has been largely influenced by language contact with Danish. The details of this development and of the interaction between language-internal factors and linguistic contacts are yet to be established. Trying to understand when, where and how linguistic contact could have shaped these constructions in Scandinavian, on the one hand, and in English, on the other, is an even greater challenge. It is acknowledged that the Danelaw in England had a certain impact on Old English (which at that time was fairly close to Old Danish); for an important recent contribution to this topic, see McWhorter (2002). However, Danish rule in England had ended by 1066, at a time when s-genitives had not gained ground in any of the languages under consideration. A hypothesis we are working with is that the presence of the Danes in England could have led to contact-induced changes not only in English, but also in Danish. Curiously, this possibility has never been discussed. In the particular case of s-genitives, we hypothe- size that the intensive linguistic contact between the English and Danish populations in the Danelaw and in Denmark (primarily in Jutland) could have contributed to the development of one simple possessive construction in both English and Danish. The s-genitive construction is, undoubtedly, much more homogeneous and simple than its predecessors, it is easily acquired (see Hammarberg and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002 on the acquisition of s-genitive constructions by students of Swedish), and seems to be a good choice in communication between speakers of two relatively close linguistic varieties. A good parallel might be the remarkable expansion of the borrowed garpe-genitive construction across Norwegian (see section 3.2.1). There is, of course, a good chance that we shall never get a satisfactory answer to the question of why standard possessive constructions in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and English are so similar to each other. However, this should not diminish the relevance of the question itself.

4Conclusions

In their important paper on areal linguistics, Campbell et al. (1986: 533) distinguish two groups of areal studies:

• those that simply catalogue observed similarities among neighbouring languages – the ‘circumstantialist’ approach; and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 219

• those that attempt to find arguments to explain these similarities. Thus, while some of them have arisen from borrowing or convergence, others may simply be accidental and/or typologically frequent, or even inherited.

In doing areal linguistics, we in fact need both steps – collecting observed similarities and checking whether they can be accounted by language contacts. Discovering similarities themselves is a difficult task, since what can be meant by a similarity differs greatly from case to case, so hypotheses about suggested similarities among languages should always be warmly welcomed, and it is all the more important that such hypotheses come from different sources – for example, both from the more traditional contact linguistics and from large- scale typological research, as in the two cases considered in this chapter. Neither of the two phenomena that at first sight seem to unite languages around the Baltic Sea – polytonicity and possessive NPs – completes a full circle around the Baltic Sea area, and thus is a true ‘Circum-Balticism’. This confirms, therefore, the general conclusion in Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli (2001) that there appear to be no ‘real’ isoglosses covering all the CB languages, that the convergence in this area works primarily on a micro- level, and that the whole area hardly lives up to being conceived of as a Sprachbund, or a linguistic area. So far, a negative and perhaps disappointing result, particularly given the general focus of the present volume. Bad luck, undoubtedly. However, to quote a comment by one of the editors, ‘testing hypotheses about contacts and Sprachbund-ness is an essential part of the work to be done in this area’, and this is especially true for those phenomena that look particularly promising. On the other hand, we have seen that each of the phenomena considered in the chapter bears witness to interesting linguistic contacts. Some of these are generally acknowledged – primarily contacts between genetically unre- lated (Estonian/Livonian-Latvian, Swedish-Estonian, or Swedish-Finnish) or not immediately related languages (Norwegian–Low German, Russian– Lithuanian). Others, however, are largely underestimated – these are contacts among the closely related Germanic varieties (those among Scandinavian varieties and, possibly, those between Old Danish, on the one hand, and Old English on the other). Contacts of the former type traditionally attract a great deal of attention, in historical linguistics, in areal linguistics and in typology, while contacts of the latter type are often ignored, underestimated or even invisible in such research (see McMahon and McMahon in Chapter 3 in this volume for a beautiful illustration of the impact that ‘underestimated’ borrowings between related languages can have on the evaluation of their genetic relat- edness). Thus historical linguistics usually appeals to contact-induced change only when language-internal factors do not work. It also tends to rely exclusively on written sources without paying sufficient attention to the geographical and social stratification of the language varieties that in one 220 The Circum-Baltic Area or another way might have contributed to the formation of the language under consideration (as is the case, for example, with most of the research on the development of s-genitive constructions in English and Swedish). Areal linguistics looks specifically for shared structural traits that do not seem to fit genetic classifications and may thus easily miss contact-induced changes within closely-related varieties. Also, typological research is mainly interested in shared traits that are independent of genetic relations. This is reflected in its methodology, primarily in the choice of representative samples: in compiling a sample, typologists try to avoid too many genetically related varieties spoken in the vicinity of each other, which, in practice, normally means that the cross-dialectal diversity in an area is reduced to one standard language. Contacts among genetically closely related varieties are definitely worth much more attention than they traditionally receive – I hope that this chapter has shown that.

