The Mongolic Vowel Shift Revisited

Paradigm change in historical reconstruction: the Transeurasian languages and beyond Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz | March 7-8, 2013

Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean

SEONGYEON KO City University of New York ANDREW JOSEPH Cornell University JOHN WHITMAN NINJAL & Cornell University INTRODUCTION Goal

• This paper examines the role of retracted tongue root ([RTR]) harmony for establishing areal and genetic relationships in Northeast Asia.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3 Synopsis

• Recent research: – Korean, Mongolic, and Tungusic (below KMT) should be reconstructed with RTR harmony (Vaux 2009; Ko 2010, 2011, 2012). • In this paper, we reinforce this conclusion: – arguing specifically against proposals that RTR harmony is secondary (e.g. Svantesson 1985 for Mongolic) – or that ATR is the dominant feature (Zhang and Dresher 2004).

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 4 Synopsis

• We also argue against the proposal of Starostin et al. (2003) that specific proto- families such as proto-Tungusic, and by extension proto-Altaic, should be reconstructed without vowel harmony (Joseph & Whitman 2013, to appear).

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 5 Synopsis

• We then compare the status of [RTR] harmony – as product of inheritance or contact – to the status of TR harmony as a contact-induced phenomenon in the Central Sudanic Zone (Clements & Rialland 2008).

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 6 Synopsis

• Then we turn back into NEAsian linguistic area – Within and outside of Altaic, [RTR] or height harmony appears to be an “eastern” trait, while palatal harmony appears to be a “western” trait in the region (cf. Janhunen 1981). • We discuss whether KMT-style [RTR] harmony should be viewed as an innovation or a retention, and examine the particular issue of the Korean vowel inventory.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 7 The argument for reconstructing [RTR] harmony in KMT

• Vowel harmony in Altaic • ATR vs. RTR • Basic Vowel correspondences in KMT • PH > TRH in Mongolic & Korean? • Reconstructing a harmonic contrast for Altaic Vowel harmony in Altaic Major types of vowel harmony in

Altaic • Major types of vowel harmony

Type Harmonic Feature Palatal harmony PH [back] or [front] Labial harmony [labial (round)] Height harmony [high] or [low] Tongue root harmony TRH [ATR]* or [RTR]**

*Advanced Tongue Root; **Retracted Tongue Root

10 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 Harmonic grouping of vowels

• Turkish (PH) Set A i ü e ö Set B ɨ u a o

• Ewen (North Tungusic; TRH) Set A i ə u o Set B ɪ a ʊ ɔ (Novikova 1960; J Kim 2011; Kang & Ko 2011)

11 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 Harmonic grouping of vowels

• Khalkha (Eastern Mongolic; TRH) Neutral i Set A ə u o Set B a ʊ ɔ (Svantesson 1985; Svantesson et al. 2005)

• Middle Korean (K-M Lee 1972) Neutral i Set A ə ɨ u Set B a ʌ o

12 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 TR analyses of KMT a. Tungusic: – Novikova 1960; Ard 1981, 1984; Hayata 1980; Hattori 1982; J Kim 1989, 1993, 2011; Zhang 1996; Li 1996; Kand & Ko 2011; Aralova et al. 2011; Lulich & Whaley 2012 b. Proto-Tungusic: Li 1996; Joseph & Whitman 2013; Ko 2012 c. (Eastern) Mongolic: – Čenggeltei 1959, 1963; Svantesson 1985; Svantesson et al. 2005; Kang & Ko 2011 d. Proto-Mongolic: Ko 2011, 2012 e. (Middle) Korean: – J-H Park 1983; B-G Lee 1985; J Kim 1988, 1993; J-S Lee 1992; Y Lee 1993; M-H Cho 1994; D-Y Lee 1994; J-K Kim 2000; Park & Kwon 2009; Ko 2010, 2012 f. Across Altaic languages: Vaux 2009; Ko 2012

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 13 Evidence in favor of TR analysis for non-Turkic varieties (1) • TR position in X-ray tracings: the Set B vowels are produced with more retracted tongue root (Čenggeltei & Sinedke 1959; Buraev 1959; Novikova 1960) • Size of pharyngeal cavity (Möömöö 1977, as cited in Svantesson et al. 2005; Novikova 1960; Li 1996) • Greater muscular effort or tension associated with the active feature (Möömöö 1977) • Impressionistic “voice quality” phenomena

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 14 Evidence in favor of TR analysis for non-Turkic varieties (2) • Formant frequency – relatively lower F1 values for Set A vowels – Kang & Ko 2011 for Ewen and Buriat; Aralova et al. 2011 for Ewen; Svantesson 1985 for Khalkha and other eastern Mongolic; Svantesson et al. 2005; Lulich & Whaley 2012 for Oroqen • Phonemic distinction btwn velar vs. uvular Cs – Nevins’s generalization: the distinction is conditioned • By [±ATR(RTR)], [±high], or [±low] • But NOT by [±back] (Nevins, 2010, pp. 92–93)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 15 X-ray tracings for Ewen (Novikova 1960)

ATR-/i/ RTR-/ɪ/

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 16 From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Kang & Ko 2011, Aralova et al. 2011 Ewen formant chart

i u o ʊ e ɔ a

19 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Svantesson et al. 2005 Khalkha speaker m1 speaker f5

i u i u o ʊ o e ʊ ɔ e a ɔ a

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 20 From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Kang & Ko 2011

Khalkha preliminary result

A2

-

A2

-

A3 H2 A1 A2

- - - -

harmonic pair harmonic

H1 F1 F2 F3 fb1 fb2 fb3 A1 A2 A3 (dB) H1 (dB) H2 H1 H1 H1 A1 Measured A1 Normalized

a vs. e >>> <<< << >>> >>> <<< >>> <<< <<< >>> >>> <<< <<< <<<

ʊ vs. u >>> > >> << >>> > >>> <<< >>> <<< <<< <<< <<< (>) (>)

emale F ɔ vs. o >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <<< <<< >>> <<< <<< <<< <<<

a vs. e >>> <<< <<< >>> >> >>> < < <<< < <<< <<<

ʊ vs. u > << >> <<< Male ɔ vs. o >>> > >>> > > << << <<< <

‘<‘ and ‘>’ show which one has higher value; the number of the symbol ‘<’ or ‘>’ means p<001 if 3, p< .01 if 2, p<.05 if 1, p>.05 if none.)

