Liisa Duncan Consonant Gradation in Finnish Dialects 1. Introduction Consonant gradation is a lenition process common to most of the Finnic languages, as well as several other Uralic languages. Whether it is inherited directly from Proto-Uralic or is the result of similar phonological structures and tendencies in the daughter languages is still under debate. In Finnish it is now only partly productive phonologically in that it rarely affects recent loans and neologisms. However, it is still pervasive in the lexicon and is very much a part of the Finnish phonology. Gradation in Finnish affects geminate and singleton voiceless stops preceding a short vowel in a closed syllable. The geminates shorten (quantitative gradation) and the singletons undergo various lenition processes (qualitative gradation), depending on the environment, the dialect, and a range of sociolinguistic factors. Because quantitative gradation in geminates and qualitative gradation in singletons exhibit many disparate behaviours, including degree of productivity, I argue in this paper that they are now separate phenomena, though diachronically likely a single process. Thus, only qualitative gradation is discussed in any detail herein. Finnish consonant gradation is a widely discussed phenomenon in the literature. However, rarely does an account attempt to determine which weak grade occurs for the singleton stops or to explain the variation that exists both within and between dialects. Several previous studies which do attempt to account for the weak grades are discussed in sections 3.1 and 4.1. Lainio (1989), as part of a larger study of variation in Finnish, presents the array of possible weak grades for /t/. Cathey (1992), Pöchtrager (2001, 2008), and Bye (1998) all propose various analyses of gradation which attempt to 1 determine phonologically which segment occurs as a given weak grade. Outside of Lainio (1989), all of these accounts deal solely with standard Finnish gradation patterns. However, as noted above, within the dialects, there is much variation. the goal of this paper is to examine that variation. To examine the nature of qualitative gradation in Finnish dialects, Kettunen’s (1940) dialect atlas was consulted. This atlas provides detailed information concerning the weak variant selected in a given dialect area for a particular word. The hypothesis presented in this paper is that the dialects share common underlying representations for the strong and weak grades. The weak grade of /t/ in particular is underspecified, allowing variation in phonetic implementation. Dialect inventories differ slightly, and dialects also differ in how vowels effect the results of lenition, so the actual surface weak grade forms differ. As well, sociolinguistic factors are also relevant though they are outside the scope of this paper. For further discussion, see Lainio (1989). My goal in this paper is thus to provide an account of singleton gradation that takes into account the kind of variation that exists between dialects. I propose a representational model, arguing that the core of lenition involves a change to a non-nasal sonorant of the same place of articulation as the strong grade. This paper is structured as follows. Section 2.1 provides a brief discussion of the history of gradation and how the gradation patterns of Finnish, which were once quite regular, degenerated into the variation of present-day Finnish. Standard Finnish, which is heavily prescriptive and historically was subject to many instances of outright manipulation, has very regular gradation patterns. These patterns are discussed in section 2.2. Though analyses of Finnish gradation normally assume that quantitative and qualitative gradation are unified, section 3.2 presents evidence that they are separate processes synchronically. Only qualitative gradation is treated in depth in herein. Previous accounts of the phenomenon are then discussed in section 4.1. 2 Gradation in dialects varies greatly from those (mostly Western) dialects which are essentially similar to Standard Finnish to those (mostly Eastern) dialects which display completely different patterns where the surface form of the consonant is based on the surrounding vowels. Kettunen’s (1940) extensive dialect atlas, which is discussed in section 4.2, is consulted to determine the dialectal patterns, which are outlined in section 4.2.4. Due to the large number of dialects and the many gradation environments, only bisyllabic nouns with short vowels were studied. Future research could examine other lexical types. This section represents the bulk of the paper and so each dialect type is discussed in some detail. An analysis of the gradation patterns seen in section 4.2.4 is provided in section 5, beginning with a discussion of lenition. Since qualitative gradation in the dialects relates to many of the Finnish consonants, the view of the consonant inventory and segment features is paramount. The inventory is presented and discussed in section 5.2. Specifically, the nature of [d], [h], [ʋ], and [j] are discussed in terms of their role in phonological rules and their underlying features. All the above segments are hypothesized to be sonorants and the glide [j] is shown to be coronal rather than dorsal. Section 5.4 provides an account of gradation and evidence for those consonant and vocalic features determined to be present. Finally, section 6 discusses the implications of the data and analysis presented in this paper for phonological theory. 