DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relative Order of Foci and Polarity Complementizers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Relative Order of Foci and Polarity Complementizers 1 2 3 4 The Relative Order of Foci and Polarity Complementizers: 5 1 6 A Slavic Perspective 7 8 9 Abstract 10 11 According to Rizzi & Bocci’s (2017) suggested hierarchy of the left 12 periphery, fronted foci (FOC) may never precede polarity 13 14 complementizers (POL); yet languages like Bulgarian and Macedonian, 15 where POL may also follow FOC, seem to provide a counterargument to 16 17 such generalization. On the basis of a cross-linguistic comparison of ten 18 Slavic languages, I argue that in the Slavic subgroup the possibility of 19 20 having a focus precede POL is dependent on the morphological properties 21 of the complementizer itself: in languages where the order FOC < POL 22 23 is acceptable, POL is a complex morpheme derived through the 24 incorporation of a lower functional head with a higher one. The order 25 26 FOC < POL is then derived by giving overt spell-out to the intermediate 27 copy of the polarity complementizer rather than to the highest one. 28 29 30 Keywords : Left Periphery, Fronted Foci, Polarity Questions, 31 Complementizers, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Word Order. 32 33 34 I. Introduction 35 36 37 In this article, I will be concerned with accounting for cross-linguistic variation in the 38 relative distribution of two types of left-peripheral elements. The first are polarity 39 40 complementizers (POL), namely complementizers whose function is that of introducing 41 embedded polarity questions; the second are fronted types of constituents in narrow focus. 42 43 I provide an example of a configuration containing both elements in (1), from Italian; in 44 (1), the polarity complementizer “se” (=if) is marked in bold, whereas the fronted focus -in 45 this case, a PP- is in capitals. 46 47 48 1) Mi domando se A TROMSØ Espen sia nato (ITA) 49 50 Refl. I-wonder if IN TROMSØ Espen is(subv.) born 51 52 ‘I wonder if Espen was born IN TROMSØ’ 53 54 55 56 1 Thanks to Kjetil Rå Hauge, Yovka Tisheva and Victor Friedman for the helpful reviews and 57 comments. 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 2 3 Concerning the relative order of these two elements, we have two logical possibilities: either 4 5 the constituent in focus will follow the polarity complementizer, or it will precede it. In this 6 article, I will refer to the former configuration as alpha (2a), and to the latter as beta (2b). 7 Note that I use the symbol “<” to indicate linear precedence: 8 9 10 2) Order α: if < FOC (“se A TROMSØ”) 11 12 Order β: FOC < if (“A TROMSØ se ”) 13 14 According to Rizzi (2001) (see also Rizzi 2004, and Rizzi & Bocci 2017), foci and polarity 15 16 complementizers are associated with dedicated left-peripheral projections. In particular, the 17 18 complementizer “if” is said to be externally merged in the head of Int(errogative)P, a 19 projection sandwiched in between two other projections equally specialized for hosting 20 21 complementizers, namely Force and Fin . Unlike IntP, however, Force and Fin may 22 23 exclusively host declarative complementizers. Rizzi’s suggested derivation for fronted foci is 24 slightly more complex, in that these are not taken to be base-generated directly in the left 25 26 periphery. Rather, they are first externally merged in their argumental position, where they 27 28 can receive case and a theta role. Only at a second stage are they moved to the left 29 periphery, where they surface in the specifier of a dedicated Focus phrase. This dedicated 30 31 FocP is non-recursive, and is situated lower than IntP, as illustrated in (3). (3) represents 32 2 33 the most updated version of the cartographic hierarchy of the left periphery: 34 35 3) Force < TopP < IntP < TopP < FocP < TopP < ModP< TopP < QEmb < Fin < 36 37 IP 38 (Rizzi & Bocci 2017, ex. 29) 39 40 41 Evidence in favor of the idea that FocP must be lower than IntP comes from grammaticality 42 patterns such as the ones illustrated in (4) below. The pair in (4) shows that, in languages 43 44 like Italian –on which (3) is primarily based–, a constituent in narrow focus may only follow 45 46 the polarity complementizer “se”: 47 48 4) (ITA) 49 50 (a) Mi domando se QUESTO gli volessero dire 51 52 Refl. I-wonder if THIS to-him(cl) they-wanted to-say 53 ‘I wonder if they wanted to say THIS to him’ 54 55 56 57 2 At least at the time of writing (March 2019). 