Acknowledgements

In writing this chapter I have received much inspiration, support and help from Östen Dahl, Tomas Riad and Martin Tamm. I would also like to thank Claes-Christian Elert, Olle Engstrand and Larry Hyman for discussing with me tonal accents in Scandinavian languages and elsewhere, and to Anette Rosenbach and Paola Crisma for talking s-genitives. Thanks to Brigitte Pakendorf for providing me with sources of genetic research in Europe, and to the editors for valuable comments on the preliminary version. My general understanding of the CB area has to a great extent been formed thanks to collaboration with Bernhard Wälchli.

Notes

1As will become clear from the list, the Baltic/Slavic genitive case often corresponds to the Finnic partitive case. The difference is, however, not purely terminological: the Finnic partitive case is not used in adnominal possession, which is the proto- typical function of the genitives in Baltic, Slavic and Finnic. 2de Haan (2005) himself classifies Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian as having separate evidential affixes – which strikes me as surprising. 3A note on the traditional dialectal division of the Mainland Scandinavian languages. The dialects of Danish have been divided traditionally into Jutish (in Jutland), Insular Danish (on the islands of Funen and Zealand and the smaller islands to the south of them), and East Danish (Bornholm, and the southern Swedish provinces of Skåne, Halland and Blekinge, which were all under Danish rule until the seventeenth century). The traditional division of the Swedish dialects considers the latter group as Southern Swedish dialects; in addition there are Eastern (sveamål, with the core area in Uppland; these also include Dalecarlian), Western, or Guthnic (north-west of Skåne), Northern (north of the Eastern area along the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia), Gotlandic, or Gutnish (on the island of Gotland), and Trans-Baltic (in Finland and Estonia). The dialects of Norwegian Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 221