3 2. Consonant Gradation in Finnish 2.1 History of Gradation in Finnic 2.1.1 Types of Gradation Originally two types of gradation existed in Proto-Finnic. Radical/Syllabic gradation lenited consonants in the onset of a closed syllable while suffixal/rhythmic gradation lenited consonants after even numbered syllables (Helimski 1996: 170). Only fossilized remnants of suffixal/rhythmic gradation remain in Finnish (partitive case, for example). Thus it is only radical/syllabic gradation which is discussed in this paper. In radical/syllabic gradation, shown below in (1), /p/ lenites to [v] when the syllable is closed by the genitive marker -n. 1) Radical/Syllabic Gradation in Modern Finnish (Helimski 1996: 170) a. ki.pu / ki.vun ‘pain (nom./gen.1)’ In suffixal/ rhythmic gradation, the initial /t/ of the partitive marker /-ta/ is lost in (2b) when an even number of syllables precede it while it is retained when there are an odd number of syllables preceding (2a, c). 2) Suffixal/Rhythmic Gradation in Modern Finnish (Helimski 1996: 170) a. puu-ta ‘tree (par.)’ b. ka.la-a ‘fish (par.)’ c. oi.ke.a-ta ‘right (par.)’ 1 Abbreviations: Nominative - nom., Genitive - gen., Partitive - par., Inessive - iness., Elative - elat., Plural - pl., Singular - sg., Possessive suffix - Px., Third Person - 3p. 4 2.1.2 Gradation Reflexes Consonant gradation (in various forms) also occurs in most other Balto-Finnic languages (except Veps and Livonian) as well as in Saami and the Samoyedic languages Nganasan and Ket’ Selkup (Hakulinen 1961: 40; Helimski 1996: 167). There is disagreement over whether gradation was a feature of Proto-Uralic or whether it is a more recent, independent development of daughter languages as a result of similar phonological conditions (Hakulinen 1961: 40-45; Helimski 1996; Holman 1975: Nahkola 1995). Consonant gradation involves allomorphic alternations between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ grades, depending on the position of the consonant in question. Strong grade occurs in the onset of a closed syllable and weak grade, which involves a lenited consonant, in the onset of a closed syllable. It is postulated that the strong grade forms have remained largely constant (in Finnish) from Proto-Finnic times while the weak grade forms have changed significantly. Hakulinen (1961: 41), however, suggests that the quantitative gradation may have also originally been qualitative in nature. The original weak grades are reconstructed as shown in (3) and (4). Alternations are shown in brackets. 3) Reconstructed Weak Grades of Geminates (Hakulinen 1961: 41) 2 a. p < *p̌p (*pp ~ *p̌p) b. t < *ťt (*tt ~ *ťt) c. k < *ǩk (*kk ~ *ǩk) 2 The breve indicates a shorter or reduced sound. 5 4) Reconstructed Weak Grades of Non-Geminates (Hakulinen 1961: 41-42) a. v < *β (*p ~ *β) b. d < *ð (*t ~ * ð) c. Ø, j, v < *ɣ (*k ~ *ɣ) The reconstructed weak grades assume the following (partial) consonant inventory. 5) Reconstructed Partial Consonant Inventory of Proto-Finnic Labial Coronal Dorsal Plosive p t k Fricative β ð ɣ This inventory is highly symmetrical in that there is a stop and a fricative at every major place of articulation. However, in terms of feature economy, as described in Clements (2009: 27-32), the inventory fares poorly. The stops are all voiceless whereas the fricative series (outside of [s]; not shown in (5)) are voiced, requiring both the features for [continuant] and [voice]. Not only this, but the voiced fricatives are themselves marked sounds (Clements 2009: 32). Perhaps it is unsurprising then that the qualitative gradation system, which at first glance appears balanced and ideal, deteriorated through the elimination of the voiced fricative series. The development of the labial and dorsal weak grades seems to have progressed more rapidly and more naturally than the development in the coronals, which has been largely influenced by external factors. Even to this day, [ð] remains a possible weak variant of /t/ (Lainio 1989) while [β] and [ɣ] disappeared from all dialects long ago, for the labial perhaps even as early as dialects of Early Proto-Finnic (Hakulinen 1961: 38, 42). The velar fricative is an inherently unstable segment due to the comparatively poor perceptibility of both the velar place of articulation and the fricative manner (Hayes and Steriade: 2004: 19) and so it is unsurprising that it was ultimately lost. Currently, there is no variation in the weak grade of /p/, a great deal of variation in the weak grade of /t/, and 6 almost complete deletion of the weak grade of /k/ (according to standard accounts).