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 2 3 (b) *Mi domando QUESTO se gli volessero dire QUESTO 4 5 *Refl. I-wonder THIS if to-him(cl) they-wanted to-say THIS 6 (Rizzi 2001:289) 7 8 9 Based on the hierarchy in (3), we would then expect that the only way for a fronted focus 10 11 to precede a polarity complementizer would be for the focus to be moved to a left periphery 12 higher than the one in which POL is merged. In this case, the focus would linearly precede 13 14 the polarity complementizer simply by virtue of having being dislocated to a different –and 15 16 crucially higher– C-layer. This is illustrated in (5), where I use the notation “CP2” to 17 indicate a higher left periphery: 18 19 20 5) [CP2 … FOC … [CP1 … POL < FOC … [ TP … FOC …]]] 21 22 In this paper, I will be referring to configurations such as (1) and (4a) as relations of local 23 24 precedence, and to configurations such as (5) as non-local precedence. Based on the 25 26 hierarchy in (3), we would then expect that, in local configurations, only the α order should 27 be possible, whereas both α and β should be possible in non-local environments. 28 29 30 In this paper, we are interested in determining whether a restriction prohibiting foci from 31 32 locally preceding interrogative complementizers does indeed exist. To this end, we will be 33 investigating the relative distribution of foci and polarity complementizers in the Slavic 34 35 language group. We will see that while the beta configuration is indeed less frequent than 36 37 the alpha order, it is by all means attested. More careful analysis will however reveal that 38 the beta order is only possible in those Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Macedonian and 39 40 Bosnian-Serbo-Croatian) in which the polarity complementizer is a morphologically complex 41 42 word resulting from the fusion of two independent clausal markers. To account for the 43 specific subgroup in which the beta order is found, I will then argue that in these languages 44 45 the polarity complementizer is formed through the movement plus incorporation of a lower 46 47 functional head together with a higher focus marker. Configurations exhibiting the beta 48 order are then obtained by giving overt spell-out to the intermediate copy of the movement 49 50 chain, rather than to its head. In languages where only the alpha order is possible, on the 51 52 other hand, the polarity complementizer does not result from the incorporation of two 53 different clausal markers, but is rather generated directly in the position in which it 54 55 ultimately surfaces. 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 2 3 This article is structures as follows. In section II., I show that polarity questions are not 4 3 5 islands for focalization . This means that an intervention-effects analysis of the relative 6 order of left-peripheral constituents à la Abels (2012) is untenable, for focalization at least 7 8 (see author 2018). In section III., I investigate word order possibilities in ten different Slavic 9 10 languages, showing that only three languages in the group (Macedonian, Bulgarian and 11 partially Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian) have beta as a grammatical possibility. In section IV., 12 13 I establish a correlation between languages which display the beta order, and languages 14 15 which have the option of realizing the polarity complementizer not simply as a free particle, 16 but also an enclitic morpheme attaching to fronted XPs. Section V. illustrates the suggested 17 18 derivation of polarity questions featuring a fronted focus in Macedonian, Bulgarian and 19 20 Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian; in it, I argue in particular that the polarity complementizer in 21 these three languages result from the incorporation of the irrealis marker da , which is merged 22 23 low in the left periphery, together with the focus particle –li , which merged as the head of 24 25 the Focus projection. Section VI. is devoted to discussing the existence of apparently 26 problematic strings of clausal markers, which I use to further refine my analysis of the 27 28 irrealis particle da . Finally, in section VII., I briefly summarize the contents of the main 29 30 proposal. 31 32 33 34 35 II. Polarity Questions Are Not Islands For Focalization 36 37 38 In his (2012) paper, Abels provides an elegant and economical way of accounting for 39 precedence relations in the left periphery. Specifically, he argues that no constituent X will 40 41 ever precede a constituent Y if Y creates an island for X, as the movement of X across Y – 42 43 necessary to have X precede Y– would result in an intervention effect. We therefore predict 44 that the relative order of these two constituents will always be Y<X. To account for the 45 46 ungrammaticality of examples like (4b), Abels then argues that a focus may not precede 47 48 the polarity complementizer because focalization is blocked by weak islands, and polarity 49 questions, being questions, create weak islands.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Production of Lexical Tone in Croatian