are traditionally divided into five main groups: Western, Central, Eastern, Trønder, and Northern. 4Some Northern Swedish dialects have a special tonal contour, ‘circumflex’, in overlong monosyllables that have arisen because of apocope in Accent 2 bisyllables – for example, kasta > kâast ‘to throw’. 5According to some researchers, however, polytonicity had simply never spread to these dialects, or to their ancestors on the Swedish mainland – a view rejected by most of the experts. 6A note on the recent genetic research on the Circum-Baltic populations. Rosser et al. (2000) and, in particular, Zerjal et al. (2001) show that the frequencies of certain Y-chromosomal markers – haplogroups 1 and 16 – separate speakers on the western and eastern coasts of the Baltic Sea. Haplogroup 1 is strongly repre- sented among the Swedes (including Gotlanders) and Norwegians, but weakly among the Saami, Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. This fits its known pattern of distribution, with the high frequency in West Europe (reaching ‘near-fixation’, 98.5 per cent in the west of Ireland) and a lower frequency in the east. One interpretation is that such chromosomes reflect the population inhabiting (West) Europe before there was a major demographic expansion of agricultural migrants from the Near East (Rosser et al., 2000: 1539). Haplogroup 16 shows the opposite pattern: a high frequency among the Saami, Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and low among the Swedes (including Gotlanders) and Norwegians. This fits again with its known distribution: a high frequency in Northern Asia, but absent from most of Europe. Afurther analysis supports the idea that the genetic history of Y-chromosomes among Latvians and Lithuanians is still distinct from that of the Uralic speakers. Thus ‘our interpretation of the Y-chromosomal data is that the major genetic difference in this area is geographical, distinguishing populations living on the western side of the Baltic from those on the eastern side. However, a significant difference was also detectable between Finno-Ugric speakers and Baltic speakers on the eastern side, where the Latvians showed greater genetic similarity to the Lithuanians than to the Estonians, demonstrating that linguistic differences can have a lesser, but still important influence on the distribution of genetic diversity’ (Zerjal et al., 2001: 1086). Finally, Tambets et al. (2004: 661) argue that the ‘the large genetic separation of the Saami from other Europeans is best explained by assuming that the Saami are descendants of a narrow, distinct subset of Europeans’. I am grateful to Brigitte Pakendorf for providing me with these references. 7Southern Saami has a flexible word order, with SOV as the basic form. 8The use of the alternative strategy of expressing possessors, by means of the so-called possessive adjectives that precede their heads, has declined considerably down the ages in most varieties of Slavic, and Slavic on the whole seems to have been on a steady move towards the postposition of possessors. 9Komi and Mordvin are not in Dryer’s sample; note also that Dryer argues in terms of whole language families, which explains why Swedish, Danish and Northern/Eastern Saami are absent from the hierarchy. 10 Jespersen (1912) suggests that the increased use of prenominal genitives in English was a result of the presence of Scandinavian settlers, but the hypothesis was later rejected in Mitchell (1985). However, neither of the two provides an argument to support his position. I am grateful to Paola Crisma for drawing my attention to these sources. 222 The Circum-Baltic Area

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004) Evidentiality (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Balode, L. and A. Holvoet (2001a) ‘The Latvian Language and its Dialects’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 1, pp. 3–40. Balode, L. and A. Holvoet (2001b) ‘The Lithuanian Language and its Dialects’, in Ö.Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, pp. 41–80. Börjars, K. (2003) ‘Morphological Status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish Possessive’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 133–6. Campbell, L. (1996) ‘Typological and Areal Issues in Grammar’, in K. Brown and J. Miller (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories (Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.), pp. 339–43. Campbell, L., T. Kaufman and Th. C. Smith-Stark (1986) ‘Meso-America as a Linguistic Area’, Language, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 530–7. Cairstairs, A. (1987) ‘Diachronic Evidence and the Affix-clitic Distinction’, in A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds), Papers from the 7th Interna- tional Conference on Historical Linguistics (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 151–62. Cekmonas, V., ‘Russian Varieties in the Southeastern Baltic Area: Rural Dialects’, in Ö.Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 1, pp. 101–36. Dahl, Ö. (2001) ‘The Origin of the Scandinavian Languages’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, pp. 215–3. Dahl, Ö. and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1992) ‘Language Typology Around the Baltic Sea: A Problem Inventory’, Papers from the Institute of Linguistics University of Stockholm (PILUS). Dahl, Ö. and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds) (2001) The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact. Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) (Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins). Dahl, Ö. and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2005) ‘The Resilient Dative’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Typological Profile of Swedish (Special issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), pp. 58–78. Décsy, G. (1973) Die linguistische Struktur Europas. Vergangenheit–Gegenwart–Zukunft (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). de Haan, F. (2005) ‘Coding of Evidentiality’, in M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil and B. Comrie (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 318–21. Delsing, L.-O. (1991) ‘Om genitivens utveckling i fornsvenskan’, in S.-G. Malmgren and B. Ralph (eds), Studier i svensk språkhistoria 2 (Gothenburg: Göteborg Institu- tionen för Svenska språket), pp. 12–30. Delsing, L.-O. (1993) ‘The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages’, Doct. diss. (Lund: University of Lund, Department of Scandinavian languages). Delsing, L.-O. (1996) ‘Nominalfrassyntax i skandinaviska dialekter’, in Ø. A. Vangsnes (ed.), Syntaktisk variasjon i nordiske målföre. Artiklar frå ein dugnad under MONS 6 i Bergen, 24. november 1995 (Bergen: Nordisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen), pp. 24–74. Delsing, L.-O. (2003a), ‘Perifrastisk genitiv i nordiska dialekter’, in A. V. Øystein, A. Holmberg and L.-O. Delsing (eds), Dialektsyntaktiska studier av den nordiska nomi- nalfrasen (Oslo: Novus), pp. 65–84. Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 223

