The Synchrony and Diachrony of Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY OF BOSNIAN-CROATIAN-SERBIAN ADJECTIVAL LONG-FORM ALLOMORPHY (ALFA) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By James Joshua Pennington Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Brian D. Joseph, Advisor Daniel E.Collins Charles E. Gribble Copyright by James Joshua Pennington 2010 ABSTRACT In Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), the gentive (G) and dative/locative (DL) cases exhibit adjectival long-form allomorphy (ALFA). The genitive –og ~ -oga and the DL – om ~ -ome ~ -omu stand in free variation, inasmuch as when one form is substituted for another the truth value of an utterance remains unchanged. Some sociolinguists (particularly Milroy & Gordon 2003) have held the view that while morphosyntactic free variation is possible it is much harder to analyze from the sociolinguistic perspective. While it is undoubtedly true that phonological variables occur much more frequently than so-called ―higher-level‖ variables, many valuable contributions to sociolinguistics (Labov 1969, Wolfram 1969, Rickford et al. 1991, Mufwene 1998, Poplack and Tagliamonte 2001, and many others) have focused on morphosyntactic variables, and consequently have revealed important patterns of morphosyntactic variation in speech communities. Surprisingly, this sort of research has rarely been conducted on the South Slavic languages, especially BCS, which exhibits an incredible amount of morphosyntactic variation, given that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian have shared dialect continua for centuries and are mutually intelligible, but now stand at odds with one another due to iii changes in language policy stemming from the breakup of the Former Yugoslavia (Greenberg 2004). This dissertation is a fundamental rejection of the notion that is still being proffered (at least in Croatian grammars, cf. Barić 2007, Raguţ 2010) that there are contextually based rules or tendencies for ALFA usage in Contemporary BCS. While previous grammars may have stated the facts accurately for their synchronic period of BCS, many contemporary grammars have essentially ―piggy-backed‖ on these prior grammars (e.g Shirokov & Gudkov 1977, Browne & Alt 2004), which viewed these ALFAs as adding a sense of ―definiteness‖, and subsequently have neglected the possibility of language change. Alexander (2006) is the first to propose that ALFAs are more common in Croatian than in Bosnian or Serbian. My sociolinguistic questionnaire and analysis of the Croatian Language Repository, the Croatian National Corpus, and Wikipedia have all verified that ALFAs are more common in Croatian, although they can be heard rarely in Serbian (only for possessives and demonstratives), and slightly more frequently in Bosnian. Furthermore, the empirical studies conducted in this investigation have informed the diachronic origin of ALFAs. It can certainly be said that ALFAs occur infrequently with descriptive adjectives, but exhibit strong patterns of variation for possessives and demonstratives. Moreover, for monosyllabic possessives and demonstratives (which are still monosyllabic after the addition of G and DL base forms –og and –om), when a preposition precedes the adjectival phrase the ALFAs are overwhelmingly preferred. I iv link this tendency to pronominal prepositional phrases which require long forms, e.g. o meni, but *o mi. This can be viewed as a ―two-syllable‖ (or ―two-footed‖) constraint, which then spread to all prepositional phrases in the language via analogy. This ―two- syllable‖ rule can be viewed as a restatement of ―Wackernagel‘s position‖, which can be either prosodic or syntactic (Serbian vs. Croatian, for example), in syllabic terms, although it is possible that this process could have begun on the moric level o vās, but *o vas. In the absence of a noun this element either had already took on, or developed an anaphoric relationship to a following noun, and thus was reinterpreted as a marker of definiteness. Subsequent analogies spread ALFAs to the descriptive, although the ―two- syllable‖ constraint would never have been violated for descriptive, given that all descriptive roots after the addition of ALFA bases would have at minimum two syllables already. Finally, the lack of ALFAs in Western Štokavian (one of the historical predecessors of modern-day Croatian) pre-19th century and their early attestation in 15th century Eastern Štokavian (the historical predecessor of modern-day Serbian) points to a Serbian import of ALFAs to Croatian lands. Ivić (1972) has demonstrated that the political and economic repercussions of the Ottoman occupation of Serbia led many Serbs to seek asylum with their Christian neighbors. As repeated migrations of Serbs brought to Croatian dialects