    The production of lexical tone in Croatian Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie im Fachbereich Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main vorgelegt von Jevgenij Zintchenko Jurlina aus Kiew 2018 (Einreichungsjahr) 2019 (Erscheinungsjahr) 1. Gutacher: Prof. Dr. Henning Reetz 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Sven Grawunder Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 01.11.2018 ABSTRACT Jevgenij Zintchenko Jurlina: The production of lexical tone in Croatian (Under the direction of Prof. Dr. Henning Reetz and Prof. Dr. Sven Grawunder) This dissertation is an investigation of pitch accent, or lexical tone, in standard Croatian. The first chapter presents an in-depth overview of the history of the Croatian language, its relationship to Serbo-Croatian, its dialect groups and pronunciation variants, and general phonology. The second chapter explains the difference between various types of prosodic prominence and describes systems of pitch accent in various languages from different parts of the world: Yucatec Maya, Lithuanian and Limburgian. Following is a detailed account of the history of tone in Serbo-Croatian and Croatian, the specifics of its tonal system, intonational phonology and finally, a review of the most prominent phonetic investigations of tone in that language. The focal point of this dissertation is a production experiment, in which ten native speakers of Croatian from the region of Slavonia were recorded. The material recorded included a diverse selection of monosyllabic, bisyllabic, trisyllabic and quadrisyllabic words, containing all four accents of standard Croatian: short falling, long falling, short rising and long rising. Each target word was spoken in initial, medial and final positions of natural Croatian sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond
    AlbF Albanische Forschungen 41 41 The Potentiality of Pluricentrism of The Potentiality The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond Edited by Lumnije Jusufi Harrassowitz www.harrassowitz-verlag.de Harrassowitz Verlag Albanische Forschungen Begründet von Georg Stadtmüller Für das Albanien-Institut herausgegeben von Peter Bartl unter Mitwirkung von Bardhyl Demiraj, Titos Jochalas und Oliver Jens Schmitt Band 41 2018 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond Edited by Lumnije Jusufi 2018 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Bibliografi sche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografi e; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2018 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility Between West and South Slavic Languages Golubovic, Jelena; Gooskens, Charlotte
    University of Groningen Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages Golubovic, Jelena; Gooskens, Charlotte Published in: Russian Linguistics DOI: 10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2015 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Golubovic, J., & Gooskens, C. (2015). Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages. Russian Linguistics, 39, 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 24-09-2021 Russ Linguist (2015) 39:351–373 DOI 10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages Взаимопонимание между западнославянскими и южнославянскими языками Jelena Golubovic´1 · Charlotte Gooskens1 Published online: 18 September 2015 © The Author(s) 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Language in Croatia: Influenced by Nationalism
    Language in Croatia: Influenced by Nationalism Senior Essay Department of Linguistics, Yale University CatherineM. Dolan Primary Advisor: Prof. Robert D. Greenberg Secondary Advisor: Prof. Dianne Jonas May 1, 2006 Abstract Language and nationalism are closely linked, and this paper examines the relationship between the two. Nationalism is seen to be a powerful force which is capable ofusing language for political purposes, and the field oflinguistics has developed terminology with which the interface oflanguage and nationalism maybe studied. Using this background, the language situation in Croatia may be examined and seen to be complex. Even after thorough evaluation it is difficult to determine how languages and dialects should be delineated in Croatia, but it is certain that nationalism and politics play key roles in promoting the nation's linguistic ideals. 2 , Acknowledgements I suppose I could say that this essay was birthed almost two years ago, when I spent the summer traveling with a group ofstudents throughout Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia in order to study issues ofjustice and reconciliation. Had I never traveled in the region I may have never gained an interest in the people, their history and, yes, their language(s). Even after conducting a rigorous academic study ofthe issues plaguing former Socialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, I carry with me the impression that this topic can never be taken entirely into the intellectual realm; I am reminded by my memories that the Balkan conflicts involve people just as real as myself. For this, I thank all those who shared those six weeks oftraveling. That summer gave me new perspectives on many areas oflife.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility and Slavic Constructed Interlanguages : a Comparative Study of Ruski Jezik and ​ ​ Interslavic