Delsing, L.-O. (2003b), ‘Syntaktisk variation i nordiska nominalfraser’, in A. V. Øystein, A. Holmberg and L.-O. Delsing (eds), Dialektsyntaktiska studier av den nordiska nomi- nalfasen (Oslo: Novus), pp. 11–64. Dogil, G. (1999) ‘Baltic Languages’, in H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 877–96. Dryer, M. (1992) ‘The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations’, Language, vol. 68, pp. 81–138. Dryer, M. (1997) ‘Aspects of Word Order in the Languages of Europe’, in A. Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 283–319. Dryer, M. (1999) Explaining the Order of Genitive and Noun in SVO Languages. Third Biennual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam. Dryer, M. (2005) ‘Order of Genitive and Noun’, in M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press), pp. 350–53. Falkenhahn, V. (1963) ‘Die Bedeutung der Verbalrektion für das Problem eines litauisch-polnischen Sprachbundes’, Zeitschrift für Slawistik, vol. 6, pp. 893–907. Fikkert, P. and Jacobs, H. (eds) (2003) Development in Prosodic Systems (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter) Geniušien<, E. (1987) The Typology of Reflexives (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Gussenhoven, C. (2000) ‘On the origin and development of the Central Franconian tone contrast’, in A. Lahiri (eds), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principle of Change in Phonology and Morphology (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Gussenhoven, C. and G. Bruce (1999) ‘Word Prosody and Intonation’, in H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems, pp. 233–71. Gårding, E., The Scandinavian Word Accents (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1977). Haarmann, H. (1976) Aspekte der Arealtypologie. Die Problematik der europäischen Sprach- bünde. (Tübingen: Narr). Haarmann, H. (1970) Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie. Eine eura- sische Isoglosse (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Hammarberg, B. and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002) ‘Adnominal Possession: Combining Typological and Second Language Perspectives’, in A. Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 125–79. Haspelmath, M. (1987) Transitivity Alternations of the Anticausative Type, University of Cologne, Department of Linguistics, Working Paper No. 5 (Neue Folge) (Cologne). Haspelmath, M. (1999) ‘Explaining Article–Possessor Complementarity: Economic Motivation in Noun-Phrase Syntax’, Language, vol. 75, pp. 227–43. Heijmans, L., (2003) ‘The Relationship Between Tone and Vowel Length in Two Neighboring Dutch Limburgian Dialects’, in P. Fikkert and H. Jacobs (eds), Devlop- ment in Prosodic Systems, pp. 7–45. Hopper, P. and S. A. Thompson (1980) ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse’, Language, vol. 56, pp. 251–99. van der Hulst, H. (ed.) (1999) Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Jakobson, R. (1931a), ‘K xarakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza’, in R. Jakobson (ed.), Selected Writings (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 144–201. 224 The Circum-Baltic Area