characteristic Serbian features, such as: the neo-Štokavian stress retraction, the da complementizer, etc., the linguistic conformance behind the Vienna Literary Agreement of 1850 would have viewed the presence of these features as ―unifying‖ elements. v Therefore, the statement made by Greenberg (2004) that the ALFAs were reintroduced as ―puristic‖ elements in Croatian post-1991 can be considered an ironic twist in Croatian language policy, inasmuch as, from the diachronic perspective, ALFAs have been shown to be characteristic of 15th century Serbian, and then later Croatian. vi DEDICATION I dedicate the following work to my father and mother. My father, who, despite having spent the last year in poor health, has continually inspired me with his generally upbeat nature, constantly exhorting me to the ―finish line‖, so to speak. My mother‘s reassuring voice has been a calming force during times of trepidation. Like the ideal mother, she effortlessly juggles her own difficulties with her childrens‘, who acknowledge this by striving to be successful in remittance for a wonderful childhood. My gratitude is boundless. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to finally attempt to express in words the sincere appreciation I have come to have for Professor Brian D. Joseph‘s mentorship, personally and professionally. I have never known anyone quite like Brian (as he asks his students to call him), who holds such an intimidating record of scholarly and professional accomplishments, but whose humility and down-to-Earth nature endear him to his peers and students. Like a great craftsman (a definite necessity in my case), Brian has whittled my scholarly philosophy from a disconnected block of linguistic theory to something of a more refined shape. Now, like an Orthodox icon waiting to be brought to vivid life by Rublev, I believe my scholarly career will be brilliantly painted by following in the footsteps of Brian D. Joseph. Before Brian became my advisor, however, there was Dr. Charles E. Gribble, or ―Gribbs‖, as many of us graduate students used to affectionately call him (never to his face, of course!). Possessing truly encyclopedic knowledge, Dr. Gribble is the one of the few remaining Slavic linguists of the Jakobsonian (he studied under Jakobson) philological type. I try my best to emulate Dr. Gribble‘s passion for knowledge and attention to the smallest details, although I know this is probably well out of my reach. viii Dr. Daniel E. Collins has always been a great sounding board for my sometimes misguided ideas. While he has constantly supported my at times overly inquisitive bent, he has viewed some of my less successful works as being brave attempts. While many junior scholars might take offense to such an evaluation, I understand Dr. Collins‘ sentiment. He sees potential, but recognizes flaw, and for this I am truly grateful. It was never enough for me to present on safe topics, but to explore and challenge core assumptions about Slavic diachronic linguistics. Although a few of these works can ultimately be judged failures, I thank Dr. Collins for seeing potential in them. It is up to me solely to eradicate their flaws. Finally, I would like to thank the wonderful people of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia for taking their time and effort to fill out my sociolinguistic questionnaires. It was through these questionnaires that I have made some true friends—genuinely good people who were delighted to see they are not forgotten in the West. ix VITA September 26, 1981…………………………Born—Portsmouth, Ohio June, 2003…………………………………...B.A. Russian, Ohio University March, 2006…………………………………M.A. Slavic Languages and Literatures 2004-Present…………………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, The Department of Slavic and Eastern European Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Pennington, James Joshua. ―Sympathy for the Dative: the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian Adnominal Possessive Dative at the Syntax/Pragmatics Interface‖. To appear in Marc Greenberg, ed., Slavica Centralis (2011). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures Slavic Linguistics x TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….. iii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………. vii Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………........... viii Vita………………………………………………………………………………….......... x List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..………..xiv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………xv Chapters: 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………......... 1 2 Morphosyntax in Light of Sociolinguistics…………………….……………….... 7 2.1 Views of Morphosyntax as "Less" Socially Indexed………………………... 8 2.1.1 Positing the Linguistic Variable…...………………………………..9