21 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 ATR vs. RTR ATR vs. RTR

• Are they two distinct features or two opposing values of a single feature? (Steriade 1995) – Still highly controversial • The acoustics or gestural mechanisms have yet to be decisively established – Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) • ATR (African) vs. “Pharyngealized” Vs (Ewen, Novikova 1960) • Acoustic correlates: F1 for ATR, F3 for Pharyngealized Vs? – cf. Catford’s (1994: 59) observation on Caucasian langs • F3 is irrelevant even for Ewen (Kang & Ko 2011)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 23 Three gestural mechanisms ? (B. L. Hall & Hall 1980: 207)

Set 1 (larger pharynx) vs. Set 2 (smaller pharynx) a. advanced tongue root vs. retracted tongue root b. advanced tongue root vs. neutral tongue root c. neutral tongue root vs. retracted tongue root

• A survey of previous descriptions of a number of African and Mon-Khmer languages by Li (1996: 108-9) seem to support this.

24 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 Assumption

• Three tongue root positions Full feature specifications a. Advanced [+ATR, -RTR] b. Neutral [-ATR, -RTR] c. Retracted [-ATR, +RTR]

• Cf. [high] vs. [low]

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 25 Phonological criteria

• Phonological markedness (Rice, 2007, p. 80) Marked Unmarked subject to neutralization result of neutralization unlikely to be epenthetic likely to be epenthetic trigger of assimilation target of assimilation remains in coalescence lost in coalescence retained in deletion lost in deletion

26 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 [RTR] as the phonologically active feature in Altaic (Li 1996, Ko 2012, Joseph & Whitman 2013) • Evidence from the behavior of neutral vowels in harmony i. neutral vowels do not trigger harmony: the class of vowels found in suffixes attached to neutral roots--i.e., the default class--does not bear the active feature ii. neutral vowels may block harmony: the feature that fails to propagate over neutral vowels is the active feature iii. the inactive feature surfaces when a harmonic contrast is neutralized

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 27 A case study: [RTR] dominance in Written Manchu (Li 1996, Ko 2012, Joseph & Whitman 2013; cf. Zhang & Dresher 2004)

• The direction of merger/neutralization – Merger: /*i, *ɪ/ > /i/ – Neutralization: /u, ʊ/  [u] / [non-dorsal C] ___

• Velar ~ Uvular alternation – Widespread throughout Tungusic and Mongolic languages /k/ → [q] /x/ → [χ] when adjacent to [RTR] vowels /g/ → [ɢ] – When adjacent to a neutral vowel (e.g., /i/), they surfaces as velars [k, x, g].

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 28 Vowel correspondence Vowel correspondences in Tungusic (Joseph & Whitman 2013) TR *i *ɪ *ə *a *u *ʊ *o *ɔ Benzing (1955) *i *ï *ä *a *ü *u *ö *o Ewen i ɪ ə a i/u ʊ u/o ɔ Oroqen i ɪ ə a i/u ʊ u/o ɔ Oroch i i ə a i/u ʊ u ɔ Udihe i i ə a i/u u u ɔ Nanai i ɪ ə a u ɔ u ɔ Orok i ɪ ə a u ʊ u/o ɔ Manchu i i ə a u ʊ/u u(~ə) ɔ

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 30 Vowel correspondences in Mongolic (Modified from Svantesson et al. 2005) TR (Ko 2011, 2012) *i *ə *a *u *ʊ *o *ɔ Poppe (1955) *i *e *a *ü *u *ö *o Khalkha i e a u ʊ o ɔ Mongolian Chakhar i, ɪ ə a u ʊ o ɔ Proper Baarin i ə a u ʊ o ɔ Kangjia i e a u ʊ o, u ʊ, ɔ Monguor i i, e a u u, o o, u o Bonan i, ɯ ə a u u o o Santa i ie, ə a u u o o Moghol i e a, o u u o o Buriat i e a u ʊ u ɔ Khamnigan i e a u ʊ u ɔ Dagur i ə a u ɔ, wa u ɔ Kalmyk i e a y u ø o

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 31 Vowel correspondences in Korean (Ko 2012, based on Kwak 2003)

TR *i *ə *a *ɨ *ʌ *u *o OK (K-M Lee 1972) *i *ä *a *ɔ̈ *ɔ *ü *u MK (K-M Lee 1972) *i *ə *a *ɨ *ʌ *u *o NW Korean i o a u a u o NE Korean i ə a ɨ a u o Central Korean i ə a ɨ a u o SE Korean i ɨ a ɨ a u o SW Korean i ə a ɨ a u o Jeju Korean i ə a ɨ ɔ u o

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 32 In favor of TRH analysis

• None of the correspondences in the three families reveal any trace of PH – All rounded vowels are realized as back vowels . – Only exception: Kalmyk (and Oirat) in Mongolic • For proto-Altaic, “majority-wins” principle will favor: – (i) reconstruction of VH – (ii) reconstruction of TRH • There is a clear phonological route from TRH to PH, but none in the opposite direction (Vaux 2009, Ko 2012 ).

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 33 Conventional view: PH analysis

• However, the conventional view remains – (i) that VH in the proto-languages operated on a palatal contrast, – (ii) that the attested TRH in later varieties is the result of PH to TRH shift • Janhunen’s Vowel Rotation hypothesis for KMT (1981) • K-M Lee’s Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis (1964 et seq.) • Svantesson’s Mongolic Vowel Shift hypothesis (1985)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 34 PH > TRH Shifts in Mongolic & Korean?

Contra Svantesson (1985) & K-M Lee (1974) The Mongolic Vowel Shifts

Svantesson (1985 et seq.) Gist

• Mongolic (Great) Vowel Shifts (MVS hereafter) (Svantesson 1985) – Old Mongolian: a palatal system (front-back contrast) – Mod. Khalkha: an RTR system (tongue root contrast)  Thus, a palatal-to-RTR shift

• Our view – Old Mongolian: an RTR system – Thus, no great vowel shift • Cf. Mod. Kalmyk/Oirat palatal system

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 37 Pre-modern Mongolic vowel system • Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2003: 4)

• Old MongolianSvantesson et al. (2005:111)

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 38 Old Mongolian: a palatal system?