Jakobson, R. (1931b), ‘Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde’, in R. Jakobson (ed), Selected Writings (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 137–43. Jespersen, O. (1912) Growth and structure of the English language (Leipzig: Teubner). Johannesen, J. B. (1989) ‘Klitika – en avgrensning’, Norsk linguistisk tidsskrift, vol. 2, pp. 117–4. Kemmer, S. (1993) The Middle Voice (Amsterdam: Benjamins). Kodzasov, S. (1999) ‘Caucasian: Daghestanian Languages’, in H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems, pp. 995–1020. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2003a) ‘Possessive Noun Phrases in the Languages of Europe’, in F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe (Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 621–722. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2003b) ‘A Woman of Sin, a Man of Duty, and a Hell of a Mess: Non-determiner Genitives in Swedish’, in F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 515–58. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. and B. Wälchli (2001) ‘The Circum-Baltic Languages: An Areal-typological Approach’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, pp. 615–750. Källskog, M. (1992) Attityd, interferens, genitivsyntax. Studier i nutida överkalixmål (Uppsala: Dialekt-och folkminnesarkivet). Lahiri, A., T. Riad and H. Jacobs (1999) ‘Diachronic Prosody’, in H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems, pp. 335–422. Larsson, S. (1929) Substantivböjningen i Västerbottens folkmål (Uppsala: Appelberg). Lehiste, I. (1988) Lectures on Language Contact. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Lehiste, I. (1983) ‘Prosodic Change in Progress: Evidence from Estonian’, in I. Rauch and G. F. Carr (eds), Language Change (Indiana: Indiana University Press), pp. 10–27. Lehiste, I. (2003) ‘Prosodic Change in Progress: From Quantity Language to Accent Language’, in P. Fikkert and H. Jacobs (eds), Development in Prosodic Systems, pp. 47–66. Lehiste, I. (1997) ‘Search for Phonetic Correlates in Estonian Prosody’, in I. Lehiste and J. Roos (eds), Estonian Prosody, pp. 11–35. Lehiste, I. and Roos, J. (eds) (1997) Estonian Prosody (Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian Language). Leisiö, L., (2001) Morphosyntactic Convergence and Integration in Finland Russian (Tampere: University of Tampere). Lorentz, F. (1903) Slovinzische Grammatik (St Petersburg: Mokslas). Lorentz, O. (1995) ‘Tonal Prominence and alignment’, Phonology at Santa Cruz, vol. 4, pp. 39–56. Mathiassen, T. (1985a) ‘A Discussion of the Notion ‘Sprachbund’ and its Application in the Case of the Languages in the Eastern Baltic Area’, International Journal of Slavic Philology, vol. 21/22, pp. 273–81. Mathiassen, T. (1985b) Slavisk-baltisk-østersjöfinske syntaktiske isoglosser og spørsmålet om et Sprachbund i den østlige del av østersjøområdet. X Nordiska Slavostmötet 13–17 August 1984 (Åbo: Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation). McWhorter, J. H. (2002) ‘What Happened to English?’, Diachronica, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 217–72. Mitchell, B. (1985) Old English syntax (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Nau, N. (1996) ‘Ein Beitrag sur Arealtypologie der Osteseeanrainersprachen’, in N. Boretzky (ed.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprachen und ihre Dynamik in mehrspra- chigen Situationen (Bochum: Brockmeyer), pp. 51–67. Norde, M. (1997) The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticali- zation (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University). Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm 225