    Mutual intelligibility and Slavic constructed interlanguages : a comparative study of Ruski Jezik and ​ ​ Interslavic ** Jade JOANNOT M.A Thesis in Linguistics Leiden university 2020-2021 Supervisor : Tijmen Pronk TABLE OF CONTENTS Jade Joannot M.A Thesis Linguistics 24131 words 1.1. Abstract 1.2. Definitions 1.2.1. Constructed languages 1.2.2. Interlanguage 1.2.3. Mutual intelligibility 1.3. Object of study 1.3.1. History of Slavic constructed languages Pan-Slavic languages (19th century) Esperanto-inspired projects Contemporary projects 1.3.2. Ruski Jezik & Interslavic Ruski Jezik (17th century) Interslavic (21th century) 1.3.3. Shared aspects of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic 1.4. Relevance of the study 1.4.1. Constructed languages and mutual intelligibility 1.4.2. Comparative study of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic 1.4.3. Historical linguistics 1.5. Structure of the thesis 1.5.1. Research question 1.8. Description of the method 1.8.1. Part 1 : Approaches to Slavic mutual intelligibility and their conclusions 1.8.2. Part 2 : Study of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic I.1. Factors of mutual intelligibility I.1.1. Extra-linguistic factors I.1.2. Linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility I.1.2.1. Lexical distance I.1.2.2. Phonological distance I.1.2.3. Morphosyntactic distance I.1.2.3.1. Methods of measurements I.1.2.3.2. The importance of morphosyntax I.1.3. Conclusions I.2. Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic area I.2.1. Degree of mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages I.2.2. The case of Bulgarian 2 Jade Joannot M.A Thesis Linguistics 24131 words I.2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Macedonian: Genealogy, Typology and Sociolinguistics
    JEZIKOSLOVNI ZAPISKI 26 2020 2 43 MATEJ šEKLI MACEDONIAN: GENEALOGY, TYPOLOGY AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS COBISS: 1.01 HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.3986/JZ.26.2.04 Makedonščina: geneo-, tipo- in sociolingvistična opredelitev V prispevku je makedonščina opredeljena geneo-, tipo- in sociolingvistično. S stališča genealoškega jezikoslovja je s pomočjo relativne kronologije in zemljepisne razširjeno- sti relevantnih jezikovnih sprememb prikazano oblikovanje makedonščine in bolgarščine kot geolektov znotraj vzhodne južne slovanščine. Z gledišča tipološkega jezikoslovja je umeščena v kontekst balkanske jezikovne zveze. Sociolingvistični pogled pa prikaže pro- ces standardizacije in pravni položaj sodobnega makedonskega knjižnega/standardnega jezika kot sociolekta. Ključne besede: makedonščina, bolgarščina, genealosko jezikoslovje, tipološko jeziko- slovje, sociolingvistika The article attempts to define Macedonian from the view-point of linguistic genealogy and typology as well as sociolinguistics. The genesis of Macedonian and Bulgarian as geolects within Eastern South Slavic is discussed from the vantage point of genealogical linguistics, using the relative chronology and the geographical distribution of the individ- ual linguistic changes. The typological part of the discussion then attempts to establish the position of Macedonian in the context of the so-called Balkan Sprachbund. Finally, the process of standardisation and the legal status of modern Macedonian literary/standard language as a sociolect are presented, thus shedding additional light on the
    [Show full text]
  • The Loss of Case Inflection in Bulgarian and Macedonian
    SLAVICA HELSINGIENSIA 47 THE LOSS OF CASE INFLECTION IN BULGARIAN AND MACEDONIAN Max Wahlström HELSINKI 2015 SLAVICA HELSINGIENSIA 47 Series editors Tomi Huttunen, Jouko Lindstedt, Ahti Nikunlassi Published by: Department of Modern Languages P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B) 00014 University of Helsinki Finland Copyright © by Max Wahlström ISBN 978-951-51-1185-2 (paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-1186-9 (PDF) ISSN-L 0780-3281, ISSN 0780-3281 (Print), ISSN 1799-5779 (Online) Summary Case inflection, characteristic of Slavic languages, was lost in Bulgarian and Macedonian approximately between the 11th and 16th centuries. My doctoral dissertation examines the process of this language change and sets out to find its causes and evaluate its consequences. In the earlier research literature, the case loss has been attributed either to language contacts or language internal sound changes, yet none of the theories based on a single explaining factor has proven satisfactory. In this study, I argue that the previous researchers of the Late Medieval manuscripts have often tried to date changes in the language earlier than what is plausible in light of the textual evidence. Also, I propose that the high number of second language speakers is among the key factors that reduced the number of morphological categories in the language, but, at the same time, several minor developments related to the case loss—for instance, in the marking of possession—are likely to result from a specific contact mechanism known as the Balkan linguistic area. My main methodological argument is that the study of language contacts must take into account a general typological perspective to determine the uniqueness of the suspected contact-induced changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility Between West and South Slavic Languages Взаимопонимание Между Западнославянскими И Южнославянскими Языками