• An assumption that has never been proven to be true – ’Phags-pa Mongolian • Not suitable for a reliable reconstruction (Hattori 1975:16ff) • E.g., “no one-to-one correspondence between Middle Mongolian /ü/ in ’Phags-pa and Written Mongolian /ü/” (Vovin 2000:65) – “It would be more reasonable to analyze Mongolian vowels based on 15th c. Korean vowels since the latter is more convincing.” (J. Kim 1993:50)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 39 MM-Chinese correspondence

• Hattori (1975) – “It is more likely that Middle Mongolian had a vowel harmony of ‘open-narrow’ type (= TR type)” • In the transcription of the Secret History of the Mongols into Chinese characters – MM ü – Chinese u • /ɡü/ (or /kü/) 古[ku2] 估[ku2] 沽[ku1,2] 誥[ku2,3] • /kü/ 枯[k’u1] 窟[k’uʔ2] – Rationale: • The transcription was made based on Northern dialect, maybe Beijing dialect (by assumption). • 14th c. Pekingese had the distinction between [u][uʔ] and [y][yʔ].

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 40 Modern Mongolic vowel systems

Khalkha Monguor

Dagur Kalmyk

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 41 MVS (1): Kalmyk/Oirat type

• Kalmyk and Oirat

= OM palatal system

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 42 MVS (2): Monguor type

• Monguor, Santa, Bonan, Moghol

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 43 MVS (3): Mongolian type • Mongolian, Buriat, Khamnigan, Shira Yugur, Kangjia

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 44 MVS (4): Dagur type

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 45 Problems of the MVS

• Based on an assumption yet to be proven – “It is generally assumed that OM (and Proto-Mongolic) had palatal (back~front) vowel harmony, and we will also make this assumption. There is, however, only incomplete support for this in the sources.” (Svantesson et al. 2005:113) • No internal motivation – “Velarization and pharyngealization are not conditioned by the phonological environment, and have no obvious internal motivation.” (Svantesson et al. 2005:178)

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 46 Velarization

• Front Vs are assumed to move backward. – A violation of Labovian Principles of vowel shifting

Three principles of vowel shifting (Labov 1994:116) In chain shifts, PRINCIPLE I long vowels rise. PRINCIPLE II short vowels fall.

PRINCIPLE IIA the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall. PRINCIPLE III back vowels move to the front.

• Velarization alone cannot explain the emergence of the phonemic velar-uvular distinction in, e.g., Monguor and Santa

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 47 Majority wins • Reconstruction of OM vowels

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 48 Economy (1) Kalmyk/Oirat

An RTR analysis Monguor 1 rule: RTR  Pal Old Mongolian Khalkha

Dagur

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 49 Economy (2) Kalmyk/Oirat

A palatal analysis Monguor 3 rules: Pal  RTR Old Mongolian Khalkha

Dagur

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 50 Naturalness: Vaux (2009)

• Palatal-to-TR shift (Svantesson 1985) – No known phonetic principles – No known attested cases (except Mongolic) • TR-to-palatal shift (a reverse shift) – Phonetically grounded – Attested across languages all over the world

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 52 Phonetic grounds for TRH > PH • Articulation (Lindau 1979, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994) – TR movement entails TB movement up and forward (not vice versa) • Perception – Kiparsky (2003: 335): “vowel shifts are the result of a tendency to maximize perceptual distinctness” • Phonologization (Hyman 1976) of a secondary, redundant feature Articulation Perception Shift Example TB forward F2 TRH > PH OM > Kalmyk (Ko 2011) TB up F1 TRH > height MK > EModK (Ko 2010) 3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 53 Naturalness: Vaux (2009)

• Palatal-to-TR shift (Svantesson 1985) – No known phonetic principles – No known attested cases • TR-to-palatal shift (a reverse shift) – Phonetically grounded: • TB movement is concomitant with TR movement (Lindau 1975; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994) – Attested in e.g., Somali, Louisiana English – Explains the Southwest Turkic voicing – Simplification – Enhancement of the perceptability (F2 difference) • Maximal distribution of the back vowels

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 54 Attested cases of TRH > PH

• Vaux (2009) – Fronted realization of Somali [+ATR] vowels – /u/-fronting in Louisiana English – Southwest Turkic voicing: • Voiceless stops became voiced before front Vs (< ATR Vs) • Calabrese (2000) – Vowel fronting in Altamura (a Romance)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 55 Historical development of the Mongolic vowel systems

Ko (2011, 2012) Khalkha type • No shift (except for the fronting of *ə)

OM Khalkha

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 57 Monguor type • Merger by RTR neutralization (No velarization)

OM Monguor

– The same type of merger is also widely attested in other Altaic languages such as Tungusic (e.g., Manchu) and Korean

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 58 Dagur type • Merger by height neutralization

OM Buriat/Khamnigan Dagur

– /u/ = [-low, -RTR] vs. /ɔ/ = [+low, +RTR] –  Both are “contextually” unmarked.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 59 Kalmyk/Oirat type • RTRH > PH shift (an innovation)

OM Kalmyk

– A reinterpretation (reanalysis, Ko 2012) of the harmonic feature – Phonetically grounded shift: [α RTR]  [α dorsal] (Vaux 2009) – Possibly due to Turkic influence (cf. Kögjiltü 1982) • Cf. Kazakh: reported as an RTR system (Vajda 1994)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 60 Development of Mongolic vowel systems

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 61 The Korean Vowel Shift

Ki-Moon Lee (1964 et seq.) Gist

• Korean Vowel Shift – “Documentary evidence suggests that a significant phonological change – a “Korean Vowel Shift,” as it has been called – took place between the 13th and 15th centuries. The evidence for the change comes primarily from Mongolian loanwords.” (KM Lee & Ramsey 2011:94)

• The proposed KVS hypothesis is untenable – Mongolian loanwords do not support the hypothesis

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 63 Korean Vowel Shift K-M Lee 1961[1972]; Lee & Ramsey 2011)

• Old Korean had a ‘palatal’ system • MK vowel harmony is based on OK vowel system – = “Discrepancy” between vowel system and vowel harmony • How is this possible? – Mediated by the proposed KVS