Næss, Å. (2003) Transitivity: From Semantics to Structure (University of Nijmegen). Oftedal, M. (1952) ‘On the Origin of the Scandinavian Tone Distinction’, Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, vol. 16, pp. 201–25; reprinted in E. H. Jahr and O. Lorentz (eds), Prosody/Prosody (Oslo: Novus, 1983). Riad, T. (1998) ‘The Origin of Scandinavian Tone Accents’, Diachronica, vol. XV, no. 1, pp. 63–98. Riad, T. (2000) ‘The Origin of Danish Stød’, in L. Aditi (ed.), Analogy, Levelling and Markedness. Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 261–300. Riad, T. (2003) ‘Diachrony of the Scandinavian Accent Typology’, in P. Fikkert and H. Jacobs (eds), Development of Prosodic Systems, 91–143. Riad, T. (2006) ‘Scandinavian Accent Typology’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja- Tamm (eds), The Typological Profile of Swedish (Special Issue of Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), pp. 36–57. Rosser, Z., T. Zerjal, et al. (60 names) (2000) ‘Y-chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather Than by Language’, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 67, pp. 1526–43. Salmons, J. (1992) Accentual Change and Language Contact. Comparative Survey and a Case Study of Early Northern Europe (London: Routledge). Sarhimaa, A. (1999) Syntactic Transfer, Contact-induced Change, and the Evolution of Bilingual Mixed Codes. Focus on Karelian–Russian Language Alternation (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society). Say, S. (2004) ‘Grammaticalization of Word Order: Evidence from Lithuanian’, inO. Fischer, M. Norde and H. Perridon (eds), Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 363–84. Schmalstieg, W. (2003) ‘Review of Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm “The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact” ’, Acta Linguistica Lithuanica, XLIX, pp. 131–52. Stankiewicz, E. (1993) The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press). Stassen, L. ‘Nonverbal Predication in the Circum-Baltic Languages’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2, pp. 569–90. Stolz, T. (1991) Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft (Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N. Brackmeyer). Stolz, T. (2001) ‘On Circum-Baltic Instrumentals and Comitatives: To and Fro Coherence’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), The Circum-Baltic Languages, vol. 2, pp. 591–612. Tambets, K., Rootsi, S., et al. (43 names) (2004) ‘The Western and Eastern Roots of the Saami – the Story of Genetic “outliers” Told by Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromo- somes’, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 74, pp. 661–8. Timberlake, A. (1974) The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic (Munich: Sagner). Torp, A. (1990) ‘Det sogenannte “Garpegenitiv”: Ursprung, Alter und Verbreitung im heutigen Norwegisch’, in L. Elmevik and K. E. Schöndorff (eds), Niederdeutsch in Skandinavien, vol. III (Berlin: Erik Schmidt), pp. 151–66. Torp, A. (1973) ‘Om genitivomskrivninger og-s-genitiv i norsk’, Maal og minne. Oslo: Det norske samlaget, pp. 124–50. Ureland, P. S. (1982) ‘Some Contact-linguistic Structures in Scandinavian Languages’, Language contact in Europe. Working groups 12 and 12, XIIIth International congress of linguists, Tokyo (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag). 226 The Circum-Baltic Area

Vasiliauskien<. V. (1994) ‘On the Placement of the Genitive Attribute in Old Lithuanian’, Papers from Department of General Linguistics, Umeå University (Umeå: Umeå Univer- sity), pp. 99–115. Vasiliauskien<. V. (2003) ‘Postposition in the Attributive Phrase of Old Lithuanian’, Zeitschrift für Litteraturwissenschaft und Linguistik, vol. 33, no. 129, pp. 96–108. Viitso, T.-R. (1997) ‘The Prosodic System of Estonian in the Finnish Space’, in I. Lehiste and J. Roos (eds), Estonian Prosody. Wiemer, B. (2004) ‘Population Linguistics on a Micro-scale. Lessons to Be Learned from Baltic and Slavic Dialects in Contact’, in B. Kortmann (eds), Dialectology Meets Typology (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 497–526. Wiik, K. (1995) ‘The Baltic Sea Prosodic Area Revisited’, in S. Suhonen (ed.), Itämeren- suomalainen kulttuurialue – The Fenno-Baltic cultural area (Helsinki: Department of Finnish), pp. 75–90. Wiik, K. ‘On the Baltic Sea phonetic area’, in I. Lehiste and J. Roos (eds), Estonian Prosody, pp. 235–50. Zerjal, T., L. Beckman, et al. (5 names) (2001) ‘Geographic, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences on Genetic Diversity: Y-chromosomal Distribution in Northern European Populations’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1077–8.