    Russ Linguist (2015) 39:351–373 DOI 10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages Взаимопонимание между западнославянскими и южнославянскими языками Jelena Golubovic´1 · Charlotte Gooskens1 Published online: 18 September 2015 © The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In the present study we tested the level of mutual intelligibility between three West Slavic (Czech, Slovak and Polish) and three South Slavic languages (Croatian, Slovene and Bulgarian). Three different methods were used: a word translation task, a cloze test and a picture task. The results show that in most cases, a division between West and South Slavic languages does exist and that West Slavic languages are more intelligible among speakers of West Slavic languages than among those of South Slavic languages. We found an asymmetry in Croatian-Slovene intelligibility, whereby Slovene speakers can understand written and spoken Croatian better than vice versa. Finally, we compared the three methods and found that the word translation task and the cloze test give very similar results, while the results of the picture task are somewhat unreliable. Аннотация В настоящей статье рассматривается вопрос взаимопонимания между тремя западнославянскими (чешским, словацким и польским) и тремя южнославян- скими (хорватским, словенским и болгарским) языками. В исследовании использова- лись три различных метода: задание перевода слов, тестовое задание с заполнением пробелов и изобразительное задание. Результатытеста показывают,что в большинстве случаев разделение между западнославянскими и южнославянскими языками сущест- вует. При этом западнославянские языки—более близки между собой в смысле пони- мания для их носителей, в то время как у носителей южнославянских языков такое взаимопонимание затруднено.
    [Show full text]
  • Musical Practices in the Balkans: Ethnomusicological Perspectives
    MUSICAL PRACTICES IN THE BALKANS: ETHNOMUSICOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES МУЗИЧКЕ ПРАКСЕ БАЛКАНА: ЕТНОМУЗИКОЛОШКЕ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЕ СРПСКА АКАДЕМИЈА НАУКА И УМЕТНОСТИ НАУЧНИ СКУПОВИ Књига CXLII ОДЕЉЕЊЕ ЛИКОВНЕ И МУЗИЧКЕ УМЕТНОСТИ Књига 8 МУЗИЧКЕ ПРАКСЕ БАЛКАНА: ЕТНОМУЗИКОЛОШКЕ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЕ ЗБОРНИК РАДОВА СА НАУЧНОГ СКУПА ОДРЖАНОГ ОД 23. ДО 25. НОВЕМБРА 2011. Примљено на X скупу Одељења ликовне и музичке уметности од 14. 12. 2012, на основу реферата академикâ Дејана Деспића и Александра Ломе У р е д н и ц и Академик ДЕЈАН ДЕСПИЋ др ЈЕЛЕНА ЈОВАНОВИЋ др ДАНКА ЛАЈИЋ-МИХАЈЛОВИЋ БЕОГРАД 2012 МУЗИКОЛОШКИ ИНСТИТУТ САНУ SERBIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS ACADEMIC CONFERENCES Volume CXLII DEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTS AND MUSIC Book 8 MUSICAL PRACTICES IN THE BALKANS: ETHNOMUSICOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HELD FROM NOVEMBER 23 TO 25, 2011 Accepted at the X meeting of the Department of Fine Arts and Music of 14.12.2012., on the basis of the review presented by Academicians Dejan Despić and Aleksandar Loma E d i t o r s Academician DEJAN DESPIĆ JELENA JOVANOVIĆ, PhD DANKA LAJIĆ-MIHAJLOVIĆ, PhD BELGRADE 2012 INSTITUTE OF MUSICOLOGY Издају Published by Српска академија наука и уметности Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts и and Музиколошки институт САНУ Institute of Musicology SASA Лектор за енглески језик Proof-reader for English Јелена Симоновић-Шиф Jelena Simonović-Schiff Припрема аудио прилога Audio examples prepared by Зоран Јерковић Zoran Jerković Припрема видео прилога Video examples prepared by Милош Рашић Милош Рашић Технички
    [Show full text]
  • From Pie to Serbian