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 64 Old Korean

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 65 Early Middle Korean

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 66 Late Middle Korean

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 67 Empirical evidence

• Mongolian loanwords transcribed into Korean in

– Pŏnyŏk Pak T’ongsa 飜譯朴通事 (1517)

– Hunmong chahoe 訓蒙字會 (1527)

• Jīlín lèishì 鷄林類事 ‘Assorted matters of Jīlín’ – 350 words and phrases

• 天1曰2漢捺3

• ‘sky’1 is called2 ‘[the Korean word]’3 (LMK 하 ) Chinese pronunciation

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 68 Mongolian loanwords in MK

• Examples (KM Lee 1964, 1972, 2011:96ff) M~K Mong Kor Gloss ü~ㅜ küreng kurəŋ ‘dark brown’ (Pak. I, 63r) ö~ㅝ kögsin kwəkcin ‘old wild falcon’ (Hun. I, 15 v) u~ㅗ baɣudal paotal ‘military camp’(Hun. II, 8 r) o~ㅗ olang oraŋ ‘belly-band, girth’ (Pak. I, 30r)

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 69 Mongolian loanwords (KM Lee 2011:94) • “Why was the Korean vowel ㅜ equated to a front vowel?” – “ㅜ was not a back vowel, but rather a front vowel, *ü, which moved to the back of the mouth by the 15th century.” (KM Lee 2011:94) • “Similarly, ㅓ represented the Mongolian front vowel e and therefore must itself have been a front vowel *e that only later became [ə].”

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 70 Jīlín lèishì 鷄林類事 (KM Lee 2011:94ff)

• LMK /ʌ/ < EMK */ɔ/ – 河屯 ‘one’ (LMK *hʌtʌn * ), 末 ‘horse’ (LMK mʌl ) – Yuan-period Chinese: 河 *xɔ 末 *mɔ • LMK /ɨ/ < EMK */ə/ – 黑根 ‘big’ (LMK khɨn 큰 < *hɨkɨn) – Yuan-period Chinese: 黑 *xəj 根 *kən

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 71 Problems of the KVS (a summary)

• Provides no link to the description in Hunminjeongeum Haerye • Discrepancy between harmony and system? • Cannot be reconstructed by the comparative method (Hattori 1975) – No traces of PH in modern systems • Lack of phonetic motivations (S-s Oh 1998) • A counterexample to the typology of vowel shifting (Labov 1994) • ‘Arae a’: a low unrounded vowel?

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 72 Problems of the KVS (cont.)

• Adequacy of the proposed documentary evidence? – Simply insufficient (Martin 2000, Vovin 2000) – Only partial support for the whole shifts – Different views on Jīlín lèishì • S Kang (1980), C Park (2000), H Park (2001) • Esp. H Park (2001) based on Song-Chinese (not Yuan-Chinese) • Wrong predictions (Hattori 1975, Martin 2000) • Inconsistent with Kor-Jap V correspondences – Frellesvig & Whitman (2005) • Incompatible with OK vowel system – Reconstruction by Ito’s (2007:267)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 73 Comparative Method • No modern reflexes of the proposed front-back vowel contrast (cf. Hattori 1975:12)

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 74 RTR-RTR analysis

• OM (RTR system) MK (RTR system)

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 75 KVS-Conclusion

• The Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis is primarily based on the PH analysis of Old Mongolian. • If the RTR analysis of OM is correct, there is no reason to believe that Old and Early Middle Korean had a palatal system. • The loanword data are better explained under an RTR-RTR analysis.

Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 3/8/2013 76 Proto-Altaic (Poppe 1960: 92)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 85 TR(H)-related innovations assuming proto-Altaic

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 87 Turkic shift: a hypothesis (Ko 2012)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 88 Secondary [RTR] harmony in pT?

• Starostin, Dybo, & Mudrak 2003 – proto-Tungusic was non-harmonic – Tungusic languages acquired PH from Mongolic

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 97 Starostin et al.’s 6-vowel inventory for proto-Tungusic

*i *ü *u ------*e *o

*a

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 98 Co-occurrence restrictions

• *a and *o on the one hand, and *e on the other, cannot co-occur in stems • *o is restricted to the initial syllable • NO *o…u • NO *ü…u

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 99 Comparison of Starostin et al.’s pTg high vowels to the traditional reconstruction TR Benzing Starostin et al. *i *i *i *ɪ *ï *u *ü *ü *ʊ *u *o *ö *u

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 100 Deriving the harmonism of daughter languages

• *a, *o > “back” vocalism • *e > “front” vocalism • *ü > “front” vocalism – EXCEPT: {ü, a} or {ü, o} > “back” • *i and *u in any combination (without other vowels) > “back” vocalism

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 101 Do these stipulations work?

• Testing predictions regarding *ü – *ü in combination any other high vowels should yield “front” vocalism

This works in some cases, such as:

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 102 Proto-Tungusic *xürgü ‘tail’ Ewen [irgə̆] Ewenki [irgi] Negidal [i:ɣi] ~ [idgi] Oroqen [irgi] Ewenke [ig:ə] Oroch [ig:i] Udihe [igi] Nanai [xujgu] Ulcha [xuʤu] Orok [xudu]

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 103 Proto-Tungusic *silkü- ‘to wash’

[hilqă-] ~ [ɪlqă-] ~ [selqa-] ~ Ewen [helka-] ~ [hilkă-] ~ [hɪlkɔ-] Ewenki [silki-] ~ [hilki-] ~ [ʃilki-] Negidal [sɪlkɪ-] Oroqen [ʃɪlkɪ-] Ewenke [ʃɪx:ɪ-] Oroch [sik(:)i-] Udihe [siki-] Nanai [sɪlqɔ-] Ulcha [silʧu-] Orok [silʧi-] (: PERF [siltu-xa-])

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 104 Do these stipulations work?

• Testing predicitons regarding *i and *u – in stems with no other vowels, “back” vocalism is predicted

Again, this works in some cases, such as:

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 105 Proto-Tungusic *uńi- ‘small river, brook’

Oroch [ʊɲi] ~ [ɔɲi] ‘small river; Anjuj river’ Udihe [uni] ‘Anjuj river’ Nanai [ɔɲɪ] Ulcha [ʊɲɪ] ‘brook’; [ʊɲa] ‘spring’ [uɲi] ‘river’; [ʊɲa] ~ [ʊɲaɣa] Orok ‘small river, tributary’

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 106 Proto-Tungusic *gusi ‘eagle’

[gusə-tə] ~ [guhi-tə] ~ Ewen [guhu-tə] ~ [guhə-tə] Ewenki [gus] ~ [gusi-kə:n] ~ [guhi-kə:n] Negidal [gusi-xa:n] ~ [gusi-kan] Oroch [gusi] Nanai [gusi] Ulcha [gusi] Orok [gusi]

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 107 Other sorts of failures:

• Starostin et al.’s *u…ü > “front” vocalism, but the observed vowel reflexes do not match their *ü

• Generally, the distribution of their *ü is not free as stated: occurs overwhelmingly in words that develop “front” vocalism; combinations with “back” vowels *a and *o are all problematic

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 108 observations:

• proto-Tungusic cannot be reconstructed without (TR) harmony

• Starostin et al.’s 6-vowel inventory is unworkable, regardless of the type of harmony assumed

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 109 RTRH as an inherited trait ?

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 110 RTR harmony as an inherited trait

• Question: IF RTR harmony in KMT languages is inherited from a shared ancestor, what should this look like?

– e.g., do we expect cognate vocabulary to belong to the same harmony class in all descendants?

Not necessarily.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 111 Consider the case of an established clade such as Tungusic: • some languages have lost RTR harmony altogether (Manchu dialects) • some languages attest pervasive but (so far?) unpredictable shifts from one class to another (Udihe) • some lexical items appear to go back to original doublets (one form in each harmony class, aka ‘isotopes’)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 112 ATR words often shift to RTR in Udihe

TR version of *səːksə? *səːgsə? ‘blood’ Benzing’s pTg Ewen həːs ‘dried and hardened blood’ Ewenki səːksə ~ səːhsə ~ ʃəːwʃə ~ ʃəːhə Negidal səːksə Solon səːkʧə ~ səːgʧə Oroch səːksə Udihe sakeæ (TMS), sakia (Kazama) Nanai səːksə Ulcha səːksə Orok səːksə (Kazama) Manchu səŋgi Jurchen *səgi (四譯館), *ʃəŋgi (會同館)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 113 Some lexical items might go back to original doublets: ‘fat, thick’ ATR *borgə? RTR *bɔrga? [bərgə] ~ [borgo] ~ [burgə] Ewen ~ [bə̆rgə̆] Ewenki [burgu-] Negidal [bəjgə] [bɔjgɔ] ~ [bɔjgu] ~ [bɔgːɔ] Ewenke [bogːo] Solon [burgu] Oroch [bɔgːɔ] Udihe [bɔgɔ] Nanai [bujgu] Ulcha [buʤu] [bɔʤɔ] Orok [bodo] [bɔd(ː)ɔ]

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 114 And proto-Altaic?

• the same situations might also occur there

• MOREOVER: conservation of harmony class depends on the specific assumptions about vowel correspondences

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 115 Altaic vowel correspondences in KMT languages (initial σs, Poppe 1960 and Robbeets 2005)

Mongolic Tungusic Koreanic TR Poppe Robbeets Poppe Poppe 1960 2005 Robbeets Poppe Robbeets Robbeets pA (pMo >) (MK >) pMo pTg pTg pK WMo ModK *i *i *i (*i >) i *i *i *i i *i, (*i >) *ye *ə *e *e e *e *ä *e ə *e *u *o *ö *ə ö *ö *ö u *u, (*u>)zero (*o) *u *ü *u ü *ö, *u *ü *u ɨ *wu *ɪ *ï --- (*ï >) i [*i] *ï [*i] i, jə [(*i >) *je] *a *a *a a *a *a *a a *a *ɔ *o *o o *ü, *a *o *u, *ū o, u *wo u, (ʌ >) a *ʊ *u *ʉ u *u *u *u (*o >) zero o(?)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 116 Consequences for conservation of harmonic classes: • The correspondences in both systems predict harmony class mismatches between pA and particular daughters (esp. Korean) under specific conditions. • Neutralizations such as *i, *ɪ > /i/ give rise to additional complications: – Manchu “RTR /i/” ≠ “ATR /i/” versus – Modern Korean /i/ → ATR

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 117 RTRH as an areal feature [RTR] harmony as an areal feature

• Janhunen (1981) points out that within Northeast Asia, “apertual harmony” (our RTRH) is an eastern feature, while “palato-velar harmony” (our PH) is a western feature. • We argue that the domain of RTRH extends to the center of the region, to include Korean, Mongolic, and Tungusic.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 119 “Vowel rotation” hypothesis (Korean, Janhunen 1981)

*ü1 *u2 *ü *ŭ3 *u1 *u

*ö3 *o4  *ö  *ŏ5 *o2 *o

*ä5 *a6 *ä *a6 *ɔ4 *a

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 120 Problems with the vowel rotation hypothesis

• The VRH is based primarily on Ki-Moon Lee’s (1972) hypothesis of a “Korean vowel shift”.

• As we have seen, the evidence for a vowel shift between EMK and LMK is weak.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 121 NE Asian families with RTRH (1): Chukotko-Kamchatkan (Janhunen 1981)

• Proto-Chukotkan Vowel Inventory (Bobaljik 2009)

Recessive *i *u *ε

Dominant *e *o *a Transparent *ə

• *ε and *e merged in Chukchi, *ε > *a, *o > *u in Alutor.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 122 NE Asian families with RTRH (2): Nivkh (Janhunen 1981)

• Nivkh prefixes alternate between – i- before /u, ə/ – e- before /o, a/

• Shiraishi and Botma (2012) show significant stem-internal co-occurrence restrictions: – /o/ never occurs stem-internally with /ə/ – /a/ never occurs with /u/ and only once with /ə/

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 123 NE Asian families with RTRH (3): Yukaghir (Maslova 2003)

• Maslova (2003: 35, fn. 8): – present-day Kolyma Yukaghir harmony “might be more appropriately described as (advanced) tongue root (rather than palatal) harmony” (suggestion attributed to Comrie and Lehmann). • In the Kolyma Yukaghir system, – /e/, /ø/ contrast with /a/, /o/ – The high vowels /i/, /u/ are transparent, but stems with /i/, /u/ normally belong to the same class as /e/, /ø/, with the majority of exceptions involving /i/.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 124 NE Asian families with RTRH (3): Yukaghir • Proto-Yukaghir vowels (Nikolaeva 2006: 57) Front *i *e *ö (*ü) Back *y *a *o *u