    [A SHORTCUT] FROM PIE TO SERBIAN ALEKSANDRA TOMIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 2018 4/19/2018 "2 PRESENTATION FOCUS • What makes Serbian – Serbian? What makes Polish – Polish? • Differences between Slavic languages and other Indo-European (IE) languages • Differences among South, West and East Slavic languages • Differences within the South Slavic language group 4/19/2018 "3 CONTEMPORARY SLAVIC LANGUAGES 4/19/2018 "4 SERBIAN IN RELATION TO OTHER SLAVIC LANGUAGES 4/19/2018 "5 SERBIAN LANGUAGE • 30 phonemes, 25 consonants, 5 vowels (no diphthongs) • Interesting features: • Plenty of palatal affricates, with softness and hardness (laminality) distinctions • /r/ trill • pitch accent: short-falling, short-rising, long-falling, long-rising • 7-case system (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, determiners) • 4 verb conjugation classes • synthetic language (prefixation, suffixation, infixation) • free word order • agreement: • Determiner-adjective-noun agreement in number, gender, case • Subject-verb agreement in case, number, gender 4/19/2018 "6 SERBIAN PHONOLOGY • Vowels, short and long Front Central Back Close i u Mid e o Open a 4/19/2018 "7 SERBIAN PHONOLOGY • Pitch accent Slavicist! IPA! Description symbol symbol ȅ ê short vowel with falling tone ȇ ê# long vowel with falling tone è $ short vowel with rising tone é $# long vowel with rising tone e e non-tonic short vowel ē e# non-tonic long vowel 4/19/2018 "8 SERBIAN PHONOLOGY • Consonants Many palatal sounds Many affricates Today’s presentation might help you figure out why! 4/19/2018 "9 CONTEMPORARY DIFFERENCES AMONG SLAVIC LANGUAGES • Proto-Slavic: *golvà, ‘head’: • Serbian (South Slavic) – Lat. gláva; Cyr. глав( а • Russian (East Slavic) – Cyr.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/05/2021 02:14:13AM Via Free Access
    journal of language contact 12 (2019) 305-343 brill.com/jlc Language Contact in Social Context: Kinship Terms and Kinship Relations of the Mrkovići in Southern Montenegro Maria S. Morozova Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia [email protected] Abstract The purpose of this article is to study the linguistic evidence of Slavic-Albanian lan- guage contact in the kinship terminology of the Mrkovići, a Muslim Slavic-speaking group in southern Montenegro, and to demonstrate how it refers to the social con- text and the kind of contact situation. The material for this study was collected during fieldwork conducted from 2012 to 2015 in the villages of the Mrkovići area. Kinship terminology of the Mrkovići dialect is compared with that of bcms, Albanian, and the other Balkan languages and dialects. Particular attention is given to the items borrowed from Albanian and Ottoman Turkish, and to the structural borrowing from Albanian. Information presented in the article will be of interest to linguists and anthropologists who investigate kinship terminologies in the world’s languages or do their research in the field of Balkan studies with particular attention to Slavic-Albanian contact and bilingualism. Keywords Mrkovići dialect – kinship terminology – language contact – bilingualism – borrowing – imposition – BCMS – Albanian – Ottoman Turkish © maria s. morozova, 2019 | doi:10.1163/19552629-01202003 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the prevailing cc-by-nc License at the time of publication. Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 02:14:13AM via free access <UN> 306 Morozova 1 Introduction Interaction between Slavs and Albanians in the Balkans has resulted in numer- ous linguistic changes, particularly for those dialects that were in immediate contact with one another.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Sociolinguistic Topics at the End of the Twentieth and the Begining of the Twenty ,Irst Century
    M. Radovanoviæ, Some Sociolinguistic Topics... - SRAZ XLVII-XLVIII, 629-636 (2002-2003) UDC 8127 Survey article Accepted for publication on 26 September 2003 Some Sociolinguistic Topics at the End of the Twentieth and the Begining of the Twenty ,irst Century Milorad Radovanoviæ University of Novi Sad This text lists and comments on the sociolinguistically motivated synthetic works published in the last decades of the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twenty-first century outside the political borders of the countries where Serbian, Croatian, Slovene and Macedonian standard languages are in use. Special attention is paid to those books which crucially con- tributed to the clarifying of the complex linguistic and sociolinguistic problems of language planning and language policy of the mentioned languages. That is then connected with some other linguistic and sociolinguistic publications (important for this topic) which appeared either earlier, or at the same time or later. In the last decade of the twentieth century the political events in the territory of the former Yugoslavia have brought about the end of the glottopolitical processes regarding the standard languages in that area. The already constituted Slovene and Macedonian had been joined by Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian/Bosniac standard languages by way of the promotion of earlier «variants» into separate standard languages.1 The review of the relevant publications will be structured into two groups: 2irst, books connected with the Polish project Recent changes in the Slavonic languages 1945-1995, Opole, Poland, University of Opole, Institute for Slavonic Philology; Second, books connected with the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, in the form of thematic volumes, Berlin/New York Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Show full text]