• RTRH reinterpretation ATR *i *e *o *u RTR *ɪ *a *ɔ *ʊ

• On the RTRH reinterpretation, the TR contrast is lost for high vowels.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 125 [RTR] harmony as an areal feature: summary • Korean, Mogolian, and Tungusic reside at the center (or western and southern edges) of an RTRH zone. • Most languages in the zone show some degree of erosion of an earlier RTRH system • It is not easy to identify a focal center of the zone. • This is similar to the situation with tongue root harmony in the Central Sudanic Zone (CSZ) of Africa (Clements & Rialland 2008), where it is unclear what phylum or phyla might be the “source” of TRH.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 126 The NE Asian RTRH zone and the behavior of TRH in contact: commonalities • The African (CSZ) example shows us that TRH spreads across and within families and phyla. • In the CSZ case, specialists dispute whether TRH should be reconstructed for proto-families (e.g. Güldemann 2008 for proto-Niger-Congo) or not (Dimmendaal 2001, Hyman 2011). • In NE Asia, RTRH seems to have to be reconstructed for the various proto-families. • Given the lack of evidence for relatedness between at least some of the families, RTRH in NEA was almost certainly spread by contact too (Janhunen 1981). • But as a feature, RTRH in NEA is old.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 127 The NE Asian RTRH zone and the behavior of TRH in contact: differences • Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan TRH includes languages that are ATR-dominant and RTR- dominant (Casali 2003). • Where we can tell, TRH languages in NE Asia appear to be RTR-dominant. • CSZ TRH languages typically have contrasting ATR vs. RTR series for mid vowels (72 of 110 languages in Casali’s 2003 sample) • NEA RTR languages do not. NEA RTR languages typically motivate just a single height contrast.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 128 Reconciling the Korean vowels • Even prior to EMK, evidence for a PH > RTRH vowel shift is poor. • Janhunen (1981) compares LMK kǒm :: J kuma ‘bear’. But since proto-Japonic *o underwent raising to central dialect /u/ in non-final position, this example is inconclusive. • Pre-EMK phonograms such as 毛 (MC maw, OC *C.mʕaw; Baxter-Sagart 2011), 老 (MC lawX, OC *C-rʕuʔ), 所 (MC srjoX, OC *s-qhraʔ), 刀 (MC taw, OC *C.tʕaw) all transcribe syllables whose LMK vowel is /o/. If a shift *u > LMK /o/ had occurred, we would expect the antecedents of LMK /o/ to be spelled with phonograms relatable to MC (less likely OC) /u/.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 129 Reconciling the Korean vowels

• As noted by many authors, internal evidence suggests a special status for the LMK non-low central vowels /ɨ/ and /ʌ/. • These vowels are restricted in their distribution, occurring not at all (in the case of /ʌ/) or only once (in the case of /ɨ/) in absolute onset position. • They are considered to have been the target of syncope (K-M Lee 1991, Martin 1996) • They are generally characterized as “weak” vowels. • We hypothesize that these vowels were delabialized prior to EMK.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 130 Reconciling the Korean vowels Korean vs. Mongolic/Tungusic (e.g., MK) (e.g., Khalkha)

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 131 Reconciling the Korean vowels • Analysis of pre-EMK vowel inventory prior to weakening (unrounding) of low [labial] vowels

ㅣ ㅓ ㅏ ㅡ ᆞ ㅜ ㅗ

*i *ǝ *a *o *ɔ *u *ʊ [coronal] + ------[labial] - - - + + + + [low] - + + + + - - [RTR] - - + - + - +

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 132 Reconciling the Korean vowels

• Analysis of LMK vowel inventory in Ko (2012)

ㅣ ㅓ ㅏ ㅡ ᆞ ㅜ ㅗ i ǝ a ɨ ʌ u o [coronal] + ------[labial] - - - - - + + [low] - + + - - - - [RTR] - - + - + - +

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 133 Conclusions

• RTRH should be reconstructed for pK, pMo, and pTg. • The shift RTRH > PH is better motivated than the opposite. • If pK, pMo, pTg, pTü form a genetic unity, RTRH should be reconstructed for the proto-language. • KMT reside in a larger zone of RTR-dominant TRH families or phyla. • In each of these, RTRH appears to be reconstructable to the proto-family level.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 134 References

Ahn, Sang-Cheol. 2002. A dispersion account on Middle Korean vowel shifts. In N. M. Akatsuka & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 237–250). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Aralova, Natalia, Sven Grawunder, and Bodo Winter. 2011. The acoustic correlates of tongue root vowel harmony in Even (Tungusic). Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (pp. 240–243). Presented at the The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII), Hong Kong, China. Archangeli, Diana. B., & Pulleyblank, Douglas. G. 1994. Grounded phonology. MIT Press. Ard, Josh. 1981. A sketch of vowel harmony in the Tungusic languages. In B. Comrie (ed.), Studies in the Languages of the USSR. Linguistic Research, Edmonton. Ard, Josh. 1984. Vowel harmony in Manchu: a critical overview. Journal of Linguistics, 20(01), 57–80. Baxter, W. H. and L. Sagart. 2011. Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction. Version of 20 February 2011. URL: http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1203. Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2009. Disharmony and decay: Itelmen vowel harmony in the Soviet period. Ms. University of Connecticut. Buraev, Ignatij Dmitrievich. 1959. Zvukovoj sostav burjatskogo jazyka [The sound structure of Buriat]. Ulan-Ude. Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press. Casali, Roderic F. 2003. [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology, 7(3), 307–382. Casali, Roderic F. 2008. ATR Harmony in African Languages. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 496–549. Castrén, A. 1856. Grundzüge einer tungusischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss. St.-Petersburg. Catford, J. C. 1994. Vowel systems of Caucasian languages. In H. I. Aronson (ed.), Non-Slavic languages of the USSR: papers from the Fourth Conference (pp. 44–60). Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 135 Čenggeltei. 1959. Mongɣol kelen-ü baɣarin ayalɣun-u abiy-a-yin jüi ba üges-ün jüi [Phonology and morphology of the Baarin dialect of Mongolian]. Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül: Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü Uqagan [Journal of Inner Mongolia University: Philosophy and Social Sciences], 1959/2, 1–96. Čenggeltei. 1963. Mongɣol kelen-ü abiyan-u sistem [The Mongolian sound system]. Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül: Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü Uqagan [Journal of Inner Mongolia University: Philosophy and Social Sciences], 1963/2, 1–84. Čenggeltei & Sinedke. 1959. Mongɣol kelen-ü ündüsün egesig-üd-ün tuqai [The basic vowels of Mongolian]. Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül: Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü Uqagan [Journal of Inner Mongolia University: Philosophy and Social Sciences], 1959/2, 97–114. Cho, Mi-Hui. 1994. Vowel harmony in Korean: a grounded phonology approach. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Clements, G. N., and Annie Rialland. 2008. Africa as a phonological area. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (Eds.), A linguistic geography of Africa (pp. 36–85). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2001. Areal diffusion versus genetic inheritance: an African perspective. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 359-392. Dresher, E. and Zhang, X. 2004. Contrast in Manchu vowel systems. In C. Naeher (ed.): Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (ICMTS) 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian Linguistics. (Tunguso-Sibirica 9). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Güldemann, Tom. 2008. The Macro-Sudan belt: towards identifying a linguistic area in northern sub-Saharan Africa. In Heine, Bernd and Derek Nurse (eds.), A Linguistic Geography of Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 151-185. Hall, Beatrice L., R. M. R. Hall, Martin D. Pam, Amy Myers, Stephen A. Antell, and Godfrey K. Cherono. 1974. African Vowel Harmony Systems from the Vantage Point of Kalenjin. Afrika Und Ü bersee 57: 241– 267. Hattori Shiro. 1975. Boin chowa to chuki chosengo no boin taikei [Vowel harmony and the Middle Korean vowel system]. Gengo no Kagaku 6: 1–22. Hattori, Shiro. 1978. Remarks on the Sounds of Middle Korean of the Late Fifteenth Century. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium. Seoul, Korea: National Academy of Sciences.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 136 Hattori, Shiro. 1982. Vowel harmonies of the Altaic languages, Korean, and Japanese. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 36, 207–14. Hayata, Teruhiro. 1980. Non-Abstract Vowel Harmony in Manchu. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 77, 59–79. Hu, Zengyi. 2001. Elunchun yu yanjiu [Research on the Oroqen language]. Beijing, China: Minzu chubanshe. Hyman, Larry. 2011. The Macro-Sudan belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. Language Dynamics & Change 1.1, 3-49. Ikegami Jirō. 1997. Uirutago jiten [A dictionary of the Uilta language spoken on Sakhalin]. Sapporo, Japan: Hokkaidō Daigaku Tosho Kankōkai. Ito, Chiyuki. 2007. Chōsen kanzion kenkyū [Sino-Korean phonology]. Tokyo: Kyuko-shoin. Janhunen, Juha. 1981. Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective. Hangeul 172. 129 Janhunen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 1–29. London: Routledge. Janhunen, Juha. 2012. Khitan: understanding the language behind the scripts. Scripta 4. 107-132. Joseph, Andrew, and John Whitman. 2013. The Diachronic Consequences of the RTR Analysis of Tungusic Vowel Harmony. In Ö zge, Umut (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8). Kang, Hijo, and Seongyeon Ko. 2011. In search of the acoustic correlates of tongue root retraction in three Altaic languages: Western Buriat, Tsongol Buriat, and Ewen. Altai Hakpo 22. 179-203. Kang, Sinhang. 1980. Kyeylim yusa Kolye pangen yenkwu [A study of Koryeo dialect in the Jīlín lèishì]. Seoul, Korea: Sungkyunkwan University Press. Kaun, Abigail Rhoades. 1995. The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Kazama, Shinjirō. 2003. Basic Vocabulary (A) of Tungusic Languages. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publications Series A2-037. Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 25.) Ōsaka: Ōsaka Gakuin University. Kim, Chin-Wu. 1978. “Diagonal” vowel harmony?: Some implications for historical phonology. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology (1978th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 221–236). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kim, Jong-Kyoo. 2000. Quantity-sensitivity and Feature-sensitivity of Vowels: a Constraint-based Approach to Korean Vowel Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 137 Kim, Juwon. 1988. Moumcohwawa selchwuk: Hwunminjengum haylyeyuy selchwukey tayhaye [Vowel harmony and “selchwuk”: On the tongue retraction in Hunminjeongeum]. Eoneohag (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea), 9/10. Kim, Juwon. 1989. Mancwu thwungkwusuceyeuy moumcohwa yenkwu [A study on vowel harmony in the Manchu-Tungus languages]. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University. Kim, Juwon. 1993. Moumcohwauy yenku [A study on vowel harmony in Korean]. Kyeungsan, Korea: Yeungnam University Press. Kim, Juwon. 1999. Selkunhwuchwukkwa selkuncencin [RTR and ATR]. In Eneuy yeksa [History of languages: in honor of Professor Baeg-in Seong], 311–341. Seoul, Korea: Thaehaksa. Kim, Juwon. 2011. A grammar of Ewen. Altaic Languages Series. Seoul National University Press. Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. 2008. The vowel system and vowel harmony in 15th century Korean revisited. Proceedings of the SCRIPTA 2008: Hunminjeongeum and alphabetic writing systems, 23–36. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. The phonological basis of sound change. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 313–342). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Ko, Seongyeon. 2010. A contrastivist view on the evolution of the Korean vowel system. In Hiroki Maezawa and Azusa Yokogoshi (eds.): MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6). Ko, Seongyeon. 2011. Vowel contrast and vowel harmony shift in the Mongolic languages. Language Research 47.1 Ko, Seongyeon. 2012. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in northeast Asian languages. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Kwak, Chung-gu. 2003. Hyentay kwukeuy moumcheykyewa ku pyenhwauy panghyang [The vowel system of Contemporary Korean and direction of change]. Kwukehak 41, 59–91. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Vol. 1. Language in Society 20. Cambridge, USA: Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, Byung-Gun. 1985. Moum cohwauy thukseng [Some tangible properties of vowel harmony]. Inmwunnonchong 15, 3–36.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 138 Lee, Duck-Young. 1994. Korean vowel harmony: ATR-harmony. Hangeul 223, 157–199. Lee, Jin-Seong. 1992. Phonology and sound symbolism of Korean ideophones. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1958. A comparative study of Manchu and Korean. Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 30, 104-120. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1964. Mongolian Loan-words in Middle Korean. Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 35, 188–197. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1972. Kwukesa kaysel [Outline of the history of the Korean language] (2nd edition). Seoul, Korea: Tower Press. Lee, Ki-Moon. 1991. Kwuke Ehwi-sa Yenkwu [A study of Korean lexical history] Seoul: Thap Chwulphansa. Lee, Ki-Moon, and S. Robert Ramsey. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge University Press. Lee, Yongsung. 1993. Topics in the vowel phonology of Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Li, Bing. 1996. Tungusic Vowel Harmony: Description and Analysis. HIL Dissertations 18. Dordrecht: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Lindau, Mona. 1979. The feature expanded. Journal of Phonetics 7, 163–176 Lulich, Steven and Lindsay Whaley. 2012. An acoustic phonetic study of Oroqen vowels. In A. Malchukov and L. Whaley (eds.): Recent advances in Tungusic Languages. (Turcologica 89), 59-78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Martin, Samuel. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Martin, Samuel. 2000. How Have Korean Vowels Changed Through Time? In Joe J. Ree (ed.) Korean Linguistics (Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics) 10, 1–60. Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Möömöö, Sürèngijn. 1977. Sistema fonem sovremennogo mongol’skogo jazyka [The phoneme system of modern Mongolian]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 55. MIT Press. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nikolaeva, Irina Alekseevna, and Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Mouton Grammar Library 22. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 139 Novikova, K. A. 1960. Ocherki dialektov Evenskogo jazyka: ol’skij govor (Vol. 1). Leningrad: Nauka. Oh, Sang-suk. 1998. The Korean Vowel Shift revisited. Language Research, 34(2), 445–463. Park, Changwon. 2000. Kyeylimyusa Kolyepangenuy moumchekyey [The vowel system of Koryeo dialect in Jīlín lèishì]. Kwukyel Yenkwu 6: 173–199. Park, Hye-Jung. 2001. A study on the vowel of the Middle Korean: by a side view of phonetics. Master thesis, Seoul, Korea: Ehwa Women’s University. Park, Jong-Hee. 1983. Kwuke umwunlon yenkwu [A study on Korean phonology]. Wonkwang University Press. Park, Jong-Hee. 1994. Cwunglipmoum /i/-uy poncilkwa moumcohwa [The nature of the neutral vowel /i/ and vowel harmony]. In nonchongkanhayngwiwenhoy (ed.), Wulimal yenkwuuy saymthe, 134–153. Daejeon, Korea: Mwunkyeng Press. Park, Jong-Hee. 2002. Cwungsengmoum /i/-uy thwumyengsengkwa pwulthwumyengseng [The transparency and opacity of the neutral vowel /i/ in Middle Korean]. Hangeul, 257, 71–101. Park, Jong-Hee, and Pyong-Ro Kwon. 2009. Moumcheykyeyuy pyenchenkwa cacilkyelhap coken [The change of vowel system and featural combination conditions in Middle Korean]. Kwukemwunhak 47, 37–61. Poppe, Nicholas N. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura. Poppe, Nicholas N. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I. Vergleichende Lautlehre [Comparative grammar of the Altaic languages, Part 1: comparative phonology]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz. Przezdziecki, Marek. 2005. Vowel harmony and coarticulation in three dialects of Yoruba: phonetics determining phonology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. Intra-Mongolic taxonomy. In J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, Routledge Language Family Series (pp. 364–390). London: Routledge. Robbeets, Martine. I. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (Turcologica 64). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press. Shiraishi, Hidetoshi and Botma, Bert. 2012. Asymmetries and attractors in Nivkh vowel sequences. Sapporo Gakuin University and Leiden University ms. Starostin, S. A., Dybo, A. V., and Mudrak, O. A. 2003. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. (Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.8.1-3). Leiden: Brill.

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 140

Stewart, John. 2000/2001. Symmetric versus asymmetric vowel height harmony and e, o versus i, u in Proto- Bantu and Proto-Savanna Bantu. Journal of West African Languages 28.2, 45–58 Sunik, O. P. 1968. Udėgejskij jazyk [Udihe language]. In Jazyki narodov SSSR [Languages of the peoples of the USSR]. Vol. 5, 210-32. Leningrad: Nauka. Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67, 283-327. Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia M. Karlsson, and Vivan Franzén. 2005. The phonology of Mongolian. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Titov, Je. I. 1926. Tungussko-russkij slovar’ s priloženijem knigi M. A. Kastrena “Osnovy izučenija tungusskogo jazyka” . Irkutsk. Tsintsius, Vera. 1949. Sravnitel’naja fonetika tunguso-man’chzhurskikh jazykov [Comparative Phonetics of the Manchu-Tungus Languages]. Leningrad: Nauka. Tsintsius, Vera. 1975-1977. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’chzhurskikh jazykov [Comparative dictionary of the Manchu-Tungus Languages]. Leningrad: Nauka. Vajda, Edward. 1994. Kazakh Phonology. Opuscula Altaica: Essays Presented in Honor of Henry Schwarz, 603- 650. van der Hulst, Harry, and Jeroen van de Weijer. 1995. Vowel harmony. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 495–534). Oxford: Blackwell. Vaux, Bert. 2009. [atr] and [back] harmony in the Altaic languages. In S. Tatevosov, ed., Investigations into Formal Altaic Linguistics: Proceedings of WAFL3, 50-67. Moscow: MAKS Press. Vovin, Alexander. 2000. On the Great Vowel Shift in Middle Korean and Position of Stress in Proto-Korean. In Joe J. Ree (ed.) Korean Linguistics (Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics) 10, 61– 78. Zhang, Xi. 1996. Vowel Systems of the Manchu-Tungus Languages of China. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Zhang, Xi, and B. Elan Dresher. 2004. Tongue Root Harmony in Written Manchu. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (Bonn, August 28-September 1, 2000) Vol 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian Linguistics, ed. Carsten Naeher, Giovanni Stary, and Michael Weiers, 2:161–190. Tunguso Sibirica. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag

3/8/2013 Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK 141